Editor: Staff. Wednesday 16th March 2005.
|
You are: Home -> Articles -> Columns -> Good Games
Editor: Staff. Wednesday 16th March 2005.
|
 " Respect! " One night at SGC I am sitting there talking at Scott Hunstad (ssteven). Gab Wong (GabZ) idles nearby waiting for his lift whilst I bash in both of Scott's ears with a barrage of ill-considered opinions and frustrated venting. Anyway, unsurprisingly the most relevant comment I remember from that night comes from his end. In a rare moment's respite, we are talking about the Canberra players, and Scott says something I find interesting. Talking about the penchant of Pasquale “Pez” Laria (Paslaria) to play Spiderman decks exclusively , Scott, shrugs in concession to his audience that he can respect that. I have never met Pasquale, and my only contact with him came through this site when I tried to start an online league a while back. Hopefully, then, my using him as an example in this article will not be considered offensive. Respect is a word that is bandied around a lot, and I find conventional definitions of the term particularly archaic and short-sighted. Without wanting to sound belittling or trivial, the rise of African-American culture (a culture that has long struggled for equality in opportunity) to something I suggest as the parlance du jour has revived the notion of respect as something inherent in the capacity a person exercises as a human being. In this sense, respect is a birthright, an irrevocable quality granted through simple fulfillment of the fundamental criteria of a class or category. In this case, that is the class we identify as ‘human beings'. While I do not disagree with the need for such enunciation, particularly given that respect in such terms is a justifiable expression of a basic human right derived from fairness, I want to look a little further than that. If you do not grant basic respect to others who are intrinsically the same type of being as you, who experience many of the same conditions as you, then you are not worth my time (nor anyone else's). However, it is one thing to respect someone on that basic level, to accede to common notions of decency with regard to personhood. It is entirely another type of respect that is offered in judgement when respect is asked in response to choices . The first category of respect I was talking about is a technical respect based in empirical conditions. It is an equation without variables. Where respect is granted to human beings, any body that can fulfill the accepted notions of what it is to be human commands respect, simply for what they are . What I am interested in, is the type of respect that is granted to people for who they are . The first category disallows personal judgement. The second demands it. Divisions that occur for division's sake just end up being diversions. I want to make this division because I think that in an evolved community, that has accepted the dictates of the first category of basic respect so completely that they have become invisible, the second category of respect is the veritable glue of meaning that holds the community together, and justifies its existence. Whereas the first category of respect is a mere recognition, something of a tolerance, of the potential of difference and its right to exist, I insist upon a respect that is more of an appreciation of difference an observance of the qualities in others that enhance our own lives. I feel driven to write this because I see a lack of this second type of respect, or at least its proper deployment, in the communities that I play Vs in. That is not to say that it doesn't exist at all, far from it. Rather, I think that too often gamers applaud the wrong types of behaviour, and perpetuate deliberate vice. When Scott said he respected Pasquale, ask yourself what is going on between the vowels and consonants of that statement. Scott was saying that he respected a choice Pasquale had made. What was going on in that choice even? As someone who has scaled the heights of competitive TCG gaming, but has also been known to duel, with varied success, such brainbusting efforts as Ace Trumps, Scott can access one of the broadest personalised spectrums of gaming to generate opinion. Scott knows as well as anyone the sheer joy of gaming that drives us all, but he is also privy to the dangerous and corrupting influence of competition upon that joy. The will to win can quite easily give way to the need to win. In one of the first articles I wrote for this site, and for that matter anyone, I talked about gamers wanting to win in a certain way . Pasquale wants to win in a certain way. For whatever reason, he wants to win by whipping up a web of WOS witchery. In effect, he has added his own victory conditions to the game. Most of us are just trying to reduce our opponents to 0 endurance. Pasquale wants something more. There are many admirable qualities to such an approach. Pasquale has his own ideas as to how the game should be played. He sets himself his own goals and works toward them in his own way. When he achieves one of his goals, its manifestation has his own personal brand of sweetener fattening it up. His victories are his own. However much these ideas are his own, the thing that encourages respect for them is that he is willing to take those ideas and test them in the most hostile environment they can imagine: a tournament. The tournament scene is notoriously fickle and someone with Pasquale's approach may have as much chance as an ice cube in hell of winning one. That said, his approach garners respect. This is not in response to some notion of self-sacrifice. Destroying one's self in spectacle is the most selfish thing you could do. Rather, his approach says something very important. The tournament in itself is merely a means to an end. I wouldn't be the archetypal Scorpio that I am if I didn't here reveal the sting in my tale. The truth is, that for too many gamers, winning has become an end in itself. I do not want to rail against players who play primarily for the competition: that would be textbook hypocrisy. However, I do want players who follow that doctrine to take a long hard look at yourself and ask yourself what you are playing for. More importantly, ask yourself if what you are getting out of the game is in line with that. Something that really irritates me is cheating in drafts. Sydney gamers have had a long and successful history of drafting, but it has forever been riddled with cheating. Talking during a draft is cheating. If you really have to say something, can't it just wait? If you don't think what you are talking about has any relevance to the draft then you are obviously not canny enough to realize that this game is about information accumulation and processing. You would be extremely surprised how many players have extremely sophisticated intuitions in this regard. The level of playskill in Sydney is so high that any tidbit available during a draft could be the difference between a match win and a match loss (and subsequently a Wild Ride or just plain old self-respect). If you still don't agree, unfortunately, you are in the minority, as in any sanctioned draft, UDE gets the last say, and talking ain't allowed. Additionally, looking at other player's packs is cheating of the highest degree. Period. No read it again. It is cheating. Why don't we just turn this game into a sealed pack tourney? We all know the opinion of several players on that. There is definitely a point. That is, that so many players claim to be playing competitive Vs because they want to test their skills against the best. The rules outlined by UDE are a sufficient, but definitely not perfect, system for generating such an outcome. Much of the responsibility falls to the players to ensure an honest resolution. If you want to be better, adhering to these rules will get you there a lot faster than any other way. Importantly, respecting people who follow them is a good start too. It may be expedient to cheat a little to bolster your rating or win a random PCQ, but how can you respect yourself that way, or expect anyone else to for that matter? If you make the choice to cheat, to bend the rules to achieve some ulterior motive, what have you gained? Some may say I am taking this too seriously, but I would reverse that. Anyone who cheats at Vs is taking themselves too seriously. They forget why they are playing the game in the first place. Frankly, playing Vs to delude other people into giving you respect for something you haven't done is not a good enough reason to play the game. Look go kick a cat or something and bear the consequences. Seriously. This is not a joke. I think if you took the time to consider your actions long enough you would see that what I am saying is correct, even if it isn't considered right. This is not an ego battle, and I want to avoid what I think is an important sentiment from devolving to that level. I am not sitting on my high horse trying to call cheaters to the gallows. However, I think a concerted community effort is required to rectify what has become an untenable and unfair situation. Most of us have flirted at the outskirts of the rules on several occasions, some a lot more unabashedly than others. There is an opportunity now for a considered approach to change this. If we can restate the reasons why we play the game, we can go about achieving those outcomes more readily. I can respect many different approaches to the game. I respect players who play hard, and I respect players who play from the heart. However, above all I respect players who play fair. Respect the game and respect yourselves. Cheat the game and you cheat yourself.
|