First a disclaimer… I am not enjoying this bbs format, because I am finding it even harder to keep track of responses. I just had to eat a lot of crow because not only was I misunderstanding someone (which happens all the time online) but even after searching I failed to find several comments related to the one to which I was responding and basically ended up being quite rude without the intent. >_<
So… smaller “discussion” that I have already commented on before. I disagree with both you and baby_mario that “rogue” needs this special definition because we don’t do that with other, similar terms. The one that springs most readily to mind is “net-decking”. Like “rogue” it refers to a choice with deck building/playing… regardless of whether a player wins or loses or does anything noteworthy by net-decking.
“Rogue” I believe should be similar; a “bad rogue” deck is still a “rogue” deck; as long as it actually meets the other criteria one has for rogue, its rogue. Yes some people will try to cover mistakes by claiming it was an attempt at successfully “going rogue”, but such players will just find another excuse or figure out how to abuse the more restricted term.
Addendum: Apparently I’ve reached my limit for replies to a single topic (…yeah @_@) and the bbs itself “suggested” editing this into an older post so… “Net-decking” refers to the act of running a (presumably successful) deck list you got online with no changes. It used to be viewed as a very negative “thing” among a decent portion of the player base; we are not just talking getting the basics of a deck from the internet, but the entire list and making no significant changes to it.
This was frowned upon for being lazy as well as foolish. I forgot how much the culture has shifted; few people truly net deck anymore but most do look online for a list. Still, even if the term is obsolete now… for older players it may still suffice as an example; if someone “net-decks” by just going online right before a tournament, getting a list that is supposed to be “good”, builds it, and then runs it… they net-decked. If they win, they net-decked. If they lose, they net-decked.
As such, I prefer to keep “success” apart as separate from “rogue”, a single word modifier doesn’t seem like too much to ask to clarify which a person means… though even then I am also fine with context making it clear e.g. “He went rogue and took first place!” versus “He tried to go rogue but it blew up in his face!”