Article -- Inquest, Idiocy and Plagiarism

Beyond Dominia: The Type One Magic Mill: Article -- Inquest, Idiocy and Plagiarism

-->
By Rakso, the Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 09:43 am:

The "review" is on Star City, but it looks like we'll have to leave things to Azhrei and Team Academy. :)

Inquest Idiocy and Plagiarism


Quote:

I'm going to give you the decklist published in Inquest, and ten quotes from the article to help you along.

Your job: Find forty blatant lies.

The forty may come from outright ridiculous card selections (which includes cards that should have been there), or extreme lies or misrepresentations in the article itself. And I don't mean things that can be justified somehow or put down to personal taste, like him going down to twenty-seven mana sources by cutting a colorless land.

I mean blatant lies - from bad choices to things no twelve-year old would do.

And, yes. Forty. Four-Zero.



Original unedited Inquest review
Original Beyond Dominia primer by Paul Miller aka Exeter
Inquest article page one and page two.


By Rakso, the Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 10:31 am:


Quote:


----- Original Message -----
From: a***o@o***o.com
To: i***i@n***t.com
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 10:00 AM
Subject: Possible plagiarism in Inquest Issue #85

Dear Inquest,

I'm the moderator of a small Type I Magic forum, and we are extremely upset with the "Killer Deck" featured on page 50 of Issue #85. Not only was it an incredibly weak and random Type I control deck, but we feel it may have been copied wholesale from www.bdominia.com.

This is the original strategy guide, written in 1999 by Paul Miller: http://www.bdominia.com/discus/articles/keeperFAQ.html.

The decklist featured in your magazine was just ONE CARD away from the decklist in that old guide. The strategy notes, and even the sideboarding notes bear a striking resemblance. A lot of the glaring errors in the Inquest article are best explained by going back to 1999, when Type I changed drastically because Mirror Universe was gutted by Sixth Edition rules, when Morphling was first being tested as the replacement for Mirror, when Mirage tutors were restricted, and when Type I became dominated by combos beginning with Academy and Forces of Will were everywhere.

The most surprising thing is that your deck features Gaea's Blessings, a "green" twist of Brian Weissman's "The Deck" popular only in Beyond Dominia and only until about 1999. Anyone familiar with Type I can see that the only possible explanation for the comedy of errors in the Inquest article could only have been caused by plagiarism of such a 1999 "green" variant.

I mean... the Inquest deck used red Gorilla Shamans in a deck with only five red mana sources, and the 1999 Beyond Dominia document happened to suggest the Shamans as an afterthought--for a deck that didn't really have red.

The decklist in the 1999 document had 59 cards, because the author forgot a Time Walk and intentionally left out a Mox Emerald. The Inquest deck has 61 cards--very strange for a "killer deck"--and you get the Inquest list by adding Time Walk and Mox Emerald.

This is all very surprising, don't you think?

I wrote a very detailed review of the Inquest "killer deck," in fact: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=2797

I sincerely hope this very strange article you published can be explained. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Oscar Tan
a***o@o***o.com
rakso on #BDChat on Newnet
Manila, Philippines
Type I, Extended and Casual Maintainer, Beyond Dominia (http://www.bdominia.com/discus/messages/9/9.shtml)
Featured writer, Star City Games (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/archive.php?Article=Oscar Tan)
Proud member of the Casual Player's Alliance (http://www.casualplayers.org)



By Rakso, the Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 10:45 am:

I think I've done my part. I think Az is gearing up on Team Academy, but I encourage you guys to submit all your articles to Star City.

I can't really tackle the plagiarism and similarities on my own.


By Steve O'Connell (Zherbus) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 11:09 am:

"Lol Rakso. Where do those people live? It must be a lot farther away from the real world than Antarctica :("

Dammit, stop using that.

Otherwise the article nicely ripped it apart. Maybe Inquest will stop printing shitty decks...yeah right.


By BD Stompist (Fbi) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 12:32 pm:

OK, everybody needs to lighten the hell up about this.

The worst part is I wasted five bucks on IQ to see what everybody was talking about...

Inquest publishes crap, let it go.


By Rakso, the Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 12:51 pm:

Yeah, but when Inquest STEALS crap...


By Rakso, the Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 01:01 pm:

Yeah, but when Inquest STEALS crap...


By Mason Loring Bliss (Mason) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 02:28 pm:

What did they steal? Did they steal a lot of wording, verbatim, from an article on Beyond Dominia? Or did they simply post a deck list that's almost identical to one posted here in the past?

If the deck list is the only thing that's identical, or nearly so, then I can't begin to imagine why you're so upset... I don't know how long Beyond Dominia has been around, but stuff like "Schools of Magic" has been around, publishing this style of deck, for years.


By Rakso, Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 02:33 pm:

READ THE FRIGGIN LINKS, DUH.


By Dozer (Dozer) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 03:55 pm:


Quote:

If the deck list is the only thing that's identical, or nearly so, then I can't begin to imagine why you're so upset...


We had some cases of assumed plagiarism in the recent past, as most will remember. I have a possible explanation, I think. You are right, various sites have posted and still post lists and styles. And due to the appearent quality of BDominia's content, some "writers" also use BDominia as a source of background information (which is ok), sometimes copy that information directly without digesting it and (which is the bad part) *not even mention it*.
I'm not personally involved (i.e. none of my content taken), but I understand the concerns Rakso expresses. Background (or recherche) information is not made to be copied, but to be learned from. If an author reads three or four sites on the topic that he/ she wants to adress, and then takes a decklist from one of the sites to prove his points, it's ok. But it is none of his own work, and he/ she has to acknowledge that.

(I am working as a freelance journalist and will start university studies on the subject in October, that's why I care. Plagiarism is a very central part of the ethics of the job, and I'm caring about those.)

Dozer


By Tristal (Tristal) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 07:27 pm:

"The IQ staff knew Steve Frohnhoefer was a keeper once they saw his collections of moxes and porn, although not necessarily in that order."

Now all I need to do is get some moxes and porn, and I can get a job writing bad articles too...


By Rakso, Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 10:18 pm:


Quote:

If an author reads three or four sites on the topic that he/ she wants to adress, and then takes a decklist from one of the sites to prove his points, it's ok.



Dozer: I saw your letter, thanks, but I have to emphasize no other site discusses 1999 Franchise by Darren Di Battista. :)


By Mako Satou, Rose among the thorns (Mako) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 09:50 am:

Oh my, you would think they would at least get a recent list from the type 1 Primers.


By Mason Loring Bliss (Mason) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 01:25 pm:

Okay, I've read the Star City Games article, and I guess I still don't see anything warranting the term "plagiarism".

Having a deck list that identical, never mind only similar, is hardly plagiarism, and from the look of it, you disagree with most of what they said in their article anyway.

Find teapot. Insert tempest.

I was playing creatureless back when Revised was the latest base set. Should I be collecting royalties now or something?

Honestly, being worried about someone printing a deck list similar to one posted online strikes me as being the same sort of thinking that has companies trying to patent human genes. It's pretty evil.


By Cuandoman (Cuando) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 01:35 pm:

similar? how about the same:

-Amnesia
+Mind Twist

+Mox Emerald
+Time Walk

Az didnt own the mox or walk... (thats my understanding of it anyway) and with the unbanning of twist it replaced amnesia.

That deck is plagarized.

There isnt 1 refrence to Darren. Heck Weissman was mentioned and he never played blessings.


By Rakso, Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 01:47 pm:

No, he left out Time Walk and didn't own the Mox.

As for Brian:


Quote:

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Weissman
To: Oscar Tan
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: Inquest T1 Deck

Heh, your article pretty much says it all already :P This guy is as clueless as you've labeled him, and his "the deck" is a total embarassment. The absence of Gorilla Shamans from the main deck and Red Blasts from the sideboard is terrible, but the omissions of Fact or Fiction and Yawgmoth's Will are downright criminal! I think you should email this moron directly, and tell him that when he attaches the names of people to a deck, he should actually consult the person he mentions. Ugh, this guy's article just makes me mad, so I'm closing this email.

Sincerely,
Brian Weissman



By Mason Loring Bliss (Mason) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 02:37 pm:

Just so we're all clear on what we're saying, here's what "plagiarize" means:

Main Entry: pla·gia·rize
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing
Etymology: plagiary
Date: 1716
transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
- pla·gia·riz·er noun

This is an excerpt from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up "literature" so as to understand why this doesn't constitute "literary theft". The other definitions of "plagiarism" don't apply from the start.

Please, feel free to be cheesed off that they printed a bad version of what could be a good deck, but let's not abuse the language by calling it something it's not. It's not plagiarism, and it's not breach of copyright.

"Hm. I have some cookbooks downstairs. I think I'm going to go look at them to see how many of them have plagiarized the recipe for apple pie."

That sounds silly, doesn't it? But, it's the same thing.

Anyway, this is my last word on the subject.


By Mason Loring Bliss (Mason) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 02:41 pm:

Bah, my use of language is horribly imprecise sometimes.

I meant to say, "...understand why InQuest's printing a deck list doesn't...", but my usage made my actual intent ambiguous, given that I just credited a quote from something vaguely similar to literature.

Piping down now...


By Rakso, Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 02:48 pm:

READ THE GODDAMN LINKS AND THE ENTIRE THREAD, JESUS CHRIST.


By Rakso, Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 02:51 pm:

READ THE GODDAMN LINKS AND THE ENTIRE THREAD, JESUS CHRIST.


By BD Stompist (Fbi) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 03:04 pm:

Are all your posts double posts these days?


By Gizzard (Gizzard) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 06:18 pm:

Writing for a gaming magazine pays next to nothing (if not actually nothing) and the deadlines are tight. This breeds a situation where a lot of fanboys write just for the ego gratification of seeing their article in print. Generally, these guys arent hugely knowledgeable about journalistic ethics (they're fanboys, not journalists!) and, frankly, they often arent that knowledgeable about whatever they are writing about.

So I'm not surprised that something like this happens. Taking it out on the author is probably a wasted exercise; I suspect he did what he did more through ignorance than through malice. If he's even aware of the flame-storm he has created here on BD he's probably scratching his head wondering whats wrong with a Jesters Cap and why Rakso is typing all in caps about him.


By Dante (Dante) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 06:25 pm:

I think what Rasko is upset about is the fact that the people who wrote the Keeper FAQ went through time and effort to produce that work. The Inquest writer simply took writing and strategy almost directly from the Primer and didn't give any credit or reference to the original author. (Look at the Inquest article's text of how to play strip/wastelands, how to use the jester's cap, when to start using Gaea's blessing, to put 1-2 good creatures like Morphling in the sideboard) - It's really obvious that all the strategy comes straight from that article (i.e. we all know now that stripping early and often can win games via mana shortage, only someone who just copied wouldn't know that advice wasn't up to date). So what did the Inquest writer do - he took someone elses idea and analysis and tried to pass it off as his own.

See the definition that was posted above -
"transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source" I think that about sums up exactly what we've got here.

It's very similar to someone from the Chicago Tribune writing an article and someone from the Washington Post basically summarizing the same ideas and writing and trying to pass it off as original. - that journalist would catch hell.

I think that's what he's upset about. Correct me if I got it wrong.

Dante


By Rakso, Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 12:21 am:

Yeah, Dante, plus the fact that he's paid no matter how little. MTGNews was one thing, a commercial magazine is another.

I e-mailed him, no response.


By Dozer (Dozer) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 06:09 am:


Quote:

Oh my, you would think they would at least get a recent list from the type 1 Primers.


They can't - the most recent list Exeter's Keeper primer provides is the one they used, and Azhrei's evolution primer has the 2000 Franchise listed as the last deck.

Rakso: Doesn't matter - he could have proved his points with it anyway (if he had any pints to make, that is).

Dozer


By Dozer (Dozer) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 06:09 am:

Sorry: pints = points.


By Rakso, Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 06:45 am:

I don't get the "doesn't matter" part of it. What do you mean?

I know you're not subscribing to Mason Loring Bliss's bull that you can take a decklist as anywhere then talk about it and make it look like it's yours, but I don't understand what you said.


By Yamo, Supposed Model of Courtesy (Yamo) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 06:55 am:

I just don't know if copying a decklist can be plagarism. It's just a listing of cards. The author might pick and choose which of the cards to add to the listing, but there's no original writing involved.


By Yamo, Supposed Model of Courtesy (Yamo) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 06:57 am:

As long as the rest of the article is in the author's own words, I don't think it counts as plagarism.


By Rakso, Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 07:01 am:


Quote:

As long as the rest of the article is in the author's own words, I don't think it counts as plagarism.



Yamo, you're a fucking idiot.

There, I didn't plagiarize that from Matt.


By Matt D'Avanzo, the Sylvan Librarian (Matt) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 07:08 am:

My theory is that Yamo is actually a total genius, but he chooses to post only complete stupidity so as not to make all us normal folk feel inadequate. I must say, he is QUITE the actor.


By Matt D'Avanzo, the Sylvan Librarian (Matt) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 07:19 am:

I didn't plagerize that from Oscar either. Or Azhrei, or Sliver King, or anyone with an IQ over 20 on this site.

(sorry Yamo, like you said: fair is fair)


By Yamo, Supposed Model of Courtesy (Yamo) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 07:21 am:

Riiiiight....

You guys seem to be awfully surly today.

I guess it's true that women who spend a lot of time together in close quarters eventually see the timing of their periods synchronizing.

Must be the pheremones. :)


By Rakso, Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 07:25 am:

You would know.

Fair is fair... and keep going. You know you're not going to win a fair fight.

You've already posted enough stuff about a vendetta against certain people, and I hate that over here...


By Matt D'Avanzo, the Sylvan Librarian (Matt) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 07:27 am:

Don't use words you have no understanding or experience with. Women, pheromones (correct spelling), etc.


By Matt D'Avanzo, the Sylvan Librarian (Matt) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 07:41 am:

Attention type I regulars!

I'm starting a new poll! The question is...

Is Yamo the most braindead human being you've come across in your entire life or just the type I mill?


By Jacob Orlove (Orlove) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 10:15 am:

Matt, I think you just said that either:
1. Yamo=type one mill
or
2. Type 1 mill=braindead

The first one seems to be what you actually said, but I'm not sure.


By Mako Satou, Rose among the thorns (Mako) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 10:27 am:

Why does anyone buy Inquest anymore? Inquest has been bad since day 1. I didn't know they stooped to ripping off out of date stuff from Bdominia. Thats just wrong.

Yamo you really are annoying. Your statement's are absurd. It is not the decklist that is in question but the author is clearing ripping off the ideas behind why the decklist exists. Also where did you get the basis for such a stupid statement as "I guess it's true that women who spend a lot of time together..." Thats just silly.


By Rakso, Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 10:33 am:

Ooooohhhh...

You're right.

I hate sexism as much as I hate obnoxiousness.

Mako, just tell me when you want him thrown to the sharks. :p

Seriously. Hell, the last guy who was sexist here was Negator (who hit on you online), and just look at him.


By 3rd Wheel in Legend's Love Triangle (Yamo) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 11:03 am:

Negator or "Negator?"


By BD Stompist (Fbi) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 01:53 pm:

ATTN:

TYPE I

REGULARS


blinking text is really annoying


By Redman, Relentless Leader of Scrubs (Redman) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 03:45 pm:

Well, on a certain level, I'm not sure you'd really want BD associated with that article...


By Matt D'Avanzo, the Sylvan Librarian (Matt) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 04:09 pm:

The man has a point.


By Mason Loring Bliss (Mason) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 11:26 pm:

Um, just out of curiosity, how long has Beyond Dominia been around? I'm guessing since 1996, from the copyright.

I have here a copy of Schools of Magic, from February of 1996, and it's version 5.2, meaning that it had been around for a while at that point. (I had an older copy once, but I have no clue where it is.)

While the deck Inquest printed is evidently very similar to one posted on Beyond Dominia, the very existence of Schools of Magic indicates that folks were talking about Weissman's "The Deck" and other high-level Type I strategy well before Beyond Dominia. For Inquest to follow in the tradition is a relative non-issue, isn't it? Folks have been talking about Weissman decks for ages.

FWIW, for fans of the Schools, I've always most enjoyed Maysonet decks. Perhaps this explains my enjoyment of Helm of Obedience. =shrug=

Anyway, reply with caps-lock on if you like, but please try to explain to me why Rob Hahn shouldn't be foaming at the mouth about Beyond Dominia duplicating his earlier work...

Thanks for your time.


By Rakso, Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 11:46 pm:


Quote:

While the deck Inquest printed is evidently very similar to one posted on Beyond Dominia, the very existence of Schools of Magic indicates that folks were talking about Weissman's "The Deck" and other high-level Type I strategy well before Beyond Dominia. For Inquest to follow in the tradition is a relative non-issue, isn't it? Folks have been talking about Weissman decks for ages.



IT WASN'T WEISSMAN'S DECK YOU COMPLETE IGNORAMUS!

READ THE DISCLAIMER FROM WEISSMAN AND ASK ANY TYPE I PLAYER FROM ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHERE THE GREEN VARIANT CAME FROM IN 1999.

DO YOU REALIZE HOW MORONIC YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE FOR ANYONE WHO KNOWS THE HISTORY OF TYPE I CONTROL???

YOU ARE ALMOST AS BIG A PSYCHO AS YAMO.

DUH.


By Azhrei (Azhrei) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 11:50 pm:

Now now... it was more like 1998 to very early 1999 than just 1999 as a whole. ;)


By Rakso, Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 11:53 pm:

No... tutors were restricted in September 1999.

But Mason Loring Bliss is still rather pretentious. He makes it sound like he knows stuff from 1995 when it's obvious he doesn't know much except what's been talked about here recently.

That's not bad, but sticking it into a very serious discussion makes you want to strangle someone, and you'll settle for someone other than Yamo.


By Matt the Great (Matt) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 11:57 pm:

Everyone here seems to be very angry. I've had more civil discussions over abortion rights and the death penalty than this inconsequential tidbit.


By Matt the Great (Matt) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 11:57 pm:

Everyone here seems to be very angry. I've had more civil discussions over abortion rights and the death penalty than this inconsequential tidbit.


By Rakso, Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 01:35 am:

I've had more civil discussions with ur mom.


By Mason Loring Bliss (Mason) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 01:37 am:

Heh! This thread is pretty amusing.

I've just looked in my personal deck archive, and I note that I was playing a Weissman-style control deck with Gaea's Blessing in November of 1997. I must have been precognitively plagiarizing Beyond Dominia, in anticipation of that innovation from BD two years later. :-P

Of course, my mana base was unacceptably fragile by today's standards, and the deck was way too vulnerable to the Monkey/Miner decks prevalent at the time, but it was definitely a Weissman derivative playing a critical, multi-card green component.

If I'd been reading Beyond Dominia in 1999, I'd have doubtless been gratified that other folks had decided to pursue this obvious strategy. (FWIW, a friend of mine suggested the card to me. It wasn't my innovation. I just immediately saw the light and began using it.)

Looking forward to my next chuckle -- perhaps it will be the part where Beyond Dominia sent that fateful letter to Richard Garfield that inspired him to create a new kind of card game... :-)

- Mason


By Matt the Great (Matt) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 01:38 am:

Oh, bra-VO.


By Gizzard (Gizzard) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 01:39 am:

I can understand why Rakso is so angry (or perhaps his caps-lock key is just stuck?), but I wouldnt want this to turn into some weird referendum on Mason. He's contributed interesting ideas to discussions of a couple of different decks (with the advantage of actually having played them in local tourneys!) Thats good, we need more people to do that.

So play nice, y'all.


By Rakso, Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 01:47 am:

Mason brings it on himself for bitching without reading and comparing the articles everyone else did. The issue isn't what people were playing, but what Exeter wrote in 1999 compared to what Fronhoefer wrote in 2002.

Look, I'm normally a nice guy, so someone is being a complete schlong when I'm annoyed enough to start calling him out.

That's a very short list of people there.


By Mason Loring Bliss (Mason) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 02:20 am:

=sigh=

Whatever. If it's plagiarism, take Inquest to court and good luck. If it's not - and, it's not - then spend some more time flaming and let it die.

I now feel like I've extracted this thread's vital essence, meager though it was, and I am satisfied that I've explored it fully. There are sporadic word ordering similarities between the Inquest article and the B-D article, but that's where it ends. It's not plagiarism. Both articles set down "operating principles" that are/were common knowledge. Neither was breaking new ground.

The last word is yours... Enjoy it, with my blessing.


By Gizzard (Gizzard) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 02:21 am:

Wow, this is a lively thread. :-)

OK, since Mason has his Blessing decklist from '97 I gotta ask: how many cards different from Az's list (or the Inquest list) is yours? The Inquest list is, what, 3 cards different? And the 3 cards are quickie updates; things like MindTwist for Amnesia. Its so close, I didn't have any doubt that the Inquest decklist was .... um .... borrowed. OTOH, if Mason's list is within 3 cards of the Inquest list, well, I will have to reconsider my opinion. But, I doubt it is. Individual style counts for a lot in T1; Mason's Keeper list isnt within 3 cards of anyone else's here, so I'd be really surprised if his decklist from 5 years ago matched Az's.

Actually, post the decklist if you can; I'd be curious to see it.


By Mason Loring Bliss (Mason) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 02:38 am:

Hurm... Well, okay. It's not what I'd do today, but it was fun at the time. I was also playing non-Cap-like versions at the time, doing more or less straight Mirror kills. (This style typically ran Timetwister, Regrowth, and two Gaea's Blessing as the total complement of graveyard retrieval spells.)

But, anyway, here's the deck I was playing in November of 1997. Tempest had come out, so I integrated some of that into this.

FWIW, to stave off commentary, the Lotus Petals were there so I could try to get out a cripplingly fast Blood Moon. I would occasionally win by early concession if I managed to get Blood Moon onto the table within the first few turns.

Looking at it now, it looks like I'd have trouble getting out Moat, but at the time I was playing that deck, I liked it a lot.

Here's the deck. It's really more Maysonet than Weissman, and it's more aggressive than what I like nowadays, but... =shrug=

Mana Production (28)

1 Black Lotus
1 Forest
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Plains
1 Sol Ring
2 Tundra
3 Lotus Petal
4 City of Brass
4 Volcanic Island
6 Island

Card Drawing (10)

1 Ancestral Recall
1 Braingeyser
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Gaea's Blessing
1 Jayemdae Tome
1 Regrowth
1 Time Walk
1 Timetwister
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Wheel of Fortune

Defense (12)

1 Balance
1 Icy Manipulator
1 Ivory Tower
1 Moat
1 Swords to Plowshares
1 Zuran Orb
2 Disenchant
4 Mana Drain

Offense (10)

1 Mirror Universe
1 Storm Seeker
1 Tormod's Crypt
2 Gorilla Shaman
2 Jester's Cap
3 Blood Moon

Sideboard

1 Blue Elemental Blast
1 City in a Bottle
1 Disenchant
1 Divine Offering
1 Feldon's Cane
1 Hydroblast
1 Jester's Cap
1 Mana Web
1 Pyroblast
1 Red Elemental Blast
1 Swords to Plowshares
1 The Abyss
1 Tormod's Crypt
2 Cursed Totem


By Mason Loring Bliss (Mason) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 02:41 am:

Man, I have to design a Blood Moon deck for today's environment. That was fun to play. :-)


By Mason Loring Bliss (Mason) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 02:52 am:

I'll stop posting old deck lists, but here's essentially the same deck, from May of 1998, only this time playing a lot more defensively and with the more traditional Scepter lock.

Mana Production (28)

1 Black Lotus
1 Library of Alexandria
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Plains
1 Sol Ring
3 Gemstone Mine
3 Lotus Petal
4 City of Brass (5th Ed.)
9 Island

Card Drawing (10)

1 Ancestral Recall
1 Braingeyser
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Gaea's Blessing
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Regrowth
1 Time Walk
1 Timetwister
2 Jayemdae Tome

Offense (1)

1 The Rack

A Lock (9)

1 Amnesia
2 Counterspell
2 Disrupting Scepter
4 Mana Drain

Defense (12)

1 Balance
1 Ivory Tower
1 Zuran Orb
2 Disenchant
2 Swords to Plowshares
2 The Abyss
3 Blood Moon

Sideboard (15)

1 City in a Bottle
1 Jester's Cap
1 Moat
2 CoP: Red
2 Cursed Totem
2 Disenchant
2 Pyroblast
4 Force of Will

And with that, I'm going to go to bed. I'll be back in the morning.


By jpmeyer, keeper of ur mom (Jpmeyer) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 03:55 am:

ur mom plagiarized me last night by not giving me any credit.


By Rakso, Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 04:14 am:


Quote:

Both articles set down "operating principles" that are/were common knowledge. Neither was breaking new ground.



Yeah, and so we can give him credit for copying the primer deck instead of using a basic Forest or Gemstone Mines in blue-based control?


By Mason Loring Bliss (Mason) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 01:39 pm:

I find it hard to believe that you lack the capacity to understand how the posted decks worked, so I'll instead assume that you're ignoring the actual deck to focus on what ends up being marginal outside of that deck, for purposes of trying to craft a fairly questionable insult.

Please demonstrate to us that you're a smart 'un by noting why one might have reasonably played a Forest and some Gemstone Mines in a Blood Moon deck... Maybe you'll come up with good reasons why I shouldn't have been doing that five years ago, in which case I'll be forced to concede that I probably shouldn't have been playing a basic Forest and some Gemstone Mines five years ago, thus validating your viewpoint and letting you be right. Because, that's important. :-P


By BD Stompist (Fbi) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 02:09 pm:

Mason: look, give em some time to adjust their panties and I'm sure they'll cool off about this, seeing that its BEYOND STUPID and they likely have absolutely NO RECOURSE anyway.


By Mason Loring Bliss (Mason) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 02:34 pm:

Yeah, I suppose I shouldn't take it personally.

Thanks for the word of reason. I should spend my time figuring out how to tune my Mask deck's sideboard against mono-blue, I guess. There's a tournament later, and I think the deck I'm going to have to work at beating will be one of two BBS decks that will probably both be showing up. (The prize is a Beta Serra Angel, so it'll probably be tough competition.)

I'll post a tournament report to a new thread or to the Mask thread (if it's not too long already) later on this evening.


By Matt D'Avanzo, the Sylvan Librarian (Matt) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 02:52 pm:

It's good to see that all the usual suspects are banding together against logic and common sense. Good show people!

Read Exeter's article, read the Inquest article. It's that simple. We aren't just talking about the fact that the decklist is identical (with one difference that was well-explained), but the actual article.


By Dozer (Dozer) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 03:18 pm:

Matt's right. It is not the "common knowledge", i.e. the *principles* of playing a deck like that, that were plagiarized. It was the exact strategy advisement (as already pointed out before: the use of Cap, the use of Blessing and the use of Strip Mine in particular) that Frohnhofer (sp?) took from Exeter's primer. The fact that he advertised the deck as state-of-the-art clearly shows that he has not done any research work beyond reading the (outdated) primer and re-writing it in his own words to fit his personal style.
Look, I don't say it necessarily was intentional plagiarism, but it was plagiarism nonetheless.

Mason: What Frohnhofer did was not duplicating work. "Duplicating" indicates own work being done with the same outcome as another person's work. That's just not what he did. Read the primer, and read the article both at the same time, and you'll notice.
(Oh, I'm currently testing Helm. Expect more in a few days.)

Rakso: I meant it does not matter if no other website had the deck in it's files. If he had taken the list (of course, with the due credit!) and analyzed it himself to prove his own points, it'd been okay. Got it:)?

Dozer


By BD Stompist (Fbi) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 03:38 pm:

OK, and WHAT are you going to do about? Bitch for days, prattling on to no end about a decklist/idea that hasn't been current since Johnny Carson was still doing late nights?

NEWS FLASH: been there down that

If bitching is your remedey, enough.


By Freddie Williams II (Freddie) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 03:47 pm:

been there DOWN that?

WTF?


By BD Stompist (Fbi) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 03:49 pm:

a remarkably unwitty combination of "been there done that" and "we've been down that road already"?


By Freddie Williams II (Freddie) on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 03:54 pm:

cool, fair enough


By War Wolf (Warwolf) on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 01:04 am:

I don't think the goal here should be legal action, since I don't think there's enough of a case to actually win a court case. The goal here should be to get Steve Froenhoefer fired for InQuest (or never used as a freelance writer again, whichever). Plagiarism of any sort should be punished somehow, even if not by a court case.


By BrianB, the Patron of Elves and Silly Combos (Brianb) on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 01:58 am:

Legal action would be a waste of time, since you'd probably not be able to show damages of the magnitude or what lawyers' fees alone would cost you. Besides, inquest probably couldn't have known what Steve was doing, and Steve probably doesn't have money to take anyway. A more realistic ideal outcome would be to shame inquest into printing Rakso's letter along with a suitable apology. That's what any respectable publication whose writer has stepped way out of bounds would do. It would at least be an eye-opener for people.


By Rakso, Patriarch & Rules Ayatollah (Rakso) on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 03:43 am:


Quote:

OK, and WHAT are you going to do about? Bitch for days, prattling on to no end about a decklist/idea that hasn't been current since Johnny Carson was still doing late nights?

NEWS FLASH: been there down that

If bitching is your remedey, enough.



Wiseass.

Quote:

----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Shvartsman
To: Oscar Tan
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: Inquest

> Hi Oscar,
>
> I read the article last night and must say it was very good. I do not agree
> with all the strategy points (though I agree with about 80%+ of them)
> but the way you ripped into IQ was hilarious. I also tracked down IQ
> editor Jeremy Smith and made sure he reads it and has SteveF read it -
> so you might get your public reply after all.
>
> Alex



By Dozer (Dozer) on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 04:59 am:


Quote:

OK, and WHAT are you going to do about?


I e-mailed a letter to Inquest supporting Rakso's claim and requesting a public excuse. I think that's all one can do.

Dozer


By Schmakt (Schmakt) on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 03:58 pm:

Why is everyone so pissed about this? Sure, the deck might suck. It might even be based on someone else's deck.

But who cares? Seems to me that, as long as people are hearing and reading about Type 1 in a good light, that almost anything that gets published is good for the T1 community.

I really don't think that anyone reads IQ for Type 1 "tech" or whatever you want to call it. I imagine that most IQ readers are T2 players... probably younger ones to boot. I'm really quite glad that the T1 article got printed... whether the deck sucked or not. It's all about generating interest. If we work this guy over, I don't think we can ever complain about not having enough Type 1 players again...

Just my thoughts...


By Matt D'Avanzo, the Sylvan Librarian (Matt) on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 08:03 pm:

So when you write a novel and someone else copies it, what do you care--I mean at least the point of view you were trying to express is being spread around right?


By Tracer Bullet, Voice of Reason (Tracer) on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 - 10:54 pm:

Ok, I feel it time to step in on this one.

Matt, Az, and Rakso are right (even if a little overreacting). Inquest did plagiarize the theory and strategy found in Exeter's article, and came VERY close to simply ripping off Az's old Franchise list. It IS wrong when an organization plagiarizes a fellow writer's article, or original work without giving ANY credit at all. At absolute worst, this entire problem could have been averted by asking the writers of the articles, or simply the owners of BD for permission to use the article in their magizine. Some action DOES need to be taken, and I think Dozer had the right idea. There's no reasonable way to actually punish IQ for their plagiarizm, but we can try to appeal to the Magic players at large. InQuest is of course reliant upon it's readers for patronage, and if the readers think it's wrong to plagiarize something, IQ will eventually take the hint.

That being said, a little more moderation is needed amongst the posters on this thread. Too many tempers have flared over something that really isn't worth name-calling and overall childishness (Yes, I understand much of this can be taken as a personal insult, Rakso, but honestly, does it hurt when a retard insults you?) I hate to sound cliché, but can't we all just get along? It's not worth our dignity to fight over.

If you disagree with me, feel free to send me an e-mail.


By Matt D'Avanzo, the Sylvan Librarian (Matt) on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 06:23 am:

I disagree. Inquest is a magazine with international distribution. I'm not recommending sueing them, but it would certainly be within BD and/or the authors' rights to do so. Inquest made money (probably quite a bit) by ripping off their labors--it's really very simple.

They further insulted the authors (and their readers) by doing a shit job of ripping them off (professionalism? anyone? Does anyone bother to do three minutes of research before writing an article?). Lastly, how much effort would it have taken for them to credit their source or to email BD to see if it was okay?

When other magazines make mistakes (or actual transgressions) and get called on them a little blurb is often posted in the front. I think Inquest should acknowledge to it's fan base that its article was ripped off a totally outdated article from over 3 years ago, that their article bears no relevence whatsoever to type I of 2002, and no one from the author to the editing dept. bothered to do one iota of research to correct any of this.

Considering we are not asking for money, I think that isn't too much to ask.

As far as the arguments going on, it really has less to do with Inquest and more to do with people who have nothing say relevant or intelligent to say, but still feel the need to make sure their non-opinion is heard. Furthermore, some of these people need to be told that they are idiots. Perhaps eventually they will realize it for themselves and make steps to correct it (or at least shutting up so everyone within earshot doesn't immediately know they have the IQ of dirt).


By The Usual Stompist (Fbi) on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 11:31 am:

I think its relevant to point out that having strong convictions (i.e. I WON"T STAND FOR THIS BLATANT "PLAGIARISM") for seemlingly no better reason than the sake of having strong conviction is an incredibly unenlightened stance to take or to allow. Not just on this, but in any situation.

If we yield to someone whose convictions are stronger than our own on any given issue (nb I don't give a shit about Inquest articles) what are we really encouraging? The answer is simle: we're giving people with "nothing intelligent or relevant to say" the dark green light to champion some pathetic "cause" such as this one.

So, I guess if I were narcissitic enough I would contend that I'm fighting to keep us from being awash in "non-opinions" all the time. Of course, my naievete isn't so great as to think that battle can be won, but thats beside the point.

Thus, in summary I'd just like to say that the IQ of dirt relative to that of some posters is getting a bum rap on BD:)


By Azhrei (Azhrei) on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 11:45 am:

I now have greater respect for dirt than ever before.


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. A valid username and password combination is required to post messages to this discussion.
Username:  
Password: