Scott Seaver
 |
| This comment was about Edgar Flores being banned |
 |
| This was about the playmat art |
When I get to 500 followers I'll pick a random follower and write a blog post criticizing you.I think this is an appropriate giveaway for me
Thursday, March 1, 2012
#dieplstksCotD
Apparently twitter doesn't save tweets very long, here's the original three posts from my Stupid Fucking Magic Article Comment of the Day:
Scott Seaver
John Crutcher
Scott Seaver
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Your Comments are Fucking Stupid: Women in Magic Edition
Grahm Salva
Andrew J. Nagy
Thomas Ray Smith, who is "a hopeless romantic, big teddy bear, with a heart of Gold. I have a good sense of humor, and a playful personality. I have a mature and intelligent mind. My heart is very passionate, and loyal.I am laid, back fun loving kind of guy"
Chris Mascioli
@dieplstks
Friday, February 17, 2012
The Myth of Male Objectification
The fact that I have to write this blog post in 2012 is pretty scary, but the need for a clear definition of what objectification has been made strikingly clear by the comments on Jesse Mason's most recent article on females in Magic art (
http://www.gatheringmagic.com/jessemason-021612-anti-flavor-dissertation/).
Objectification is, by strict definition, the treatment of a person as solely a physical object rather than a sentient and emotional being. So, when the subject of how females were objectified in Magic art was mentioned a group of scholars had a brilliant, earth-shattering, and novel idea that they all rushed to post (followed by these rogue academics patting themselves on the back): MALES ARE OBJECTIFIED IN MAGIC ART TOO (so brave!). While these posters are technically correct (the best kind of correct), they miss the real point of what is being referred to when one makes reference to objectification: the transformation of a sentient being to a solely physical object to be used.
Let's look at what "male objectification" (it cracked me up a bit just writing that, sorry) looks like:
"Holy shit, he has no shirt!"
"omg, look at those muscles!"
"That guy is ripped! I'm jealous"
The fact that this piece of "art" (cracked up again, sorry) brings a deluge of homoerotic thoughts to sheltered neckbeards everywhere is a clear sign that it's an example of male objectification: the transformation of a powerful male into a purely sexual object. Except it's not actually happening and is just a completely surface/trivial analysis. If we actually examine the piece we see that Koth is in fact a symbol of power, agency, and confronts/challenges the viewer. Koth is displayed not as an object for use, but as another type of object -- a monument to be in awe of and admire.
Let's take a non-Magic look at something people claim is "male objectification" (at least writing this is keeping me amused) - underwear models:
Alright, so once again we have a not fully dressed male. That means he's a sexual object/pin-up, QED! Except, like Koth, his sexuality is used to create an image of power, another monument to the male form. His pose which is seemingly relaxed is not one of acceptance/submission, but instead chosen to highlight his physical power. His glance is once again a challenge to the viewer, asking not "what would you do to me?" but "what would you let me do to you?"
Now, let's compare these images to how a female planeswalker is portrayed, we'll use Argyle's Liliana of the Veil as an example (we're going to use the full art since we can get rid of the ridiculous tilt on the actual card, stealing this from Jesse's article mentioned in the intro):
The depiction of Liliana is very different than that of Koth. The first thing that needs to be taken into account is the social context in how the images are viewed (for a more in-depth take on this, I suggest everyone reads Laura Mulvey's "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema", I took way too many Art History/Cinema Studies classes in college. You can find some easy to digest sparknotes of it here). Western society has historically given and still gives the majority of power to the male portion of its population and continually victimizes and oppresses women (if you don't think this is true, listen to a discussion about rape or birth control)
Therefore the "male gaze" (a term first introduced in the aforementioned Mulvey essay), when given a historical perspective, is one that depends on the political, economic, and sexual oppression of women.
Liliana's state of undress is also in contrast to Koth's. While Koth has no shirt to show power (watch any action movie that involves a fighting scene, the male actors involved almost always remove their top to highlight their physical prowess), Liliana's strategic lack of clothing highlights her as a sexual being, emphasizing her shoulders, cleavage, hips, and upper leg.
On top of this Liliana's gaze which is not presented as challenging the viewer (like Koth's), but is instead presented as inviting. It is no mistake that Liliana is pictured in front of what appears to be a secret lair which you, presumably, want to take her up to. Comparing Liliana to some Goth pin-ups confirms the objectification present in Argyle's illustration
Anyone claiming that the objectification of Koth/male models is equivalent to the objectification of Liliana is just choosing to ignore that in the male case Koth is objectified to be a monument while in the female case Liliana is objectified to be another type of figure - a toy.
-Chris Mascioli
@dieplstks on twitter
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
My Pro Tour Testing Group Decided to Test the Fish Mirror
 |
| My Pro Tour Dark Ascension playgroup testing |
 |
| Working hard |
 |
| Discussing possible lines of play |
 |
| Magic can be tiring |
 |
| Everyday I'm shufflin' |
 |
| Every testing group needs a Tom Ma |
 |
| The End Boss |
 |
| Intimidation |
Of course, just like every other group we share some good times together afterwards, however one participant imbibed a bit too much, but we got it on film
-Chris Mascioli
@dieplstks on twitter
-Chris Mascioli
@dieplstks on twitter
Sunday, December 18, 2011
X Reasons Why the Top Y Events PWP System is not the Right Solution
1) While it does nothing to encourage people not to play (like Elo), it does not provide incentive to play events after reaching a certain threshold
To the best of my understanding, the PWP system was created in order to provide incentive for the best players to play in an increased number of events. By no longer providing incentive to continue playing in events (of course I could be wrong here if there's some sweet rewards for the new "Pro Players Club" that have yet to be announced, but we can't speculate on that yet) it takes away the fundamental reason for the system. Why would players show up to GPs/PTQs/FNMs if they feel safe in having reached the threshold to qualify for the next PT already.
2) It provides a gigantic advantage to people who are qualified for the current season's Pro Tour
Pro Tours are now 16 rounds with no cut to day 2; 16 guaranteed rounds at an event with a 12x multiplier is HUGE. Let's take someone thoroughly mediocre who goes 8-8 at a PT: that's (8*3+6)*12=360 points. To get the equivalent number of points in a GP (which is an 8x multiplier, but has more participation points), you'd need (3*x+7.5)*8=360 gives an x of 12.5. So in order to catch up to someone going 8-8 in a PT, one would need to T8 a GP.
3) If the Y is small the same pros would always win the tickets, if Y is large the system is no different than the current one
Well the case of small Y would be what I would prefer to happen (which would hurt me), Wizards has made it clear that this is not what they want. They want a system in which everyone (no matter how false this impression is) to feel like they can q for the Pro Tour just by showing up to every local tournament possible. They want a system that encourages people to keep playing in more events, not one that encourages people to show up to a few GPs, a PT, and not anything else.
4) It completely eliminates FNM from the PWP picture
Unless Wizards does something like A FNMs, B PTQs, C GPTs, D GPs, and 1 PT to make the Y events, there would no longer be a reason for anyone hoping to q off PWPs to show up to FNM. As getting better people to go to FNM increases interest in competitive play (I convinced a few people at my local store to go to some PTQs and I'm just some mid level grinder. I imagine Kibler/LSV/others showing up to your FNM would be pretty cool, even for those who don't follow the Pro Tour). I assume the reason that Wizards placed FNM on such an important pedestal (I mean, it's not like playing Magic on Friday night is much different than any other night. Unless wotc is just trying to get people to give up their social life in order to play....) is because they want people that wouldn't ordinarily show up to show up.
5) It makes the regional imbalance even more absurd than it already is
The next season has 15 Grand Prixs, 9 of them are in North America, 3 in Europe, 1 in Japan, 1 in Australia, and 1 in East Asia. If the top X event system is implemented, I see absolutely no way (the regional slots would go to the few European pros who travel frequently) for any non-professional outside the US to have any chance of making it. Going 6-3 (a terrible record) at a GP is worth more than losing in the finals of an 8 round PTQ, basically giving no chance of qualifying to the non-American grinder.
6) PTQ grinders who don't travel to GPs have no chance
One of the aspects of the PWP system that was almost universally lauded was the fact that it would reward players who consistently perform well at PTQs. Under the new system (unless, as previously mentioned, Y is large which would essentially really be the same system as it is now) the player who T8s multiple PTQs would do significantly worse than a player who shows up to GPs and fails to day 2; the system would reward the ability and willingness to travel over consistency at the PTQ level which I don't think is their goal.
Please feel free to discuss and critique my points either in the comments here or on Twitter.
-Chris Mascioli
@dieplstks on twitter
To the best of my understanding, the PWP system was created in order to provide incentive for the best players to play in an increased number of events. By no longer providing incentive to continue playing in events (of course I could be wrong here if there's some sweet rewards for the new "Pro Players Club" that have yet to be announced, but we can't speculate on that yet) it takes away the fundamental reason for the system. Why would players show up to GPs/PTQs/FNMs if they feel safe in having reached the threshold to qualify for the next PT already.
2) It provides a gigantic advantage to people who are qualified for the current season's Pro Tour
Pro Tours are now 16 rounds with no cut to day 2; 16 guaranteed rounds at an event with a 12x multiplier is HUGE. Let's take someone thoroughly mediocre who goes 8-8 at a PT: that's (8*3+6)*12=360 points. To get the equivalent number of points in a GP (which is an 8x multiplier, but has more participation points), you'd need (3*x+7.5)*8=360 gives an x of 12.5. So in order to catch up to someone going 8-8 in a PT, one would need to T8 a GP.
3) If the Y is small the same pros would always win the tickets, if Y is large the system is no different than the current one
Well the case of small Y would be what I would prefer to happen (which would hurt me), Wizards has made it clear that this is not what they want. They want a system in which everyone (no matter how false this impression is) to feel like they can q for the Pro Tour just by showing up to every local tournament possible. They want a system that encourages people to keep playing in more events, not one that encourages people to show up to a few GPs, a PT, and not anything else.
4) It completely eliminates FNM from the PWP picture
Unless Wizards does something like A FNMs, B PTQs, C GPTs, D GPs, and 1 PT to make the Y events, there would no longer be a reason for anyone hoping to q off PWPs to show up to FNM. As getting better people to go to FNM increases interest in competitive play (I convinced a few people at my local store to go to some PTQs and I'm just some mid level grinder. I imagine Kibler/LSV/others showing up to your FNM would be pretty cool, even for those who don't follow the Pro Tour). I assume the reason that Wizards placed FNM on such an important pedestal (I mean, it's not like playing Magic on Friday night is much different than any other night. Unless wotc is just trying to get people to give up their social life in order to play....) is because they want people that wouldn't ordinarily show up to show up.
5) It makes the regional imbalance even more absurd than it already is
The next season has 15 Grand Prixs, 9 of them are in North America, 3 in Europe, 1 in Japan, 1 in Australia, and 1 in East Asia. If the top X event system is implemented, I see absolutely no way (the regional slots would go to the few European pros who travel frequently) for any non-professional outside the US to have any chance of making it. Going 6-3 (a terrible record) at a GP is worth more than losing in the finals of an 8 round PTQ, basically giving no chance of qualifying to the non-American grinder.
6) PTQ grinders who don't travel to GPs have no chance
One of the aspects of the PWP system that was almost universally lauded was the fact that it would reward players who consistently perform well at PTQs. Under the new system (unless, as previously mentioned, Y is large which would essentially really be the same system as it is now) the player who T8s multiple PTQs would do significantly worse than a player who shows up to GPs and fails to day 2; the system would reward the ability and willingness to travel over consistency at the PTQ level which I don't think is their goal.
Please feel free to discuss and critique my points either in the comments here or on Twitter.
-Chris Mascioli
@dieplstks on twitter
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
The Most Awesome Twitter Giveaway Ever
So I said I would do this:
And I fully intend to. However, I realized it would be kind of mean/rude/bad to pick someone completely at random so instead I'm giving everyone of my followers the ability to opt in to be picked for the contest. I swear I will hold NOTHING back, so be prepared. To opt in either leave a comment here, @mention me with the word "in", or add your twitter handle to this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11LA1SPxj9WH_zcO5-pjnveby5sBAcDBtNxrfgxpi0IM/edit?hl=en_US (I'd prefer all three, but whatever floats your boat). I will decide a winner at around 1 am on 8 December. Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)