What intrigues me though, is your "fun suck" comment. Let's look at the difference between lists:...
How many of those are contributing significantly to your fun? Keep in mind the number of cards currently printed.
16 I play, and another 5 I would if I choose to spend more money.
Also, and more importantly, if single cards make or break the fun of the game, that's problematic.
If that was true, then the other side of the discussion would also be guily. Of course its just a terrible argument.
Well, it may be that the game works. But this is the thread about the Official Multiplayer Ban List. If the game works because people actually do have expectations outside the ban list for what they expect to see, then it’s not the ban list that leads the game to be working well for the majority.
That’s my point. The ban list ought to do that. It doesn’t. Instead, something else does it, which isn’t designed for doing that and isn’t as good at doing it. That’s the problem.
There is no point in separating them like that except as an attack on the current list if you don't like it. They can work in concert despite your assertions, I think you actually know that and just want to poke holes because its not black and white. Your position works a lot better in black and white, like a tournament setting. But even then a bunch of the cards on the Vintage list have no business on the EDH list, so start over I guess?
If what you mean by that is that building decks to have fun is a skill, then again, it’s not the ban list that does that. It’s something else. Because what the ban list does is put busted Vintage enablers into people’s decks to Storm off with Yagwin. And this is the thread to discuss the ban list, after all.
But outright bans don't allow people to use those cards in decks that don't try and break them. You seem to be willing to dismiss the people who do so because people can't or won't stop being 'try-hards'. I have no issue with people who want to play fast and win ASAP through disruption. Those games should exist, people like them. The ban list shouldn't stop them, people being adults should stop those decks against slower battle cruiser decks. Match-ups make the game, and to toss out Demonic Tutor because someone plays it as a second YagWin is shortsighted. The iussue isnt with DT, its with the person who does it.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
This is the stance I had years ago and I still maintain it. If house rules were gonna be common theme within playgroups, it's always better for the RC to ban cards, and let the house rules undo any as they see fit. Not the other way round.
This solution works better universally. Whether you're a EDH newbie talking up a game against a field of veterans, or playing tournament EDH. Many of the arguments here fail to account for what I call "Stranger EDH", where you play with someone you don't know personally. It happens alot, and the current banlist is not protective enough.
Let us not pretend that tourney EDH is gonna go away, that it doesn't exists. It's a freaking staple in GPs, in your whatever SCG Opens, etc.
If the RC cares about being the original and most popular form of EDH, it should establish itself. Who knows, one day a variant of the format might take over as the official EDH format. It will happen if enough people believe and actualize it. Wizards will invest in them. Look what happened to the other casual formats.
tl;dr EDH should have a more encompassing banlist, and it's better for the house to unban cards rather than ban them.
This is the stance I had years ago and I still maintain it. If house rules were gonna be common theme within playgroups, it's always better for the RC to ban cards, and let the house rules undo any as they see fit. Not the other way round.
This solution works better universally. Whether you're a EDH newbie talking up a game against a field of veterans, or playing tournament EDH. Many of the arguments here fail to account for what I call "Stranger EDH", where you play with someone you don't know personally. It happens alot, and the current banlist is not protective enough.
Let us not pretend that tourney EDH is gonna go away, that it doesn't exists. It's a freaking staple in GPs, in your whatever SCG Opens, etc.
If the RC cares about being the original and most popular form of EDH, it should establish itself. Who knows, one day a variant of the format might take over as the official EDH format. It will happen if enough people believe and actualize it. Wizards will invest in them. Look what happened to the other casual formats.
tl;dr EDH should have a more encompassing banlist, and it's better for the house to unban cards rather than ban them.
This is my opinion as well. It always baffles me when folks bring up "cascading bans" when discussing whether a card should be banned or not. A committee, specifically the RC, can quash that by being the governing body of the format. When "house" banning cards, whose there to draw the line in the sand?
Though I'm always of the mindset it's easier to say yes, than it is to say no. By that I mean, "Would you guys mind if I played Primetime?", it's either "Sure, that's fine by us", or "Sorry, we follow the banlist", much better than trying to tell someone they can't play a legal card.
Well, it may be that the game works. But this is the thread about the Official Multiplayer Ban List. If the game works because people actually do have expectations outside the ban list for what they expect to see, then it’s not the ban list that leads the game to be working well for the majority.
That’s my point. The ban list ought to do that. It doesn’t. Instead, something else does it, which isn’t designed for doing that and isn’t as good at doing it. That’s the problem.
There is no point in separating them like that except as an attack on the current list if you don't like it. They can work in concert despite your assertions, I think you actually know that and just want to poke holes because its not black and white. Your position works a lot better in black and white, like a tournament setting. But even then a bunch of the cards on the Vintage list have no business on the EDH list, so start over I guess?
If you see no difference between what’s accomplished by the ban list and what’s accomplished by private agreement, you’re literally setting up a scenario where it’s impossible to consider the ban list insufficient as long as there is some group of people, somewhere, who are playing the format.
Honestly if the only players expected to enjoy the format are people who come together and agree on everything, what else would you expect to see before you’d consider whether something about the official rules is off?
It’s the ultimate “no true Scotsman” fallacy:
RC apologists: “Everybody who really gets EDH loooves this ban list”
Public Community: “But I like EDH, and I am tired of explaining myself over and over about these cards..."
RC apologists: “Ah, well, everybody who reeallly gets EDH loves this ban list. You must be playing with people who don’t get it.”
You'll have to be more specific about who you consider to be a "RC apologist", because I'm pretty sure you're attempting to use the term in a derogatory fashion. What makes someone an apologist? Do we have to agree with the list 100% and praise the RC at every turn? Because players like Blue and myself have been quite vocal at times when we did not agree with the RC (pretty sure you know this because I know you have been following the thread for quite some time). Or do we simply have to speak up and support what they do since they are not here on a daily basis?
I also feel like you tend to move goalposts or make statements in which it is difficult to disagree with the actual words you use, but still disagree with the intent behind them. I've brought it up before with your insistence that the goal of any game is to win - that is of course true, but it glosses over the fact that EDH was designed with less tangible objectives as well, and ignoring those ignores a large factor of the game. Similarly, you state that we are trying to set up the ban list as impossible to consider insufficient. Of course you know that isn't true. Both Blue, myself, and many other users take fault with certain aspects of the ban list. That doesn't change that overall we feel that the ban list does a decent job at defining the format goals while remaining as inclusive as possible to the majority of players. The official ban list sets up a way for most players to play in a public setting, while emphasizing and encouraging house rules and open dialogue for when players still feel dissatisfied.
I meant “RC apologists” to mean anyone who might hold the same position contained within the “not broken unless you break it” line. I believe that’s been put forward by the RC (cite needed). It’s not intended as derogatory.
I understand that no one is 100% lockstep with the RC. But there are principles being argued as well, not just cards, and one of those principles is that one. And if someone does take that principle into their outlook, I don’t see how it won’t just result in the above “no true Scotsman” logic. If all the ground on principle is just given away, then the only real thing left to discuss are individual cards. Even then, it’s easy to sweep aside any anecdote that might be relevant to that discussion, just by invoking that principle again.
I meant “RC apologists” to mean anyone who might hold the same position contained within the “not broken unless you break it” line. I believe that’s been put forward by the RC (cite needed). It’s not intended as derogatory.
I understand that no one is 100% lockstep with the RC. But there are principles being argued as well, not just cards, and one of those principles is that one. And if someone does take that principle into their outlook, I don’t see how it won’t just result in the above “no true Scotsman” logic. If all the ground on principle is just given away, then the only real thing left to discuss are individual cards. Even then, it’s easy to sweep aside any anecdote that might be relevant to that discussion, just by invoking that principle again.
Well there is some truth to that belief. However, it requires some amount of acceptance that there is more to the format than simply min/maxing every deck. At some point though the "not broken unless you break it" argument does cease to be valid, and it should not be the sole argument for the legality of any card.
Because players like Blue and myself have been quite vocal at times when we did not agree with the RC
I don't think this is true at all. One just needs too look at his/her own post history to find out more. People just ask for objectivity. I get that one needs to act chummy with the RC so that he can reply your questions. But there's so many waves of "dismissal posts" that turn away frequent posters of this thread. Go on, look at your own posts (not just to the Mods, you all know who you are).
And I thought Mods supposed to keep the balance of the rhetoric, try to encourage debate and qualitative arguments instead of putting up so many traffic signals. Sure one can speak as a player while being a mod but we know where the direction is always headed: Pander-town.
If you claimed that posters sometimes try to be sly, "move goalposts", try to be clever with wordplay, that is because being frank and honest (not being rude) is clearly not allowed. The tone of the thread is already set and match and certain posters are being blamed for it? That's incredible.
I don't want to bring politics here but this thread resembles so much about mainstream media. There's so much Trump censorship and too much Hillary pandering sessions in the media. But we know the eventual outcome. Too bad there's no silent majority here to decide anything anymore.
I feel lumping all the mods into a pile is just as silly as lumping people into an "RC apologist" pile. Arguments sound better when they aren't trying to create an "us vs them" narrative.
Because players like Blue and myself have been quite vocal at times when we did not agree with the RC
I don't think this is true at all. One just needs too look at his/her own post history to find out more. People just ask for objectivity. I get that one needs to act chummy with the RC so that he can reply your questions. But there's so many waves of "dismissal posts" that turn away frequent posters of this thread. Go on, look at your own posts (not just to the Mods, you all know who you are).
And I thought Mods supposed to keep the balance of the rhetoric, try to encourage debate and qualitative arguments instead of putting up so many traffic signals. Sure one can speak as a player while being a mod but we know where the direction is always headed: Pander-town.
If you claimed that posters sometimes try to be sly, "move goalposts", try to be clever with wordplay, that is because being frank and honest (not being rude) is clearly not allowed. The tone of the thread is already set and match and certain posters are being blamed for it? That's incredible.
I don't want to bring politics here but this thread resembles so much about mainstream media. There's so much Trump censorship and too much Hillary pandering sessions in the media. But we know the eventual outcome. Too bad there's no silent majority here to decide anything anymore.
I'm a moderator on this site, and I don't have any issue with voicing my disagreement with actions of the RC...
See: The majority of my posts in this thread during the month of November.
I enjoy the format, especially in certain social settings, so I bear with some of the issues that I feel the RC does not properly address. And this is likely true of most of the mods who post here. I'd be surprised if any of the EDH mods (Cryogen, Jivanmukta, Airithne, bobthefunny, wildfire393), Lou Cypher, or former Mod ISBPathfinder would wholly and unilaterally disagree with Lou Cypher's statement:
I guess the format isn't in a bad place, but there's still plenty of tuneups that could be done.
I am more likely than some to try alternatives like Duel Commander and Pauper Commander, but that's more for monetary reasons than any dislike of the base format.
Oh, and if your post was just for the sake of expressing a political agenda, shame on you.
Let's just leave politics out of this altogether, unless it's politics in EDH or making broad generalizations that don't lump someone into specific party affiliations.
In direct response to Bolas (and this is speaking only for myself): I maintain a "chummy" relationship with the RC for two reasons. The first is because if they see that I respect them I suspect they will show me that same respect and we can have open discussions about questions and disagreements that I have (such as the tuck rules, BaaC, PBtE, and a few different individual cards I've disagreed with). The second is that in order for the EDH community to be healthy they need to be able to get their voice to the RC. We have both seen users in this thread who have been asshats towards the RC and ones who have civilly disagreed. What I as a mod strive for is the latter, so of there is an agenda, that is the reason for it. I have no interest or desire to create and echo chamber, and if there is one then it should be indicative of a format that is free of problems, which I don't feel is the case.
You mention the media and feel that the moderators are supposed to maintain balance. To an extent that is true, but balance does little good when it is at the sacrifice of objectivity. To use politics as an example, one side argues that climate change is very real and dangerous, with scientists citing evidence and research. The other side says this is all a myth because it still gets really cold out, and the person refuting climate change quite loudly has a law degree. Should I as a moderator remain balanced and give both sides equal weight and consideration, or should I point out the flawed argument of the one side? This is my approach with this thread. It is unfortunate that because of my position as a moderator my words or actions can have more influence than intended. I truly wish this was not the case because 99% of the time when I am posting in this thread it is as a user who should hold no more weight than anyone else not on the Rules Committee.
Oh, and if your post was just for the sake of expressing a political agenda, shame on you.
I hope you've read my last paragraph of the post. One would think you didn't.
I know you said "if" but it's lines like the above that people stop commenting altogether. Why do people like you do this sly punch-in-the-gut comment? Just because you protect yourself with the word "if" doesn't mean you should say that. So shame on you for trying to shame people on the sly?
And no, I'm not an American citizen or any Trump/Hillary supporter.
Let's just leave politics out of this altogether
To use politics as an example
...... So should I be confused or should I be shamed?
Maybe it’s my background (debate, etc), but I always believe I’m taking on someone’s position, rather than the person. If you are a person I admire and respect, but I think you’re using circular reasoning, I will still point that out to you in an online discussion on the merits of your reasoning. I won’t point that out to you at Thanksgiving dinner, or at a weekly EDH session, but I’ll point that out in a forum designated for doing so.
Also, if I think you’re being obtuse, deliberately backpedaling on a position you recognize as untenable, or some such, I’ll challenge you on it. It might lead to some tension in the interim, might not. But, I guess I take it as something of a slight when people circumvent discussion. Just me, I guess.
Having deference for a position you don’t agree with is a good skill to have with your boss. But being a consumer of a product, that’s a little bit of a different character when it comes to WOTC, and how they've delegate some product management responsibilities to the RC. Which is why I also understand that MTGO (including MODS) might have a different angle, since we’re also patrons of this site. The customer isn't always right, but he's always the customer.
If you see no difference between what’s accomplished by the ban list and what’s accomplished by private agreement, you’re literally setting up a scenario where it’s impossible to consider the ban list insufficient as long as there is some group of people, somewhere, who are playing the format.
Honestly if the only players expected to enjoy the format are people who come together and agree on everything, what else would you expect to see before you’d consider whether something about the official rules is off?
I think some things are off now, thats not a new position. But I think a whole lot of things are right, so I take it as a total. I am not saying no one should debate rules or cards, or that doing so means you 'don't get it'. But just because those things are not 100% agreed doesn't mean it needs to be changed, or that it could be for the better. Taking the format as a whole and saying the good greatly outweighs the bad, and backing up that position does not make me or anyone else an apologist. And people debating cards VS. changing to 'Legacy ban list plus EDH cards' are a far cry from one another. Especially when the Legacy list has a cards even you think dont belong. So the format has its own criteria, and cards are judged by that, by humans who may not agree with other humans. The issues regularly discussed show its not something to take out back and shoot. Tweaks, yes for sure. Huge changes to ban philosophy, no.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
For the record: I'm not an EDH mod, though given where I post most, it may appear that way.
That said, even if I were, I'd have no trouble voicing my displeasure with some of the RC's actions. I heavily disagree with their Protean Hulk vs Tooth and Nail stance for instance and I would use stronger wordings, but I'm also in favor of treating people with respect when they do a lot of work which helps nurtur something. While the RC is far from perfect and I do believe their philosophy might've been caught up by the times at this point, I also can acknowledge that they have done a lot of good for the format and that most of the banlist is things I do agree with, so taking it as a total, it's a net positive.
Does me not constantly calling the RC out on things I DO think are wrong mean I'm an "apologist", as some have put it? I'd sure as hell hope not. I'm in favor of civil discussion, no need to keep calling out, I just point out what I think is wrong in the appropriate threads and leave it at that.
I also know pretty well that me and the other mods among one another don't have the exact same views either. We're not a hivemind.
Not yet, at least.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras. Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power. Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza. Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall. Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana. Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die. Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
An apologist js someone who offers an argument in defense of something misunderstood or controversial. It's not someone who apologizes, or whatever people find objectionable about the term. It's not negative at all.
An apologist js someone who offers an argument in defense of something misunderstood or controversial. It's not someone who apologizes, or whatever people find objectionable about the term. It's not negative at all.
That's true, but it's pretty common for the term to have a negative bias towards it since more often than not the description is used to dismiss someone or fault them.
An apologist js someone who offers an argument in defense of something misunderstood or controversial. It's not someone who apologizes, or whatever people find objectionable about the term. It's not negative at all.
That's true, but it's pretty common for the term to have a negative bias towards it since more often than not the description is used to dismiss someone or fault them.
Care to provide support for that? I know plenty of people and organizations who voluntarily identify as apologists, etc.
Regardless, take the term as you may. Someone arguing in support of the “only broken if you break it” rationale, that’s what they’ll say. If a legal card causes problems, it’s the player. If an illegal card causes problems, it’s the ban list. No True Scotsman.
Care to provide support for that? I know plenty of people and organizations who voluntarily identify as apologists, etc.
Regardless, take the term as you may. Someone arguing in support of the “only broken if you break it” rationale, that’s what they’ll say. If a legal card causes problems, it’s the player. If an illegal card causes problems, it’s the ban list. No True Scotsman.
Well my support is that as far as I can remember, I've only heard it with a negative slant. I agree with you that by definition the term isn't negative. And since we both have different life experiences I'll trust you that you have heard it used properly. This isn't really a debate I care to waste more energy on as it is irrelevant to this thread.
As for the "no true Scotsman" as it pertains to your example, you're right that those excuses get thrown around from time to time. I think you do the argument a disservice by looking at it so generally, because in the context of players not setting out to break cards (which they're not as evidenced by the ban list), some cards aren't problems because of the players, and some cards are problems despite the players. Look at cards like Sylvan Primordial and Iona. They're both big splashy EDH cards and players show (ed) little restraint with them to the extent the the opponents of these cards universally dislike them. Conversely, cards like Hermit Druid and Power Artifact very simple ways to break and yet they aren't wrecking playgroups. And then there are outliers like Sol Ring which have valid arguments on both sides, which is where I think your NTS fallacy holds true the best.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
He probably means that every card on the ban list gets defended as "the card is bad and can't be used fairly" or something of the like.
Which is mostly true.
With that in mind, Protean Hulk says 'sup. You know, the by far fairest-use card on the entire banlist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras. Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power. Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza. Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall. Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana. Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die. Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
With that in mind, Protean Hulk says 'sup. You know, the by far fairest-use card on the entire banlist.
You made Library of Alexandria cry.
I'm not sure how Hulk is "fair" (despite that being a horrible adjective to begin with). At one end you have players who would only slot it to grab some fatty after a wrath. At the other end you have ones who build around it and include combos just to auto-win. I think there's even a Legacy deck built around that concept (Flash Gordon I think?)
If anything, Hulk is one of those cards which nicely illustrates Jusstice's frustration with users moving goal posts and arguing semantics. In fact, you yourself are upset that Hulk is banned but the similar Tooth and Nail is legal.
With that in mind, Protean Hulk says 'sup. You know, the by far fairest-use card on the entire banlist.
You made Library of Alexandria cry.
I'm not sure how Hulk is "fair" (despite that being a horrible adjective to begin with). At one end you have players who would only slot it to grab some fatty after a wrath. At the other end you have ones who build around it and include combos just to auto-win. I think there's even a Legacy deck built around that concept (Flash Gordon I think?)
If anything, Hulk is one of those cards which nicely illustrates Jusstice's frustration with users moving goal posts and arguing semantics. In fact, you yourself are upset that Hulk is banned but the similar Tooth and Nail is legal.
Hilariously enough, the typical Flash Hulk combo simply doesn't work in Commander. Impossible to stuff enough of the required effects into the deck.
And call it arguing semantics. When a card that comboes off only if you kill it off and even then requires a rather specific deck setup vs a card that comboes out just by casting it and only needs 2 special cards in the deck gets slanted the way the current banlist allows for, you know there's an error in the list. And that error lies in the fears of the Flash Hulk deck, which is a demon of the past. Same reason Worldgorger Dragon was banned. Hulk can be played much more fairly than many cards not on the banlist, for any definition of fair.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras. Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power. Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza. Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall. Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana. Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die. Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If that was true, then the other side of the discussion would also be guily. Of course its just a terrible argument.
There is no point in separating them like that except as an attack on the current list if you don't like it. They can work in concert despite your assertions, I think you actually know that and just want to poke holes because its not black and white. Your position works a lot better in black and white, like a tournament setting. But even then a bunch of the cards on the Vintage list have no business on the EDH list, so start over I guess?
But outright bans don't allow people to use those cards in decks that don't try and break them. You seem to be willing to dismiss the people who do so because people can't or won't stop being 'try-hards'. I have no issue with people who want to play fast and win ASAP through disruption. Those games should exist, people like them. The ban list shouldn't stop them, people being adults should stop those decks against slower battle cruiser decks. Match-ups make the game, and to toss out Demonic Tutor because someone plays it as a second YagWin is shortsighted. The iussue isnt with DT, its with the person who does it.
This solution works better universally. Whether you're a EDH newbie talking up a game against a field of veterans, or playing tournament EDH. Many of the arguments here fail to account for what I call "Stranger EDH", where you play with someone you don't know personally. It happens alot, and the current banlist is not protective enough.
Let us not pretend that tourney EDH is gonna go away, that it doesn't exists. It's a freaking staple in GPs, in your whatever SCG Opens, etc.
If the RC cares about being the original and most popular form of EDH, it should establish itself. Who knows, one day a variant of the format might take over as the official EDH format. It will happen if enough people believe and actualize it. Wizards will invest in them. Look what happened to the other casual formats.
tl;dr EDH should have a more encompassing banlist, and it's better for the house to unban cards rather than ban them.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
This is my opinion as well. It always baffles me when folks bring up "cascading bans" when discussing whether a card should be banned or not. A committee, specifically the RC, can quash that by being the governing body of the format. When "house" banning cards, whose there to draw the line in the sand?
Though I'm always of the mindset it's easier to say yes, than it is to say no. By that I mean, "Would you guys mind if I played Primetime?", it's either "Sure, that's fine by us", or "Sorry, we follow the banlist", much better than trying to tell someone they can't play a legal card.
If you see no difference between what’s accomplished by the ban list and what’s accomplished by private agreement, you’re literally setting up a scenario where it’s impossible to consider the ban list insufficient as long as there is some group of people, somewhere, who are playing the format.
Honestly if the only players expected to enjoy the format are people who come together and agree on everything, what else would you expect to see before you’d consider whether something about the official rules is off?
It’s the ultimate “no true Scotsman” fallacy:
RC apologists: “Everybody who really gets EDH loooves this ban list”
Public Community: “But I like EDH, and I am tired of explaining myself over and over about these cards..."
RC apologists: “Ah, well, everybody who reeallly gets EDH loves this ban list. You must be playing with people who don’t get it.”
I also feel like you tend to move goalposts or make statements in which it is difficult to disagree with the actual words you use, but still disagree with the intent behind them. I've brought it up before with your insistence that the goal of any game is to win - that is of course true, but it glosses over the fact that EDH was designed with less tangible objectives as well, and ignoring those ignores a large factor of the game. Similarly, you state that we are trying to set up the ban list as impossible to consider insufficient. Of course you know that isn't true. Both Blue, myself, and many other users take fault with certain aspects of the ban list. That doesn't change that overall we feel that the ban list does a decent job at defining the format goals while remaining as inclusive as possible to the majority of players. The official ban list sets up a way for most players to play in a public setting, while emphasizing and encouraging house rules and open dialogue for when players still feel dissatisfied.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I understand that no one is 100% lockstep with the RC. But there are principles being argued as well, not just cards, and one of those principles is that one. And if someone does take that principle into their outlook, I don’t see how it won’t just result in the above “no true Scotsman” logic. If all the ground on principle is just given away, then the only real thing left to discuss are individual cards. Even then, it’s easy to sweep aside any anecdote that might be relevant to that discussion, just by invoking that principle again.
Well there is some truth to that belief. However, it requires some amount of acceptance that there is more to the format than simply min/maxing every deck. At some point though the "not broken unless you break it" argument does cease to be valid, and it should not be the sole argument for the legality of any card.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I don't think this is true at all. One just needs too look at his/her own post history to find out more. People just ask for objectivity. I get that one needs to act chummy with the RC so that he can reply your questions. But there's so many waves of "dismissal posts" that turn away frequent posters of this thread. Go on, look at your own posts (not just to the Mods, you all know who you are).
And I thought Mods supposed to keep the balance of the rhetoric, try to encourage debate and qualitative arguments instead of putting up so many traffic signals. Sure one can speak as a player while being a mod but we know where the direction is always headed: Pander-town.
If you claimed that posters sometimes try to be sly, "move goalposts", try to be clever with wordplay, that is because being frank and honest (not being rude) is clearly not allowed. The tone of the thread is already set and match and certain posters are being blamed for it? That's incredible.
I don't want to bring politics here but this thread resembles so much about mainstream media. There's so much Trump censorship and too much Hillary pandering sessions in the media. But we know the eventual outcome. Too bad there's no silent majority here to decide anything anymore.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffI'm a moderator on this site, and I don't have any issue with voicing my disagreement with actions of the RC...
See: The majority of my posts in this thread during the month of November.
I enjoy the format, especially in certain social settings, so I bear with some of the issues that I feel the RC does not properly address. And this is likely true of most of the mods who post here. I'd be surprised if any of the EDH mods (Cryogen, Jivanmukta, Airithne, bobthefunny, wildfire393), Lou Cypher, or former Mod ISBPathfinder would wholly and unilaterally disagree with Lou Cypher's statement:
I am more likely than some to try alternatives like Duel Commander and Pauper Commander, but that's more for monetary reasons than any dislike of the base format.
Oh, and if your post was just for the sake of expressing a political agenda, shame on you.
In direct response to Bolas (and this is speaking only for myself): I maintain a "chummy" relationship with the RC for two reasons. The first is because if they see that I respect them I suspect they will show me that same respect and we can have open discussions about questions and disagreements that I have (such as the tuck rules, BaaC, PBtE, and a few different individual cards I've disagreed with). The second is that in order for the EDH community to be healthy they need to be able to get their voice to the RC. We have both seen users in this thread who have been asshats towards the RC and ones who have civilly disagreed. What I as a mod strive for is the latter, so of there is an agenda, that is the reason for it. I have no interest or desire to create and echo chamber, and if there is one then it should be indicative of a format that is free of problems, which I don't feel is the case.
You mention the media and feel that the moderators are supposed to maintain balance. To an extent that is true, but balance does little good when it is at the sacrifice of objectivity. To use politics as an example, one side argues that climate change is very real and dangerous, with scientists citing evidence and research. The other side says this is all a myth because it still gets really cold out, and the person refuting climate change quite loudly has a law degree. Should I as a moderator remain balanced and give both sides equal weight and consideration, or should I point out the flawed argument of the one side? This is my approach with this thread. It is unfortunate that because of my position as a moderator my words or actions can have more influence than intended. I truly wish this was not the case because 99% of the time when I am posting in this thread it is as a user who should hold no more weight than anyone else not on the Rules Committee.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I hope you've read my last paragraph of the post. One would think you didn't.
I know you said "if" but it's lines like the above that people stop commenting altogether. Why do people like you do this sly punch-in-the-gut comment? Just because you protect yourself with the word "if" doesn't mean you should say that. So shame on you for trying to shame people on the sly?
And no, I'm not an American citizen or any Trump/Hillary supporter.
...... So should I be confused or should I be shamed?
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Also, if I think you’re being obtuse, deliberately backpedaling on a position you recognize as untenable, or some such, I’ll challenge you on it. It might lead to some tension in the interim, might not. But, I guess I take it as something of a slight when people circumvent discussion. Just me, I guess.
Having deference for a position you don’t agree with is a good skill to have with your boss. But being a consumer of a product, that’s a little bit of a different character when it comes to WOTC, and how they've delegate some product management responsibilities to the RC. Which is why I also understand that MTGO (including MODS) might have a different angle, since we’re also patrons of this site. The customer isn't always right, but he's always the customer.
That said, even if I were, I'd have no trouble voicing my displeasure with some of the RC's actions. I heavily disagree with their Protean Hulk vs Tooth and Nail stance for instance and I would use stronger wordings, but I'm also in favor of treating people with respect when they do a lot of work which helps nurtur something. While the RC is far from perfect and I do believe their philosophy might've been caught up by the times at this point, I also can acknowledge that they have done a lot of good for the format and that most of the banlist is things I do agree with, so taking it as a total, it's a net positive.
Does me not constantly calling the RC out on things I DO think are wrong mean I'm an "apologist", as some have put it? I'd sure as hell hope not. I'm in favor of civil discussion, no need to keep calling out, I just point out what I think is wrong in the appropriate threads and leave it at that.
I also know pretty well that me and the other mods among one another don't have the exact same views either. We're not a hivemind.
Not yet, at least.
That's true, but it's pretty common for the term to have a negative bias towards it since more often than not the description is used to dismiss someone or fault them.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Care to provide support for that? I know plenty of people and organizations who voluntarily identify as apologists, etc.
Regardless, take the term as you may. Someone arguing in support of the “only broken if you break it” rationale, that’s what they’ll say. If a legal card causes problems, it’s the player. If an illegal card causes problems, it’s the ban list. No True Scotsman.
Well my support is that as far as I can remember, I've only heard it with a negative slant. I agree with you that by definition the term isn't negative. And since we both have different life experiences I'll trust you that you have heard it used properly. This isn't really a debate I care to waste more energy on as it is irrelevant to this thread.
As for the "no true Scotsman" as it pertains to your example, you're right that those excuses get thrown around from time to time. I think you do the argument a disservice by looking at it so generally, because in the context of players not setting out to break cards (which they're not as evidenced by the ban list), some cards aren't problems because of the players, and some cards are problems despite the players. Look at cards like Sylvan Primordial and Iona. They're both big splashy EDH cards and players show (ed) little restraint with them to the extent the the opponents of these cards universally dislike them. Conversely, cards like Hermit Druid and Power Artifact very simple ways to break and yet they aren't wrecking playgroups. And then there are outliers like Sol Ring which have valid arguments on both sides, which is where I think your NTS fallacy holds true the best.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Which is mostly true.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
With that in mind, Protean Hulk says 'sup. You know, the by far fairest-use card on the entire banlist.
You made Library of Alexandria cry.
I'm not sure how Hulk is "fair" (despite that being a horrible adjective to begin with). At one end you have players who would only slot it to grab some fatty after a wrath. At the other end you have ones who build around it and include combos just to auto-win. I think there's even a Legacy deck built around that concept (Flash Gordon I think?)
If anything, Hulk is one of those cards which nicely illustrates Jusstice's frustration with users moving goal posts and arguing semantics. In fact, you yourself are upset that Hulk is banned but the similar Tooth and Nail is legal.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Hilariously enough, the typical Flash Hulk combo simply doesn't work in Commander. Impossible to stuff enough of the required effects into the deck.
And call it arguing semantics. When a card that comboes off only if you kill it off and even then requires a rather specific deck setup vs a card that comboes out just by casting it and only needs 2 special cards in the deck gets slanted the way the current banlist allows for, you know there's an error in the list. And that error lies in the fears of the Flash Hulk deck, which is a demon of the past. Same reason Worldgorger Dragon was banned. Hulk can be played much more fairly than many cards not on the banlist, for any definition of fair.