What is your thought on removing the ban list? Commander is a format designed to be casual, to have access to all your cards. There is no Wizards sanctioned tournaments being held that offer cash rewards like Modern/Standard/Vintage. Why not have the list removed and just allow the stores that run Commander in house make restrictions? The problem is that people look at lists and think of them as untouchable. By saying that a certain card is not allowed because of a single combo is ludacris. The player may not even be looking that way, and wanted it for the flavor. Say I was playing Kalia and wanted to play a demon sub theme, I couldn't play one of the biggest Demon threats to Avacyn - Griselbrand. Just because someone came out with a storm deck that kills in a couple turns. Why not just take the list away and give the power to the players. If someone only wants to play stupid degenerate combos all day long, you stop playing with them. Eventually they change or find another group to play with. For a format that is designed to be fun and casual, having a no-no list really hinders the fun and casual nature it was designed to have.
Because not everyone has the luxury of a set playgroup. I really don't want to wander onto random tables where Coalition Victory, or twelve-hours-Sharazad games are a thing. If you want to play non-banlist EDH; talk to your group about it. Please...don't try to make everyone follow that scary thought.
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.
Say I was playing Kalia and wanted to play a demon sub theme, I couldn't play one of the biggest Demon threats to Avacyn - Griselbrand. Just because someone came out with a storm deck that kills in a couple turns.
Note that Griselbrand being banned has nothing to do with any combos, storm or otherwise. It's because it's too strong in your Kaalia Demon sub-theme deck. Trust me, it'll go badly.
The easier solution is to house rule banned cards as legal, instead of the other way around.
Your playgroup and others that want to play cards on the banlist? Then do so! If your group don't like it then they will call you out on it. The only possible consequence is that your group doesn't want to play against your deck if it has to many banned cards, and you might be asked to remove them again.
In addition: If your playing with cards breaking the rules of commander (banned/unhinged/non legend commander etc.) ask your group first, most people tend to be ok with it as long as you keep it to a reasonable level
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH decks:
RWUNarset, jeskai burn RUB Marchesa the black rose R Daretti, reanimator goodstuff BU Vela, ninja assasin UG Ezuri, woodland critters.
Because not everyone has the luxury of a set playgroup. I really don't want to wander onto random tables where Coalition Victory, or twelve-hours-Sharazad games are a thing. If you want to play non-banlist EDH; talk to your group about it. Please...don't try to make everyone follow that scary thought.
Meanwhile, while I would love to play a 12-hour Shahrazad game, I would not necessarily want to force it on someone who doesn't want to play that sort of game.
Say I was playing Kalia and wanted to play a demon sub theme, I couldn't play one of the biggest Demon threats to Avacyn - Griselbrand. Just because someone came out with a storm deck that kills in a couple turns.
Note that Griselbrand being banned has nothing to do with any combos, storm or otherwise. It's because it's too strong in your Kaalia Demon sub-theme deck. Trust me, it'll go badly.
+1
Though I have problems with how the Rules Committee appears to manage the format, this is one of the best responses I have seen in quite a while.
Say I was playing Kalia and wanted to play a demon sub theme, I couldn't play one of the biggest Demon threats to Avacyn - Griselbrand. Just because someone came out with a storm deck that kills in a couple turns.
Note that Griselbrand being banned has nothing to do with any combos, storm or otherwise. It's because it's too strong in your Kaalia Demon sub-theme deck. Trust me, it'll go badly.
+1
Though I have problems with how the Rules Committee appears to manage the format, this is one of the best responses I have seen in quite a while.
I am sniping your question to him to voice an interest of my own, but it would be interesting to get more transparency (not that you guys are doing bad at that) on votes/discussions of the banlist, specifically for cards to come on/off. The polarizing cards for this subforum, such as Iona, P. Hulk, T&N would be interesting to see the details on how the discussions go and how many are for/against with the majority/minority opinion being reflected more.
I think with more details so that people can have a better understanding of why, there could be better dialogue to address the issues you as a group may have. Then maybe posts wouldn't just warp into an angry, nerd-rage, conversation and the community could be more involved in a proactive way?
Because not everyone has the luxury of a set playgroup. I really don't want to wander onto random tables where Coalition Victory, or twelve-hours-Sharazad games are a thing. If you want to play non-banlist EDH; talk to your group about it. Please...don't try to make everyone follow that scary thought.
I play non-set playgroup edh games primarily.
I want the ban list gone.
Why?
Because house rules are impossible for the large constantly changing group of players that I play with.
It happens frequently that people talk about deck power level before matches, that's something we can easily deal with.
It goes over much worse if someone tries to include banned cards. There's even the ban list posted on the wall.
This centers on a perception that the Rules Committee makes changes for their own groups, and telling everyone else to use house rules if they don't like it. In large part, this is due to the banned list. I, and most people I know agree that balance should be a greater factor in determining bans (a few think it should be the only factor, but we tend to ignore them).
I understand, and agree with there being additional factors due to the nature and goal of the format, but to seemingly disregard a card's power level entirely, except for incidental overlap with other factors has been problematic. There is also a view that some cards are banned largely due to personal bias against them. Notable examples being Sol Ring and Painter's Servant.
Because not everyone has the luxury of a set playgroup. I really don't want to wander onto random tables where Coalition Victory, or twelve-hours-Sharazad games are a thing. If you want to play non-banlist EDH; talk to your group about it. Please...don't try to make everyone follow that scary thought.
I play non-set playgroup edh games primarily.
I want the ban list gone.
Why?
Because house rules are impossible for the large constantly changing group of players that I play with.
It happens frequently that people talk about deck power level before matches, that's something we can easily deal with.
It goes over much worse if someone tries to include banned cards. There's even the ban list posted on the wall.
And yet it's still easier to make house unbans as it is to make house bans. If I walk into a new store with my deck and get told 2/3 cards from it are banned, that's a major feelbad right from the getgo. Having a basic guideline applying everywhere helps. And if you really want to run banned cards, make a second deck, or a few easy swapouts, so you can play your banned card if the people on the table agree with it beforehand.
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.
This centers on a perception that the Rules Committee makes changes for their own groups, and telling everyone else to use house rules if they don't like it. In large part, this is due to the banned list. I, and most people I know agree that balance should be a greater factor in determining bans (a few think it should be the only factor, but we tend to ignore them).
I understand, and agree with there being additional factors due to the nature and goal of the format, but to seemingly disregard a card's power level entirely, except for incidental overlap with other factors has been problematic. There is also a view that some cards are banned largely due to personal bias against them. Notable examples being Sol Ring and Painter's Servant.
I'm happy that it seems like we can discuss this in a reasonable tone. I'm curious as to what evidence demonstrates that we make changes for our own groups. It's certainly not true, but I'd like to understand what leads to the perception. You mention cards banned because of personal bias and give the examples of Sol Ring and Painter's Servant--but only one of those is banned. Again, looking for the personal bias against either, and particularly whose personal bias it is. To be able to take the discussion further, can you also define for me what you mean by 1) balance and 2) power level.
The only one I feel where personal bias seems to play a role is the Protean Hulk - Tooth and Nail discussion, but we've been around that same song and dance for about a year or so now so I doubt that will ever change.
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.
Have you ever given something to a child, and then tried to take it away?
This format needs a banlist because it is a social format, and should not be considered the other way around. Lou's dead on, you need some sort of expectation when walking into a LGS. The ban list provides that, for the most part ;).
The only one I feel where personal bias seems to play a role is the Protean Hulk - Tooth and Nail discussion, but we've been around that same song and dance for about a year or so now so I doubt that will ever change.
My personal bias? If not mine, then whose? And either way, based on what?
The only one I feel where personal bias seems to play a role is the Protean Hulk - Tooth and Nail discussion, but we've been around that same song and dance for about a year or so now so I doubt that will ever change.
My personal bias? If not mine, then whose? And either way, based on what?
Whether it's yours or your groups, that I wouldn't be able to tell. Truthfully I kinda see you like the Maro of the EDH council; you're the one doing the talking and the announcements though there's more going on. And it feels that way based on the reports that came in around summer when some testing was done with Hulk and really the only true negative experiences seemed to be coming from your side. Iunno, it's more a feeling than anything, I'm not the kind of guy to go "OMFG SHELDON PREVENTS BANS/UNBANS FOR PERSONAL BIAS", just the way the Hulk/T&N thing gets discussed makes it occasionally feel that way.
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.
Because not everyone has the luxury of a set playgroup. I really don't want to wander onto random tables where Coalition Victory, or twelve-hours-Sharazad games are a thing. If you want to play non-banlist EDH; talk to your group about it. Please...don't try to make everyone follow that scary thought.
I play non-set playgroup edh games primarily.
I want the ban list gone.
Why?
Because house rules are impossible for the large constantly changing group of players that I play with.
It happens frequently that people talk about deck power level before matches, that's something we can easily deal with.
It goes over much worse if someone tries to include banned cards. There's even the ban list posted on the wall.
And yet it's still easier to make house unbans as it is to make house bans. If I walk into a new store with my deck and get told 2/3 cards from it are banned, that's a major feelbad right from the getgo. Having a basic guideline applying everywhere helps. And if you really want to run banned cards, make a second deck, or a few easy swapouts, so you can play your banned card if the people on the table agree with it beforehand.
Arguing that it's easier is not a point in favor, because in reality it's still impossible for a store type playgroup to allow for specific unbans. The inertia you have to overcome is absurd.
Why are you implying that no banlist = everyone suddenly has their own unique ban list? That's not what I'm envisioning at all.
I'm envisioning people showing up with decks, talking about the strength of their decks beforehand, and then coming to a conclusion on how to proceed before the game starts, something that usually takes less than a minute( "strong decks this time?" type conversations ).
The ban list, as it stands, does not prevent bad games. It does not prevent strong decks. It does not prevent absurd cards that appear fair but aren't. It doesn't do anything in my view except arbitrarily limit deck building space. It is a useless artifact of the past that should be discarded.
I feel that the people that are arguing in favor of no banned list are likely the ones that disagree with why the cards they want to play with are banned to begin with.
As far as envisioning people showing up with decks and then discussing how to proceed before hand.... I really don't see that ever working and perhaps that's just my skepticism but everyone often has different thoughts about power level and not everyone is going to be reasonable about that. That sort of discussion definitely does take longer than a minute and for people that aren't regulars to the playgroup (Like coming into an LGS or even new blood) they're just going to look to play and this would deter them.
It is simpler and easier for stability and enjoyment of the game to have a singular ban list and if you want to make adjustments to that in your playgroup (via unban or ban) then that's certainly your choice.
I don't think that everyone is going to be 100% happy with what is/isn't on the banned list. (I personally think cards like Food Chain and Tooth and Nail are much too good.) That being said please refer to my above statement regarding house bans and unbans.
Because not everyone has the luxury of a set playgroup. I really don't want to wander onto random tables where Coalition Victory, or twelve-hours-Sharazad games are a thing. If you want to play non-banlist EDH; talk to your group about it. Please...don't try to make everyone follow that scary thought.
I play non-set playgroup edh games primarily.
I want the ban list gone.
Why?
Because house rules are impossible for the large constantly changing group of players that I play with.
It happens frequently that people talk about deck power level before matches, that's something we can easily deal with.
It goes over much worse if someone tries to include banned cards. There's even the ban list posted on the wall.
And yet it's still easier to make house unbans as it is to make house bans. If I walk into a new store with my deck and get told 2/3 cards from it are banned, that's a major feelbad right from the getgo. Having a basic guideline applying everywhere helps. And if you really want to run banned cards, make a second deck, or a few easy swapouts, so you can play your banned card if the people on the table agree with it beforehand.
Arguing that it's easier is not a point in favor, because in reality it's still impossible for a store type playgroup to allow for specific unbans. The inertia you have to overcome is absurd.
Why are you implying that no banlist = everyone suddenly has their own unique ban list? That's not what I'm envisioning at all.
I'm envisioning people showing up with decks, talking about the strength of their decks beforehand, and then coming to a conclusion on how to proceed before the game starts, something that usually takes less than a minute( "strong decks this time?" type conversations ).
The ban list, as it stands, does not prevent bad games. It does not prevent strong decks. It does not prevent absurd cards that appear fair but aren't. It doesn't do anything in my view except arbitrarily limit deck building space. It is a useless artifact of the past that should be discarded.
I'd just like to point out that you created a thread about Avenger of Zendikar being banworthy, yet here you are, stating no banlist is the way to go.
Anywho, this would take just a minute? So, discussing 10,000+ cards and an infinite amount of interactions takes just a minute, I guess.
You know what takes less than a minute? Looking at the ban list, picking a card on said ban list, and then asking your group "Hey, would you guys be cool if I ran X?". 2 answers, yes or no. It may lead to others asking similar questions, which will take a little more time, but much less time than what you are suggesting groups do.
BTW, "Strong Decks" is even more subjective than what people describe as "fun".
I feel that the people that are arguing in favor of no banned list are likely the ones that disagree with why the cards they want to play with are banned to begin with.
As far as envisioning people showing up with decks and then discussing how to proceed before hand.... I really don't see that ever working and perhaps that's just my skepticism but everyone often has different thoughts about power level and not everyone is going to be reasonable about that. That sort of discussion definitely does take longer than a minute and for people that aren't regulars to the playgroup (Like coming into an LGS or even new blood) they're just going to look to play and this would deter them.
It is simpler and easier for stability and enjoyment of the game to have a singular ban list and if you want to make adjustments to that in your playgroup (via unban or ban) then that's certainly your choice.
I don't think that everyone is going to be 100% happy with what is/isn't on the banned list. (I personally think cards like Food Chain and Tooth and Nail are much too good.) That being said please refer to my above statement regarding house bans and unbans.
The discussions tend to be necessary, and have never gone long.
When it comes time to play a game, people ask what the general power level at the table, and try to match it.
This is necessary PRESENTLY.
This is because the banlist doesn't actually do anything to regulate power of decks.
And how does that translate in for new players and have you ever had any arguments or disagreements or sore feelings?
The banlist is a guideline and as far as regulating the power of decks it's done a pretty decent job thus far as far as I'm concerned. Social interaction does help however having a banlist as a guideline is necessary in my experience.
And how does that translate in for new players and have you ever had any arguments or disagreements or sore feelings?
The banlist is a guideline and as far as regulating the power of decks it's done a pretty decent job thus far as far as I'm concerned. Social interaction does help however having a banlist as a guideline is necessary in my experience.
Only one disagreement ever, when someone brought a linear yisan deck that did the exact same thing resulting in a near deterministic T6 win every single game unless a board wipe happened on T4, one person was not happy after that game.
It's never been an issue with new players, the more experienced players pick decks to match the table strength.
The banlist isn't designed to regulate the power of decks. It can't be. Even now you have decks that aim to end the game at or before the 4th turn, 10th turn, and decks that don't have a clearly defined way to win.
And how does that translate in for new players and have you ever had any arguments or disagreements or sore feelings?
The banlist is a guideline and as far as regulating the power of decks it's done a pretty decent job thus far as far as I'm concerned. Social interaction does help however having a banlist as a guideline is necessary in my experience.
Only one disagreement ever, when someone brought a linear yisan deck that did the exact same thing resulting in a near deterministic T6 win every single game unless a board wipe happened on T4, one person was not happy after that game.
It's never been an issue with new players, the more experienced players pick decks to match the table strength.
The banlist isn't designed to regulate the power of decks. It can't be. Even now you have decks that aim to end the game at or before the 4th turn, 10th turn, and decks that don't have a clearly defined way to win.
I'm in search of more details on this conversation. As it stands, this sounds like it had very little to do with the ban list and more to do with DBaD(Don't be a D***). I just fail to see the correlation between abolishing the ban list and this above scenario.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
BWREDGAR MARKOV VAMPIRESBWR
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
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.
Note that Griselbrand being banned has nothing to do with any combos, storm or otherwise. It's because it's too strong in your Kaalia Demon sub-theme deck. Trust me, it'll go badly.
Your playgroup and others that want to play cards on the banlist? Then do so! If your group don't like it then they will call you out on it. The only possible consequence is that your group doesn't want to play against your deck if it has to many banned cards, and you might be asked to remove them again.
In addition: If your playing with cards breaking the rules of commander (banned/unhinged/non legend commander etc.) ask your group first, most people tend to be ok with it as long as you keep it to a reasonable level
RWU Narset, jeskai burn
RUB Marchesa the black rose
R Daretti, reanimator goodstuff
BU Vela, ninja assasin
UG Ezuri, woodland critters.
Meanwhile, while I would love to play a 12-hour Shahrazad game, I would not necessarily want to force it on someone who doesn't want to play that sort of game.
+1
Though I have problems with how the Rules Committee appears to manage the format, this is one of the best responses I have seen in quite a while.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
What would those problems be?
I think with more details so that people can have a better understanding of why, there could be better dialogue to address the issues you as a group may have. Then maybe posts wouldn't just warp into an angry, nerd-rage, conversation and the community could be more involved in a proactive way?
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
I play non-set playgroup edh games primarily.
I want the ban list gone.
Why?
Because house rules are impossible for the large constantly changing group of players that I play with.
It happens frequently that people talk about deck power level before matches, that's something we can easily deal with.
It goes over much worse if someone tries to include banned cards. There's even the ban list posted on the wall.
I understand, and agree with there being additional factors due to the nature and goal of the format, but to seemingly disregard a card's power level entirely, except for incidental overlap with other factors has been problematic. There is also a view that some cards are banned largely due to personal bias against them. Notable examples being Sol Ring and Painter's Servant.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
And yet it's still easier to make house unbans as it is to make house bans. If I walk into a new store with my deck and get told 2/3 cards from it are banned, that's a major feelbad right from the getgo. Having a basic guideline applying everywhere helps. And if you really want to run banned cards, make a second deck, or a few easy swapouts, so you can play your banned card if the people on the table agree with it beforehand.
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.
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
I'm happy that it seems like we can discuss this in a reasonable tone. I'm curious as to what evidence demonstrates that we make changes for our own groups. It's certainly not true, but I'd like to understand what leads to the perception. You mention cards banned because of personal bias and give the examples of Sol Ring and Painter's Servant--but only one of those is banned. Again, looking for the personal bias against either, and particularly whose personal bias it is. To be able to take the discussion further, can you also define for me what you mean by 1) balance and 2) power level.
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.
Have you ever given something to a child, and then tried to take it away?
This format needs a banlist because it is a social format, and should not be considered the other way around. Lou's dead on, you need some sort of expectation when walking into a LGS. The ban list provides that, for the most part ;).
My personal bias? If not mine, then whose? And either way, based on what?
Whether it's yours or your groups, that I wouldn't be able to tell. Truthfully I kinda see you like the Maro of the EDH council; you're the one doing the talking and the announcements though there's more going on. And it feels that way based on the reports that came in around summer when some testing was done with Hulk and really the only true negative experiences seemed to be coming from your side. Iunno, it's more a feeling than anything, I'm not the kind of guy to go "OMFG SHELDON PREVENTS BANS/UNBANS FOR PERSONAL BIAS", just the way the Hulk/T&N thing gets discussed makes it occasionally feel that way.
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.
Arguing that it's easier is not a point in favor, because in reality it's still impossible for a store type playgroup to allow for specific unbans. The inertia you have to overcome is absurd.
Why are you implying that no banlist = everyone suddenly has their own unique ban list? That's not what I'm envisioning at all.
I'm envisioning people showing up with decks, talking about the strength of their decks beforehand, and then coming to a conclusion on how to proceed before the game starts, something that usually takes less than a minute( "strong decks this time?" type conversations ).
The ban list, as it stands, does not prevent bad games. It does not prevent strong decks. It does not prevent absurd cards that appear fair but aren't. It doesn't do anything in my view except arbitrarily limit deck building space. It is a useless artifact of the past that should be discarded.
As far as envisioning people showing up with decks and then discussing how to proceed before hand.... I really don't see that ever working and perhaps that's just my skepticism but everyone often has different thoughts about power level and not everyone is going to be reasonable about that. That sort of discussion definitely does take longer than a minute and for people that aren't regulars to the playgroup (Like coming into an LGS or even new blood) they're just going to look to play and this would deter them.
It is simpler and easier for stability and enjoyment of the game to have a singular ban list and if you want to make adjustments to that in your playgroup (via unban or ban) then that's certainly your choice.
I don't think that everyone is going to be 100% happy with what is/isn't on the banned list. (I personally think cards like Food Chain and Tooth and Nail are much too good.) That being said please refer to my above statement regarding house bans and unbans.
I'd just like to point out that you created a thread about Avenger of Zendikar being banworthy, yet here you are, stating no banlist is the way to go.
Anywho, this would take just a minute? So, discussing 10,000+ cards and an infinite amount of interactions takes just a minute, I guess.
You know what takes less than a minute? Looking at the ban list, picking a card on said ban list, and then asking your group "Hey, would you guys be cool if I ran X?". 2 answers, yes or no. It may lead to others asking similar questions, which will take a little more time, but much less time than what you are suggesting groups do.
BTW, "Strong Decks" is even more subjective than what people describe as "fun".
The discussions tend to be necessary, and have never gone long.
When it comes time to play a game, people ask what the general power level at the table, and try to match it.
This is necessary PRESENTLY.
This is because the banlist doesn't actually do anything to regulate power of decks.
The banlist is a guideline and as far as regulating the power of decks it's done a pretty decent job thus far as far as I'm concerned. Social interaction does help however having a banlist as a guideline is necessary in my experience.
Only one disagreement ever, when someone brought a linear yisan deck that did the exact same thing resulting in a near deterministic T6 win every single game unless a board wipe happened on T4, one person was not happy after that game.
It's never been an issue with new players, the more experienced players pick decks to match the table strength.
The banlist isn't designed to regulate the power of decks. It can't be. Even now you have decks that aim to end the game at or before the 4th turn, 10th turn, and decks that don't have a clearly defined way to win.
I'm in search of more details on this conversation. As it stands, this sounds like it had very little to do with the ban list and more to do with DBaD(Don't be a D***). I just fail to see the correlation between abolishing the ban list and this above scenario.