The Istari were asexual


The package with the hardware has already been sent to me, but Telekom still doesn't think it's necessary to activate my connection ... Well, that's not of interest here, so to Magic and so:

I don't need to write an article for the planet for next Monday, so I'll take care of my orphaned blog again. My series of anecdotes has generated some insightful reactions, which I would like to comment on here.

First of all: attribution. If I have understood the good Atog28 (alias Marcus Malden, as can be found in his imprint on Couchmagic) correctly, he is of the opinion that even naming names on the Internet is a violation of personal rights! Well, THIS view even goes beyond the interpretation of that notorious Hamburg Chamber! Somehow it reminds me of that story when the providers of online telephone books had proclaimed the right to make these address lists searchable according to all criteria. Data protection and personal rights are important legal interests, but one must not completely lose touch with reality! To oblige someone who talks about his life to make names unrecognizable in general is absurd.

What one can and should oblige him to do is to tell truthfully. Which brings us to the Jonas Bodmann anecdote: This is exactly how it happened. Sure, after a long time I can no longer swear that the conversation took place in that exact wording, or that Jonas really got redder the third time than the second time etc ... In the context of what a narrative rendition of standards means but it is simply true, and therefore I have the right to report on it.

Of course, this story suggests that Jonas was dealing with weed at the time, but didn't have the courage to stand by it. Maybe that was exactly how it was. Perhaps he wasn't a dealer either, just an end user who, in his typically cocky manner (in any case, I did not have the impression that he was doing too badly financially), used to distribute the stuff quite generously and therefore gave the impression that he " always have grass ”. Maybe the guys just mistook him. Maybe they just wanted to expose him for some reason. Maybe they didn't even know him and wanted to make a strange joke. When I think about it, the solution to this riddle is actually pretty boring.

In any case, dealing in weed if it was more than ten years ago is not exactly a felony, especially if it is not on record. If you google all over the internet, you will find the strangest things about your name. A hiring manager who hires on the basis of such criteria is firstly an incompetent human resource manager and secondly one under whom it might be better not to work. In any case, it is absurd to have to be dead silent about such a story. If she had bothered Jonas, he would have had to try to clarify THAT.

In any case, this anecdote fits his character profile at the time like a fist in the eye! A personnel manager who hired Jonas from back then would be a paragon of incompetence anyway. Jonas, if he's still alive today, is in all likelihood a different person, and if he applies anywhere, he'll be judged on that, and not on any of the stories that happened more than a decade ago. In any case, you have to stand by the shit you've done and not expect others to graciously keep silent about it!

Oh yes: why on earth would it be a disadvantage for a person to be associated with the hobby of role-playing? At the end of the eighties and the beginning of the nineties there was a witch hunt by Bild and their consorts when DSA players, LARPers and Satanists were lumped together, but firstly, those times are long gone, and secondly, that was also back then already a reason to defend yourself against absurd allegations and not to keep silent about them! For heaven's sake, I'm “outing” (former) role-players! (You have to stand by what you do.)

In doing so, I by no means dig too deeply into people's private lives! Occasionally I mention something that concerns me, but otherwise I don't tell from the boudoir. Sure, I'd have a story about someone who allowed me to download a file on his computer and whose download overview he'd forgotten to clean up contained pictures of pooping schoolgirls. A funny story, if you prepare it correctly, and of course especially interesting when I mention the name - someone will already know it!

Only - THAT is private. If he had come in to Serious Games one day and proudly showed everyone present the sharp images he had downloaded from the Internet, THEN it would have been public and I could write about it.

If I were gay and I met someone in the Magic scene and did something with them, I wouldn't write about them because that would be their personal life (and mine, but that's my business). However, if I saw them messing around in a gay disco, I would if there was a reason for it (although you should have noticed that I don't bring up such things too often, but more on that in a moment).

Anyone who is a member of a role-playing club does so in public. Anyone at Burger King who is approached in a most informative manner in the presence of half a dozen witnesses also does so in public.

We come to a much more serious topic, David Hafemann's illness. It wasn't a secret, and he talked about it himself. Can someone please explain to me what the comments ala “This is not funny” meant? How on earth does it make you think THAT it is funny? Even if I hadn't specifically marked this section for my comprehensively handicapped readers by pointing out that I had sad things to say, there would actually be no ambiguity whatsoever.

But here too, David's illness was public. He didn't tell me about it in private, but confessed to it. And no, I don't know if he may have fully recovered from it in the meantime. How could I? The statement that his brain was "permanently damaged" comes from him. And otherwise I wrote “he was never quite the old man again”, which clearly shows that I am only referring to the period in which I was in contact with him. (For those who are grammatically challenged: In order to make this statement effective up to the present, I would have written “he never became quite the old man again”. The sentence “He never became quite the old man again”, however, would have been ambiguous. ) Is it more irreverent to mention this topic in the appropriate context (and since I reported from the “Banana” team, it was appropriate) or to keep it quiet, even though the person concerned believed in it himself? Perhaps you know the phenomenon: a person who recently sat in a wheelchair appears at a party. All conversations suddenly fall silent. Everyone is extremely polite to the wheelchair driver and nobody speaks to him about his disability. I was told that the person concerned can be terribly on the balls ...

Don't confuse piety with the discomfort you feel when you think about the fate of others. Of course, we often prefer NOT to be reminded that other people - especially those we know - are doing badly. But that has nothing to do with piety, but with taboos: piety means that you try not to hurt the feelings of those affected. Taboos, on the other hand, only serve the emotional comfort of those who are not affected and who do not want to be. I don't believe in taboos.

Since most people think of sex when they hear the word taboo, I move on to the next point: Why does the Magic community always react like a horde of virtual howler monkeys when one of my texts shows that I have / had a girlfriend? Do you actually also read “Woman in the Mirror” and the “Golden Leaf”, or from me the “Super Illu”? Since this point always creates considerable public interest, I will briefly clarify a few things in the presumably futile hope that more interesting things can be discussed again afterwards. So, since I started playing Magic (and even before) there have been women in my life. NO boys or men, no matter how often Deuteritum alias Powerlusche alias CushingPower alias Gerwald Brunner and possibly alias Dietmar Umundum also suggests (wishful thinking?). Anyone who knows me personally and has kept their eyes open a little knows that too.

I am not writing this because it would be important to me whether you consider me heterosexual, homo, bisexual or asexual; I do not care. I write it because the constant insinuation that I am inventing things perturbs me! Honesty is very important to me, and when I write something, that's true (unless, of course, it can be recognized as fantasy or satire with proper reading comprehension). This applies no less to the - very sporadic - insights into my private life than to all other things. And the witty people who think that anyone who looks like me shouldn't tell them anything about women should think twice about it. There is something to learn. If, on the other hand, you want to read fabricated sexual allusions from someone with inferiority complexes, you will find what you are looking for on another blog. No, no link here.

Honesty is a good keyword for the only topic that, in my opinion, is really worth discussing here: the cheating in the Berlin magic scene. A certain “Jacques the cheater god” proudly reported how he and his buddies had systematically cheated in the past, and how he even “trained” them. What is to be made of it?

Well, according to the profile of the cheater god, there is a certain Jacques Punt hiding behind this nick. This one is well known to me and he WAS a cheater. I derive this conviction not only from his very clear reputation, and not only from an accumulation of suspicious facts condensed to the point of certainty, but above all from the fact that he had admitted it to me (quote: “But don't worry, Pischner; me don't shit anymore. ”) Is this Jacques really posting there, or is someone presenting himself other than him in order to choke him down? And if it is really Jacques “the toad” Punt posting there - is he telling the truth?

I believe that people cheat whenever the balance between the risk of getting caught and the potential gain seems too tempting. This threshold may be found in different places in individual persons, but it is there. Most people, therefore, shit wherever they can, whether driving fare dodges or filing their tax returns.

Cheating in magic tournaments used to be incredibly easy. So an incredible number of players cheated. Today it should be little different, except perhaps at the highest levels of the Pro Tour, where the controls may be strict enough (I don't know; I have no recent personal experience). If the DCI would secretly monitor all tables with cameras and microphones at any FNM and then use their oh-so-perfectly worked out penalty guide as they oblige their judges to do, then they would probably have to disqualify around 90% of the participants.

But Jacques does not write of this commonplace deception: Of knowingly letting the opponent make a mistake; noticing one's own mistake without letting the judge know; of the countless games that are decided by the throw of the dice or a case of trivial bribery. He speaks of systematic, practiced, deliberate cheating. From card tricks and deliberately lying to the judge to give the opponent a penalty. Presumably (even if he doesn't explicitly mention it) he also includes the popular “Build-your-own-Limited-Deck” game here.

Did this form of cheating actually take place in Berlin as massively as he claims it to be? I think he's exaggerating. His statements tend to be correct. I knew over half a dozen Berlin players who I could say with a certainty between massive suspicion and absolute certainty that they were habitual cheaters (The Doomies, as unsympathetic as they were to me, by the way, are not one of them!). I still don't do it unless I'm certain or can report my own experiences with them, as is the case with Andreas Huhn. THAT is namely a question of personal rights.

In the end, I can only be certain if they have admitted their deceptions to me. Except for Jacques, this is only the case with Dirk Hein, who assured me several times annually that he used to shit, but not for a year. With many others I itches in my fingers to give their names, but since I have no corresponding personal experience, I have to refrain from doing so; because that WOULD be character assassination (not an exact legal term here).

Half a dozen systematic fraudsters in the Berlin Magic scene; that fits. Especially in the early years, when the Berlin judges liked to act naively as if there were simply no cheaters - Matthias Nagy, but also Lutz Hofmann, didn't exactly cover themselves with fame at first! Still: a systematic training? Constant cheating in every single game? Cheater vs. Cheater matchups, which were decided by the better lie story put forward?

I think Jacques is exaggerating because something would have leaked out. People are not that smart! Exceptions confirm the rule: As far as I know, Dirk never received a corresponding penalty. Nonetheless, he betrayed himself by his excessive “sportsmanship” - and the fact that he occasionally practiced his tricks at team meetings “for fun” - so that everyone who knew his way knew. Jacques was quickly branded a fraudster.

Some of those who, in all likelihood, cheated on purpose were, with all due respect, downright stupid. They occasionally received penalties for minor offenses. Every now and then they slouched on their decklists and received game losses for it. They were socially conspicuous and received punishments for unsporting behavior, played drunk or stoned tournaments, stole from one another and allowed themselves to be stolen from one another. A “professional” cheater who cheats in dozens of tournaments with the help of card tricks does not behave like that, and if he does that he'll be blown one hundred percent very soon.

And finally, to speak plainly once again, the success that Berlin players had (and still have) recorded nationally or internationally is in no way able to come to an agreement with “professional” card artists!

That's why I am convinced that Jacques glorifies his role at the time. Berlin was (and probably still is) a refuge for meager little cheaters who rip off beginners and casual players at local tournaments and feel like the biggest, as long as they don't face serious competition. Players of stature have always been rare and are even rarer today. The list of those players who were actually better than me (and we can happily agree that I never had an international stature!) Is short:

Frank Schacherer
Daniel Brickwell
Dirk Hein
Rosario Maij
Peer Kröger (moved in)

Everything else played in my league at best - just usually more often - and helped his rating by playing numerous smaller tournaments with a low cheating protection level. Berlin is a magic province in which the peasants pull each other's ears.

One more thing on the subject of cheating: In the last few days I have been reading again and again claims that my team Istari should have also been successful through cheating. I can contradict that with full conviction, apart of course from Dirk's person.

First of all, I never heard anything like that when the team was active.That would be extremely unusual if such suspicions were only known years later! On the other hand, I simply cannot imagine that my team members would have secretly practiced such tricks at some point, but kept them 100% out of our team meetings. I also knew most of the team members well privately and therefore had an insight not only into their characters, but also into their timing: Playing Magic just didn't take up so much space in their lives that they would have practiced any tricks !

That's why I just write off such allegations as spite. Team Istari had a good knowledge of the rules from the very beginning and has probably won games because of that, both because we normally did not let our opponents take back mistakes (also this is already referred to as “cheating” by some people). Otherwise, Sven Grottke had the annoying habit for a while of first thinking for a few seconds about a line on the pile and then saying “okay”, which he did not give priority to, but only meant “okay, I have now understood what this saying was in this game situation ”, which I quickly got rid of; and Daniel Brickwell experimented with (legal) “Jedi Mind Tricks” for a while, for example by playing a Funeral Charm on me in my Draw Step and saying: “Discard the card you just drew” even though I had other cards in hand. Oh, and if you follow up on my anecdotes, at some point I'll mention the only case I can remember where I “cheated”, and I very much doubt you will judge me morally ...

Otherwise I just wouldn't have felt comfortable in a team full of cheaters. If I had hardly had anything to do with people in my private life, I could still imagine that I would have been naive enough that they duped me for years, but I knew them too well for that. I can't put my hand in the fire for anybody that they don't “occasionally cheat” at some point and, for example, don't point out to their opponent that they must have just gotten 2 lives, but I can do planned or even systematic cheating with the team Absolutely exclude Istari (minus Dirk).

Back to advertising.

P.S .: This blog will soon be found on Google using the search terms “Marcus Malden” and “Pictures of pooping schoolgirls”. Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether that says more about Marcus or more about Google.

Addendum: A “Jonas B” and a “Dietmar Umundum” have commented on this article in the comments. Perhaps you want to read this so that you don't just consume my presentation one-sided.

Tags:Anecdotes, Berlin, Cheating, Istari, Magic, personality rights, search terms

Comments:46 Comments