The new banlist

[NeoPaladin2008]

I rly feel the same as jamief here for exactly the same reasons :(

[Guest Supreme Gamesmaster]

Knowing them? They're going to hit the good fundecks to get everyone to buy millions of packs for a metadeck. Then they'll limit nothing for TDGS to make everyone buy that.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

^ Raigeki: Able to destroy up to 5 monsters' date=' Banned. Dark hole: Able to destroy up to 10 Monsters, Banned. Feather duster: Able to destroy up to 5 spell and trap cards, Banned. Heavy storm, Able to destroy up to 9 Spell and Trap cards (not including itself.), Priceless.

 

In the game of yugioh, there is Banned and un banned. I can totaly see if storm catches the ban hammer.

 

Also they can put Trunade back at 2 in this case. Or mabey semi MST. All would be more understandable than a Storm, the last great freebie.

[/quote']

 

You're honestly very bad at the game. We can tell through your shoddy logic.

 

Your above post suggests that the ability to destroy high numbers of cards is what merits a prohibition.

 

NEWS FLASH:

 

If you were correct, every monster above 0 ATK would merit prohibition.

 

If you were correct, every card effect with the ability to destroy more than a certain number of cards would merit prohibition.

 

Simply put, because monsters above 0 ATK do not merit prohibition for having more than 0 ATK, and because not all card effects that may destroy lots of cards merit prohibition for destroying those cards

 

you are wrong.

[Purple Dinosaur]

^ Raigeki: Able to destroy up to 5 monsters' date=' Banned. Dark hole: Able to destroy up to 10 Monsters, Banned. Feather duster: Able to destroy up to [b']5[/b] spell and trap cards, Banned. Heavy storm, Able to destroy up to 9 Spell and Trap cards (not including itself.), Priceless.

 

In the game of yugioh, there is Banned and un banned. I can totaly see if storm catches the ban hammer.

 

Also they can put Trunade back at 2 in this case. Or mabey semi MST. All would be more understandable than a Storm, the last great freebie.

 

Actually, you got it a little off there, Nate.

 

Feather Duster can destroy up to 6 Spells or Traps and Heavy Storm, 10 (You forgot the fact that there can be Field Spells).

 

But that's minor. Just pointing it out...

 

... Carry on with the Topic.

[iAmNateXero]

You're honestly very bad at the game. We can tell through your shoddy logic.

Apparently Comparing already banned cards makes you a bad player' date=' if so, than i'll continue to be a bad player. Its a hell of a lot better than being a shoddy person who's only purpose in life is to appear in forums and tell people there wrong for thinking, or trying to understand a child's card game.

 

Your above post suggests that the ability to destroy high numbers of cards is what merits a prohibition.

Well, lets have a look at some of the current banned cards

CHAOS EMPEROR DRAGON - ENVOY OF THE END (doesn't destroy, but close enough)

CYBER JAR (destroy + swarm / hand control... Very nice!)

DARK HOLE

HARPIE'S FEATHER DUSTER

RAIGEKI

TRIBE-INFECTING VIRUS

Hmmm, i kinda find DESTROYING MANY CARDS, or the ability of destroying many cards all seem to be the jest of what these cards do, and as we all know drawing conclusions is easy.

 

NEWS FLASH:

 

If you were correct' date=' every monster above 0 ATK would merit prohibition.[/quote'] Your comparing monsters atk to effects that destroy multiple cards? Thats really mixing the apples and oranges ain't it?

 

If you were correct' date=' every card effect with the ability to destroy more than a certain number of cards would merit prohibition.[/quote'] Well, lets see now, ummm in most of these discussions about the same 4 cards have been mentioned over and over and over again, And if we compare those cards, they all seem to destroy multiple cards, or at least has the ability to do so, minus Disk commander of course. Also, i never strive on being correct like, well i guess you do, other wise, there be no reason to use the word am i correct? I simply put my Opinions out weather or not people agree to them or not.

 

Simply put' date=' because monsters above 0 ATK do not merit prohibition for having more than 0 ATK, and because not all card effects that may destroy lots of cards merit prohibition for destroying those cards.[/quote'] So wait, you bring up a failed argument, just to say its a failed argument? Why not have saved time and energy by not typing anything at all?

 

you are wrong.

No my friend, here in America, there is no right or wrong to an opinion, simply an "I agree" or an "I don't agree." YOU are wrong for thinking other wise, no matter where you are from.

[Luxlord]

Nate you can bet money he's going to quote you on that. He always has to have the last word...

[iAmNateXero]

i dont mind.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

Nate you can bet money he's going to quote you on that. He always has to have the last word...

 

Yes' date=' but only when people are wrong.

 

The reason why you even bothered to post the above is because you're butthurt about a time where I said you were wrong (and subsequently explained why).

 

The reason you're still butthurt about it is because you evidently don't like being told you're wrong, when you're wrong.

 

Grow up, deal with it, and put it in the past - unless you want to continue looking like an immature idiot who can't stand being told the truth about himself.

 

You're honestly very bad at the game. We can tell through your shoddy logic.

Apparently Comparing already banned cards makes you a bad player' date=' if so, than i'll continue to be a bad player. Its a hell of a lot better than being a shoddy person who's only purpose in life is to appear in forums and tell people there wrong for thinking, or trying to understand a child's card game.[/quote']

 

Your post claims that 1) I'm shoddy, 2) I'm telling you that you are wrong for thinking, and 3) I'm telling you that you are wrong for trying to understand a CCG.

 

Prove that I'm shoddy.

Prove that I said you were wrong for thinking.

Prove that I said you were wrong for trying to understand a CCG.

 

PROTIP: You can't, because all of those claims just-so-happen to be false.

 

What I said was "you're very bad at the game." Get it right.

 

It's right of you to think and try to understand, but just because you're trying doesn't mean you don't deserve every bit of criticism you get. Frankly, you deserve criticism as much as everyone who doesn't try, and since you're bad at a simple game, and being bad at a simple game is something that you can be criticized over, you deserve that criticism.

 

If anything, having the ability to tell someone about their faults is the exact opposite of shoddiness.

 

Your above post suggests that the ability to destroy high numbers of cards is what merits a prohibition.

Well' date=' lets have a look at some of the current banned cards

CHAOS EMPEROR DRAGON - ENVOY OF THE END (doesn't destroy, but close enough)

CYBER JAR (destroy + swarm / hand control... Very nice!)

DARK HOLE

HARPIE'S FEATHER DUSTER

RAIGEKI

TRIBE-INFECTING VIRUS

Hmmm, i kinda find DESTROYING MANY CARDS, or the ability of destroying many cards all seem to be the jest of what these cards do, and as we all know drawing conclusions is easy.[/quote']

 

Right, and we know that you're bad at the game BECAUSE you cease making conclusions RIGHT THERE, instead of paying some attention beyond the level a chimpanzee would pay.

 

Those cards are not prohibitworthy just because of the capability of moving a bunch of cards from place A to place B. There's MUCH more to EVERY ONE OF their prohibitions than that; it's immensely naive, thoughtless, and stupid to think that "hey, these are banned for destroying a lot of things" and just leave it at that.

 

You claim to be trying to think about the game, but your claim falls flat on its face - you obviously aren't thinking at all if "they destroy lots" is a decent observation to you.

 

Raigeki, Hole, and HFD aren't prohibitworthy because they destroy a bunch of cards. They're prohibitworthy because they promote easy direct attacking with no strategic countenance, while also making any field use of any card in any way into a risk. It is not because they destroy MANY cards; it is because they destroy ANY card in their respective lanes, WHILE being able to be played quickly, WHILE not having any specific trigger requirement, and so on. There's MUCH more than destruction that is taken into account.

 

TIV is not Prohibitworthy because it destroys lots. TIV is Prohibitworthy because it's an Anti-Type Vortex w/ 1600 ATK. Beatsticks with effects that lend immense ease to their direct attacks are ALWAYS on watch, regardless of how they do so. Beatsticks that set up other combos are also on watch. Beatsticks that discourage decktype proliferation are on watch. TIV is all of these things; it is not because TIV destroys cards that it is a problem, but it is because of what that destruction LEADS to.

 

CED isn't Prohibitworthy because it sends lots of cards away. It's Prohibitworthy because it hurts good, careful players more than it hurts bad, reckless players. If someone plays badly and loses a bunch of cards, they deserve to be in a difficult situation: CED just says "lol equalize" and makes better players suffer for playing well.

 

Cyber Jar is not Prohibitworthy just because it destroys things. Cyber Jar is Prohibitworthy for similar reasons as CED; Cyber Jar is also instrumental to what was by-far the most lethal FTK since SciTurtle and MakyuraExchange.

 

You claim to be trying to think, but you aren't trying, nor are you thinking.

 

NEWS FLASH:

 

If you were correct' date=' every monster above 0 ATK would merit prohibition.[/quote'] Your comparing monsters atk to effects that destroy multiple cards? Thats really mixing the apples and oranges ain't it?

 

No, but I could see why you'd think that - you don't bother to think ANYTHING through, bar the most obvious conclusions.

 

Battle is this game's original method of destruction. Before the first card effect ever touched this game, BEWDs were shredding DMs all over Japan.

 

In Battle, highest stats are king, and of those stats, only ATK can destroy something on its own; highest ATK, therefore, is the best stat a card can have. The cards w/ the highest ATK are capable of destroying the most other cards - namely, every other monster in-game.

 

If "destroying a lot of cards" is criteria for banning, as you established in your earlier post, then the highest-ATK monster must go. That's how logic works. But it doesn't stop there: If you kill the highest-ATK monsters, the next-highest ones become the highest ones, thereby making them guilty of the same problem.

 

The only time that the ban cycle stops is when no monster can destroy a lot of cards, if "destroying a lot of cards" is ban criteria (again, as you established). This is only accomplished when the only legal monsters have 0 ATK.

 

So, if we were to actually do everything you reccomend, YGO would suck.

 

If you were correct' date=' every card effect with the ability to destroy more than a certain number of cards would merit prohibition.[/quote'] Well, lets see now, ummm in most of these discussions about the same 4 cards have been mentioned over and over and over again, And if we compare those cards, they all seem to destroy multiple cards, or at least has the ability to do so, minus Disk commander of course.

 

Yes, and it's because you just rest at that simple comparison, that you come across as such an utter idiot.

 

Also' date=' i never strive on being correct like, well i guess you do, other wise, there be no reason to use the word am i correct? I simply put my Opinions out weather or not people agree to them or not.[/quote']

 

So, in other words, you willingly and knowingly, and possibly intentionally, sound as dense as clay.

 

Simply put' date=' because monsters above 0 ATK do not merit prohibition for having more than 0 ATK, and because not all card effects that may destroy lots of cards merit prohibition for destroying those cards, you are wrong.[/quote'] So wait, you bring up a failed argument, just to say its a failed argument? Why not have saved time and energy by not typing anything at all?

 

Simple - you're the dolt who posted the faulty argument, which is proof positive that you're the one who, frankly, is dumb enough to not realize why it's faulty. This makes you a person in need of hearing the words "you're wrong and you're probably stupid".

 

you are wrong.

No my friend' date=' here in America, there is no right or wrong to an opinion, simply an "I agree" or an "I don't agree."[/quote']

 

See, now you just gave us proof that you're ignorant.

 

Here in America, right and wrong are parts of opinions every single bloody day; it's right and wrong that drive this nation's most important opinion-laden matters. Right and wrong drive the governmental processes on every level; right and wrong drive the

 

For example, it is wrong to murder. This is an opinion held and honored by the justice system. There's no "I agree" or "I don't agree" bullshit here; it's instead a judgment of "right" or "wrong", whether you like it or not.

 

YOU are wrong for thinking other wise' date=' no matter where you are from.

[/quote']

 

Prove it.

 

Protip: You can't, because the only thing you have to draw on are useless hypotheticals, combined with the assumption that the topic of "what should happen" is purely a matter of opinion.

 

Hypothetical examples won't help you when they aren't in line with the facts.

 

Your original post made the argument that Storm "should" be prohibited.

 

What "should" actually happen is not open to interpretation. It is grounded in fact and truth, and does not change unless the card pool changes (as different things should happen to different card pools).

 

People's views of what "should" happen can be completely right, completely wrong, or somewhere in between - it all depends upon exactly how close their views are to what the facts say should happen.

[Luxlord]

Wow Atem your the one who needs to grow up and move on

I was simply pointing out that you like to have the last word like an immature child and I'm done talking about it

either grow some balls and deal with it, or continue to post needless quotes on how everyone is wrong, your choice...

[Sixty]

And' date=' as usual, Atem has just disected every statement against him and shot them in the mouth.[/quote']

[Benraino]

And' date=' as usual, Atem has just disected every statement against him and shot them in the mouth.[/quote']

 

When I grow up, I want to be like Pharaoh_Atem.

[Guest setojim]

IMO:

 

Banned: premature, disk

Limited: DAD, test tiger, bestiari, caius

Semi: jinzo, gadgets

UNL: allure, cyber dragon

[Orochi]

Nate you can bet money he's going to quote you on that. He always has to have the last word...

 

Yes' date=' but only when people are wrong.

 

The reason why you even bothered to post the above is because you're butthurt about a time where I said you were wrong (and subsequently explained why).

 

The reason you're still butthurt about it is because you evidently don't like being told you're wrong, when you're wrong.

 

Grow up, deal with it, and put it in the past - unless you want to continue looking like an immature idiot who can't stand being told the truth about himself.

[/quote']

 

 

for the first time i agree 120% with atem...

 

 

BTW: setojim, your limits and semilimits are dumb...

[iAmNateXero]

Your post claims that 1) I'm shoddy' date=' 2) I'm telling you that you are wrong for thinking, and 3) I'm telling you that you are wrong for trying to understand a CCG.

 

Prove that I'm shoddy.

Prove that I said you were wrong for thinking.

Prove that I said you were wrong for trying to understand a CCG.

 

PROTIP: You can't, because all of those claims just-so-happen to be false.[/quote'] [qoute=Webster Dictionary defines Shoddy as]

Function:adjective

cheaply imitative

Yeah a lot of your arguments are roughly the same, so... PROVEN! To prove you said i was wrong for thinking...

you are wrong.

PROVEN

To prove that you said i was wrong for trying to understand a CCG

you are wrong.

PROVEN!

 

 

 

What I said was "you're very bad at the game." Get it right.

You also said

you are wrong.

Get it right.

 

It's right of you to think and try to understand' date=' but just because you're trying doesn't mean you don't deserve every bit of criticism you get. Frankly, you deserve criticism as much as everyone who doesn't try, and since you're bad at a simple game, and being bad at a simple game is something that you can be criticized over, you deserve that criticism.[/quote'] Okay, so basically just just did a wraparound with words that basically said, "i can criticize if i want." Tell me Freed Flinstone, Are your feet getting tired yet? It simply would have been much easier to type, "I dont care how much of a jerk i am, im just gonna try to assert my authority by typing a whole lot about things that really has no effect on the real world. And hopefully by doing this, people will fear me and wouldn't dare to appose me, cause clearly, i realy care what people think about me on the internet." If you didn't, than being RIGHT all the damn time wouldn't matter to you.

 

If anything' date=' having the ability to tell someone about their faults is the exact opposite of shoddiness.[/quote'] Not by Webster's definition. You just being yourself is reason enough.

 

Right' date=' and we know that you're bad at the game BECAUSE you cease making conclusions RIGHT THERE, instead of paying some attention beyond the level a chimpanzee would pay.[/quote'] Uh... What?! o.O

 

Those cards are not prohibit worthy just because of the capability of moving a bunch of cards from place A to place B. There's MUCH more to EVERY ONE OF their prohibitions than that; it's immensely naive' date=' thoughtless, and stupid to think that "hey, these are banned for destroying a lot of things" and just leave it at that.[/quote']

By basing my arguments simply on a compare and contrast basis, what other conclusions would one make? To exclude this factor as to why they would be banned seems pretty stupid to me. He that phrase.. "To me" Its kinda bias, you know those things that forms opinions, try having some, it could help your character. Who knows any more.

 

You claim to be trying to think about the game' date=' but your claim falls flat on its face - you obviously aren't thinking at all if "they destroy lots" is a decent observation to you.[/quote'] Again, its an opinion and im sticking to it. Also, NEWSFLASH: There will be a lot more, try and understand the difference between Fact and Opinion.

 

Raigeki' date=' Hole, and HFD aren't prohibit worthy because they destroy a bunch of cards. They're prohibit worthy because they promote easy direct attacking with no strategic countenance, while also making any field use of any card in any way into a risk.[/quote'] AND HEAVY STORM DOESN'T! WOW! AMAZING!

 

It is not because they destroy MANY cards;

FACT IS they still do.

 

it is because they destroy ANY card in their respective lanes' date=' WHILE being able to be played quickly, WHILE not having any specific trigger requirement, and so on. There's MUCH more than destruction that is taken into account.[/quote'] Is that a fact, if you ask me, Thats an opinion, Got anything to support this claim? o.O

 

TIV is not Prohibit worthy because it destroys lots.

Fact is it actually does.

 

TIV is Prohibit worthy because it's an Anti-Type Vortex w/ 1600 ATK. Beatsticks with effects that lend immense ease to their direct attacks are ALWAYS on watch' date=' regardless of how they do so.[/quote'] And that is why Snipe hunter is BANNED. Okay, this explains a lot.

 

Beatsticks that set up other combos are also on watch.

Damn' date=' that means my Red Eyes and Inferno fire blast OTK is gonna get hit soon. AWW MAN!

 

Beatsticks that discourage decktype proliferation are on watch. TIV is all of these things; it is not because TIV destroys cards that it is a problem, but it is because of what that destruction LEADS to.

You mean like destroying all AQUA types than ending your turn? Damn, that really is a problem. I mean my opponent doesn't have spell and traps available to them, that just never happens.

 

CED isn't Prohibit worthy because it sends lots of cards away.

FACT IS it still does.

 

It's Prohibit worthy because it hurts good' date=' careful players more than it hurts bad, reckless players.[/quote'] Woot another opinion! Ive seen skilled players get hit with this in many tournaments also. P.S. Got any Proof to follow up?

 

If someone plays badly and loses a bunch of cards' date=' they deserve to be in a difficult situation:[/quote'] YEAH! ANOTHER OPINION! Any facts to prove this?

 

CED just says "lol equalize" and makes better players suffer for playing well.

I gotta hand it to you' date=' you really are opinionated while trying to stay Factual. Im impressed.

 

Cyber Jar is not Prohibitworthy just because it destroys things.

FACT IS it still does.

 

Cyber Jar is Prohibit worthy for similar reasons as CED; Cyber Jar is also instrumental to what was by-far the most lethal FTK since SciTurtle and MakyuraExchange.

Keep the opinions rolling. FYI' date=' you forgot your facts.

 

You claim to be trying to think, but you aren't trying, nor are you thinking.

You are so right, Im actually a bot, incompatible with thought and these paragraphs just type itself.

 

No' date=' but I could see why you'd think that - you don't bother to think ANYTHING through, bar the most obvious conclusions.[/quote'] Its because im a bot, and i don't have the ability to tell people what they are and are not doing. Wait... I'll try. You are reading this. Wow, i guess i can tell people what they are doing. Its pretty easy to. I just better not make a habit of it, i don't wanna be consider shoddy.

 

Battle is this game's original method of destruction.

Yes because in the very first booster' date=' Armed Ninja wasn't made available to us. Neither was Fissure.

 

Before the first card effect ever touched this game, BEWDs were shredding DMs all over Japan.

Your right, Only 2 cards originated this game in a 40 card minimum deck. This one really made you seem silly. Just my opinion though.

 

In Battle' date=' highest stats are king, and of those stats, only ATK can destroy something on its own; highest ATK, therefore, is the best stat a card can have. The cards w/ the highest ATK are capable of destroying the most other cards - namely, every other monster in-game.[/quote'] Really?, i would have thought it be the Level, because i sure as hell don't know how BEWD hit the field without tributes.

 

If "destroying a lot of cards" is criteria for banning' date=' as you established in your earlier post, then the highest-ATK monster must go.[/quote'] No, not when we have such Effect titles as, "This card can not be destroyed as a result of battle" and "This card is not destroyed as a result of battle ONCE!"

 

That's how logic works. But it doesn't stop there: If you kill the highest-ATK monsters' date=' the next-highest ones become the highest ones, thereby making them guilty of the same problem.[/quote'] Its funny, your the only person i've heard say that monsters having an atk is a problem.

 

The only time that the ban cycle stops is when no monster can destroy a lot of cards' date=' if "destroying a lot of cards" is ban criteria (again, as you [b']OPINIONATED[/b]).

Fixed.

 

This is only accomplished when the only legal monsters have 0 ATK.

Yes like TER.

 

So' date=' if we were to actually do everything you reccomend, YGO would suck.[/quote'] First, i never recommended anything durring the whole time i started posting in this thread. Second, this game is already in a suckish state. Banning Heavy storm (back on topic) would still have absolutly no effect on the meta. *WARNING!* An opinion was just made. *WARNING!*

 

Yes' date=' and it's because you just rest at that simple comparison, that you come across as such an utter idiot.[/quote'] Oh name calling, thats really low Atem, but if this is the only way you feel as though your point can get across than by all means go right ahead... Ya big meanie.

 

So' date=' in other words, you willingly and knowingly, and possibly intentionally, sound as dense as clay.[/quote'] Yes if you can draw these conclusions from opinions.

 

Simple - you're the dolt who posted the faulty argument' date=' which is proof positive that you're the one who, frankly, is dumb enough to not realize why it's faulty.[/quote'] Thats really calling the kettle black now ain't it?

 

This makes you a person in need of hearing the words "you're wrong and you're probably stupid".

I think you need to hear the words' date=' "Your an opinionated factual Jerk, and probably unloved in a world without the internet."

 

See, now you just gave us proof that you're ignorant.

Scroll up buddy, there is plenty of post that prove the same for you. Everybody is ignorant to something, and i guess for you its comprehending opinions.

 

Here in America' date=' right and wrong are parts of opinions every single bloody day;[/quote'] Bloody? That sounded kinda British to me. Are you a Tommy? o.O Also, FYI... OPINIONS ARE NOT FACTUAL, THEY ARE BIAS.

 

it's right and wrong that drive this nation's most important opinion-laden matters. Right and wrong drive the governmental processes on every level; right and wrong drive the

 

For example' date=' it is wrong to murder. This is an opinion held and honored by the justice system. There's no "I agree" or "I don't agree" bullshit here; it's instead a judgment of "right" or "wrong", whether you like it or not.[/quote'] So its wrong to murder, but one of the penalties for murder... is... murder? Hmmm, seems justifiably WRONG!

 

Prove it.

 

a view' date=' judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter[/quote'] No where in that definition do i see the word "FACT." PROVEN!

 

Hypothetical examples won't help you when they aren't in line with the facts.

Ill keep this in mind when i actually state facts.

 

What "should" actually happen is not open to interpretation.

FACT IS it is in this thread.

 

People's views of what "should" happen can be completely right' date=' completely wrong, or somewhere in between[/quote'] finally something i can agree with you with.

[jamief]

Please get back on topioc please!

[Pharaoh_Atem]

Wow Atem your the one who needs to grow up and move on

I was simply pointing out that you like to have the last word like an immature child and I'm done talking about it

 

Seeing how YOU keep bringing it up' date=' and all I do is shoot down what you have to say, for the sake of telling the truth and defending myself from your lies, the childishness falls on you.

 

 

either grow some balls and deal with it,

 

"Growing balls and dealing with it" = "Put idiots and liars in their place".

 

You're either a compulsive liar or a compulsive idiot, because you like to keep digging things up and saying "I'm right, Atem's wrong" even after I utterly dismantle and shred everything you say.

 

 

or continue to post needless quotes on how everyone is wrong' date=' your choice...[/quote']

 

There's a definite need for the quotes, if people continue to be idiots and liars. You CONSTANTLY keep posting and bringing this issue back up: the only reason for you to keep bringing it up is because you are either a liar or an idiot.

 

You're the kid who started this, by posting something stupid in that old-and-probably-now-locked thread. All I've done is tell you about the stupidity both in how you behave and in what you've posted. If you can't handle the truth about your behavior and posts, you have severe emotional problems and need to get some psychiatric help.

 

 

Your post claims that 1) I'm shoddy' date=' 2) I'm telling you that you are wrong for thinking, and 3) I'm telling you that you are wrong for trying to understand a CCG.

 

Prove that I'm shoddy.

Prove that I said you were wrong for thinking.

Prove that I said you were wrong for trying to understand a CCG.

 

PROTIP: You can't, because all of those claims just-so-happen to be false.[/quote'] [qoute=Webster Dictionary defines Shoddy as]

Function:adjective

cheaply imitative

Yeah a lot of your arguments are roughly the same, so... PROVEN!

 

Wrong on multiple counts.

 

Webster's doesn't define the English Language: Oxford does.

 

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "shoddy" as...

 

1. Of a person: That pretends to a superiority to which he has no just claim; said esp. of those who claim, on the ground of wealth, a social station or a degree of influence to which they are not entitled by character or breeding.

2. Of a thing: Having a delusive appearance of superior quality. Also, cheap, inferior; displaying signs of use, shabby, dilapidated.

DRAFT ADDITIONS DECEMBER 2004

shoddy, adj.

Of behaviour, etc.: ungenerous, dishonourable; contemptible. Cf. SHABBY adj. 2a.

 

As Oxford's definition has nothing to do with something being "cheaply imitative", Webster's is inaccurate. Let's examine how the superior Oxford work applies to me.

 

I don't pretend to a superiority to which I have no just claim; I actually am superior to you, in terms of argumentative ability, and that's the only superiority I claim. Definition 1 fails.

 

Because it is true that I am superior to you in argumentative ability, there's no delusive appearance to me, nor am I cheap, inferior, shabby, dilapidated, or showing signs of use. Definition 2 fails.

 

My behavior is not ungenerous, dishonourable, or contemptible. The Draft Definition fails.

 

Since the superior source fails to help you, let's actually LOOK at Webster's full definition.

 

Webster's defines it as:

1 a: a reclaimed wool from materials that are not felted that is of better quality and longer staple than mungo b: a fabric often of inferior quality manufactured wholly or partly from reclaimed wool

2 a: inferior, imitative, or pretentious articles or matter b: pretentious vulgarity

 

This definition does not pertain to one argument being successfully used against several opposing arguments several times in a row; it pertains to something being

a) inferior

b) imitative (of something or someone else, not imitative of itself)

c) pretentious

 

all of which I am not.

 

Further, all you've done is say "you're shoddy because you're cheaply imitative."

 

You've not PROVEN that I'm "cheaply imitative". Your argument *still* falls flat on its face.

 

Let's examine the word "imitate", from Oxford AND Webster.

 

1. trans. To do or try to do after the manner of; to follow the example of; to copy in action.

b. Sometimes with implication of incongruity or of specific purpose: To mimic' date=' counterfeit.

2. To make or produce a copy or representation of; to copy, reproduce.

b. ‘To pursue the course of (a composition) so as to use parallel images and examples’ (J.).

3. To be, become, or make oneself like; to assume the aspect or semblance of; to simulate: a. intentionally or consciously; b. unintentionally or unconsciously.[/quote']

 

1 : to follow as a pattern' date=' model, or example

2 : to be or appear like : resemble

3 : to produce a copy of : reproduce

4 : mimic, counterfeit [/quote']

 

BOTH OF THESE definitions REQUIRE that I actually be copying or reproducing SOMETHING ELSE.

 

Imitation requires that I copy some other piece of work that does not belong to me; I'm not imitating a damn thing, because I'm not using a copy over and over - I'm using the SAME work to shred what you say.

 

Further, you said "cheaply". Let's examine the word "cheap", through Oxford and Webster.

 

1. a. That may be bought at small cost; bearing a relatively low price; inexpensive. Opposed to dear. Phr. cheap and nasty: of low price and bad quality; inexpensive but with the disadvantage of being unsuitable to one's purposes; hence cheap-and-nastiness.

b. transf. (Applied to the price itself' date=' the place where a commodity is sold, etc.) cheap fare: a fare at a lower rate than the ordinary fare; also cheap rate; also attrib.

c. Applied to money obtainable at a low rate of interest.

2. Bearing a low price in proportion to its intrinsic value; of good value in proportion to its price; well worth the price.

3. fig. Costing little labour, trouble, effort, etc.; easily obtained.

4. a. Involving little trouble and hence of little worth; worthless, paltry.

b. In poor health; out of sorts. (Hence cheapness.) slang.

5. a. Accounted of small value, made little of, lightly esteemed; esp. brought into contempt through being made too familiar.

b. to hold cheap: to hold of small account, think little of, despise.

B. adverbially. a. At a low price, at small expense, cheaply; with little trouble, easily.[/quote']

 

1 a: purchasable below the going price or the real value b: charging or obtainable at a low price c: depreciated in value (as by currency inflation)

2: gained or done with little effort

3 a: of inferior quality or worth : tawdry' date=' sleazy b: contemptible because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities c: stingy

4of money : obtainable at a low rate of interest[/quote']

 

Seeing how it's not a lot of trouble to smash your posts to bits, but also not a small amount of trouble to smash your posts to bits, It's not cheap.

 

Sure, you might think little of it, but in the end, you come out looking like someone who dropped out of grade school, for thinking so little of it. This is because, frankly, you just admitted in a previous post that you willfully make yourself look stupid, without a care; because of that, you deserve to be made fun of, laughed at, et cetera.

 

So, the chips are stacked against you, and the definitions disagree with what you said. You are welcome to dispute it, but your disputes will have the same flaws, and therefore continue to fall apart.

 

 

To prove you said i was wrong for thinking...

you are wrong.

PROVEN

 

Wrong again' date=' moron.

 

Here's the full quote:

 

Your above post suggests that the ability to destroy high numbers of cards is what merits a prohibition.

 

NEWS FLASH:

 

If you were correct, every monster above 0 ATK would merit prohibition.

 

If you were correct, every card effect with the ability to destroy more than a certain number of cards would merit prohibition.

 

Simply put, because monsters above 0 ATK do not merit prohibition for having more than 0 ATK, and because no t all card effects that may destroy lots of cards merit prohibition for destroying those cards

 

you are wrong.

 

The "you are wrong" here applies to how

your above post suggests that the ability to destroy high numbers of cards is what merits a prohibition.

It does not apply to your attempt to think.

 

As I said before' date='

It's right of you to think and try to understand, but just because you're trying doesn't mean you don't deserve every bit of criticism you get. Frankly, you deserve criticism as much as everyone who doesn't try, and since you're bad at a simple game, and being bad at a simple game is something that you can be criticized over, you deserve that criticism.

 

Go back to first grade and go learn some reading comprehension.

 

 

To prove that you said i was wrong for trying to understand a CCG

you are wrong.

PROVEN!

 

Wrong again' date=' moron.

 

Here's the full quote:

 

Your above post suggests that the ability to destroy high numbers of cards is what merits a prohibition.

 

NEWS FLASH:

 

If you were correct, every monster above 0 ATK would merit prohibition.

 

If you were correct, every card effect with the ability to destroy more than a certain number of cards would merit prohibition.

 

Simply put, because monsters above 0 ATK do not merit prohibition for having more than 0 ATK, and because no t all card effects that may destroy lots of cards merit prohibition for destroying those cards

 

you are wrong.

 

The "you are wrong" here applies to how

your above post suggests that the ability to destroy high numbers of cards is what merits a prohibition.

It does not apply to your attempt to understand a CCG.

 

As I said before' date='

It's right of you to think and try to understand, but just because you're trying doesn't mean you don't deserve every bit of criticism you get. Frankly, you deserve criticism as much as everyone who doesn't try, and since you're bad at a simple game, and being bad at a simple game is something that you can be criticized over, you deserve that criticism.

 

Go back to first grade and go learn some reading comprehension.

 

 

What I said was "you're very bad at the game." Get it right.

You also said

you are wrong.

Get it right.

 

Yes' date=' and it's mindnumbingly obvious that you were - and still are - both wrong and very bad at the game.

 

Your opinion is void until you stop being wrong.

 

 

It's right of you to think and try to understand' date=' but just because you're trying doesn't mean you don't deserve every bit of criticism you get. Frankly, you deserve criticism as much as everyone who doesn't try, and since you're bad at a simple game, and being bad at a simple game is something that you can be criticized over, you deserve that criticism.[/quote'] Okay, so basically just just did a wraparound with words that basically said, "i can criticize if i want."

 

Damn straight. As long as complaints are correct, they're 100% warranted.

 

 

Tell me Freed Flinstone' date=' Are your feet getting tired yet? It simply would have been much easier to type, "I dont care how much of a jerk i am, im just gonna try to assert my authority by typing a whole lot about things that really has no effect on the real world. And hopefully by doing this, people will fear me and wouldn't dare to appose me, cause clearly, i realy care what people think about me on the internet." If you didn't, than being RIGHT all the damn time wouldn't matter to you.[/quote']

 

Wrong again.

 

I don't do this to assert authority; I do it because I'm not stupid and other people are stupid, and I enjoy watching other people squirm like the idiots they are when they feel uncomfortable about it. There's no authority involved; it's just a case of my going someplace either IRL or Online, and watching stupid people act in stupid ways just because I'm nearby, saying or doing things that they have a stupid problem with.

 

I don't do this to make people fear me or not oppose me: I do this solely because I like watching people make fools of themselves, just as you are now. It's called comedy. It's quite funny watching you get all emo over how I more-or-less tell the truth about everything you say; you just CAN'T STAND IT, and it's because you can't stand it that it's so bloody funny.

 

It's funny because it'd be so much smarter for you to actually try to learn from the criticism, instead of curl up in a little ball and post the angry posts you post.

 

It's also relatively obvious that I don't care what most other people think, because most other people are stupid. Stupidity is ignorance of essentials, and ignorance of essentials invalidates an opinion in any sense that matters.

 

It's because you're ignorant of how you should stop whining and start learning from the criticism... that makes this so enjoyable for me and so utterly irritating for you.

 

So, are you going to continue being stupid and keep whining whenever I tell you the truth, or are you going to actually realize "hey, he's got a good point" and take the sheet I say to the heart?

 

Or you could just give up and stop posting.

 

It'd be enjoyable for me no matter what: If you keep whining, I keep laughing and demolishing your posts: If you learn something, it means that you learned something (which is also a happy occasion), and if you stop posting, you effectively invalidate every claim you made (which means I keep laughing.

 

This isn't about other people at all; screw the rest of you. You're really no more important or relevant to me than roadkill; it's about my happiness at the misfortune of others, and nothing more. Schadenfreude is what drives this logic machine.

 

And hey, if I get someone to learn something (which I have, when people choose to stop being stupid about the situation), Schadenfreude stops driving this logic machine for a bit, and Good Will takes over.

 

No matter what, I enjoy this sheet, hence it keeps going forever. It's because I'm a jerk. Deal with it.

 

 

If anything' date=' having the ability to tell someone about their faults is the exact opposite of shoddiness.[/quote'] Not by Webster's definition.

 

Webster's definition is inferior to Oxford's. Even then, both Webster's and Oxford's agree w/ me. How, you ask? Use a bit of deductive reasoning for once, instead of just settling for the preschool logic you've been using thus far.

 

The ability to tell someone about their faults... requires the ability to quickly analyze on multiple levels what that person says.

 

Let's go back to the definitions of shoddiness.

 

1. Of a person: That pretends to a superiority to which he has no just claim; said esp. of those who claim, on the ground of wealth, a social station or a degree of influence to which they are not entitled by character or breeding.

2. Of a thing: Having a delusive appearance of superior quality. Also, cheap, inferior; displaying signs of use, shabby, dilapidated.

DRAFT ADDITIONS DECEMBER 2004

shoddy, adj.

Of behaviour, etc.: ungenerous, dishonourable; contemptible. Cf. SHABBY adj. 2a.

 

1 a: a reclaimed wool from materials that are not felted that is of better quality and longer staple than mungo b: a fabric often of inferior quality manufactured wholly or partly from reclaimed wool

2 a: inferior, imitative, or pretentious articles or matter b: pretentious vulgarity

 

Telling someone about their faults does not fit any of these definitions; hence your claim falls on its face again.

 

 

You just being yourself is reason enough.

 

Prove it. Come on. What do you know about me that proves your shoddiness claim?

 

You can make guesses' date=' but it won't do you any good, because nothing exists that'll prove your claim. That's because your claim is wrong; it has no supporting evidence or warrant.

 

 

Right' date=' and we know that you're bad at the game BECAUSE you cease making conclusions RIGHT THERE, instead of paying some attention beyond the level a chimpanzee would pay.[/quote'] Uh... What?! o.O

 

Here's an dumbed-down explanation.

 

You sat around and tried to think about the list.

 

You came up with "lots of them destroy lots of stuff, so destroying lots of stuff is good reason to ban something!"

 

You didn't bother to try thinking about it any more than that; you instead just posted "hey, I can see Storm getting hit because it destroys a lot of stuff, and a lot of other cards that are banned also destroy a lot of stuff".

 

It is because you didn't stop yourself from posting that, and because you didn't try to think things through a bit more, that we know your opinion to be useless. It is because you didn't try to think things through a bit more that we know you to be immensely simpleminded and ignorant.

 

 

Those cards are not prohibit worthy just because of the capability of moving a bunch of cards from place A to place B. There's MUCH more to EVERY ONE OF their prohibitions than that; it's immensely naive' date=' thoughtless, and stupid to think that "hey, these are banned for destroying a lot of things" and just leave it at that.[/quote']

By basing my arguments simply on a compare and contrast basis, what other conclusions would one make? To exclude this factor as to why they would be banned seems pretty stupid to me.

 

Reread what I said. You might have trouble comprehending it, but that's your problem.

 

Those cards are not prohibit worthy just because of the capability of moving a bunch of cards from place A to place B. There's MUCH more to EVERY ONE OF their prohibitions than that; it's immensely naive' date=' thoughtless, and stupid to think that "hey, these are banned for destroying a lot of things" [i']and just leave it at that[/i].

 

It's because you STOPPED that you're stupid.

 

 

He that phrase.. "To me" Its kinda bias' date=' you know those things that forms opinions, try having some, it could help your character. Who knows any more.[/quote']

 

It's a crappy ad hominem on your part to think that "opinions could help my character". I've a set of morals and a character equal or superior to everyone else I've come across in life, all because I don't settle for opinions at any time where facts can be used.

 

Opinions can be stupid or intelligent, but both kinds of opinions are useless in the face of facts that contradict them. Unlike opinion, fact is infallible, and to think that fallibility "helps character" is a fallacy in and of itself.

 

Stupid opinions have helped to lead to every bad thing in this world. Facts do no stupid leading; facts lead you only to the truth.

 

Intelligent opinions help to lead to good things in this world. Intelligent opinions are also in 100% agreement with the facts. They are subjugated by the facts, and if the facts require intelligent opinion to change, intelligent opinion must change. Namely, intelligent opinion is a mere whipping boy.

 

Keep your bullshit biases to yourself. Fact is to be used whereever possible, and it just-so-happens that the topic of "what should happen" is not rooted in opinion, but fact.

 

 

You claim to be trying to think about the game' date=' but your claim falls flat on its face - you obviously aren't thinking at all if "they destroy lots" is a decent observation to you.[/quote'] Again, its an opinion and im sticking to it.

 

Hence another reason why you're stupid. You choose to be wrong by choosing to stick with opinion rather than fact.

 

 

Also' date=' NEWSFLASH: There will be a lot more,[/quote']

 

Good, I enjoy watching you make yourself look bad. It's like watching a drunk person repeatedly run into the same brick wall.

 

 

try and understand the difference between Fact and Opinion.

 

You're a fool to think that I don't.

 

I'll delete the Obsolete definitions' date=' as obsolete uses just don't apply anymore.

 

First, Fact:

 

1. c. An evil deed, a crime. In the 16th and 17thc. the commonest sense; now Obs. exc. in to confess the fact and after, before the fact, in which the sense approaches that of 2.

4. a. Something that has really occurred or is actually the case; something certainly known to be of this character; hence, a particular truth known by actual observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture or fiction; a datum of experience, as distinguished from the conclusions that may be based upon it.

[in class. Lat. factum had occasionally the extended sense of ‘event, occurrence’; hence in scholastic Lat. was developed the sense above explained, which belongs to all the Romanic equivalents: Fr. fait, It. fatto, Sp. hecho.]

b. in apposition with a following clause, or with const. of. Now often used where the earlier lang. would have employed a clause or gerundial phrase as subject or as the regimen of a preposition; cf. mod. use of ‘the circumstance that’. In apposition to a following noun clause: the fact that.. = the circumstance that.

¶c. Occas. applied concr. to a person, an institution, etc. (A strained use.)

d. the fact is: const. with following noun clause introduced by that or with that understood.

e. facts and figures: an alliterative phrase used in the sense ‘precise information’.

f. fact of life: a (stark) reality of existence; a brute fact; freq. the facts of life, spec. as a colloq. euphemism for ‘knowledge of human sexual functions’.

5. Often loosely used for: Something that is alleged to be, or conceivably might be, a ‘fact’.

6. a. (Without a and pl.) That which is of the nature of a fact; what has actually happened or is the case; truth attested by direct observation or authentic testimony; reality. matter of fact: a subject of discussion belonging to the domain of fact, as distinguished from matter of inference, of opinion, of law, etc. (See also MATTER.)

b. in fact: in reality (cf. sense 1 and indeed). Now often used parenthetically in an epexegetical statement, or when a more comprehensive assertion is substituted for that which has just been made. in point of fact: with regard to matters of fact; also (and now usually) = in fact.

c. the fact (of the matter): the truth with regard to the subject under discussion.

d. Other phrases of assertion or rejoinder: (and) that's a fact (orig. U.S.): an emphatic addition to a statement stressing its truth; also this is a fact, that's the fact; is that a fact?: is that so? (used esp. as a rejoinder (expecting no answer) to a statement).

e. Sometimes with exclamation mark: used as an emphatic assertion of the truth of a statement.

7. Law. In sing. and pl. The circumstances and incidents of a case, looked at apart from their legal bearing. attorney in fact: see ATTORNEY.

8. attrib. and Comb., as fact-fetishism, -fetishist ns.; fact-bound, -crammed adjs.; fact-collecting, -cramming vbl. ns.; fact-gathering vbl. n. and ppl. adj.; fact-finding ppl. a., that finds out facts; esp. descriptive of a committee, commission, etc., set up to discover and establish the facts of any matter; also as vbl. n., the work involved in such a process; hence (as a back-formation) fact-find v. intr.; also fact-finder; fact-proof a., impervious to facts; fact-sheet, a paper on which facts relevant to a particular issue are set out briefly and clearly.

 

1: a thing done: as b: crime carchaic : action

2archaic : performance' date=' doing

3: the quality of being actual : actuality

4 a: something that has actual existence b: an actual occurrence

5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

— in fact : in truth[/quote']

 

And now Opinion

 

1. As a count noun: a view held about a particular issue; a judgement formed or a conclusion reached; a belief; a religious or political conviction.

3. a. With specifying adjective' date=' as common opinion, general opinion, vulgar opinion, etc. A judgement, belief, or conviction held by the majority of or many people; what is generally thought about something. public opinion: see public opinion n. at PUBLIC adj. and n. Special uses 2.

See also opinion poll n. at Compounds 2 , opinion survey n. at Compounds 2.

b. More generally: what or how one thinks about something; judgement or belief. Esp. in in my opinion: according to my thinking; as it seems to me. a matter of opinion: a matter about which each may have his or her own opinion; a disputable point.

c. to be of (the) opinion (that): to hold the belief or view; to think (that). Also with further syntactic variation.

d. Public or general opinion.

4. A formal statement by a judge or other competent authority of what he or she judges or advises on a matter; professional advice; as a legal (also medical) opinion, to get an opinion of counsel, etc. In a second (also another) opinion: the opinion of a second (esp. medical) expert or adviser. Also in transferred and extended uses.

5. b. spec. A good or favourable estimate of someone or something; esteem. Esp. in to have no (great) opinion of: to regard as inferior or unworthy.

c. What one thinks of a person or thing; an estimate of character, quality, or value.[/quote']

 

1 a: a view' date=' judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b: approval, esteem

2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b: a generally held view

3 a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

— opin·ioned \-yənd\ adjective

synonyms opinion, view, belief, conviction, persuasion, sentiment mean a judgment one holds as true. opinion implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute . view suggests a subjective opinion . belief implies often deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent

 

I understand Fact and Opinion by leagues more than you, so for you to charge that I need to try to understand them... well, that's a coincedence. It's probably not ironic.

 

 

Raigeki' date=' Hole, and HFD aren't prohibit worthy because they destroy a bunch of cards. They're prohibit worthy because they promote easy direct attacking with no strategic countenance, while also making any field use of any card in any way into a risk.[/quote'] AND HEAVY STORM DOESN'T! WOW! AMAZING!

 

That's correct. It doesn't.

 

You see, of the above cards prohibited in that paragraph, HFD is by far the least prohibitworthy.

 

ST destroyers are easy to play around, thanks to the the Chain Rule. Monsters on-field can't be Chained in response to things that would end them, leaving very few monsters that are able to benefit from their own demise. ST just sit there and ASK to be blasted off the field so that they can get someone to waste their STkiller.

 

HFD's only prohibitable because of being one-sided while also being as fast as it is. Storm's own doublesidedness is what saves it from the list, as that doublesidedness REQUIRES a change in tactics beneficial to the game.

 

Read what I said closely.

 

Raigeki' date=' Hole, and HFD aren't prohibit worthy because they destroy a bunch of cards. They're prohibit worthy because they promote easy direct attacking [b']with no strategic countenance[/b], while also making any field use of any card in any way into a risk.

 

 

It is not because they destroy MANY cards;

FACT IS they still do.

 

And as I've said countless times; the fact that they destroy is NOT the reason. Their ability to destroy is irrelevant to the matter. All of the details you're ignoring... are why they're prohibitworthy.

 

 

it is because they destroy ANY card in their respective lanes' date=' WHILE being able to be played quickly, WHILE not having any specific trigger requirement, and so on. There's MUCH more than destruction that is taken into account.[/quote'] Is that a fact, if you ask me, Thats an opinion, Got anything to support this claim? o.O

 

Dark Hole reads "Destroy all monsters on the field." It is a Normal Spell Card.

 

This makes it free of trigger, quick to play, non-targetting, Spell Speed 1, so on and so forth.

 

Torrential Tribute reads "Activate only when a monster is Summoned. Destroy all monsters on the field." It is a Normal Trap Card.

 

It destroys EXACTLY THE SAME amount of cards, which would make it prohibitworthy according to your claim.

 

However, it is not prohibitworthy. This is because it requires a trigger and is slower to play.

 

These differences are what you ignore; it is because you ignore these differences that your opinion in this topic is completely invalid.

 

As for the above, it is not opinion, but fact; it fits the definition of fact. It's no mere viewpoint; it just is how it is.

 

 

TIV is not Prohibit worthy because it destroys lots.

Fact is it actually does.

 

And as I've said countless times; the fact that it destroys is NOT the reason. Its ability to destroy is irrelevant to the matter. All of the details you're ignoring... are why it's prohibitworthy.

 

 

TIV is Prohibit worthy because it's an Anti-Type Vortex w/ 1600 ATK. Beatsticks with effects that lend immense ease to their direct attacks are ALWAYS on watch' date=' regardless of how they do so.[/quote'] And that is why Snipe hunter is BANNED. Okay, this explains a lot.

 

Nope. Snipe Hunter is Limited because Konami is as stupid as you, and has no idea how to properly run a set of Prohibitions or Limitations.

 

Rather, it's why Snipe Hunter should be banned, according to the facts.

 

 

Beatsticks that set up other combos are also on watch.

Damn' date=' that means my Red Eyes and Inferno fire blast OTK is gonna get hit soon. AWW MAN![/quote']

 

Your terribad REBD doesn't set up a damn thing. "Oooh, I can play 1 Spell for 2400 damage, lol".

 

Don't confuse your own stupidity for how TIV works in the hands of players that aren't as trashy as you.

 

 

Beatsticks that discourage decktype proliferation are on watch. TIV is all of these things; it is not because TIV destroys cards that it is a problem' date=' but it is because of what that destruction LEADS to.[/quote'] You mean like destroying all AQUA types than ending your turn? Damn, that really is a problem.

 

Again, don't confuse your own stupidity for how TIV works in the hands of players that aren't as trashy as you.

 

 

I mean my opponent doesn't have spell and traps available to them' date=' that just never happens.[/quote']

 

You actually NEED your opp to not have ST access, for TIV to be a problem for them? Holy crap, you're even worse than I thought.

 

 

CED isn't Prohibit worthy because it sends lots of cards away.

FACT IS it still does.

 

And as I've said countless times; the fact that it sends cards away is NOT the reason. Its ability to send is irrelevant to the matter; all of the details you're ignoring... are why it's prohibitworthy.

 

 

It's Prohibit worthy because it hurts good' date=' careful players more than it hurts bad, reckless players.[/quote'] Woot another opinion!

 

Nope, it's fact. Careful players play the game better than reckless ones, because caution leads to taking risks only at the right times.

 

When you take a risk at the wrong time, you end up losing out for it, most often by losing a card or cards that would've been very useful had you been smart enough to keep it.

 

Now, bad players lose more cards because they take risks at the wrong time. Good players lose less cards because they don't take risks at the wrong time.

 

When CED's effect resolves, all cards on the field and in both players' hands are sent to the Grave, and the opponent of CED's activator takes damage for each card sent.

 

Bad players lose more cards than good players. This means that they have less cards when CED resolves; CED takes less away from them.

 

Losing cards hurts. Cards are your options, the moves you can make. It's just BAD to have less options than the opponent, as fewer options = fewer ways you can win.

 

Since bad players have less cards, good players have more cards; good players lose more options to CED, meaning that good players are hurt more by CED.

 

 

Ive seen skilled players get hit with this in many tournaments also.

 

Yes' date=' we all have, and every time that a superior player gets hurt by CED, there is a greater likelihood that he is hurt more by it than his opponent, even before talking about the LP Damage done.

 

 

If someone plays badly and loses a bunch of cards' date=' they deserve to be in a difficult situation:[/quote'] YEAH! ANOTHER OPINION! Any facts to prove this?

 

If they don't deserve it, then let's just unban everything and let folks play as badly as they like.

 

Guess what? Now the game sucks for everyone, except bad players, who just don't care as long as their own vision of "how YGO should be" is fulfilled.

 

It is fact that YGO should refrain from sucking for everyone except bad players, as a YGO that doesn't suck for everyone (bar bad players) is more enjoyable for everyone except those bad players.

 

As for the bad players, their enjoyability does not depend upon how good or bad a game YGO is, so much as it depends upon whether or not they decide they want things "their way or the highway". No matter how YGO is, if things aren't exactly as they want it, no matter how enjoyable or unenjoyable the game is for everyone else, they'll continue to wallow in selfpity.

 

Since it is fact that YGO should refrain from sucking for everyone except bad players, YGO must be a game that punishes poor play. By punishing poor play, the likelihood of someone actually deserving-to-win increases.

 

 

CED just says "lol equalize" and makes better players suffer for playing well.

I gotta hand it to you' date=' you really are opinionated while trying to stay Factual.[/quote']

 

Not really, no - I'm just factual while being an jabroni to people who deserve persons being bastards to them.

 

Since the facts have shown you to be a bad player so far, it makes sense that you'd constantly deride the facts as opinion - it's the only way you can rationalize your position in this as "correct".

 

Luckily enough for me, your rationalizations are still in disagreement with the facts.

 

 

Cyber Jar is not Prohibitworthy just because it destroys things.

FACT IS it still does.

 

And as I've said countless times; the fact that it destroys is NOT the reason. Its ability to destroy is irrelevant to the matter; all of the details you're ignoring... are why it's prohibitworthy.

 

 

Cyber Jar is Prohibit worthy for similar reasons as CED; Cyber Jar is also instrumental to what was by-far the most lethal FTK since SciTurtle and MakyuraExchange.

Keep the opinions rolling. FYI' date=' you forgot your facts.[/quote']

 

As I've shown in the above CED paragraphs, the facts are not forgotten.

 

If you think that Cyber Jar being essential to the most lethal FTK since SciTurtle and MakyuraExchange... is an opinion, well, go run the FTK and you'll learn something.

 

You'll learn either that

 

1) It's the most lethal FTK since SciTurtle and MakyuraExchange

 

or that

 

2) You can't win with one of the game's best three decks in history, which rightfully shows that you MUST be terrible at the game.

 

 

You claim to be trying to think' date=' but you aren't trying, nor are you thinking.[/quote'] You are so right, Im actually a bot, incompatible with thought and these paragraphs just type itself.

 

Artificial Intelligence has existed for years; bots can think.

 

You can think too; you just AREN'T.

 

 

No' date=' but I could see why you'd think that - you don't bother to think ANYTHING through, bar the most obvious conclusions.[/quote'] Its because im a bot, and i don't have the ability to tell people what they are and are not doing.

 

No, it's because you're stupid and/or lazy and/or ignorant, and you just don't USE the ability to tell people what they are and are not doing, except when someone tells you about your stupidity.

 

 

Wait... I'll try. You are reading this. Wow' date=' i guess i can tell people what they are doing. Its pretty easy to. I just better not make a habit of it, i don't wanna be consider shoddy.[/quote']

 

Congratulations, you accomplished a feat expected of a toddler.

 

 

Battle is this game's original method of destruction.

Yes because in the very first booster' date=' Armed Ninja wasn't made available to us. Neither was Fissure.[/quote']

 

Armed Ninja wasn't.

 

Fissure was, alongside Dark Hole and Trap Hole.

 

However, it was released at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME as the first monsters.

 

Since the cards were released at the same time, we look to the contents of "Duel Monsters Vol. 1", the very beginning of the game, and we also look to the first rulebook.

 

The rulebooks have always explained monsters before STs. This includes an explanation of ATK and DEF; the first meaning of "destroy" you get to in this game is "destroy by battle".

 

The contents of Vol. 1... It's a 40 card set, with 3 destroying STs in the pack alongside 30 monsters. The first time people would obtain "a card that could destroy other cards", it would be a monster.

 

These circumstances render destruction by battle as the "original" method.

 

 

Before the first card effect ever touched this game' date=' BEWDs were shredding DMs all over Japan.[/quote'] Your right, Only 2 cards originated this game in a 40 card minimum deck. This one really made you seem silly. Just my opinion though.

 

It's a good thing your opinion was ignorant of the first booster, first rules, et cetera - that ignorance renders it invalid.

 

 

In Battle' date=' highest stats are king, and of those stats, only ATK can destroy something on its own; highest ATK, therefore, is the best stat a card can have. The cards w/ the highest ATK are capable of destroying the most other cards - namely, every other monster in-game.[/quote'] Really?, i would have thought it be the Level, because i sure as hell don't know how BEWD hit the field without tributes.

 

DM and BEWD required the same number of Tributes. BEWD can't naturally lose to DM. The Level loses nearly all relevance once monsters are on-field, and getting them there was as simple then as it is now.

 

That, and Volume 2 brought Monster Reborn.

 

 

If "destroying a lot of cards" is criteria for banning' date=' as you established in your earlier post, then the highest-ATK monster must go.[/quote'] No, not when we have such Effect titles as, "This card can not be destroyed as a result of battle" and "This card is not destroyed as a result of battle ONCE!"

 

Congratulations, you would have us all run "This card cannot be destroyed by battle" monsters just to solve your stupid "destroying a lot of cards" problem.

 

OH WAIT, NEW PROBLEM - These monsters you want us to run are PERMANENTLY stuck there unless we either get rid of them using effects, or we willingly get rid of them of our own volition.

 

It's stupid to get rid of them of our own volition, unless we're summoning a big ATKer.

 

So, really, it's a matter of "let's just defend the whole time until we can Summon something big, and the moment that dies, let's turtle up again".

 

Turtling up all the time = the game sucks.

 

Not turtling up = high-ATK monsters destroy a lot of other monsters, and since they destroy a lot, you say they should be banned.

 

Guess what? No matter WHAT you say, your reccomendations would make YGO suck.

 

 

That's how logic works. But it doesn't stop there: If you kill the highest-ATK monsters' date=' the next-highest ones become the highest ones, thereby making them guilty of the same problem.[/quote'] Its funny, your the only person i've heard say that monsters having an atk is a problem.

 

I haven't said it in agreement at all.

 

What I've repeatedly said is that you're a dumbass for believing that monsters having an ATK is a problem, as you implied in several previous posts.

 

Raigeki: Able to destroy up to 5 monsters' date=' Banned. Dark hole: Able to destroy up to 10 Monsters, Banned. Feather duster: Able to destroy up to 5 spell and trap cards, Banned. Heavy storm, Able to destroy up to 9 Spell and Trap cards (not including itself.), Priceless.

 

In the game of yugioh, there is Banned and un banned. I can totaly see if storm catches the ban hammer.[/quote']

 

Your above post suggests that the ability to destroy high numbers of cards is what merits a prohibition.

 

Well' date=' lets have a look at some of the current banned cards

CHAOS EMPEROR DRAGON - ENVOY OF THE END (doesn't destroy, but close enough)

CYBER JAR (destroy + swarm / hand control... Very nice!)

DARK HOLE

HARPIE'S FEATHER DUSTER

RAIGEKI

TRIBE-INFECTING VIRUS

Hmmm, i kinda find DESTROYING MANY CARDS, or the ability of destroying many cards all seem to be the jest of what these cards do, and as we all know drawing conclusions is easy.[/quote']

 

The above chain of posts proves that you meant to make that dumbassed implication.

 

 

The only time that the ban cycle stops is when no monster can destroy a lot of cards' date=' if "destroying a lot of cards" is ban criteria (again, as you [b']OPINIONATED[/b]).

Fixed.

 

So, you didn't establish criteria for a ban, but merely opinionated it?

 

That's nice. So what? To opinionate something stupid is just as stupid as establishing it; you're just as much a dumbass for it.

 

 

This is only accomplished when the only legal monsters have 0 ATK.

Yes like TER.

 

And now you're quoting stuff that isn't even related to defending your viewpoint' date=' just because that stuff also has 0 ATK.

 

 

So' date=' if we were to actually do everything you reccomend, YGO would suck.[/quote'] First, i never recommended anything durring the whole time i started posting in this thread.

 

Every other post in this thread by you has been a tacit reccomendation, whether you like it or not, whether you intended it or not.

 

Saying "I can see X happening because of all these other changes" DIRECTLY implies that you see X happening because of some sort of logically supported reason.

 

You yourself said

 

Hmmm' date=' i kinda find DESTROYING MANY CARDS, or the ability of destroying many cards all seem to be the jest of what these cards do, and as we all know drawing conclusions is easy.[/quote']

 

and by saying that, you confirmed "DESTROYING MANY CARDS" as your "good reason for X to happen."

 

 

Second' date=' this game is already in a suckish state.[/quote']

 

Yes, and you'd make it worse, much worse.

 

 

Banning Heavy storm (back on topic) would still have absolutly no effect on the meta.

 

You don't even PLAY this game' date=' do you?

 

 

*WARNING!* An opinion was just made. *WARNING!*

 

*WARNING!* Your opinion is wrong. *WARNING!*

 

 

Yes' date=' and it's because you just rest at that simple comparison, that you come across as such an utter idiot.[/quote'] Oh name calling, thats really low Atem,

 

There's nothing low or name-calling about the truth. If you're stupid, you're stupid; that's just how it is.

 

For example, I'm mean as hell. Who gives a rat's ass about that? No one in their right mind, that's who.

 

 

but if this is the only way you feel as though your point can get across than by all means go right ahead... Ya big meanie.

 

Yeah' date=' I'm mean. So what? Who in their right mind actually cares about how mean someone is? This is the Internet; grow a pair and stop crying about how mean people are.

 

All that matters is whether or not someone is right or wrong, as stuff that is right is made useful by being right, and stuff that is wrong is made useless by being wrong.

 

 

So' date=' in other words, you willingly and knowingly, and possibly intentionally, sound as dense as clay.[/quote'] Yes if you can draw these conclusions from opinions.

 

This, ladies and germs, is The Internet at its finest.

 

 

Simple - you're the dolt who posted the faulty argument' date=' which is proof positive that you're the one who, frankly, is dumb enough to not realize why it's faulty.[/quote'] Thats really calling the kettle black now ain't it?

 

For it to be calling the kettle black, I'd have to be just as wrong as you. The facts say that I'm right, so it's impossible for me to be just as wrong as you, thereby making it impossible for it to be calling the kettle black.

 

 

This makes you a person in need of hearing the words "you're wrong and you're probably stupid".

 

I think you need to hear the words' date=' "Your an opinionated factual Jerk, and probably unloved in a world without the internet."[/quote']

 

1) Ad hominem fallacy. You're using what you perceive to attack my character, and trying to use that character attack to disprove my argument.

 

Instead of doing that, do things the other way around; disprove my argument, and THEN use the disproven argument to attack my character. You'll be much more effective that way.

 

2) It's not even a correct ad hominem; you're using FALSE stuff to attack my character, instead of attempting to prove your argument. Not only do you come out looking foolish, you come out like a liar too.

 

3) I'm not unloved, no: people smart enough to know who it's smart to care about... love me so much that it's right scary.

 

As for people who aren't smart enough, well, dumb people create dumb opinions, and dumb opinions are what make things worse than they should be.

 

There's no reason for me to ever want the love of people that are too dumb, until they wise up and get smart, at which point they're worth it. It just so happens that once they wise up, they appreciate what I do. It's really quite convenient; everyone worth having flocks to me, and all people not worth having just run away.

 

 

See' date=' now you just gave us proof that you're ignorant.[/quote'] Scroll up buddy, there is plenty of post that prove the same for you. Everybody is ignorant to something, and i guess for you its comprehending opinions.

 

You guess wrongly. I comprehend opinion, unlike you. It is indeed fact that opinion is subjugated to fact, in all ways - factual viewpoints are always better than opinion viewpoints, according to the facts.

 

Opinions just aren't good enough.

 

 

Here in America' date=' right and wrong are parts of opinions every single bloody day;[/quote'] Bloody? That sounded kinda British to me. Are you a Tommy? o.O Also, FYI... OPINIONS ARE NOT FACTUAL, THEY ARE BIAS.

 

Yes, but that doesn't mean that right and wrong aren't parts of those opinions. This is because the opinions made are made according to the facts.

 

Namely, if I make the opinion that "oranges are good", it's because it is fact that oranges are beneficial to the human body, and it is fact that things beneficial to the human body are good.

 

Opinions are constructed in framework of fact, that framework being right and wrong. Without that framework, any attempt to create an opinion leads to a stupid opinion, and it is fact that stupid opinions are bad.

 

 

it's right and wrong that drive this nation's most important opinion-laden matters. Right and wrong drive the governmental processes on every level; right and wrong drive the

 

For example' date=' it is wrong to murder. This is an opinion held and honored by the justice system. There's no "I agree" or "I don't agree" bullshit here; it's instead a judgment of "right" or "wrong", whether you like it or not.[/quote'] So its wrong to murder, but one of the penalties for murder... is... murder? Hmmm, seems justifiably WRONG!

 

It's wrong because you're wrong about a penalty for murder being murder.

 

A penalty for murder is a killing. A murder is a killing, but a killing is not always a murder. Specifically, a murder is an unlawful killing.

 

So, yes, killing is legal. Murder is not. This legal distinction is crucial.

 

 

No my friend' date=' here in America, there is no right or wrong to an opinion, simply an "I agree" or an "I don't agree." YOU are wrong for thinking other wise, no matter where you are from.[/quote'] Prove it.

 

a view' date=' judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter[/quote'] No where in that definition do i see the word "FACT." PROVEN!

 

Wrong again; just because the definition does not ask for fact does not mean that an opinion cannot be wrong.

 

Specifically, let's look at the definition of "wrong".

 

A. adj. I. 1. a. Having a crooked or curved course' date=' form, or direction; twisted or bent in shape or contour; wry.

2. Of persons: Mis-shapen; deformed. Latterly dial.

II. 3. a. Of actions, etc.: Deviating from equity, justice, or goodness; not morally right or equitable; unjust, perverse. Also absol.

b. In the phrase it is (would be, etc.) wrong to (do some thing).

4. a. Of persons: Deviating from integrity, rectitude, or probity; doing or prone to do that which is evil, noxious, or unjust; opprobrious, vicious.

b. Actively opposed (to another); antagonistic.

c. Criminals' slang. Untrustworthy, unreliable; not sympathetic to or co-operative with criminals. Cf. RIGHT a. 8e.

5. a. Not in conformity with some standard, rule, or principle; deviating from that which is correct or proper; contrary to, at variance with, what one approves or regards as right.

[b']b. Not in consonance with facts or truth; incorrect, false, mistaken.[/b]

c. Of belief, etc.: Partaking of or based on error; erroneous.

d. Of a painting: having an erroneous attribution.

6. Not right or satisfactory in state or order; in unsatisfactory or bad condition; amiss.

what's wrong with (mod. colloq.), what is the matter with (see MATTER n.1 25b), what objection is there to, why not have (etc.)?

 

1 : not according to the moral standard : sinful' date=' immoral

2 : not right or proper according to a code, standard, or convention : improper

3 : [i']not according to truth or facts : incorrect[/i]

4 : not satisfactory (as in condition, results, health, or temper)

5 : not in accordance with one's needs, intent, or expectations

6 : of, relating to, or constituting the side of something that is usually held to be opposite to the principal one, that is the one naturally or by design turned down, inward, or away, or that is the least finished or polished

 

Your opinion fits both of these definitions. Your opinion is wrong.

 

 

Hypothetical examples won't help you when they aren't in line with the facts.

Ill keep this in mind when i actually state facts.

 

Aye. However' date=' it's because of the facts that your opinion is also wrong.

 

 

What "should" actually happen is not open to interpretation.

FACT IS it is in this thread.

 

See' date=' now you're just lying.

 

 

People's views of what "should" happen can be completely right' date=' completely wrong, or somewhere in between[/quote'] finally something i can agree with you with.

 

You shouldn't agree, though - as agreeing with me here is what makes it possible for you and your opinion to be wrong in the first place.

[tonisanoob]

tl;dr

 

but what i did read of it makes me want to say

 

ATEM HAVE MY BABIES :D !!!!11!!!!11

 

<3xxx

 

your skills of totally demoshishing pople is insnly attracive :L

[iAmNateXero]

Wow Atem your the one who needs to grow up and move on

I was simply pointing out that you like to have the last word like an immature child and I'm done talking about it

 

Seeing how YOU keep bringing it up' date=' and all I do is shoot down what you have to say, for the sake of telling the truth and defending myself from your lies, the childishness falls on you.

 

 

either grow some balls and deal with it,

 

"Growing balls and dealing with it" = "Put idiots and liars in their place".

 

You're either a compulsive liar or a compulsive idiot, because you like to keep digging things up and saying "I'm right, Atem's wrong" even after I utterly dismantle and shred everything you say.

 

 

or continue to post needless quotes on how everyone is wrong' date=' your choice...[/quote']

 

There's a definite need for the quotes, if people continue to be idiots and liars. You CONSTANTLY keep posting and bringing this issue back up: the only reason for you to keep bringing it up is because you are either a liar or an idiot.

 

You're the kid who started this, by posting something stupid in that old-and-probably-now-locked thread. All I've done is tell you about the stupidity both in how you behave and in what you've posted. If you can't handle the truth about your behavior and posts, you have severe emotional problems and need to get some psychiatric help.

 

 

Your post claims that 1) I'm shoddy' date=' 2) I'm telling you that you are wrong for thinking, and 3) I'm telling you that you are wrong for trying to understand a CCG.

 

Prove that I'm shoddy.

Prove that I said you were wrong for thinking.

Prove that I said you were wrong for trying to understand a CCG.

 

PROTIP: You can't, because all of those claims just-so-happen to be false.[/quote'] [qoute=Webster Dictionary defines Shoddy as]

Function:adjective

cheaply imitative

Yeah a lot of your arguments are roughly the same, so... PROVEN!

 

Wrong on multiple counts.

 

Webster's doesn't define the English Language: Oxford does.

 

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "shoddy" as...

 

1. Of a person: That pretends to a superiority to which he has no just claim; said esp. of those who claim, on the ground of wealth, a social station or a degree of influence to which they are not entitled by character or breeding.

2. Of a thing: Having a delusive appearance of superior quality. Also, cheap, inferior; displaying signs of use, shabby, dilapidated.

DRAFT ADDITIONS DECEMBER 2004

shoddy, adj.

Of behaviour, etc.: ungenerous, dishonourable; contemptible. Cf. SHABBY adj. 2a.

 

As Oxford's definition has nothing to do with something being "cheaply imitative", Webster's is inaccurate. Let's examine how the superior Oxford work applies to me.

 

I don't pretend to a superiority to which I have no just claim; I actually am superior to you, in terms of argumentative ability, and that's the only superiority I claim. Definition 1 fails.

 

Because it is true that I am superior to you in argumentative ability, there's no delusive appearance to me, nor am I cheap, inferior, shabby, dilapidated, or showing signs of use. Definition 2 fails.

 

My behavior is not ungenerous, dishonourable, or contemptible. The Draft Definition fails.

 

Since the superior source fails to help you, let's actually LOOK at Webster's full definition.

 

Webster's defines it as:

1 a: a reclaimed wool from materials that are not felted that is of better quality and longer staple than mungo b: a fabric often of inferior quality manufactured wholly or partly from reclaimed wool

2 a: inferior, imitative, or pretentious articles or matter b: pretentious vulgarity

 

This definition does not pertain to one argument being successfully used against several opposing arguments several times in a row; it pertains to something being

a) inferior

b) imitative (of something or someone else, not imitative of itself)

c) pretentious

 

all of which I am not.

 

Further, all you've done is say "you're shoddy because you're cheaply imitative."

 

You've not PROVEN that I'm "cheaply imitative". Your argument *still* falls flat on its face.

 

Let's examine the word "imitate", from Oxford AND Webster.

 

1. trans. To do or try to do after the manner of; to follow the example of; to copy in action.

b. Sometimes with implication of incongruity or of specific purpose: To mimic' date=' counterfeit.

2. To make or produce a copy or representation of; to copy, reproduce.

b. ‘To pursue the course of (a composition) so as to use parallel images and examples’ (J.).

3. To be, become, or make oneself like; to assume the aspect or semblance of; to simulate: a. intentionally or consciously; b. unintentionally or unconsciously.[/quote']

 

1 : to follow as a pattern' date=' model, or example

2 : to be or appear like : resemble

3 : to produce a copy of : reproduce

4 : mimic, counterfeit [/quote']

 

BOTH OF THESE definitions REQUIRE that I actually be copying or reproducing SOMETHING ELSE.

 

Imitation requires that I copy some other piece of work that does not belong to me; I'm not imitating a damn thing, because I'm not using a copy over and over - I'm using the SAME work to shred what you say.

 

Further, you said "cheaply". Let's examine the word "cheap", through Oxford and Webster.

 

1. a. That may be bought at small cost; bearing a relatively low price; inexpensive. Opposed to dear. Phr. cheap and nasty: of low price and bad quality; inexpensive but with the disadvantage of being unsuitable to one's purposes; hence cheap-and-nastiness.

b. transf. (Applied to the price itself' date=' the place where a commodity is sold, etc.) cheap fare: a fare at a lower rate than the ordinary fare; also cheap rate; also attrib.

c. Applied to money obtainable at a low rate of interest.

2. Bearing a low price in proportion to its intrinsic value; of good value in proportion to its price; well worth the price.

3. fig. Costing little labour, trouble, effort, etc.; easily obtained.

4. a. Involving little trouble and hence of little worth; worthless, paltry.

b. In poor health; out of sorts. (Hence cheapness.) slang.

5. a. Accounted of small value, made little of, lightly esteemed; esp. brought into contempt through being made too familiar.

b. to hold cheap: to hold of small account, think little of, despise.

B. adverbially. a. At a low price, at small expense, cheaply; with little trouble, easily.[/quote']

 

1 a: purchasable below the going price or the real value b: charging or obtainable at a low price c: depreciated in value (as by currency inflation)

2: gained or done with little effort

3 a: of inferior quality or worth : tawdry' date=' sleazy b: contemptible because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities c: stingy

4of money : obtainable at a low rate of interest[/quote']

 

Seeing how it's not a lot of trouble to smash your posts to bits, but also not a small amount of trouble to smash your posts to bits, It's not cheap.

 

Sure, you might think little of it, but in the end, you come out looking like someone who dropped out of grade school, for thinking so little of it. This is because, frankly, you just admitted in a previous post that you willfully make yourself look stupid, without a care; because of that, you deserve to be made fun of, laughed at, et cetera.

 

So, the chips are stacked against you, and the definitions disagree with what you said. You are welcome to dispute it, but your disputes will have the same flaws, and therefore continue to fall apart.

 

 

To prove you said i was wrong for thinking...

you are wrong.

PROVEN

 

Wrong again' date=' moron.

 

Here's the full quote:

 

Your above post suggests that the ability to destroy high numbers of cards is what merits a prohibition.

 

NEWS FLASH:

 

If you were correct, every monster above 0 ATK would merit prohibition.

 

If you were correct, every card effect with the ability to destroy more than a certain number of cards would merit prohibition.

 

Simply put, because monsters above 0 ATK do not merit prohibition for having more than 0 ATK, and because no t all card effects that may destroy lots of cards merit prohibition for destroying those cards

 

you are wrong.

 

The "you are wrong" here applies to how

your above post suggests that the ability to destroy high numbers of cards is what merits a prohibition.

It does not apply to your attempt to think.

 

As I said before' date='

It's right of you to think and try to understand, but just because you're trying doesn't mean you don't deserve every bit of criticism you get. Frankly, you deserve criticism as much as everyone who doesn't try, and since you're bad at a simple game, and being bad at a simple game is something that you can be criticized over, you deserve that criticism.

 

Go back to first grade and go learn some reading comprehension.

 

 

To prove that you said i was wrong for trying to understand a CCG

you are wrong.

PROVEN!

 

Wrong again' date=' moron.

 

Here's the full quote:

 

Your above post suggests that the ability to destroy high numbers of cards is what merits a prohibition.

 

NEWS FLASH:

 

If you were correct, every monster above 0 ATK would merit prohibition.

 

If you were correct, every card effect with the ability to destroy more than a certain number of cards would merit prohibition.

 

Simply put, because monsters above 0 ATK do not merit prohibition for having more than 0 ATK, and because no t all card effects that may destroy lots of cards merit prohibition for destroying those cards

 

you are wrong.

 

The "you are wrong" here applies to how

your above post suggests that the ability to destroy high numbers of cards is what merits a prohibition.

It does not apply to your attempt to understand a CCG.

 

As I said before' date='

It's right of you to think and try to understand, but just because you're trying doesn't mean you don't deserve every bit of criticism you get. Frankly, you deserve criticism as much as everyone who doesn't try, and since you're bad at a simple game, and being bad at a simple game is something that you can be criticized over, you deserve that criticism.

 

Go back to first grade and go learn some reading comprehension.

 

 

What I said was "you're very bad at the game." Get it right.

You also said

you are wrong.

Get it right.

 

Yes' date=' and it's mindnumbingly obvious that you were - and still are - both wrong and very bad at the game.

 

Your opinion is void until you stop being wrong.

 

 

It's right of you to think and try to understand' date=' but just because you're trying doesn't mean you don't deserve every bit of criticism you get. Frankly, you deserve criticism as much as everyone who doesn't try, and since you're bad at a simple game, and being bad at a simple game is something that you can be criticized over, you deserve that criticism.[/quote'] Okay, so basically just just did a wraparound with words that basically said, "i can criticize if i want."

 

Damn straight. As long as complaints are correct, they're 100% warranted.

 

 

Tell me Freed Flinstone' date=' Are your feet getting tired yet? It simply would have been much easier to type, "I dont care how much of a jerk i am, im just gonna try to assert my authority by typing a whole lot about things that really has no effect on the real world. And hopefully by doing this, people will fear me and wouldn't dare to appose me, cause clearly, i realy care what people think about me on the internet." If you didn't, than being RIGHT all the damn time wouldn't matter to you.[/quote']

 

Wrong again.

 

I don't do this to assert authority; I do it because I'm not stupid and other people are stupid, and I enjoy watching other people squirm like the idiots they are when they feel uncomfortable about it. There's no authority involved; it's just a case of my going someplace either IRL or Online, and watching stupid people act in stupid ways just because I'm nearby, saying or doing things that they have a stupid problem with.

 

I don't do this to make people fear me or not oppose me: I do this solely because I like watching people make fools of themselves, just as you are now. It's called comedy. It's quite funny watching you get all emo over how I more-or-less tell the truth about everything you say; you just CAN'T STAND IT, and it's because you can't stand it that it's so bloody funny.

 

It's funny because it'd be so much smarter for you to actually try to learn from the criticism, instead of curl up in a little ball and post the angry posts you post.

 

It's also relatively obvious that I don't care what most other people think, because most other people are stupid. Stupidity is ignorance of essentials, and ignorance of essentials invalidates an opinion in any sense that matters.

 

It's because you're ignorant of how you should stop whining and start learning from the criticism... that makes this so enjoyable for me and so utterly irritating for you.

 

So, are you going to continue being stupid and keep whining whenever I tell you the truth, or are you going to actually realize "hey, he's got a good point" and take the s*** I say to the heart?

 

Or you could just give up and stop posting.

 

It'd be enjoyable for me no matter what: If you keep whining, I keep laughing and demolishing your posts: If you learn something, it means that you learned something (which is also a happy occasion), and if you stop posting, you effectively invalidate every claim you made (which means I keep laughing.

 

This isn't about other people at all; screw the rest of you. You're really no more important or relevant to me than roadkill; it's about my happiness at the misfortune of others, and nothing more. Schadenfreude is what drives this logic machine.

 

And hey, if I get someone to learn something (which I have, when people choose to stop being stupid about the situation), Schadenfreude stops driving this logic machine for a bit, and Good Will takes over.

 

No matter what, I enjoy this s***, hence it keeps going forever. It's because I'm a jerk. Deal with it.

 

 

If anything' date=' having the ability to tell someone about their faults is the exact opposite of shoddiness.[/quote'] Not by Webster's definition.

 

Webster's definition is inferior to Oxford's. Even then, both Webster's and Oxford's agree w/ me. How, you ask? Use a bit of deductive reasoning for once, instead of just settling for the preschool logic you've been using thus far.

 

The ability to tell someone about their faults... requires the ability to quickly analyze on multiple levels what that person says.

 

Let's go back to the definitions of shoddiness.

 

1. Of a person: That pretends to a superiority to which he has no just claim; said esp. of those who claim, on the ground of wealth, a social station or a degree of influence to which they are not entitled by character or breeding.

2. Of a thing: Having a delusive appearance of superior quality. Also, cheap, inferior; displaying signs of use, shabby, dilapidated.

DRAFT ADDITIONS DECEMBER 2004

shoddy, adj.

Of behaviour, etc.: ungenerous, dishonourable; contemptible. Cf. SHABBY adj. 2a.

 

1 a: a reclaimed wool from materials that are not felted that is of better quality and longer staple than mungo b: a fabric often of inferior quality manufactured wholly or partly from reclaimed wool

2 a: inferior, imitative, or pretentious articles or matter b: pretentious vulgarity

 

Telling someone about their faults does not fit any of these definitions; hence your claim falls on its face again.

 

 

You just being yourself is reason enough.

 

Prove it. Come on. What do you know about me that proves your shoddiness claim?

 

You can make guesses' date=' but it won't do you any good, because nothing exists that'll prove your claim. That's because your claim is wrong; it has no supporting evidence or warrant.

 

 

Right' date=' and we know that you're bad at the game BECAUSE you cease making conclusions RIGHT THERE, instead of paying some attention beyond the level a chimpanzee would pay.[/quote'] Uh... What?! o.O

 

Here's an dumbed-down explanation.

 

You sat around and tried to think about the list.

 

You came up with "lots of them destroy lots of stuff, so destroying lots of stuff is good reason to ban something!"

 

You didn't bother to try thinking about it any more than that; you instead just posted "hey, I can see Storm getting hit because it destroys a lot of stuff, and a lot of other cards that are banned also destroy a lot of stuff".

 

It is because you didn't stop yourself from posting that, and because you didn't try to think things through a bit more, that we know your opinion to be useless. It is because you didn't try to think things through a bit more that we know you to be immensely simpleminded and ignorant.

 

 

Those cards are not prohibit worthy just because of the capability of moving a bunch of cards from place A to place B. There's MUCH more to EVERY ONE OF their prohibitions than that; it's immensely naive' date=' thoughtless, and stupid to think that "hey, these are banned for destroying a lot of things" and just leave it at that.[/quote']

By basing my arguments simply on a compare and contrast basis, what other conclusions would one make? To exclude this factor as to why they would be banned seems pretty stupid to me.

 

Reread what I said. You might have trouble comprehending it, but that's your problem.

 

Those cards are not prohibit worthy just because of the capability of moving a bunch of cards from place A to place B. There's MUCH more to EVERY ONE OF their prohibitions than that; it's immensely naive' date=' thoughtless, and stupid to think that "hey, these are banned for destroying a lot of things" [i']and just leave it at that[/i].

 

It's because you STOPPED that you're stupid.

 

 

He that phrase.. "To me" Its kinda bias' date=' you know those things that forms opinions, try having some, it could help your character. Who knows any more.[/quote']

 

It's a crappy ad hominem on your part to think that "opinions could help my character". I've a set of morals and a character equal or superior to everyone else I've come across in life, all because I don't settle for opinions at any time where facts can be used.

 

Opinions can be stupid or intelligent, but both kinds of opinions are useless in the face of facts that contradict them. Unlike opinion, fact is infallible, and to think that fallibility "helps character" is a fallacy in and of itself.

 

Stupid opinions have helped to lead to every bad thing in this world. Facts do no stupid leading; facts lead you only to the truth.

 

Intelligent opinions help to lead to good things in this world. Intelligent opinions are also in 100% agreement with the facts. They are subjugated by the facts, and if the facts require intelligent opinion to change, intelligent opinion must change. Namely, intelligent opinion is a mere whipping boy.

 

Keep your bullshit biases to yourself. Fact is to be used whereever possible, and it just-so-happens that the topic of "what should happen" is not rooted in opinion, but fact.

 

 

You claim to be trying to think about the game' date=' but your claim falls flat on its face - you obviously aren't thinking at all if "they destroy lots" is a decent observation to you.[/quote'] Again, its an opinion and im sticking to it.

 

Hence another reason why you're stupid. You choose to be wrong by choosing to stick with opinion rather than fact.

 

 

Also' date=' NEWSFLASH: There will be a lot more,[/quote']

 

Good, I enjoy watching you make yourself look bad. It's like watching a drunk person repeatedly run into the same brick wall.

 

 

try and understand the difference between Fact and Opinion.

 

You're a fool to think that I don't.

 

I'll delete the Obsolete definitions' date=' as obsolete uses just don't apply anymore.

 

First, Fact:

 

1. c. An evil deed, a crime. In the 16th and 17thc. the commonest sense; now Obs. exc. in to confess the fact and after, before the fact, in which the sense approaches that of 2.

4. a. Something that has really occurred or is actually the case; something certainly known to be of this character; hence, a particular truth known by actual observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture or fiction; a datum of experience, as distinguished from the conclusions that may be based upon it.

[in class. Lat. factum had occasionally the extended sense of ‘event, occurrence’; hence in scholastic Lat. was developed the sense above explained, which belongs to all the Romanic equivalents: Fr. fait, It. fatto, Sp. hecho.]

b. in apposition with a following clause, or with const. of. Now often used where the earlier lang. would have employed a clause or gerundial phrase as subject or as the regimen of a preposition; cf. mod. use of ‘the circumstance that’. In apposition to a following noun clause: the fact that.. = the circumstance that.

¶c. Occas. applied concr. to a person, an institution, etc. (A strained use.)

d. the fact is: const. with following noun clause introduced by that or with that understood.

e. facts and figures: an alliterative phrase used in the sense ‘precise information’.

f. fact of life: a (stark) reality of existence; a brute fact; freq. the facts of life, spec. as a colloq. euphemism for ‘knowledge of human sexual functions’.

5. Often loosely used for: Something that is alleged to be, or conceivably might be, a ‘fact’.

6. a. (Without a and pl.) That which is of the nature of a fact; what has actually happened or is the case; truth attested by direct observation or authentic testimony; reality. matter of fact: a subject of discussion belonging to the domain of fact, as distinguished from matter of inference, of opinion, of law, etc. (See also MATTER.)

b. in fact: in reality (cf. sense 1 and indeed). Now often used parenthetically in an epexegetical statement, or when a more comprehensive assertion is substituted for that which has just been made. in point of fact: with regard to matters of fact; also (and now usually) = in fact.

c. the fact (of the matter): the truth with regard to the subject under discussion.

d. Other phrases of assertion or rejoinder: (and) that's a fact (orig. U.S.): an emphatic addition to a statement stressing its truth; also this is a fact, that's the fact; is that a fact?: is that so? (used esp. as a rejoinder (expecting no answer) to a statement).

e. Sometimes with exclamation mark: used as an emphatic assertion of the truth of a statement.

7. Law. In sing. and pl. The circumstances and incidents of a case, looked at apart from their legal bearing. attorney in fact: see ATTORNEY.

8. attrib. and Comb., as fact-fetishism, -fetishist ns.; fact-bound, -crammed adjs.; fact-collecting, -cramming vbl. ns.; fact-gathering vbl. n. and ppl. adj.; fact-finding ppl. a., that finds out facts; esp. descriptive of a committee, commission, etc., set up to discover and establish the facts of any matter; also as vbl. n., the work involved in such a process; hence (as a back-formation) fact-find v. intr.; also fact-finder; fact-proof a., impervious to facts; fact-sheet, a paper on which facts relevant to a particular issue are set out briefly and clearly.

 

1: a thing done: as b: crime carchaic : action

2archaic : performance' date=' doing

3: the quality of being actual : actuality

4 a: something that has actual existence b: an actual occurrence

5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

— in fact : in truth[/quote']

 

And now Opinion

 

1. As a count noun: a view held about a particular issue; a judgement formed or a conclusion reached; a belief; a religious or political conviction.

3. a. With specifying adjective' date=' as common opinion, general opinion, vulgar opinion, etc. A judgement, belief, or conviction held by the majority of or many people; what is generally thought about something. public opinion: see public opinion n. at PUBLIC adj. and n. Special uses 2.

See also opinion poll n. at Compounds 2 , opinion survey n. at Compounds 2.

b. More generally: what or how one thinks about something; judgement or belief. Esp. in in my opinion: according to my thinking; as it seems to me. a matter of opinion: a matter about which each may have his or her own opinion; a disputable point.

c. to be of (the) opinion (that): to hold the belief or view; to think (that). Also with further syntactic variation.

d. Public or general opinion.

4. A formal statement by a judge or other competent authority of what he or she judges or advises on a matter; professional advice; as a legal (also medical) opinion, to get an opinion of counsel, etc. In a second (also another) opinion: the opinion of a second (esp. medical) expert or adviser. Also in transferred and extended uses.

5. b. spec. A good or favourable estimate of someone or something; esteem. Esp. in to have no (great) opinion of: to regard as inferior or unworthy.

c. What one thinks of a person or thing; an estimate of character, quality, or value.[/quote']

 

1 a: a view' date=' judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b: approval, esteem

2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b: a generally held view

3 a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

— opin·ioned \-yənd\ adjective

synonyms opinion, view, belief, conviction, persuasion, sentiment mean a judgment one holds as true. opinion implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute . view suggests a subjective opinion . belief implies often deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent

 

I understand Fact and Opinion by leagues more than you, so for you to charge that I need to try to understand them... well, that's a coincedence. It's probably not ironic.

 

 

Raigeki' date=' Hole, and HFD aren't prohibit worthy because they destroy a bunch of cards. They're prohibit worthy because they promote easy direct attacking with no strategic countenance, while also making any field use of any card in any way into a risk.[/quote'] AND HEAVY STORM DOESN'T! WOW! AMAZING!

 

That's correct. It doesn't.

 

You see, of the above cards prohibited in that paragraph, HFD is by far the least prohibitworthy.

 

ST destroyers are easy to play around, thanks to the the Chain Rule. Monsters on-field can't be Chained in response to things that would end them, leaving very few monsters that are able to benefit from their own demise. ST just sit there and ASK to be blasted off the field so that they can get someone to waste their STkiller.

 

HFD's only prohibitable because of being one-sided while also being as fast as it is. Storm's own doublesidedness is what saves it from the list, as that doublesidedness REQUIRES a change in tactics beneficial to the game.

 

Read what I said closely.

 

Raigeki' date=' Hole, and HFD aren't prohibit worthy because they destroy a bunch of cards. They're prohibit worthy because they promote easy direct attacking [b']with no strategic countenance[/b], while also making any field use of any card in any way into a risk.

 

 

It is not because they destroy MANY cards;

FACT IS they still do.

 

And as I've said countless times; the fact that they destroy is NOT the reason. Their ability to destroy is irrelevant to the matter. All of the details you're ignoring... are why they're prohibitworthy.

 

 

it is because they destroy ANY card in their respective lanes' date=' WHILE being able to be played quickly, WHILE not having any specific trigger requirement, and so on. There's MUCH more than destruction that is taken into account.[/quote'] Is that a fact, if you ask me, Thats an opinion, Got anything to support this claim? o.O

 

Dark Hole reads "Destroy all monsters on the field." It is a Normal Spell Card.

 

This makes it free of trigger, quick to play, non-targetting, Spell Speed 1, so on and so forth.

 

Torrential Tribute reads "Activate only when a monster is Summoned. Destroy all monsters on the field." It is a Normal Trap Card.

 

It destroys EXACTLY THE SAME amount of cards, which would make it prohibitworthy according to your claim.

 

However, it is not prohibitworthy. This is because it requires a trigger and is slower to play.

 

These differences are what you ignore; it is because you ignore these differences that your opinion in this topic is completely invalid.

 

As for the above, it is not opinion, but fact; it fits the definition of fact. It's no mere viewpoint; it just is how it is.

 

 

TIV is not Prohibit worthy because it destroys lots.

Fact is it actually does.

 

And as I've said countless times; the fact that it destroys is NOT the reason. Its ability to destroy is irrelevant to the matter. All of the details you're ignoring... are why it's prohibitworthy.

 

 

TIV is Prohibit worthy because it's an Anti-Type Vortex w/ 1600 ATK. Beatsticks with effects that lend immense ease to their direct attacks are ALWAYS on watch' date=' regardless of how they do so.[/quote'] And that is why Snipe hunter is BANNED. Okay, this explains a lot.

 

Nope. Snipe Hunter is Limited because Konami is as stupid as you, and has no idea how to properly run a set of Prohibitions or Limitations.

 

Rather, it's why Snipe Hunter should be banned, according to the facts.

 

 

Beatsticks that set up other combos are also on watch.

Damn' date=' that means my Red Eyes and Inferno fire blast OTK is gonna get hit soon. AWW MAN![/quote']

 

Your terribad REBD doesn't set up a damn thing. "Oooh, I can play 1 Spell for 2400 damage, lol".

 

Don't confuse your own stupidity for how TIV works in the hands of players that aren't as trashy as you.

 

 

Beatsticks that discourage decktype proliferation are on watch. TIV is all of these things; it is not because TIV destroys cards that it is a problem' date=' but it is because of what that destruction LEADS to.[/quote'] You mean like destroying all AQUA types than ending your turn? Damn, that really is a problem.

 

Again, don't confuse your own stupidity for how TIV works in the hands of players that aren't as trashy as you.

 

 

I mean my opponent doesn't have spell and traps available to them' date=' that just never happens.[/quote']

 

You actually NEED your opp to not have ST access, for TIV to be a problem for them? Holy crap, you're even worse than I thought.

 

 

CED isn't Prohibit worthy because it sends lots of cards away.

FACT IS it still does.

 

And as I've said countless times; the fact that it sends cards away is NOT the reason. Its ability to send is irrelevant to the matter; all of the details you're ignoring... are why it's prohibitworthy.

 

 

It's Prohibit worthy because it hurts good' date=' careful players more than it hurts bad, reckless players.[/quote'] Woot another opinion!

 

Nope, it's fact. Careful players play the game better than reckless ones, because caution leads to taking risks only at the right times.

 

When you take a risk at the wrong time, you end up losing out for it, most often by losing a card or cards that would've been very useful had you been smart enough to keep it.

 

Now, bad players lose more cards because they take risks at the wrong time. Good players lose less cards because they don't take risks at the wrong time.

 

When CED's effect resolves, all cards on the field and in both players' hands are sent to the Grave, and the opponent of CED's activator takes damage for each card sent.

 

Bad players lose more cards than good players. This means that they have less cards when CED resolves; CED takes less away from them.

 

Losing cards hurts. Cards are your options, the moves you can make. It's just BAD to have less options than the opponent, as fewer options = fewer ways you can win.

 

Since bad players have less cards, good players have more cards; good players lose more options to CED, meaning that good players are hurt more by CED.

 

 

Ive seen skilled players get hit with this in many tournaments also.

 

Yes' date=' we all have, and every time that a superior player gets hurt by CED, there is a greater likelihood that he is hurt more by it than his opponent, even before talking about the LP Damage done.

 

 

If someone plays badly and loses a bunch of cards' date=' they deserve to be in a difficult situation:[/quote'] YEAH! ANOTHER OPINION! Any facts to prove this?

 

If they don't deserve it, then let's just unban everything and let folks play as badly as they like.

 

Guess what? Now the game sucks for everyone, except bad players, who just don't care as long as their own vision of "how YGO should be" is fulfilled.

 

It is fact that YGO should refrain from sucking for everyone except bad players, as a YGO that doesn't suck for everyone (bar bad players) is more enjoyable for everyone except those bad players.

 

As for the bad players, their enjoyability does not depend upon how good or bad a game YGO is, so much as it depends upon whether or not they decide they want things "their way or the highway". No matter how YGO is, if things aren't exactly as they want it, no matter how enjoyable or unenjoyable the game is for everyone else, they'll continue to wallow in selfpity.

 

Since it is fact that YGO should refrain from sucking for everyone except bad players, YGO must be a game that punishes poor play. By punishing poor play, the likelihood of someone actually deserving-to-win increases.

 

 

CED just says "lol equalize" and makes better players suffer for playing well.

I gotta hand it to you' date=' you really are opinionated while trying to stay Factual.[/quote']

 

Not really, no - I'm just factual while being an a****** to people who deserve persons being a******s to them.

 

Since the facts have shown you to be a bad player so far, it makes sense that you'd constantly deride the facts as opinion - it's the only way you can rationalize your position in this as "correct".

 

Luckily enough for me, your rationalizations are still in disagreement with the facts.

 

 

Cyber Jar is not Prohibitworthy just because it destroys things.

FACT IS it still does.

 

And as I've said countless times; the fact that it destroys is NOT the reason. Its ability to destroy is irrelevant to the matter; all of the details you're ignoring... are why it's prohibitworthy.

 

 

Cyber Jar is Prohibit worthy for similar reasons as CED; Cyber Jar is also instrumental to what was by-far the most lethal FTK since SciTurtle and MakyuraExchange.

Keep the opinions rolling. FYI' date=' you forgot your facts.[/quote']

 

As I've shown in the above CED paragraphs, the facts are not forgotten.

 

If you think that Cyber Jar being essential to the most lethal FTK since SciTurtle and MakyuraExchange... is an opinion, well, go run the FTK and you'll learn something.

 

You'll learn either that

 

1) It's the most lethal FTK since SciTurtle and MakyuraExchange

 

or that

 

2) You can't win with one of the game's best three decks in history, which rightfully shows that you MUST be terrible at the game.

 

 

You claim to be trying to think' date=' but you aren't trying, nor are you thinking.[/quote'] You are so right, Im actually a bot, incompatible with thought and these paragraphs just type itself.

 

Artificial Intelligence has existed for years; bots can think.

 

You can think too; you just AREN'T.

 

 

No' date=' but I could see why you'd think that - you don't bother to think ANYTHING through, bar the most obvious conclusions.[/quote'] Its because im a bot, and i don't have the ability to tell people what they are and are not doing.

 

No, it's because you're stupid and/or lazy and/or ignorant, and you just don't USE the ability to tell people what they are and are not doing, except when someone tells you about your stupidity.

 

 

Wait... I'll try. You are reading this. Wow' date=' i guess i can tell people what they are doing. Its pretty easy to. I just better not make a habit of it, i don't wanna be consider shoddy.[/quote']

 

Congratulations, you accomplished a feat expected of a toddler.

 

 

Battle is this game's original method of destruction.

Yes because in the very first booster' date=' Armed Ninja wasn't made available to us. Neither was Fissure.[/quote']

 

Armed Ninja wasn't.

 

Fissure was, alongside Dark Hole and Trap Hole.

 

However, it was released at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME as the first monsters.

 

Since the cards were released at the same time, we look to the contents of "Duel Monsters Vol. 1", the very beginning of the game, and we also look to the first rulebook.

 

The rulebooks have always explained monsters before STs. This includes an explanation of ATK and DEF; the first meaning of "destroy" you get to in this game is "destroy by battle".

 

The contents of Vol. 1... It's a 40 card set, with 3 destroying STs in the pack alongside 30 monsters. The first time people would obtain "a card that could destroy other cards", it would be a monster.

 

These circumstances render destruction by battle as the "original" method.

 

 

Before the first card effect ever touched this game' date=' BEWDs were shredding DMs all over Japan.[/quote'] Your right, Only 2 cards originated this game in a 40 card minimum deck. This one really made you seem silly. Just my opinion though.

 

It's a good thing your opinion was ignorant of the first booster, first rules, et cetera - that ignorance renders it invalid.

 

 

In Battle' date=' highest stats are king, and of those stats, only ATK can destroy something on its own; highest ATK, therefore, is the best stat a card can have. The cards w/ the highest ATK are capable of destroying the most other cards - namely, every other monster in-game.[/quote'] Really?, i would have thought it be the Level, because i sure as hell don't know how BEWD hit the field without tributes.

 

DM and BEWD required the same number of Tributes. BEWD can't naturally lose to DM. The Level loses nearly all relevance once monsters are on-field, and getting them there was as simple then as it is now.

 

That, and Volume 2 brought Monster Reborn.

 

 

If "destroying a lot of cards" is criteria for banning' date=' as you established in your earlier post, then the highest-ATK monster must go.[/quote'] No, not when we have such Effect titles as, "This card can not be destroyed as a result of battle" and "This card is not destroyed as a result of battle ONCE!"

 

Congratulations, you would have us all run "This card cannot be destroyed by battle" monsters just to solve your stupid "destroying a lot of cards" problem.

 

OH WAIT, NEW PROBLEM - These monsters you want us to run are PERMANENTLY stuck there unless we either get rid of them using effects, or we willingly get rid of them of our own volition.

 

It's stupid to get rid of them of our own volition, unless we're summoning a big ATKer.

 

So, really, it's a matter of "let's just defend the whole time until we can Summon something big, and the moment that dies, let's turtle up again".

 

Turtling up all the time = the game sucks.

 

Not turtling up = high-ATK monsters destroy a lot of other monsters, and since they destroy a lot, you say they should be banned.

 

Guess what? No matter WHAT you say, your reccomendations would make YGO suck.

 

 

That's how logic works. But it doesn't stop there: If you kill the highest-ATK monsters' date=' the next-highest ones become the highest ones, thereby making them guilty of the same problem.[/quote'] Its funny, your the only person i've heard say that monsters having an atk is a problem.

 

I haven't said it in agreement at all.

 

What I've repeatedly said is that you're a dumbass for believing that monsters having an ATK is a problem, as you implied in several previous posts.

 

Raigeki: Able to destroy up to 5 monsters' date=' Banned. Dark hole: Able to destroy up to 10 Monsters, Banned. Feather duster: Able to destroy up to 5 spell and trap cards, Banned. Heavy storm, Able to destroy up to 9 Spell and Trap cards (not including itself.), Priceless.

 

In the game of yugioh, there is Banned and un banned. I can totaly see if storm catches the ban hammer.[/quote']

 

Your above post suggests that the ability to destroy high numbers of cards is what merits a prohibition.

 

Well' date=' lets have a look at some of the current banned cards

CHAOS EMPEROR DRAGON - ENVOY OF THE END (doesn't destroy, but close enough)

CYBER JAR (destroy + swarm / hand control... Very nice!)

DARK HOLE

HARPIE'S FEATHER DUSTER

RAIGEKI

TRIBE-INFECTING VIRUS

Hmmm, i kinda find DESTROYING MANY CARDS, or the ability of destroying many cards all seem to be the jest of what these cards do, and as we all know drawing conclusions is easy.[/quote']

 

The above chain of posts proves that you meant to make that dumbassed implication.

 

 

The only time that the ban cycle stops is when no monster can destroy a lot of cards' date=' if "destroying a lot of cards" is ban criteria (again, as you [b']OPINIONATED[/b]).

Fixed.

 

So, you didn't establish criteria for a ban, but merely opinionated it?

 

That's nice. So what? To opinionate something stupid is just as stupid as establishing it; you're just as much a dumbass for it.

 

 

This is only accomplished when the only legal monsters have 0 ATK.

Yes like TER.

 

And now you're quoting stuff that isn't even related to defending your viewpoint' date=' just because that stuff also has 0 ATK.

 

 

So' date=' if we were to actually do everything you reccomend, YGO would suck.[/quote'] First, i never recommended anything durring the whole time i started posting in this thread.

 

Every other post in this thread by you has been a tacit reccomendation, whether you like it or not, whether you intended it or not.

 

Saying "I can see X happening because of all these other changes" DIRECTLY implies that you see X happening because of some sort of logically supported reason.

 

You yourself said

 

Hmmm' date=' i kinda find DESTROYING MANY CARDS, or the ability of destroying many cards all seem to be the jest of what these cards do, and as we all know drawing conclusions is easy.[/quote']

 

and by saying that, you confirmed "DESTROYING MANY CARDS" as your "good reason for X to happen."

 

 

Second' date=' this game is already in a suckish state.[/quote']

 

Yes, and you'd make it worse, much worse.

 

 

Banning Heavy storm (back on topic) would still have absolutly no effect on the meta.

 

You don't even PLAY this game' date=' do you?

 

 

*WARNING!* An opinion was just made. *WARNING!*

 

*WARNING!* Your opinion is wrong. *WARNING!*

 

 

Yes' date=' and it's because you just rest at that simple comparison, that you come across as such an utter idiot.[/quote'] Oh name calling, thats really low Atem,

 

There's nothing low or name-calling about the truth. If you're stupid, you're stupid; that's just how it is.

 

For example, I'm mean as hell. Who gives a rat's ass about that? No one in their right mind, that's who.

 

 

but if this is the only way you feel as though your point can get across than by all means go right ahead... Ya big meanie.

 

Yeah' date=' I'm mean. So what? Who in their right mind actually cares about how mean someone is? This is the Internet; grow a pair and stop crying about how mean people are.

 

All that matters is whether or not someone is right or wrong, as stuff that is right is made useful by being right, and stuff that is wrong is made useless by being wrong.

 

 

So' date=' in other words, you willingly and knowingly, and possibly intentionally, sound as dense as clay.[/quote'] Yes if you can draw these conclusions from opinions.

 

This, ladies and germs, is The Internet at its finest.

 

 

Simple - you're the dolt who posted the faulty argument' date=' which is proof positive that you're the one who, frankly, is dumb enough to not realize why it's faulty.[/quote'] Thats really calling the kettle black now ain't it?

 

For it to be calling the kettle black, I'd have to be just as wrong as you. The facts say that I'm right, so it's impossible for me to be just as wrong as you, thereby making it impossible for it to be calling the kettle black.

 

 

This makes you a person in need of hearing the words "you're wrong and you're probably stupid".

 

I think you need to hear the words' date=' "Your an opinionated factual Jerk, and probably unloved in a world without the internet."[/quote']

 

1) Ad hominem fallacy. You're using what you perceive to attack my character, and trying to use that character attack to disprove my argument.

 

Instead of doing that, do things the other way around; disprove my argument, and THEN use the disproven argument to attack my character. You'll be much more effective that way.

 

2) It's not even a correct ad hominem; you're using FALSE stuff to attack my character, instead of attempting to prove your argument. Not only do you come out looking foolish, you come out like a liar too.

 

3) I'm not unloved, no: people smart enough to know who it's smart to care about... love me so much that it's right scary.

 

As for people who aren't smart enough, well, dumb people create dumb opinions, and dumb opinions are what make things worse than they should be.

 

There's no reason for me to ever want the love of people that are too dumb, until they wise up and get smart, at which point they're worth it. It just so happens that once they wise up, they appreciate what I do. It's really quite convenient; everyone worth having flocks to me, and all people not worth having just run away.

 

 

See' date=' now you just gave us proof that you're ignorant.[/quote'] Scroll up buddy, there is plenty of post that prove the same for you. Everybody is ignorant to something, and i guess for you its comprehending opinions.

 

You guess wrongly. I comprehend opinion, unlike you. It is indeed fact that opinion is subjugated to fact, in all ways - factual viewpoints are always better than opinion viewpoints, according to the facts.

 

Opinions just aren't good enough.

 

 

Here in America' date=' right and wrong are parts of opinions every single bloody day;[/quote'] Bloody? That sounded kinda British to me. Are you a Tommy? o.O Also, FYI... OPINIONS ARE NOT FACTUAL, THEY ARE BIAS.

 

Yes, but that doesn't mean that right and wrong aren't parts of those opinions. This is because the opinions made are made according to the facts.

 

Namely, if I make the opinion that "oranges are good", it's because it is fact that oranges are beneficial to the human body, and it is fact that things beneficial to the human body are good.

 

Opinions are constructed in framework of fact, that framework being right and wrong. Without that framework, any attempt to create an opinion leads to a stupid opinion, and it is fact that stupid opinions are bad.

 

 

it's right and wrong that drive this nation's most important opinion-laden matters. Right and wrong drive the governmental processes on every level; right and wrong drive the

 

For example' date=' it is wrong to murder. This is an opinion held and honored by the justice system. There's no "I agree" or "I don't agree" bullshit here; it's instead a judgment of "right" or "wrong", whether you like it or not.[/quote'] So its wrong to murder, but one of the penalties for murder... is... murder? Hmmm, seems justifiably WRONG!

 

It's wrong because you're wrong about a penalty for murder being murder.

 

A penalty for murder is a killing. A murder is a killing, but a killing is not always a murder. Specifically, a murder is an unlawful killing.

 

So, yes, killing is legal. Murder is not. This legal distinction is crucial.

 

 

No my friend' date=' here in America, there is no right or wrong to an opinion, simply an "I agree" or an "I don't agree." YOU are wrong for thinking other wise, no matter where you are from.[/quote'] Prove it.

 

a view' date=' judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter[/quote'] No where in that definition do i see the word "FACT." PROVEN!

 

Wrong again; just because the definition does not ask for fact does not mean that an opinion cannot be wrong.

 

Specifically, let's look at the definition of "wrong".

 

A. adj. I. 1. a. Having a crooked or curved course' date=' form, or direction; twisted or bent in shape or contour; wry.

2. Of persons: Mis-shapen; deformed. Latterly dial.

II. 3. a. Of actions, etc.: Deviating from equity, justice, or goodness; not morally right or equitable; unjust, perverse. Also absol.

b. In the phrase it is (would be, etc.) wrong to (do some thing).

4. a. Of persons: Deviating from integrity, rectitude, or probity; doing or prone to do that which is evil, noxious, or unjust; opprobrious, vicious.

b. Actively opposed (to another); antagonistic.

c. Criminals' slang. Untrustworthy, unreliable; not sympathetic to or co-operative with criminals. Cf. RIGHT a. 8e.

5. a. Not in conformity with some standard, rule, or principle; deviating from that which is correct or proper; contrary to, at variance with, what one approves or regards as right.

[b']b. Not in consonance with facts or truth; incorrect, false, mistaken.[/b]

c. Of belief, etc.: Partaking of or based on error; erroneous.

d. Of a painting: having an erroneous attribution.

6. Not right or satisfactory in state or order; in unsatisfactory or bad condition; amiss.

what's wrong with (mod. colloq.), what is the matter with (see MATTER n.1 25b), what objection is there to, why not have (etc.)?

 

1 : not according to the moral standard : sinful' date=' immoral

2 : not right or proper according to a code, standard, or convention : improper

3 : [i']not according to truth or facts : incorrect[/i]

4 : not satisfactory (as in condition, results, health, or temper)

5 : not in accordance with one's needs, intent, or expectations

6 : of, relating to, or constituting the side of something that is usually held to be opposite to the principal one, that is the one naturally or by design turned down, inward, or away, or that is the least finished or polished

 

Your opinion fits both of these definitions. Your opinion is wrong.

 

 

Hypothetical examples won't help you when they aren't in line with the facts.

Ill keep this in mind when i actually state facts.

 

Aye. However' date=' it's because of the facts that your opinion is also wrong.

 

 

What "should" actually happen is not open to interpretation.

FACT IS it is in this thread.

 

See' date=' now you're just lying.

 

 

People's views of what "should" happen can be completely right' date=' completely wrong, or somewhere in between[/quote'] finally something i can agree with you with.

 

You shouldn't agree, though - as agreeing with me here is what makes it possible for you and your opinion to be wrong in the first place.

 

I still think heavy storm should be banned.

[bozotehpwns]

I think someone just played Wall o' Text >.>

[Sixty]

and saying "I'm right' date=' Atem's wrong" even after I utterly dismantle and shred everything you say.

[/quote']

 

 

Major Q4T

[Pharaoh_Atem]

I still think heavy storm should be banned.

 

Aye, but you're wrong, hence your thoughts have no worth until you stop being wrong.

[「tea.leaf」]

Holy crap, Pharaoh just owned someone with a dictionary without having to apply it directly to his forehead.

[T. Sankara]

It's obvious, Atem's one of the best here, if not the. Heavy Storm ban? I mean common. . . Next you'll say DMoC is not ban worthy.

 

~Ken-chan

[iAmNateXero]

I still think heavy storm should be banned.

 

Aye' date=' but you're wrong, hence your thoughts have no worth until you stop being wrong.

[/quote']

 

I still think heavy storm should be banned.

[Pharaoh_Atem]

I still think heavy storm should be banned.

 

Aye' date=' but you're wrong, hence your thoughts have no worth until you stop being wrong.

[/quote']

 

I still think heavy storm should be banned.

 

Aye, but you're wrong, hence your thoughts have no worth until you stop being wrong.