"Controversial" - Is it just propaganda?

"Controversial" - Is it just propaganda?
by AlphadiosThe2nd

It has been renowned that controversy is a big thing in Duel Masters. Controversies caused Bombazar to appear broken. Controversies caused many cards to be replaced (e.g. Cyber Brain, Astral Reef). Thus, what actually caused it all - is it genuinely controversial ever since the start or is it intended? Let's take a look at one real-life example which I experienced only recently during my SJAB Camp.

During that camp, my NCO seniors carried out a Massive First Aid Demonstration known as a Triage. They graded different casualties by their injuries under P0, P1, P2 and P3. Where P stands for Priority, P0 refers to the "dead" or "unhelpable", P1 refers to "critical condition" or "first priority", P2 refers to "important conditions" or "danger priority" and P3 refers to the "common kind". In it, one of my squadmates was supposed to have skull fracture and laceration on left upper arm. Apparently, when the demonstration was finished with, the NCO (SSG Tan Ding Jie) gave a debrief and actually said the following when he was describing each person's supposed injuries :

"Casualty No. 12: Skull Fracture, Laceration on Left Upper Arm, P2. Wait. This is controversial. Which grade would a skull fracture and a laceration on the left upper arm be - P2 or P3?"

This alone caused much discussion to take place. Originally, I had no view on it (and I doubt it even is controversial) but after that statement, everyone was voicing their opinions and there was nothing that could determine how it would go. In the end, it went with the original P2. This shows something important. There is no use to actually cause a so-called controversy when the result is normally obvious.

Controversial as it may seem, Ding Jie actually labelled the injury as being controversial rather than being originally controversial. Do you get it? The point is, when English DM was first premiered with DM-01 back in 2004, do you remember Brain Serum? It was supposed to be Cyber Brain in Japan, which drew 3 cards instead. Later in the same year, Marinomancer came out costing 5 and revealing 3 cards. In Japan however, Aquan was there costing only 4 and revealing 5 instead of 3! So why did that happen? This was on the part of WotC who originally didn't want a ban list to exist. Emeral on the other hand wasn't affected. But when Bombazar came out in English DM, it wasn't nerfed at all even though Wizards themselves regarded it as controversial. I personally don't, but technically if I were them and I found it controversial, I would have simply nerfed it. Would you?

Thereafter, Bombazar was marked as broken by the authorities who held the release tournament for DM-10 but nothing took place, except a huge discussion and disdaining of the card. In Japan, however, an identical Bombazar was released, but not marked as broken. Then why did they ban it? The majority told them that it was somewhat broken in their metagame. This goes to show that English DM marked Bomby as broken and this shows their attitude towards the game. If you were trying to let something be known simply, you wouldn't mark it as controversial. (If the Triage case wasn't marked, it would go on as P2 without further discussion. If Bomby wasn't marked, it would go the same way as in Japan.) However, if you label something as controversial, it is normally an effort to get the topic into a discussion or even into chaos. This applies to all kinds of things, not just controversies. If the topic itself never was labelled in the first place, it would go on as normal.

Controversy is also representative of the person's attitude. Originally, I was about to mark THIS paragraph as controversial, but if I did so the thread would probably have a show of mass posts replying to whether it is true or false, and flaming might occur. This is how attitude pays in doing things. However this doesn't go to say that nothing is broken. Broken and controversial are totally different things. If a card like Ultimate Galaxy Universe (which has been cited by 45% sources as being an instant-win, 35% as having to be used as part of a combo, and 20% neutral sources) was completely proved by 100% sources as being an instant-win, we could say it IS broken. But at the moment nothing says that it is completely broken, and jumping to conclusion would only cause more controversy to take place - which is the same as labelling. So why create controversy in seemingly normal situations in everyday life?

Good article!

yeah thanks!
btw this was adapted from an experience in my camp which just ended today >_>

Oh, ok.

anyone can think of why Corile has some controversy in some places?

Nice article, Alphadios. But I don't think that Corile is broken.

Corile is certainly NOT broken.

Obviously.

Obviously, but some people think Corile should be banned and/or restricted.

nickngyuheng wrote:Obviously, but some people think Corile should be banned and/or restricted.

Quite true.

AlphadiosThe2nd wrote:anyone can think of why Corile has some controversy in some places?

This would be the same reason any card has controversy in any unofficial realm of Duel Masters -- people suck!

I really want to give you a more in-depth clarification, but it's really just because some dude lost to a person using the named card too much. Instead of finding a way around it, it's easier to call it "broken," and create an entirely new game without it. It's kind of like being a scrub, except when people support you there is the ability to appear intelligent...no wait, it's just being a scrub.