Talk:Mike Long/Archive 1

Archive 1

This is supposed to be history, not a commercial

The bias in this article is ridiculous. Mike obviously just wrote his own profile. Mike is a cheater and this is what he is remembered for.

• Mike didn't write his own article. I wrote this article. There are a lot of articles that read like commercials, but don't act as though Mike didn't develop some of the most revolutionary decks in the history of the game. Davemcarlson 20:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Bluffing, not cheating?

"At the 1997 Pro-Tour Paris, Long was playing Mark Justice. Mike realized that he would lose the next turn if he could not get his "engine" to go off this turn. However, in order to get his combo to go off, he would have to discard his only win condition - a single Drain Life he had placed in his deck. He decided to do so anyways. After drawing a large number of cards with a large Prosperity, Long asked his opponent "Do I really have to go through all the motions?". Before the days of well-known and circulated internet decklists, Justice didn't realize that Mike had no way of winning the game, so he said "No" and conceded the game"

Isn't that just a solid bluff? MewtwoStruckBack 16:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That incident is definitely a bluff. There used to be a lot more describing him as a cheater, but since it was unsourced it had to be removed per WP:BLP. Jay32183 17:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't what happened. Just watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv9eouZKMOE&feature=related He draws a number of cards, looks at them and says "Justice dead...". He plays Cadaverous Bloom ("Bloom baby, bloom"), shows two copies of Prosperity, says "Give?". Justice looks at them says "Ohh" kind of surprised (just watch the video), and he cleans up his cards. The understanding was that Long would discard all but one card, drawing seven. Draw more cards with his second Prosperity, toss his hand for mana and Drain Life. Evidently, he didn't have Drain Life in his hand at the time. Justice didn't learn until Game 5 that Long only had one copy of Drain Life in his deck, however. --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.76.161 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Then shouldn't it be removed from the controversy section? That's an entirely legitimate move, just like going all-in with 7-2 offsuit in No Limit Texas Hold'Em. I don't doubt that he's done his fair share of cheating; it's just that this wasn't an instance of it. MewtwoStruckBack 16:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's contraversial because many CCG players consider that kind of mind-play inappropriate. A common view is that the strategy should be in the deck building and studious play. Mind games like rushing a player or bluffing are generally viewed as unsportsmanlike. The controversy grew after Mark Rosewater nominated Long for the hall of fame for this very incident.[1] -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That's it?

That's all he's done? The controversy section needs more material. If most of his criticisms had no sources or proof (and were removed from this article); and these are the only verifiable criticisms/controversial actions he's made, than why exactly is he so hated in the Magic tournament community? I know there is a lot of controversy surrounding him; but this article does not do that any justice -- I could still not understand how he's become so disliked. The section mentions a bluff; although it is controversy and unsportsmanlike; it is not against the rules; and I consider it to be very smart -- it reminds me of what people do in Poker. So based on this, I KNOW that there is a lot more stuff Mike Long has done wrong; he is hated for bigger reasons than the ones mentioned here. Can someone include in the article some of his more important and controversial-moves and cite sources for them? 24.23.51.27 11:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you can, if you know of these things, and can cite them properly. FrozenPurpleCube 20:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mike Long was banned from Invitational of, hmm, 2001(?) by Mark Rosewater himself for 'not fulfilling player responsibilities' during the earlier invitational. Sadly, I can no longer locate the evidence for this: Archive.org does not store all the former Sideboard Online pages and they are not under Wizards' own server, either, since Magicthegathering has replaced the now defunct Sideboard Online. So it can't be added unverified. If someone manages to find this piece of information, it could be added. The ban was explained in a piece of writing by MaRo. 130.231.89.99 12:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Argh. It appears you need to create separate accounts for each language Wikipedia separately. (Which, by the way, is extremely bad planning.) In any case, the above comment was actually by me. Thaurwylth 13:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

He didn't actually create Long.dec —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.109.22.148 (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

About MTG Secrets

The "MTG Secrets" thing isn't important enough to be mentioned, but if it must be then it should also be mentioned that it is considered a scam. If it isn't, it's just advertising. 84.55.83.49 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Long's, but if he is notable enough to have an article (he is) then the stuff he does is notable, too. Statements about it being a scam need to be sourced and attributed or they can't go in. Croctotheface 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The rules about living people prevent a wikipedian from judging a living person as a scam artist or a cheater. Without attribution to a reliable source it cannot be included. Jay32183 00:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark Chalice/Lightning Bolt

I was looking at the history and saw that a prior version of the article (here) mentions this incident. I remember this story, so I'm confident that we can find a reliable source for it. By today's standards, at least, misrepresenting the game in this way would be cheating, though we can't say as much in the article becasue of WP:SYNT. Still, it's a notble example of Long's suspicious play, and so long as we can source that it happened, it should go in. Croctotheface 14:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Non notable - bad sources - terrible article as is

He might be notable within the Magic The Gathering community but this article does not meet any of the requirements of WP:BIO. All of the sources are from Magic:TheGathering websites. The WP:BIO states that the person must be noted in sources "independent of the subject.". Six of these "sources" are wizards.com - a site devoted to this subject, and the remainder of the links are from different sites all about this subject. I've seen more widely noted people have their bios deleted or merged. Does he really deserve a full page article in an Encyclopedia? Are there any sources from newspaper articles or magazines where you'll find articles about notable players from all kinds of obscure sports and games. This article strikes me as promotional material --AzazelswolfsuperPUAwithacherryontop (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding "independent of the subject". The sources are independent of the subject, which is Mike Long. None of the sources are auto-biographical or self-promoting. The article definitely needs improvement, including greater depth of sources, but the existing sources are enough for a stand-alone article. Jay32183 (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand what "independent of the subject" means. The subject of this article is Mike Long, not the game of Magic, and sources such as Wizards of the Coast or Star City Games are certainly independent of Mike Long. Croctotheface (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)