I don't see it as condescending either IF it's a single post. A double post right after each other seems VERY condescending.
Huh. Seems like you're reading a lot into that. I've double-posted all the time just because I thought, "Wait, I wasn't finished..." and then found it easier to just make a second post (the reply box is already right there) than to go back and edit the first one. The
right way would probably be to edit the first post just so it's cleaner, and while I mostly put it down to laziness on my part, it's more than just that. Not here, but several years ago on another message board with much higher traffic, I had a couple of occasions on which I wrote a post, thought, "Oh, forgot to add that..." and promptly edited my post to include just one more line that I'd forgotten to put in at first. Then someone else replied to my post, but had already quoted it as it first appeared, so their reply didn't include the bit I'd added. I was chided (jokingly, both times) for my "ninja edit." Not something likely to come up on this forum, but it might be a reason that, unless it's been a while, I don't edit my posts to add content (but just to fix spelling errors and such).
I don't want to cast myself as some sort of guru on netiquette: far from it. But this notion that a double post is a kind of veiled insult strikes me as bizarre and I don't think that it's a stance taken anywhere else by anyone.
Like "I'll post #53 and oh wait, maybe he's too dumb to understand that so I'll post a lengthy explanation of it" *and* totally forgetting that I've played this game since the near beginning and have a fairly good grasp of the rules, having lived through the 6th Ed rules which gave birth to this site and the M10 rules which "reversed" some of it. It's the situation seen as a whole.
Firstly, that was a rules digression I only proffered specifically because you expressed confusion the first time that I mentioned the discrepancy, following it up with a repetition of the very same discrepancy. You basically set it up, as far as I'm concerned. You said it the wrong (outdated) way the first time and I made a flippant comment on it, just because it caught my attention. At that point, if you'd ignored it, I might have figured that you were ignoring my flippancy and moved on. If you'd acknowledged it, I wouldn't really have anything to add. If you'd noted that you just wanted to say it that way because you were used to it, I'd probably have either just moved on or tried to make some joke about it. But saying something that indicates you didn't understand what I was getting at while referring to the old rules thing a second time? Yeah, at that point I felt like it was better to be as clear as possible. This was sort of done on the assumption that you'd either have gotten it already and just been confused at my phrasing or something, have actually been thinking of the old rules, or have just plain not thought about it, and in all of those cases a detailed description would be an easy way to show what I meant and, at worst, unnecessary. I was unaware that you found explanations of the rules degrading. I'll keep that in mind for the future.
Secondly, I'm as guilty as anyone else of being confused about rules. Probably moreso. Off the top of my head, I'm still not sure how the hell Banding works after the M10 changes to combat damage. I get stuff wrong or miss stuff all the time. And I've been playing for a long time too. So no, I don't think you're dumb. I don't know what to think. Probably that if you're looking to
find something insulting in the blather I post, you need to chill or something. I've never been one for subtle insults anyway. If I have a problem with a person, I don't want to be secretive about it (and on that point, no one here really comes to mind except HOUTS, and that was a while ago). But I know that if I sit down and play Magic face-to-face with some people for a few hours, at some point, a rules question or issue is going to arise. It's something that happens. And I never had the notion that someone must be dumb for it. Now I'll perpetually worry that if I ever need any sort of rules reminder, Spiderman will be quietly judging my stupidity.
If you're saying this, I frankly am baffled by what world you live in or what you have experienced. Almost every game and person I've played with or against or come across "knows" what "ctrs" means. Or Mt. Or Dmg. I would say they're "standard" in gaming but since you obviously have raised the issue, I'm not sure I can say that anymore. Sure, "Psn" would mean "poison" in that context. But in another, it could also mean "psionic" or "psion", which are admittedly rarely used in Magic. But even more importantly, it's not "standard" in general because of the confusion of what it means whereas "ctrs" is (usually) not. But like the above, without this fundamental understanding, there's no way I can explain it any more than what I have.
First thing to note: I am not saying that you should not use abbreviations or that it is a problem. Nor am I saying that I can't understand them. So far, I think I've been able to elucidate all of them from context. Your abbreviations are fine and I'm not sincerely upset by them or anything like that. I usually only comment on them because I find them funny, the one exception being, well, the current line of discussion I guess. But since we're already turning this thread into partially a big tangent that isn't specific to this game being played, I'll note two other things. However, the main takeaway is that I don't really care about the abbreviations and don't want you to think that I do. If you expanded your program of abbreviations to include even more things, I might do something silly like I've already done (writing sentences with no vowels, and such), and you could safely ignore all of that and it wouldn't really matter.
Second thing: For us, it almost certainly doesn't matter. But we've both been at this for a while. In an alternate universe where the CPA had new members, I could see how abbreviations might be an issue for a less experienced player. It's not that any single abbreviation is too vague for someone to figure out from context. But there's a lot to process in these board states, and there's already some compression going on. I think I mentioned "EtB" and "ueot" as common abbreviations that most of us use. They're generally known among veterans of the Magic community, but wouldn't be immediately obvious to every single player. Same goes for using "~" for "this." Any one thing isn't such a big deal, but the more "codes" there are, the more overwhelming it becomes. I think by now I'm easily familiar with enough of this stuff that there's not going to be any sort of cognitive overload for me. Wouldn't necessarily apply for everyone, but everyone here these days is an old-timer anyway. In the past, the worry did occur to me that I might find some of your abbreviations confusing, but I don't think that it has happened or is likely to happen.
Third thing: Since we're on the subject, I don't really think that all of your abbreviations are some sort of universal gaming standard, although I'm guessing that some of them are widespread. Just guessing, I'd think that most of them are a style of abbreviation that was traditionally employed where space was at a premium. But if you're using a system that anyone else uses when it comes to exactly which words you abbreviate and which ones you do not, I'm unaware of it. I would think that it is something that comes from your background and personal preference. While I'm sure that you could devise post hoc explanations, like that "Psn" might mean "psion" while apparently no one would possibly think that "ctrs" might mean "characters" or "centers" or "couters", I'm guessing that it's really based more on what looks right to you than on some sort of exhaustive analysis of which words are least likely to be misconstrued. Nothing wrong with that. Actually, like I said, I find it interesting. I also enjoy subverting it, so maybe I'm just weird. But if I'm wrong, have you made a list? If there's a comprehensive abbreviation list, I'd like to see it!
Yes to the Mystic, but I believe there were three Insect attackers and only one was blocked so two got through. Is that correct?
Ah yes, I only saw two insects in your previous board state, but you'd already accounted for one of them dying, just not the -1/-1 to the Stoneforge Mystic. Two poison counters it is! I take it you're still done. I'll update the board once I get a chance to take my turn...