Last week I shared what draws me to writing, and why you may want to write things too. And this is an idea I'm not alone in. Alexander Shearer, writer for GiftsUngiven.com and at ChannelFireball.com, agreed that writing is pretty much awesome for developing various personal and Magic related skills.

More importantly, and far beyond any sort of dialogue I can even hope to start, last week also featured Mark Rosewater, courtesy of editor-in-chief Ted Knutson at StarCityGames.com, in an epic two-part feature (Part 1, and Part 2) that shared one of the most hopeful and inspiring notes: "Don't be afraid to let 'you' into your writing. Write things that no one but you could write."

It seems so simplistic but it's the same sense of positivism good friends and support have harped onto each of us for years: be yourself. And there's more to this than "I'm gonna write personal stuff in my Magic articles."

There are two major points to being yourself: bringing it as a writer, and bringing it as a reader. Both are important for the reading dynamic, yet expressing it both ways is the true challenge.

Maker's Mark

Uniqueness, as a personal quality, is a strange social currency. While the classical "off-beat funky type" gets a bad stereotypical rap in high schools (with both obvious and intentional exceptions), Lady Gaga and her downright unreal uniqueness warrants mimicry and desirability (as well as mass commercialization). Being unique, in of itself, isn't sufficient and necessary for interesting reading or writing. Uniqueness that carries both interesting flair and valued social currency is the sweet spot writers strive for: relevant and desirable.

I'm not the biggest writer in Magic but I do sincerely admire those are could vie for the title: Patrick Chapin and the aforementioned Mark Rosewater are two in particular. These guys can write and they crank out something that feels fresh and different on a regular basis. They're easy to read, engaging to their audience, and clearly understand something deeper about prose that I'm missing.

There are many other great writers, of course, but I highlight these two because they feel closest to the ideal I have striven for. And that's where things get tricky: copying someone else isn't very interesting. No matter how much I envy the talent and following these titanic typists have, strictly stealing plays from their playbook isn't just boorish: it's foolish.

Convention and structure can lend itself to multiple ways to express an idea. Using the most appropriate ones, even if it's been used before, is the correct approach. But so many times I've seen other writers, in addition to myself, simply try too hard to be someone we're not.

There are numerous topics that I can't do justice for, and my attempts to make a point move into a "no man's land" of awkward, and often incomplete, explanations. Think about some of the articles that have rubbed you the wrong way: which ones have been a writer stepping into a domain they haven't treaded often before?

Of my articles, I feel the unhappiest about are those where I stretched my writing into an area of personal weakness. Strategy, deck building, and historical depth within Magic are all different and sometimes interrelated topics that I don't carry any degree of expertise in. General knowledge with the help of Google certainly fills in many of the blanks in my immediate know-how, but if I can do then so can the average reader.

Yep. Boring as paint drying, and probably twice as toxic.

Honestly understanding your boundaries and which ones can be pushed in a meaningful manner is a powerful position to be in. As a reader, the intimate storytelling that great writers produce are the things you naturally seek out. Why bother reading something that's boring? While there are other issues compounding the "Load web. Get decks." approach many of us bring, the fact that many articles are dry and boring certainly doesn't help.

The is an obligation from the writing side to deliver something meaningful to you. Not every article from every writer every day, but that something relevant, enlightening, or inspiring to draw you into a thought. That's my personal challenge and goal.

Gentlemen Jack

And this is the flip side of the coin: responding to articles. Have you ever had one of your core beliefs, about religions, politics, socioeconomic status, personal identity, or something else, challenged by someone else? How easy is it to respond in that situation? You probably have a mountain of emotions and feelings urging you to move forward and defend yourself.

Whether that is paralytic or empowering is another tale, but the fact remains that when negativity is experienced it much easier for an individual to respond in some manner. It's also a natural thing to do. It feels good to push back against real, or perceived, injustice or attacks.

Now consider this combined with the anonymity and ease of response afforded by online media.

It's an interesting matter, from a sociological perspective, why online communities encounter negativity at a far higher rate than positivity. There are certainly positive communities and places on the Internet, but those with truly free reign seem to not just attract but encourage and reward negative activity.

You didn't agree. That's a great thing. Your perspective is different and your view, for good or for worse, is a different take on something. In academia, this difference is an acceptable impetus for further discussion, research, and knowledge exploration. Understanding or confirming information is the primary goal of research: not just deriving but discovering new knowledge.

But there's often little balancing back against waves of negativity in online communities other than personal mores. For me to say "It's wrong to aggressively attack a fellow reader or writer." is a moral judgment. I don't have an effective way to support this other than personal belief.

But as a reader or writer, reading a curt, blunt statement that something is wrong isn't necessarily constructive, and is likely destructive to the intent. As a participant you can choose your level of engagement in the community. The question becomes "What do you seek to gain from your interaction?" Is it development and exploration of personal and community understanding , or it is to simply assert dominance and values you choose as correct?

Part of moving forward with knowledge is accepting that what you currently understand, at the surface down through the very fundamental levels, may be completely wrong. The idea that a supporting pillar of your belief structure could be incomplete or wrong is deeply frightening. Facing it, let alone acknowledging and acting upon it, is a terrible feeling if you've never done it before.

It's easy to confuse the ability to set aside current beliefs to examine new ones and the destruction or complete tossing of beliefs for different ones. Anyone can choose to ignore what they currently know and examine an idea from a different angle; all it takes it some effort and practice. Challenged expectations can lead to two very positive things:

• Exploration of the topic with a broadening, dynamic range of views associated with it
• Personal and community growth from increased pooling and sharing of knowledge

I'm not an expert at many topics. And that fact is true for most everyone involved with Magic. But flipping that on its head, it means we all have bit and pieces to share and stand to benefit from discussion and examinations of these topics. Having room to grow is not a negative but a positive: upward mobility of knowledge is the opportunity for awesome change.

What I mean is that while there are certainly acceptable and useful structures and tropes for writing, there are most definitely similarly situated concepts for reading and response. What I propose is a challenge to everyone in the Magic community, myself included, to step up and follow through with some principles for participation.

Principles for Participation (Subject to Change)

1. Read a different article regularly.
2. Reread an article you feel strongly about.
3. Make an effort to share a deliberate, open response to articles.
4. Engage fellow participants in the same, deliberate manner.
5. Share interesting articles more often.

Let me explain, briefly.

1. Read a different article regularly.

By reading a new-to-you or haven't-read-in-awhile author you flex away from digesting similar and potentially repetitive information. The current Limited or Constructed format-du-jour is certainly important, but taking a breather and letting your mind work at different information is both mentally refreshing and can lead to new insight in unexpected places.

You don't have to give up your daily dig through the best names out there: just mix in a little variety and try a few new spices. I will lead to some exciting things.

2. Reread an article you feel strongly about.

Whether you like it or hate it, walking away for a bit then rereading the article will help clarify both your perspective and the author's intent. It easy to skim rapidly, catch a few statements out of context, and respond to incomplete information.

Authors make mistakes, this is most certainly true, and those posting feedback do as well. But understanding where the topic or statements at hand is one of empirical correctness or opinionated perspective will help shape how you look at the issue. Paragraphs can lead to a final conclusion different from the first encountered statements. Ideas can be lost, sandwiched between less subtle points. Taking a moment to reflect and reread will help any response you choose to give to be shaped clearer and more relevant to the author or fellow responder.

3. Make an effort to share deliberate, open response to articles.

Time is valuable and responding to everything you read in a deep and considerate manner is very challenging. Instead, choose to respond to articles where you have input or a need for more understanding.

Deliberate means "wholly intentional" and avoiding knee-jerk and emotionally inspired responses. Agreement and acceptance is not requirement, merely that what you share is thoughtfully intended and not thouughtlessly blabbed.

Open means "welcoming" and seeks further engagement of the point. If you disagree, carefully elaborate why without vindictive or deconstructive overtones. If you agree, is there more to be explored? Can the idea be taken further? Having the answers is far secondary to merely asking the questions and encouraging similarly thoughtful remarks to benefit writers and readers alike.

4. Engage fellow participants in the same, deliberate manner.

Regardless of their actions or behavior, calmly and with deliberate tactfulness addressing others will not only resist the "Trolling! LULZ!" types but encourage others who may be off-put by aggressive, offensive interaction to participate. Fear of "jumping into the flame war" has certainly chased many thoughtful readers away from discussions, and fed the frenzy of those seeking blood.

There isn't any way to "correct" others behavior online, but following through with good examples and bypassing vitriol the environment can be meaningful even if every participant isn't providing beneficial input. Complaint letters and requests are more likely to be taken seriously by a company when they are simple, to the point, and calmly shared. Applying that online makes sense.

5. Share interesting articles more often.

I'm extremely guilty of reading something great, or at least something I enjoy, then leaving it be and moving on. Twitter, chat programs, your own writing, Facebook, and dozens of other ways to share relevant things to friends exists. Choosing to share great things will encourage others to read, respond, and share. Building the Magic community in an organic manner is the strongest way to continue reinforcing the wonderful world around us.

So what do you think? Are you up for the challenge laid out above? I have so much farther to grow as a player, reader, and writer. Pushing myself to reach higher and give back more isn't just good for me, it's good for Magic itself.

Don't you think you have something to give too?