Unfounded suggestions hold no significance. This is especially true in a situation with a hypocrite who clearly has not taken any lessons in linguistics, or grammar, for that matter.

I have taken lessons in linguistics thank you very much. I just don't want to bother spending time with someone who hates on a deck but hasn't read the description of it nor has even played it.

When did I hate on it? All I said was that it wasn't competitive, or storm, or budget. Does this constitute hate to you? You may have some trouble when you see real hate. Being less emotional may help you not to have a knee-jerk reaction to nothing worth being mad amount.

Also, why do you say I haven't read the description or played it? When have I ever said that I haven't? What have I said that even implies that I haven't?

Dude, you're picking a fight with the wrong person, Femme has the rest of TO on her side.

And if you had read the description, you'd understand that this deck has a storm combo, is highly competitive, and can be built on a budget.

I guess the issue is with upvote-whoring.

The part where you said "Please tell me the "competitive" tag was an accident...

Even regular Cheeri0os is more competitive than this, even with how fragile it is." Pure hate without adding a suggestion to the deck. Why even post that lol

Why care about upvotes tho... I don't reall see them as a big deal. All I want is for suggestions on my decks. Another deck's upvotes shouldn't irk you IMO

Your statements on budget and storm are both wrong as you haven't taken account the budget section of the deck, that is where I get you not reading the description. There are very few hubs that work with this deck so I pick the ones that are most relevant. The budget version is a storm version, and I don't even have the budget hub on this deck, haven't had it on here in a long time so I don't know where you get that from. As for the competitive tag, I make all my decks with a competitive mind-set, hence the tag.

"Stop being anal"

Classic Femme :) Seriously though, the competitive tag means that it can perform decently in a competitive environment, not that it's Tier 1 or 2 necessarily. For example, competitive modern mill will win no competitions, but it can play with the big boys.

Storm is a type of deck that aims to cast the maximum amount of spells in a turn to achieve something, but it doesn't have to include a Storm card by any means, it's just a style of deck.

And yeah, if you're going to hate on a deck, Femme is definitely the wrong person. Good luck though :)

First of all, I can guarantee with absolute certainty that the budget tag was indeed on the deck when I made my post mentioning it.

Second of all, attaching tags that are only relevant to the secondary (or replacement) build of the deck is highly poor form. With that out of the way we can return to your completely false assumption that I definitely have not read the description of your deck, or playtested it.

To Nef, I do not care about the fact that this deck has upvotes, or as GlistenerAgent so eloquently called it, "upvote-whoring", at least not directly. I do care about poor form (as is clearly on display with the budget, affinity, storm, competitive and tokens tags), which lead to false advertising about the contents of the deck and the state of the deck as a slot in the modern meta, which lead to "upvote-whoring". The problem is not the symptoms, it is the disease, which can be clearly attributed to "Femme" 's highly poor form in tags and deckbuilding as well as generally toxic stupidity.

To FAMOUSWATERMELON, you contradicted yourself in your own sentence. As you correctly said "competitive" (and I use that term very loosely) modern mill will win no competitions. This is precisely the opposite of the definition of competitive. If the deck can indeed "play with the big boys" then it should be capable at winning a competition with the "big boys" in question. As you said, modern mill cannot, has not, and probably will not be able to for a long time to come, if ever. There is a reason MTGSalvation primer tags are split into Tier 1, Tier 2, and developing competitive. Not sort of competitive, not "can play with the big boys but still sucks and will never win a tournament", not "built with a competitive mindset", but developing competitive. Developing competitive and actually "confirmed" competitive are two very different things, and both you and the poster of this deck seem to be devoid of that knowledge.

To Femme_Fatale, your statement of "building the deck with a competitive mindset" illustrates the point I made to FAMOUSWATERMELON and my previous statement about your poor form with tags. Building a deck "with a competitive mindset" doesn't make a deck competitive, any more than thinking about waffles while making pancakes will turn my pancakes into waffles. If there was an "aspiring competitive" or a "wannabe competitive" or a "built with a competitive mindset" tag, then Femme would be able to illustrate her desire for this clearly not competitive deck to be competitive without putting false tags onto her decks and perpetuating her massively poor form on this site. Until that happens, Femme needs to fix her form, or get off this site.

No offense but I don't care enough about this situation to read that wall.

Can I Internet fight too?

I mean you can. But there's not much point :P I usually give up quickly because it takes too much effort.

Shots fired

TL;DR for previous post:

Femme has poor form and flawed arguments.

As does FamousWatermelon.

Ayyy I didn't make the list :D

I dunoo guys, i seem to win almost every modern event at my LGS with this deck (always a top 3 finish). It is competitive, how much so depends on your meta, skill ect. If you don't like the deck for what ever reason just be constructive about it.

The budget tag was most certainly not on the deck Dude_3, only affinity was. You were probably taking the budget tag off of Don't Blink. Blink and You Are Dead., which does have it, and had a similar price at the time of your comment.

And if you think we are using hubs in poor form, I suggest you browse the hubs to see the site's general attitude towards them. All they are are a method for users to give a 6 point tag description to the site for other users to find them through the tag search functions. They do not have to be based on the actual decks named Storm or Affinity.

Cracks knuckles Ok, here we go.

First off, "competitive" can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. To some, it means that the deck can and will win multiple competitions against top-tier decks in a high-level atmosphere. To others, it simply means that the deck can put up a serious fight, even if it doesn't win. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about: recently, Lantern Control won a major tournament for the first time ever. Before this event, you would probably not have labeled it as competitive because it hadn't won anything serious. However, I would have, simply because it had the potential and could compete seriously with top tier decks. Another famous example is Eggs, which everyone called jank before its first huge upset.

In other words, this seems to be what you describe as "developing competitive", and I think that this is precisely why Femme (and others) label these kinds of decks as "competitive". As you may have noticed, there is no "developing competitive" hub however, so we have to make do. I'm sure that's something you could request of yeago though (and come to think of it, I believe I have hub privs, so I could create that as soon as he gives you a green light).

So I think that the root problem here is the distinction that you have between "building a deck 'with a competitive mindset'" and actual confirmed top tier decks. While that may be a distinction that is clearly made on MTG Salvation, the line is much more blurred here on T/O, maybe because we are much more focused on building decks rather than theorizing about them (and as a side note, I've seen a lot of decks that are "developing competitive" do very well, proof that both theorizing and testing can never measure a deck's success in a real environment. Perhaps it all comes down to the pilots after all).

In short: you make a distinction between "developing competitive" and "competitive" that we generally don't make on T/O. I think that may be the source of the confusion.

Oh, and GlistenerAgent, the more the merrier :)

There isn't really a need to make the distinction anyways, as if you really wanted a truly competitive deck, just netdeck off of mtgtop8.

To FAFFMEISTERWAFFLES, if you think that an LGS constitutes a competitive environment, then I see how the competitive tag cropped onto this deck. Lmao.

To FAMOUSWATERMELON, the Merriam Webster definition of competitive is as follows:

As good as or better than others of the same kind : able to compete successfully with others.

The definition clearly indicates that the word competitive is to be used only for things as good or better than their counterparts. If modern mill (to go back to your previous example) cannot win competitions, than it is clearly not as good or better than other decks, such as Jund, Abzan, Twin, Delver, etc. If a deck has not shown any good showings at a major tournament, then it is implicitly not a competitive deck.

To Femme_Fatale, if I search for the tags storm, or affinity, under order of your (clearly flawed) definition of what the tags are for, I should not be finding storm or affinity decks, at least not entirely. I should be finding many "related" decks (like finding a deck with 15 artifacts and small synergy with equipment called affinity), and indeed I would, if your definition was valid. Firstly, I did search for both of those tags, one at a time, and I got only storm decks when searching for it. There was one or two messed up affinity tags but the majority were actually affinity decks, clearly disproving your flawed and unresearched claim about how the people on the site feel about tags. Not only that, but under order of your definition, where do we draw the line? Why don't I just post a legacy belcher list and call it Oops All Spells? Why don't I post a Show and Tell list and call it polymorph (or make a polymorph deck and name it show and tell)? Why don't I post Four Horseman and call it Dredge? Where the hell do we draw the line? The location of this metaphorical line is clear once the consequences of its location are taken into account, and it's rather simple. If a deck is affinity, you tag it affinity. If a deck is storm, you tag it storm. You DO NOT tag something that is clearly not affinity, or really storm, or really voltron, or at all tokens affinity, storm, voltron and tokens, respectively. This is precisely what you have done, in addition to your frivolous addition of the competitive tag to this deck, and it is a slippery slope, extremely poor form, and false advertising, aka "upvote-whoring".

Personally, I find it hilarious that people who have contributed nothing to this site find it perfectly ok to lecture those that contribute to it daily on how the site should work. Amazing work, Dude_3. You have proven once again that gall truly knows no bounds.

Dude_3

The thing is, there is a difference in the meaning of a term depending on the context in which it's given. As an example, Tiers in MTG are a measure of a deck's popularity and/or success (there's a lot of debate on that measure, so please don't contradict it, there's no definitive right answer anyways). However, in a completely different setting, that of firms and companies:

Tiers "indicate the commercial distance in the relationship between the manufacturer and supplier" (source).

And yet, these two terms use the same definition from your favorite dictionary:

"Tier: A row, rank, or layer of articles; especially: one of two or more rows, levels, or ranks arranged one above another" (Source)

Additionally, the definition you gave of competitive complies to what I was describing: your definition is "As good as or better than others of the same kind : able to compete successfully with others." Lantern Control won a tournament because it had a good pilot and because the meta was slightly in its favor, but the deck itself did not change from previous versions except for 1x Ghirapur AEther Grid. And yet, would you still call it "developing competitive"? In your words: "If a deck has not shown any good showings at a major tournament, then it is implicitly not a competitive deck." This deck has, so you must consider to be Tier 2 (or "competitive"). But the deck itself barely changed, only its surroundings.

One final note: I think that everyone on this page that has been on the site for a bit can agree that there are much, MUCH better ways to rake in upvotes than hubs. Notably, featuring, +1 buttons, fancy backgrounds, being upgraded, having connections on the site, good descriptions, and of course, an interesting deck. Femme has/does a bunch of these, and a lot of them are very effective, so why would she need one or two more upvotes because of the hubs? As I'm writing this comment, the deck has 339 upvotes on it. I find it hard to believe that a major portion of those came from hubs.

Actually, that last comment got me thinking a bit. Femme, would the deck benefit in any way from 1x Ghirapur AEther Grid? It feels like it could get at least 6-8 damage in each game and it makes Retract that much better. The splash might hurt though.

Raking Canopy, Spidersilk Armor, Gravity Well