05/07/2014 10:02 AMIt's the same reason I don't debate anti-vaccination people, their argument is so fundamentally ridiculous that there's nothing to do besides tell them they are being stupid.
Posted by Zoid
Doesn't that depend on.
1. What their actual argument is.
2. Which vaccines they are against.
I mean, it's been shown that various vaccinations (Gardasil for example, though there are also innaccurate claims which fuzzify the issue for people who don't have the time to go through it all) have potential side effects that are worse than the actual diseases, let alone the effectiveness of vaccine/risk rate of vaccinated persons vs. non-vaccinated persons. In some extreme cases, vaccines have been shown to be counter-productive to say the least: Baxter had apparently not done particularly good quality control for example, allowing a live form of the virus (avian flu, H5N1) they were supposed to be vaccinating against to be in their vaccine (making it a source of infection rather than immunization).
Personally, I'm all for vaccinations, so long as the risks from taking the vaccine are less than what it is trying to prevent. There could probably stand to be less mercury involved in vaccines... but that's just a general rule that there could probably stand to be less mercury involved in anything that goes into the human body, and a stance I'm pretty sure most people agree with regardless of their feelings on vaccines in general.
Anyway, here's the problem with "Zoo" in this particular discussion... I think Sigismund has had fairly different experiences with the deck. I'm not sure if that's from differences in rank, exposure, sub-metas (such as there being different metas depending on when/what servers you play on), or what.
I, personally, have not had the success with or problems against Zoo to the degree that Sigismund states I "should" based on his personal experiences. That may be that I'm not as good with or played against people as good with the deck as Sigismund has, or it might be the other way around. I don't know.
Sigismund HAS been highly repetitive in their claims, but this has also been across multiple threads and discussing the topic with multiple people, so it's somewhat understandable. I don't think it's good to call someone's arguments stupid when they at least provide their reasoning and it is at least somewhat logical.
I do, however, think it's hard to convince someone of "how it usually plays out" when a person's experiences have historically been different... and that's on both sides. "You're playing it wrong" might be valid, but how can anyone go about convincing another person that it is, in fact, them, rather than yourself when both could, potentially, be accurate?
Someone might appeal to rank, but that usually comes out as arrogance and evokes an emotional response.
Someone might appeal to "authority" and point out past nerfs to the deck-type during the Beta (nerfs to Flame Imp, Blood Imp, Sun Shattered, and DoA, though not all nerfs were inspired by Zoo-style Warlock decks). But again it evokes an emotional response, and it doesn't reflect the current state of the game anyway.
Zoo is good, and like all good things in a given game, there are those that will say it's OP, and those that will say it's "just right" or even slightly UP with certain meta considerations.
I've personally made my case to Sigismund a few times, but if he never experiences the same results/situations that I have, even if my arguments are logical and backed up by my own experience and that of others, it will likely get tossed out even after fair consideration.