Read on Twitter
I generally think that the conversation about who the best player quickly gets reductive. Not all players are judged on even terms and often the system is subjective based on peers cosigning you. I will say that online ladder/trophy races are a bad metric (1/x)
because they mostly reward people who have an excess of time to put into them. There's a lot of very good players who don't pump time into these systems because the end-goal of being able to wave your dick around means nothing to them. Meanwhile, I've seen a number of (2/3)
mediocre players "crush" trophy races by simply playing 3x more leagues than anyone else/buying match wins. These metrics are all faulty and it's honestly better to not give a shit what people think about you because how well people think you play a card game (3/x)
shouldn't have an effect on how you feel about yourself. (4/4)
(Also I you’re a minority player you’re going to get judged at a higher standard than you’re white male peers so it’s REALLY dumb to try and earn their respect because it’s a constant uphill battle)(5/x)
I either singlehandedly made legacy decks dominated in the metagame or had a HUGE part in the construction of decks and get very little credit. Had a random white guy done the same they’d be lauded as a GOAT of the format. The double standards are obvious
