First of all, there are three questions I would like to pose, which I will keep in italics to distinguish.
What should you do if you suspected/suspect your opinion untapped previously tapped land, but you aren't too sure?
This is a shame. I have personally seen someone claim their opponent untapped mana, but he didn't actually see it happen, so he didn't even bother grabbing a judge. Was this the right thing to do? I feel that this is a real shame because most times when you suspect an opponent untapped previously tapped land, you can't always prove it, especially in commander.
When playing with friends or casually at a shop, what is the best way to resolve a situation where one player claims the other player untapped land but didn't *see* it?
There was a recent problem at my house when friend A suspected friend B of cheating mana by untapping it. He was playing a mono-blue Teferi deck (the planeswalker one). The problem I had in determining what to do was...
1. He has a habit of tapping and untapping lands often when making decisions on whether to use artifacts or land for mana.
2. He has a lot of artifacts that make his spells cost less.
3. It is near impossible to remember what cards he played in a turn. His turns are longer, because he often does a ton of little things, so it's hard to go back and check to see if he used his mana properly.
The suspicion wasn't invalid, however, as this person was once caught untapping his mana. However, what are we to do in this situation? Simply telling the mono-blue to tap the rest of his landbase isn't fair if he truly was playing cards correctly, because he might have needed that mana. However, letting him get away with it is a big deal because it isn't fair to the rest of the group that play honestly.
How to watch for mana untapping?
Let's be honest. No one wants to strain themselves to watch and make sure the one friend isn't cheating mana. Even if we did, it would be futile, because he will just play correctly until we turned our backs, and that accomplishes nothing other than knowing he could be cheating mana when we don't feel like straining ourselves.
The best thing I can think of is to stop zoning out during his turn. I was considering taking the simple steps to...
1. As he plays cards, count how many he has played.
2. Check where those cards went (artifacts go with artifacts, creatures go with creatures, enchantments goes to enchantments everything else goes to graveyard) that way I can remember things like "well he played 3 creatures and 1 spell, so I better check the three newest creatures and the card on top of the graveyard"
Yet this can still be an issue because Teferi allows him to untap permanents, and a friend has suspected him of using Teferi's ability twice by being quiet the first time, to which he will say "I changed my mind, I didn't do Teferi's ability the first time." (this could be true.)
No one wants to have to deal with a friend who cheats, but at the same time, I can't accuse him of it unless I am positive he has done it more than that one time. It's not fair to him and, if he was being honest, we lose a person to play magic with.
Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim may be an indicator that WotC is aware of the life-gain decks out there and are looking to give the extra life more purpose than outlasting the game. This card will ensure late-game domination, even if they manage to get out a fatty eldrazi.
The artists generally may not like it when you use their artwork without permission.
a monetized youtube channel
"Monetized" as in you have to pay to view it? That's likely not going to fly.
When in doubt, ask a lawyer in real life. You won't get a definitive answer to legal questions in a forum. I know you said "straight forward topic", but copyright is a fairly complicated topic.
By monetized I do not mean pay to view. Monetization on youtube is when google plays ads on your video and you get money based on how many people see those ads.
I came to these forums first because surely I cannot be the only one who is in this type of situation, haha. I honestly can't imagine the artists themselves being upset. They generally make their money off of initially making the art for WotC and then proceeding to sell prints of the artwork.
Again, the reason I ask is because I recall somewhere on these forums someone mentioned that it was legal to use any artwork WotC puts online in full art, but I wanted to oonfirm.
Is MTG art, or some of it, fair use for things such as youtube videos or blogs? I had read in a forum prior that Wizards does release some full pictures of card art for people to use for free, legally.
Taking it a step further, is it considered fair use on say, a monetized youtube channel? I know Tolarian Community College has been able to do it, but is this simply an exception given his major positive influence on MTG?
Proxying is fine by me. I play casual 90% of the time and it's so expensive to build even the cheapest of modern decks that it can take months of picking out single cards to put together some of the ones being played. Not to mention some cards like Snapcaster mage and the enemy onslaught fetches are so expensive many people may never even buy the card, so the only option is to proxy them.
When a card costs as much or more than a AAA released video game, there is something wrong with the entire situation, because that single card is not even close to being competitively priced.
I kind of feel this is where the point of magic steps in. If a card is too pricey, don't play it. I compare MTG to a video game in which you earn credits to buy new gear. Sure, you can decide to cheat when playing with your friends by giving everyone every piece of gear, but that's not the way the game is meant to be played.
I find that when people proxy, they do so as an alternative to finding ways to make their cards work. In my opinion, it's far more fun to see someone find a way to max out a simplistic card, such as "Geth's Verdict", rather than see them play some expensive combo that we won't care about a week later. It's part of the progression of the game. As my one friend puts it, the biggest fun in magic comes from working with what you got, and making what you got work. When you start playing the most expensive cards, it means there is less variety, because lesser decks barely stand a chance. Ultimately, I always say, if you've never gotten attached to a card that may or may not be a great card, you aren't playing magic right.
That being said, if you are proxying the cheapest modern decks (a budget is usually 60 dollars) in casual play, there is nothing at all wrong with this. 1. Your group is ok with it, 2. You are playing casual. The issues only arise when your playgroup isn't ok with it, or when you are trying to play outside of casual.
I don't have a problem with proxies. I'm always letting ppl play proxied decks if they want to try something new before commiting or testing new deck ideas. But I do think it cheapens the game.
What I mean is it makes it less fun IMO. My fondest memories are slamming Hymn to Tourach and Lightning Bolts, swinging with Shivan Dragons pumped with Giant Growths. Playing with proxies doesn't attach those memories to the game or cards you keep around for years. That's the only issue I have with proxies. I don't really care about the money or anything.
Don't bother trying to defend yourself. The two people I most recently quoted have shown no regard for what the play group, or the player, thinks. I absolutely agree with you, and after my friends have read the OP and replies, they have come to agree too. Some of our fondest memories were of making the cards we had work. We grew attached to those cards, and cracking a booster to discover a planeswalker inside, or purchasing a single for a deck you have been working on, is a far more amazing feel than any proxy has provided. My one friend who recently was huge on proxying has now turned around and said that he will only play with proxy until he acquires at least 50% of the deck, because otherwise a lot of the fun is removed.
Even with that aside, I still believe that the playgroup matters. These people who are disregarding the playgroup in favor of saying "they are allowed to" as an excuse are really missing out on the point of the game, which is to have fun with your friends while they are having fun. If your playgroup isn't ok with it, then it simply ISN'T ok to do with them. If you continue to do it, then you are selfish, inconsiderate, and missing the true purpose of the game.
You do. As long as it's not for sale you're free to copy their board, make your own pieces, and make the spinner. You can copy 100% of the game. This gets even easier with digital products where there is no cost to reproduce something because it doesn't deal in physical goods.
Do you know what my parents and grandparents called this when I was a kid? Being economical. They didn't see it as theft, and even the law today doesn't see it that way.
Half-truth. It is illegal to do so if you copy any artwork at all. If you recreate the *entirety* of it without copying any artwork, and you do not distribute it, then it is legal. Not the main point of my argument, which was that we are arguing "legal" circumstances and not taking into account the affect on the game.
Quote from robmoore675 »
For example, you do NOT have a right to pirate an add-on for a video game you bought, given you never bought the add-on, but that DOESN'T make it wrong. It is very circumstantial. An example of when it might be acceptable is when you actually plan to buy the add-on later down the road, or when you had bought the add-on for a different system, even though it is still illegal (check the EULA.)
Quote from aazadan »
Actually, you do. Prosecutions for piracy deal with distribution, sending protected data to others. The MPAA and RIAA in particular have tried to sue people for this but they've always ended in settlements rather than trials that produce actual legal opinion. Furthermore, once you have bought a piece of software you're free to modify it in any way you choose. There may be restrictions on you reselling that software or the company continuing to service you but you can't be stopped from changing it. Oh, and EULA's are considered by most courts to not be legally binding.
Have you ever heard of the "Texas Sharpshooter"? It is considered a logical fallacy. It is where you cherry pick data clusters to suit your argument. For example, if a company called Sugarette said that of the 5 countries that their drink sells the most, 3 of them are in the top 10 healthiest countries in the world, is considered "Texas Sharpshooter". In your case, it is saying that because there have been cases where EULA has not been enforceable in court, all courts don't recognize EULA. In fact, here is an article right here that says otherwise In fact, if you take the time to google "Is EULA legally binding?" You'll find a lot of examples in which it is. Most courts have taken onto the ruling that EULA is legally binding if you are forced to accept it.
That being said, the EULA for most games (I have personally read the entirety of the Dark Souls 2 EULA) states that purchasing that copy of the game entitles you to ONE instance of the game, in which they are allowed to revoke at any time. After doing some research, ONE instance applies to downloading it online. If you bought it for say Xbox, and then pirated it online, you have now claimed TWO instances, when you only paid for ONE, thus breaking the EULA.
Playing a deck that your friends think are overpowered because it is legal (though breaks the rules of magic) is the equivalent of saying that it is ok to start with extra money in monopoly because it's legal. Sure, everyone could just take the extra money and it would be fair, but that greatly affects the game in a negative way that wasn't intended.
Do you consider the acquisition of game pieces to be a part of the MtG game?
Unless these people are trying to pass their proxies off as real cards for sale or competitive purposes, I would think the better comparison would be printing slips of paper that say "$100" on them to add to the Monopoly bank - something I'd be surprised if most people objected to.
You again are not taking into account the fun on other people. If you say that acquiring the cards isn't part of the fun, then what is the point of a sealed event? Part of the fun comes from working with what you have instead of just putting in whatever you want.
Furthermore, I really would love to speak to the people you play with, because I question how much fun they would say they have compared to my play group. You do not take into account AT ALL what the other player thinks. If your friends told you that they thought your deck was too powerful, and that the game isn't fun anymore because you are proxying when they don't want to, then you are being flat out selfish.
No, this is not comparable to replacing money with paper. In that instance, you are replacing one thing with the exact same thing. When it comes to proxying in magic, you are taking less powerful cards and replacing them with completely different cards. Furthermore, in monopoly, no one is at a disadvantage for not having that slip of proxy money. In Magic, however, there are absolutely disadvantages to not having proxy access.
Honestly, I am so bewildered that you guys are so caught up in what is "legal" over what your play group thinks. The fact that me saying "Playing a deck that your friends think is overpowered is not ok" was met with "I would think a better comparison is printing slips of paper for monopoly money." If your playgroup is NOT ok with it, and they think it is unfair and unbalanced because they do not want to proxy, WHY would you think it to be ok to go ahead and play a proxy deck anyway?
Let me just add on to what DrWorm was getting on about.
First of all, "proxy", as used in MTG, is a loose term. The original definition of proxy is "the agency, function, or power of a person authorized to act as the deputy or substitute for another", and there stands no definition (given the dictionary I used) that uses it the way MTG uses it.
That being said, if we replace "person" with "object", then TheElGrande is wrong. Anything that subsitutes another is considered proxy. Yet, arguing definitions here is not the point of the original post, and it serves no purpose in determining if proxies are fair or not.
Claiming that buying a magic card means that all proxies are fair is the equivalent of saying that you have a right to proxy The Game of Life because you bought Monopoly, or that you have the right to proxy an add-on for a board game because you bought the original.
That leads me to my most important point. The difference between what is a right (an entitlement) versus what is right (morally correct, or simply acceptable). For example, you do NOT have a right to pirate an add-on for a video game you bought, given you never bought the add-on, but that DOESN'T make it wrong. It is very circumstantial. An example of when it might be acceptable is when you actually plan to buy the add-on later down the road, or when you had bought the add-on for a different system, even though it is still illegal (check the EULA.)
Now, let's move back to magic and plug all this in. There are circumstantial times when it is right and wrong to proxy.
Is it ok to proxy when...
You plan to buy the cards? Yes. You own the cards in one deck? Yes. You want to proxy the meta? Yes. You want to proxy a cube? Yes. Your friends are ok with it? Yes.
You never plan to buy the cards? No. You don't own the cards and they aren't hard to obtain? No. You want to proxy the best of the best? No. Your friends aren't ok with it? No.
It is understandable that people who didn't bother reading the original post would assume the topic is proxying in general, that is ok. What is not understandable is when people decide to sway the topic towards arguing definitions and trying to argue that it is OK to do in all circumstances because it is legal, or because it somehow doesn't fit the definition of a proxy, or that the mechanics are "indistinguishable", and they do not at all take into account the aspect of it being right or wrong as according to playing against friends.
Playing a deck that your friends think are overpowered because it is legal (though breaks the rules of magic) is the equivalent of saying that it is ok to start with extra money in monopoly because it's legal. Sure, everyone could just take the extra money and it would be fair, but that greatly affects the game in a negative way that wasn't intended. When you start proxying the best of the best, all ingenuity is gone. I have seen people beat a 500 dollar deck (proxied) because they were able to make the best of their budget cards. Whether the proxy deck does good or bad doesn't affect that it ruins the fun, in certain circumstances. If it's too good and they play it right, it's unfair for those who don't wish to proxy. If it's too good, but they can't play it right at all, it ruins the fun for those who know their deck well, as the game becomes too easy.
Alright, rant is over. Everyone who came here to argue definitions or legal standpoints can pack up their bags and go home. The rest can continue their mature opinion sharing.
I've ultimately decided proxies in my play group are to be allowed, but only if they are a deck they plan to buy. My biggest issue with proxies, besides not being able to play with my friends at league, is that they continuously complain that I win all the time (150 dollar deck, no lands outside of what comes in commander 2014), yet they lose with a 500 dollar deck because they constantly switch it around and don't take the time to learn how to play it.
Ultimately, I'd prefer a friend who proxies without intent of buying over a friend who doesn't want to proxy because he will just buy the cards, but never buys the cards.
Five boosters. It takes five boosters to have enough cards for a 60 card deck with 15 card sideboard. If you are going to quote me, call my claim absurd, then without any substantive backing go on an unrelated hyperbolic rant at least get the trivial math right. If you don't know how many cards are in a pack, it makes your moral outrage at "those people who don't buy cards to support the game" sound, I don't know, absurd?
You seem to be missing the entire point of proxy.
Proxy is meant for those super expensive cards, or to playtest an expensive deck before purchasing it.
If you really believe that proxies are not an excuse due to being able to buy five boosters, then let us play a game of modern. You bring five boosters of your choice, I bring 60 cards of my choice. Doesn't seem fair, does it?
Thank you to everyone! Even though this was meant to be a forum for opinions, I believe you guys have also solved my problem.
Telling them that they are allowed to proxy cards they already own across multiple decks might just get them to buy a few cards, and from there, hopefully more.
ElAzar/CurdBros - Thank you. This was the kind of mature input I was looking for.
ElAzar - I agree. My friends all have budget decks, as do I, but they always choose to play their proxies over their budget decks because it is more fun to them. I always try to tell them "a lot of the fun cards in your proxy deck are super cheap, there's no reason not to buy them and put them in your budget deck" but they never care to do so. I have no problem with proxys if a buddy needs to test out their deck, but there is a fine line to me.
CurdBros - I also agree. Testing decks, or being ona budget, is a great reason to proxy. This post was more so directed at the topic of people who actually have the money, but choose not to get the deck, but it's still important to note that some people genuinely can't afford even a budget deck.
Ultimately, I feel like if it's fun to everyone, then enjoy it, but you should at least make an attempt to have a "real" deck. 30 dollars for a pre-made commander, then an additional 20 bucks for cards to buy and add in, means 50 dollars out of your pocket, assuming you don't trade in cards to get them. This is not something that is difficult to obtain over the course of months for *most* people.
The fun of magic does not come from buying the cards. As I said in the original post, I don't instigate the buying of the cards because we all still have fun.
The reason it annoys me is because they aren't able to play at my LGS league with me, because they don't allow proxy (the league hosts prizes, making it more competitive, less casual).
Bradipo: We do still have a lot of fun. I accept that they proxy. My only annoyance of it all is that, as I said, I can't play with them at my LGS league, which is weekly and goes on for a long while. I find the league to be a lot of fun because you encounter many other types of decks, and it's a shame I can't go with them (except one friend who actually bought his deck almost entirely.)
EbonPraetor: Not even *I* voted for "No, and it ruins the fun of the game" at the top. Like I said, it doesn't! Me and my friends still have a great time with proxies. The annoyance of it all is that they continue to claim that they are going to buy it so we can all play league (except for one person who actually bought the deck) but never do so, thus I can never go with them.
midnight_baker: I'd feel stupid if I told someone who was able to buy 90% of his commander via selling and trading cards that they are a sucker who wastes money on stupid *****. Jokes aside, you're making a lot of unqualified assumptions here. This post was meant to be a respectful one regarding people's opinions, not a shining opportunity for people to make assumptions and imply things.
As unorthodox as it sounds, I got my friend into magic but introducing them into EDH immediately!
He was a huge fan of strategy, deeper thought games. I believed that a regular match of standard or modern might bore him as the appeal of making and using a deck didn't exist yet (since he would be using mine.)
First, I had him play French EDH, that is, one v one. He did well, almost beat me (the decks were of equivalent power, and he was quick to learn how to play), but lost. I told him that EDH is usually played with 4-5 people, making it more political and tactical. After that, he wanted to try that, and once he did, he was hooked!
This will also stay within your budget range. Even if you don't play commander, you can both go in, browse the pre-made commander decks, pick one, and then it will be new to both of you.
What should you do if you suspected/suspect your opinion untapped previously tapped land, but you aren't too sure?
This is a shame. I have personally seen someone claim their opponent untapped mana, but he didn't actually see it happen, so he didn't even bother grabbing a judge. Was this the right thing to do? I feel that this is a real shame because most times when you suspect an opponent untapped previously tapped land, you can't always prove it, especially in commander.
When playing with friends or casually at a shop, what is the best way to resolve a situation where one player claims the other player untapped land but didn't *see* it?
There was a recent problem at my house when friend A suspected friend B of cheating mana by untapping it. He was playing a mono-blue Teferi deck (the planeswalker one). The problem I had in determining what to do was...
1. He has a habit of tapping and untapping lands often when making decisions on whether to use artifacts or land for mana.
2. He has a lot of artifacts that make his spells cost less.
3. It is near impossible to remember what cards he played in a turn. His turns are longer, because he often does a ton of little things, so it's hard to go back and check to see if he used his mana properly.
The suspicion wasn't invalid, however, as this person was once caught untapping his mana. However, what are we to do in this situation? Simply telling the mono-blue to tap the rest of his landbase isn't fair if he truly was playing cards correctly, because he might have needed that mana. However, letting him get away with it is a big deal because it isn't fair to the rest of the group that play honestly.
How to watch for mana untapping?
Let's be honest. No one wants to strain themselves to watch and make sure the one friend isn't cheating mana. Even if we did, it would be futile, because he will just play correctly until we turned our backs, and that accomplishes nothing other than knowing he could be cheating mana when we don't feel like straining ourselves.
The best thing I can think of is to stop zoning out during his turn. I was considering taking the simple steps to...
1. As he plays cards, count how many he has played.
2. Check where those cards went (artifacts go with artifacts, creatures go with creatures, enchantments goes to enchantments everything else goes to graveyard) that way I can remember things like "well he played 3 creatures and 1 spell, so I better check the three newest creatures and the card on top of the graveyard"
Yet this can still be an issue because Teferi allows him to untap permanents, and a friend has suspected him of using Teferi's ability twice by being quiet the first time, to which he will say "I changed my mind, I didn't do Teferi's ability the first time." (this could be true.)
No one wants to have to deal with a friend who cheats, but at the same time, I can't accuse him of it unless I am positive he has done it more than that one time. It's not fair to him and, if he was being honest, we lose a person to play magic with.
Thanks for the help guys.
By monetized I do not mean pay to view. Monetization on youtube is when google plays ads on your video and you get money based on how many people see those ads.
I came to these forums first because surely I cannot be the only one who is in this type of situation, haha. I honestly can't imagine the artists themselves being upset. They generally make their money off of initially making the art for WotC and then proceeding to sell prints of the artwork.
Again, the reason I ask is because I recall somewhere on these forums someone mentioned that it was legal to use any artwork WotC puts online in full art, but I wanted to oonfirm.
Is MTG art, or some of it, fair use for things such as youtube videos or blogs? I had read in a forum prior that Wizards does release some full pictures of card art for people to use for free, legally.
Taking it a step further, is it considered fair use on say, a monetized youtube channel? I know Tolarian Community College has been able to do it, but is this simply an exception given his major positive influence on MTG?
I kind of feel this is where the point of magic steps in. If a card is too pricey, don't play it. I compare MTG to a video game in which you earn credits to buy new gear. Sure, you can decide to cheat when playing with your friends by giving everyone every piece of gear, but that's not the way the game is meant to be played.
I find that when people proxy, they do so as an alternative to finding ways to make their cards work. In my opinion, it's far more fun to see someone find a way to max out a simplistic card, such as "Geth's Verdict", rather than see them play some expensive combo that we won't care about a week later. It's part of the progression of the game. As my one friend puts it, the biggest fun in magic comes from working with what you got, and making what you got work. When you start playing the most expensive cards, it means there is less variety, because lesser decks barely stand a chance. Ultimately, I always say, if you've never gotten attached to a card that may or may not be a great card, you aren't playing magic right.
That being said, if you are proxying the cheapest modern decks (a budget is usually 60 dollars) in casual play, there is nothing at all wrong with this. 1. Your group is ok with it, 2. You are playing casual. The issues only arise when your playgroup isn't ok with it, or when you are trying to play outside of casual.
Don't bother trying to defend yourself. The two people I most recently quoted have shown no regard for what the play group, or the player, thinks. I absolutely agree with you, and after my friends have read the OP and replies, they have come to agree too. Some of our fondest memories were of making the cards we had work. We grew attached to those cards, and cracking a booster to discover a planeswalker inside, or purchasing a single for a deck you have been working on, is a far more amazing feel than any proxy has provided. My one friend who recently was huge on proxying has now turned around and said that he will only play with proxy until he acquires at least 50% of the deck, because otherwise a lot of the fun is removed.
Even with that aside, I still believe that the playgroup matters. These people who are disregarding the playgroup in favor of saying "they are allowed to" as an excuse are really missing out on the point of the game, which is to have fun with your friends while they are having fun. If your playgroup isn't ok with it, then it simply ISN'T ok to do with them. If you continue to do it, then you are selfish, inconsiderate, and missing the true purpose of the game.
Half-truth. It is illegal to do so if you copy any artwork at all. If you recreate the *entirety* of it without copying any artwork, and you do not distribute it, then it is legal. Not the main point of my argument, which was that we are arguing "legal" circumstances and not taking into account the affect on the game.
Have you ever heard of the "Texas Sharpshooter"? It is considered a logical fallacy. It is where you cherry pick data clusters to suit your argument. For example, if a company called Sugarette said that of the 5 countries that their drink sells the most, 3 of them are in the top 10 healthiest countries in the world, is considered "Texas Sharpshooter". In your case, it is saying that because there have been cases where EULA has not been enforceable in court, all courts don't recognize EULA. In fact, here is an article right here that says otherwise In fact, if you take the time to google "Is EULA legally binding?" You'll find a lot of examples in which it is. Most courts have taken onto the ruling that EULA is legally binding if you are forced to accept it.
That being said, the EULA for most games (I have personally read the entirety of the Dark Souls 2 EULA) states that purchasing that copy of the game entitles you to ONE instance of the game, in which they are allowed to revoke at any time. After doing some research, ONE instance applies to downloading it online. If you bought it for say Xbox, and then pirated it online, you have now claimed TWO instances, when you only paid for ONE, thus breaking the EULA.
You again are not taking into account the fun on other people. If you say that acquiring the cards isn't part of the fun, then what is the point of a sealed event? Part of the fun comes from working with what you have instead of just putting in whatever you want.
Furthermore, I really would love to speak to the people you play with, because I question how much fun they would say they have compared to my play group. You do not take into account AT ALL what the other player thinks. If your friends told you that they thought your deck was too powerful, and that the game isn't fun anymore because you are proxying when they don't want to, then you are being flat out selfish.
No, this is not comparable to replacing money with paper. In that instance, you are replacing one thing with the exact same thing. When it comes to proxying in magic, you are taking less powerful cards and replacing them with completely different cards. Furthermore, in monopoly, no one is at a disadvantage for not having that slip of proxy money. In Magic, however, there are absolutely disadvantages to not having proxy access.
Honestly, I am so bewildered that you guys are so caught up in what is "legal" over what your play group thinks. The fact that me saying "Playing a deck that your friends think is overpowered is not ok" was met with "I would think a better comparison is printing slips of paper for monopoly money." If your playgroup is NOT ok with it, and they think it is unfair and unbalanced because they do not want to proxy, WHY would you think it to be ok to go ahead and play a proxy deck anyway?
First of all, "proxy", as used in MTG, is a loose term. The original definition of proxy is "the agency, function, or power of a person authorized to act as the deputy or substitute for another", and there stands no definition (given the dictionary I used) that uses it the way MTG uses it.
That being said, if we replace "person" with "object", then TheElGrande is wrong. Anything that subsitutes another is considered proxy. Yet, arguing definitions here is not the point of the original post, and it serves no purpose in determining if proxies are fair or not.
Claiming that buying a magic card means that all proxies are fair is the equivalent of saying that you have a right to proxy The Game of Life because you bought Monopoly, or that you have the right to proxy an add-on for a board game because you bought the original.
That leads me to my most important point. The difference between what is a right (an entitlement) versus what is right (morally correct, or simply acceptable). For example, you do NOT have a right to pirate an add-on for a video game you bought, given you never bought the add-on, but that DOESN'T make it wrong. It is very circumstantial. An example of when it might be acceptable is when you actually plan to buy the add-on later down the road, or when you had bought the add-on for a different system, even though it is still illegal (check the EULA.)
Now, let's move back to magic and plug all this in. There are circumstantial times when it is right and wrong to proxy.
Is it ok to proxy when...
You plan to buy the cards? Yes. You own the cards in one deck? Yes. You want to proxy the meta? Yes. You want to proxy a cube? Yes. Your friends are ok with it? Yes.
You never plan to buy the cards? No. You don't own the cards and they aren't hard to obtain? No. You want to proxy the best of the best? No. Your friends aren't ok with it? No.
It is understandable that people who didn't bother reading the original post would assume the topic is proxying in general, that is ok. What is not understandable is when people decide to sway the topic towards arguing definitions and trying to argue that it is OK to do in all circumstances because it is legal, or because it somehow doesn't fit the definition of a proxy, or that the mechanics are "indistinguishable", and they do not at all take into account the aspect of it being right or wrong as according to playing against friends.
Playing a deck that your friends think are overpowered because it is legal (though breaks the rules of magic) is the equivalent of saying that it is ok to start with extra money in monopoly because it's legal. Sure, everyone could just take the extra money and it would be fair, but that greatly affects the game in a negative way that wasn't intended. When you start proxying the best of the best, all ingenuity is gone. I have seen people beat a 500 dollar deck (proxied) because they were able to make the best of their budget cards. Whether the proxy deck does good or bad doesn't affect that it ruins the fun, in certain circumstances. If it's too good and they play it right, it's unfair for those who don't wish to proxy. If it's too good, but they can't play it right at all, it ruins the fun for those who know their deck well, as the game becomes too easy.
Alright, rant is over. Everyone who came here to argue definitions or legal standpoints can pack up their bags and go home. The rest can continue their mature opinion sharing.
Ultimately, I'd prefer a friend who proxies without intent of buying over a friend who doesn't want to proxy because he will just buy the cards, but never buys the cards.
You seem to be missing the entire point of proxy.
Proxy is meant for those super expensive cards, or to playtest an expensive deck before purchasing it.
If you really believe that proxies are not an excuse due to being able to buy five boosters, then let us play a game of modern. You bring five boosters of your choice, I bring 60 cards of my choice. Doesn't seem fair, does it?
Telling them that they are allowed to proxy cards they already own across multiple decks might just get them to buy a few cards, and from there, hopefully more.
ElAzar - I agree. My friends all have budget decks, as do I, but they always choose to play their proxies over their budget decks because it is more fun to them. I always try to tell them "a lot of the fun cards in your proxy deck are super cheap, there's no reason not to buy them and put them in your budget deck" but they never care to do so. I have no problem with proxys if a buddy needs to test out their deck, but there is a fine line to me.
CurdBros - I also agree. Testing decks, or being ona budget, is a great reason to proxy. This post was more so directed at the topic of people who actually have the money, but choose not to get the deck, but it's still important to note that some people genuinely can't afford even a budget deck.
Ultimately, I feel like if it's fun to everyone, then enjoy it, but you should at least make an attempt to have a "real" deck. 30 dollars for a pre-made commander, then an additional 20 bucks for cards to buy and add in, means 50 dollars out of your pocket, assuming you don't trade in cards to get them. This is not something that is difficult to obtain over the course of months for *most* people.
The fun of magic does not come from buying the cards. As I said in the original post, I don't instigate the buying of the cards because we all still have fun.
The reason it annoys me is because they aren't able to play at my LGS league with me, because they don't allow proxy (the league hosts prizes, making it more competitive, less casual).
Bradipo: We do still have a lot of fun. I accept that they proxy. My only annoyance of it all is that, as I said, I can't play with them at my LGS league, which is weekly and goes on for a long while. I find the league to be a lot of fun because you encounter many other types of decks, and it's a shame I can't go with them (except one friend who actually bought his deck almost entirely.)
EbonPraetor: Not even *I* voted for "No, and it ruins the fun of the game" at the top. Like I said, it doesn't! Me and my friends still have a great time with proxies. The annoyance of it all is that they continue to claim that they are going to buy it so we can all play league (except for one person who actually bought the deck) but never do so, thus I can never go with them.
midnight_baker: I'd feel stupid if I told someone who was able to buy 90% of his commander via selling and trading cards that they are a sucker who wastes money on stupid *****. Jokes aside, you're making a lot of unqualified assumptions here. This post was meant to be a respectful one regarding people's opinions, not a shining opportunity for people to make assumptions and imply things.
He was a huge fan of strategy, deeper thought games. I believed that a regular match of standard or modern might bore him as the appeal of making and using a deck didn't exist yet (since he would be using mine.)
First, I had him play French EDH, that is, one v one. He did well, almost beat me (the decks were of equivalent power, and he was quick to learn how to play), but lost. I told him that EDH is usually played with 4-5 people, making it more political and tactical. After that, he wanted to try that, and once he did, he was hooked!
This will also stay within your budget range. Even if you don't play commander, you can both go in, browse the pre-made commander decks, pick one, and then it will be new to both of you.