First of all I am not agitated / upset / taking anything here personally. If my posts sound that way it is only because I speak with conviction usually. Please just take my deck creations out of the equation. I have no desire to take my amateurish little brews to the "next level" or any thing. I simply enjoy playing my decks and beating the sheeple that infest this game.
Now that's out of the way, you kind of skipped over my point that "unknown" decks shouldn't have to complete the same number of finishes as the decks getting played by the masses each and every day BUT the net result of your suggestions is a lot more acceptable in my opinion.
1) 6 dailies in 3 months? That's doable for a 1 man show I suppose. It's a tall order, but not completely impossible.
2)2 premier events - still pretty difficult / borderlines impossible for a 1 man show. BEtter than 3 I suppose but meh.
You're system is so arbitrary. What if you take 1 completely unknown deck and win 4/4 dailies with it in 3 months? Statistically speaking this deck should be out performing any of those fitting the criteria you just stated.
You cannot expect a single person piloting an unknown deck to achieve the same amount of wins as a netdeck that is piloted by hundreds of different players hundreds of times per day. In fact, being unknown is a giant advantage to a rogue list, and largely why they are so effective!
All you are doing with this system is letting folks know what the most popular decks in the format are. You will completely miss any meta assassin lists piloted by folks who are thinking outside the box. I guess that is my biggest problem with MTGS's forum system. There seems to be no way for an average joe brewer to create a deck, win with it and have it recognized along side other successful decks that just happen to be more popular.
Bottom Line: Just because a deck is unpopular does not make weak. Your system serves to identify the most popular successful decks, and ignores the other successful ones.
It's a poor system.
Hmm, would a fair compromise be something like what the Legacy sub/The Source uses. Once a deck establishes itself, it can never be demoted to creation as long as a proper primer is maintained? Seems fair to me.
Hmm, would a fair compromise be something like what the Legacy sub/The Source uses. Once a deck establishes itself, it can never be demoted to creation as long as a proper primer is maintained? Seems fair to me.
If Established is a lifetime achievement award that never goes away, then the bar is going to be set higher. It can be lower if the subforum is updated every 3-6 months. A higher bar would make it harder for brewers to have a shot at getting their deck into Established, even if it might actually belong there.
This is what the modified Established criteria would look like with the slightly more favorable entry requirements. I have also updated the list of decks which are included under Established. All the criteria have been updated to reflect the new idea that some decks are massively overrepresented at events (those decks more than 2+ standard deviations over the average prevalence). The new numbers reflect new pools that exclude those superdecks.
Established Tournament Decks with Results
Established decks are updated once every ban cycle. All Established threads must have a primer updated since the last ban cycle. A deck is considered "Established" if it does not meet the requirements of "Proven" but still fulfills ONE or more of the following criteria:
Has finished 4-0/3-1 at 6+ dailies in the past 3 months (above average finish count for decks that are not 2+ standard deviations over the pooled average, i.e. the "adjusted pool")
Has 1+ Grand Prix/Pro Tour Top 16 appearance in the last 6 months
Makes up 1.25%+ of the Day 2 metagame at all GPs in the last 6 months (i.e. any deck with above average day 2 prevalence for all day 2 decks at Modern GPs, all for the adjusted pool)
Has placed in the Top 8 of 4+ paper event with 100+ players in the past 6 months (above average finish count for the adjusted pool)
Has placed in the Top 8 of 2+ MTGO Premier Events in the past 3 months (above average finish count for the adjusted pool)
Under those definitions, which are more inclusive than even the last criteria, here is what the Established would look like. As with the previous section, I give the criteria that these decks fulfill under the Established definition. So for example, Hatebears fulfills criteria 1 and 5 but nothing else, so it gets a (1,5). New decks to Established as of 9/21/2013 are posted at the end of the list:
NEW ESTABLISHED
UR Delver (1,2,3,5)
Bogles (1)
GW Hatebears (1,5)
Wx Tokens (2,3)
Soul Sisters (1)
Gruul Zoo (1,2,3,4)
Mono U Tron (1)
UR Storm (1,2,5)
Living End (2)
Naya Zoo (2,4)
Domain Zoo (2,4)
Modern Merfolk (1,3,5)
Griselbrand (1,2,5)
Junk (1,2,3,4,5)
Death and Taxes (1)
Eternal Command (1)
Infect (4)
Restore Balance (1)
Mill (1,5)
Dredgevine (4)
4C Gifts (3)
Finally, here are the current Established decks that would get moved down to Deck Creation:
DEMOTED TO CREATION
U(x) Faeries
Assault Loam
Combo Elves
BUG Midrange
Ritual Gifts
Azorius Midrange
Goblins
Bant
Modern Boros
UW Tron
These updated criteria, and the decks under them, give a satisfactory, inclusive, but not misleading picture of competitive decks. If there are decks I missed that anyone can prove with hard evidence belong in Established, let me know and I will add them. OP has been updated to reflect these changes.
Didn't Bogle place 2nd in Worlds? If so, it should say (1,2).
Granted, I'm not sure invitationals should necessarily be counted.
Sorry, that was a typo. Fixed it above and in the OP. Invitational events aren't getting counted because the metagame is too insular. It turns out that the overwhelming majority of invitational decks will also have success elsewhere, so it's okay if we overlook them in Worlds or something similar.
Hmm, would a fair compromise be something like what the Legacy sub/The Source uses. Once a deck establishes itself, it can never be demoted to creation as long as a proper primer is maintained? Seems fair to me.
Actually I was thinking that exact thing but I did not know there was a precedent for it in Legacy. I think this should be part of the defining character of whatever hypothetical 4th subforum is created.
The thing is that I am pretty sure Lapse will feel exactly the opposite. He wants to highlight popular threads that have no tournament standing and does not think that older established archetype threads should clog that up unless they are popular.
Hmm, would a fair compromise be something like what the Legacy sub/The Source uses. Once a deck establishes itself, it can never be demoted to creation as long as a proper primer is maintained? Seems fair to me.
This is a bad idea. Just because something made top 16 in a Grand Prix 2 years ago does not mean that it should be permanent in a separate subform. Good examples of this would be Dragonstorm, Eggs, Hive Mind, and Enduring Ideal. These decks were all rendered unplayable through bannings, but if we did what you suggest they'd never be demoted to creation. I think that is ridiculous. If a deck is no longer top tier, then it is no longer top tier. End of story.
Actually I was thinking that exact thing but I did not know there was a precedent for it in Legacy. I think this should be part of the defining character of whatever hypothetical 4th subforum is created.
The thing is that I am pretty sure Lapse will feel exactly the opposite. He wants to highlight popular threads that have no tournament standing and does not think that older established archetype threads should clog that up unless they are popular.
I just thought it would be fun to have an MTGS Showcase forum where folks could peruse decks that aren't "Tier 1" but are still competitive and interesting enough to warrant discussion. As threads die off in there, the go back to creation or to Archives. I feel that Archives should be reworked to be a respectable place where every good deck thread eventually ends up. Call it Modern Hall of Fame or something snazzy.
A reworked archive forum would serve as that permanent spot for good decks like Legacy has. The showcase would be used for up n' comer type decks, or decks that have a ton of popularity - D&T, Fae, Top Control, etc.
But all of that idea is moot now; the Established forum is what it is. It's functional, if boring. I thought my idea would be a little more fun and serve the dual purpose of exposing netdecks that are good, but not quite good enough to be "Proven" while simultaneously acknowledging those crazy homebrewers who put a lot of time and effort into their creations.
Why would UW Tron be moved to Development ("Creation" still sounds horrible and isn't fitting for long-time niche decks)?
I just checked the Daily Events linked in the Deck Activity news on DailyMTG back to somewhere in July and UW Tron easily fulfills the 6+ 4-0/3-1 requirement:
I stopped looking into other lists after I've found those six. I don't know how you gather your data, but if it doesn't even include officially posted lists it isn't worth a penny.
As I mentioned both in the OP and in a post earlier, if a deck was unjustifiably excluded, I encourage posters to bring it to my attention. When going through thousands and thousands of decks, you miss things. UW Tron clearly fits the 6+ Dailies rule so it can be added.
All of the changes are now live in the respective subforums. Criteria has also been stickied at the top of each subforum so people know why decks are in their respective places. At this time, I am moving this thread back to Community where it can serve as our official place to discuss the forum organization. If you have questions, suggestions, concerns, or comments, feel free to post them here.
Thanks to everyone who helped out in the process! The final product is pretty darn good and everyone did a great job in working together to make it a reality.
All of the changes are now live in the respective subforums. Criteria has also been stickied at the top of each subforum so people know why decks are in their respective places. At this time, I am moving this thread back to Community where it can serve as our official place to discuss the forum organization. If you have questions, suggestions, concerns, or comments, feel free to post them here.
Thanks to everyone who helped out in the process! The final product is pretty darn good and everyone did a great job in working together to make it a reality.
IDK about the rest of you but I am getting sick and tired of always looking for the deck forum, oh look its here one week oh its over here another week.
MAKE THE FORUMS LIKE LEGACY AND BE DONE WITH ALWAYS MOVING TOPICS AROUND FOR THE REST OF US TO GET LOST LOOKING FR THEM.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Dictators prefer an unarmed population.
Decks I play and stuff.
IDK about the rest of you but I am getting sick and tired of always looking for the deck forum, oh look its here one week oh its over here another week.
MAKE THE FORUMS LIKE LEGACY AND BE DONE WITH ALWAYS MOVING TOPICS AROUND FOR THE REST OF US TO GET LOST LOOKING FR THEM.
There are a few ways we can handle this, but all of them involve balancing two sets of issues: Consistency versus quality.
1) Update the forums every ban cycle
BENEFIT: Information is extremely current as to where a deck goes.
DRAWBACK: Threads get moved every 3 or so months.
2) Update the forums every other ban cycle
BENEFIT: Balance between current information and consistency of where threads are located.
DRAWBACK: Information becomes dated after the first ban cycle.
3) Keep threads in a forum for 6+ months for the sake of consistency
BENEFIT: You will always know where a thread is.
DRAWBACK: Information is never current and there is no reliable indication of whether a deck belongs in a certain place.
Currently, I am tentatively considering updating Proven/Established every ban cycle. This keeps information updated and current, but at the cost of decks moving around every 3 months. If there is interest in having it changed every OTHER ban cycle (6 months or so), then that's fine too, but we sacrifice accuracy in doing so.
Also, I think a large part of dissatisfaction with threads moving around is that it is unpredictable. Under the new plan, threads would move between predictable forums for predictable reasons. It's just a matter of "how often".
I should also add that part of this issue stems from the subforum headers themselves, which were decided by staff months before I became a moderator. Instead of changing those broader structures, which were decided upon for good reasons, we have been working to change things within those subforums. That means updating the criteria that gets decks into subforums, and making sure that our forums reflect current information on the metagame.
There are a few ways we can handle this, but all of them involve balancing two sets of issues: Consistency versus quality.
1) Update the forums every ban cycle
BENEFIT: Information is extremely current as to where a deck goes.
DRAWBACK: Threads get moved every 3 or so months.
2) Update the forums every other ban cycle
BENEFIT: Balance between current information and consistency of where threads are located.
DRAWBACK: Information becomes dated after the first ban cycle.
3) Keep threads in a forum for 6+ months for the sake of consistency
BENEFIT: You will always know where a thread is.
DRAWBACK: Information is never current and there is no reliable indication of whether a deck belongs in a certain place.
Currently, I am tentatively considering updating Proven/Established every ban cycle. This keeps information updated and current, but at the cost of decks moving around every 3 months. If there is interest in having it changed every OTHER ban cycle (6 months or so), then that's fine too, but we sacrifice accuracy in doing so.
Also, I think a large part of dissatisfaction with threads moving around is that it is unpredictable. Under the new plan, threads would move between predictable forums for predictable reasons. It's just a matter of "how often".
I should also add that part of this issue stems from the subforum headers themselves, which were decided by staff months before I became a moderator. Instead of changing those broader structures, which were decided upon for good reasons, we have been working to change things within those subforums. That means updating the criteria that gets decks into subforums, and making sure that our forums reflect current information on the metagame.
I think moving it every ban cycle is good: allows for a good number of GPs and results to be able to fit your criteria for proven/established.
Honestly, I don't see decks moving around every 3 months as a big deal. Maybe the deck you were looking for moved up or down. Takes less than a minute to figure out and 3 months is infrequent enough.
So how is the MTGO freeze going to affect the migration of primers in and out of established? seeing as though MTGO results make up 2/5ths of the criteria it seems like it would be a pretty big change to just go on without it.
So how is the MTGO freeze going to affect the migration of primers in and out of established? seeing as though MTGO results make up 2/5ths of the criteria it seems like it would be a pretty big change to just go on without it.
Thankfully, we still have almost 2 months of data just from late September, all of October, and half of November. Assuming the folks at Wizards get their act together by mid-December in 3-4 weeks, we would be able to capture data for the rest of December and all of January. Of course, that assumes that the folks at Wizards do in fact get their act together. But if they do, that's a lot of data to make up for the missing month. And if they don't, then we can address that issue if and when it arises. I'm open to suggestions in that worst case scenario, though.
Thankfully, we still have almost 2 months of data just from late September, all of October, and half of November. Assuming the folks at Wizards get their act together by mid-December in 3-4 weeks, we would be able to capture data for the rest of December and all of January. Of course, that assumes that the folks at Wizards do in fact get their act together. But if they do, that's a lot of data to make up for the missing month. And if they don't, then we can address that issue if and when it arises. I'm open to suggestions in that worst case scenario, though.
Someone was saying that they would publish data from the 8-mans too, though I have no confirmation and am not sure how relevant it will be.
Also, does the distinction between "Tier 1" and "Tier 1.5" (whatever the heck that is) deserve a sub-forum? The decision on this seems tedious, complex, and subjective. Though I'd concede that the decisions to sticky threads above others in option #2 is similar, though at least in this case the threads are collocated within one forum.
This is what I was gonna say! You took the words out of fingers before I even knew you existed. I would prefer idea 2, seeing as Primers that are well-written and consistently updated are often the ones I enjoy seeing the most. I personally hate seeing a poorly written primer in the Proven/Established sections. As long as the Primer meets certain expectations, it should be Established. If it's competitive, sticky it. That's my 2 cents anyways.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Many thanks to user DOLZero for the AMAZING banner and avatar!
The next Proven/Established reorganization is just around the corner! Both subforums will be updated to reflect the current metagame. Changes will be posted in their respective Criteria threads tomorrow night before the go-live date on 2/1 at midnight.
Should be in DC:
1) Assault Loam
2) Boros (if this refers to the Norin Soul Sisters deck then OK, it could stay, but that's not what the primer has me believe)
3) Faeries (I know some Delver decks play Mutavault, Spellstutter Sprite and Vendilion Clique, but if it has Delvers or lacks Mistbind/Scion then it's Delver. Not Faeries.)
4) Restore Balance
5) Eternal Command
Should be in DC:
1) Assault Loam
2) Boros (if this refers to the Norin Soul Sisters deck then OK, it could stay, but that's not what the primer has me believe)
3) Faeries (I know some Delver decks play Mutavault, Spellstutter Sprite and Vendilion Clique, but if it has Delvers or lacks Mistbind/Scion then it's Delver. Not Faeries.)
4) Restore Balance
5) Eternal Command
Just what I think.
Just moved Eternal Command to Creation. That thread slipped through the cracks last night and doesn't belong in Established.
All the rest meet the benchmarks to move up, which probably seems strange. For Faeries, there was a bit of a classification issue with separating that deck from Delver. If a Delver deck had Clique/Sprite but neither Mistbind nor Scion, then I had been classifying it as "Delver". But if it had either Scion/Mistbind even if it also had Delver, then I put it in the Faeries category. I think this is fair because Delver is such a good card in Faeries that it might just be the new normal. The key was that the Fae deck also needed to have Scion/Mistbind; Clique/Mutavault/Sprite werent enough on their own.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Now that's out of the way, you kind of skipped over my point that "unknown" decks shouldn't have to complete the same number of finishes as the decks getting played by the masses each and every day BUT the net result of your suggestions is a lot more acceptable in my opinion.
1) 6 dailies in 3 months? That's doable for a 1 man show I suppose. It's a tall order, but not completely impossible.
2)2 premier events - still pretty difficult / borderlines impossible for a 1 man show. BEtter than 3 I suppose but meh.
Hmm, would a fair compromise be something like what the Legacy sub/The Source uses. Once a deck establishes itself, it can never be demoted to creation as long as a proper primer is maintained? Seems fair to me.
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
If Established is a lifetime achievement award that never goes away, then the bar is going to be set higher. It can be lower if the subforum is updated every 3-6 months. A higher bar would make it harder for brewers to have a shot at getting their deck into Established, even if it might actually belong there.
This is what the modified Established criteria would look like with the slightly more favorable entry requirements. I have also updated the list of decks which are included under Established. All the criteria have been updated to reflect the new idea that some decks are massively overrepresented at events (those decks more than 2+ standard deviations over the average prevalence). The new numbers reflect new pools that exclude those superdecks.
Established
Tournament Decks with Results
Established decks are updated once every ban cycle. All Established threads must have a primer updated since the last ban cycle. A deck is considered "Established" if it does not meet the requirements of "Proven" but still fulfills ONE or more of the following criteria:
Under those definitions, which are more inclusive than even the last criteria, here is what the Established would look like. As with the previous section, I give the criteria that these decks fulfill under the Established definition. So for example, Hatebears fulfills criteria 1 and 5 but nothing else, so it gets a (1,5). New decks to Established as of 9/21/2013 are posted at the end of the list:
NEW ESTABLISHED
UR Delver (1,2,3,5)
Bogles (1)
GW Hatebears (1,5)
Wx Tokens (2,3)
Soul Sisters (1)
Gruul Zoo (1,2,3,4)
Mono U Tron (1)
UR Storm (1,2,5)
Living End (2)
Naya Zoo (2,4)
Domain Zoo (2,4)
Modern Merfolk (1,3,5)
Griselbrand (1,2,5)
Junk (1,2,3,4,5)
Death and Taxes (1)
Eternal Command (1)
Infect (4)
Restore Balance (1)
Mill (1,5)
Dredgevine (4)
4C Gifts (3)
Finally, here are the current Established decks that would get moved down to Deck Creation:
DEMOTED TO CREATION
U(x) Faeries
Assault Loam
Combo Elves
BUG Midrange
Ritual Gifts
Azorius Midrange
Goblins
Bant
Modern Boros
UW Tron
These updated criteria, and the decks under them, give a satisfactory, inclusive, but not misleading picture of competitive decks. If there are decks I missed that anyone can prove with hard evidence belong in Established, let me know and I will add them. OP has been updated to reflect these changes.
Granted, I'm not sure invitationals should necessarily be counted.
Sorry, that was a typo. Fixed it above and in the OP. Invitational events aren't getting counted because the metagame is too insular. It turns out that the overwhelming majority of invitational decks will also have success elsewhere, so it's okay if we overlook them in Worlds or something similar.
The thing is that I am pretty sure Lapse will feel exactly the opposite. He wants to highlight popular threads that have no tournament standing and does not think that older established archetype threads should clog that up unless they are popular.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
This is a bad idea. Just because something made top 16 in a Grand Prix 2 years ago does not mean that it should be permanent in a separate subform. Good examples of this would be Dragonstorm, Eggs, Hive Mind, and Enduring Ideal. These decks were all rendered unplayable through bannings, but if we did what you suggest they'd never be demoted to creation. I think that is ridiculous. If a deck is no longer top tier, then it is no longer top tier. End of story.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I just thought it would be fun to have an MTGS Showcase forum where folks could peruse decks that aren't "Tier 1" but are still competitive and interesting enough to warrant discussion. As threads die off in there, the go back to creation or to Archives. I feel that Archives should be reworked to be a respectable place where every good deck thread eventually ends up. Call it Modern Hall of Fame or something snazzy.
A reworked archive forum would serve as that permanent spot for good decks like Legacy has. The showcase would be used for up n' comer type decks, or decks that have a ton of popularity - D&T, Fae, Top Control, etc.
But all of that idea is moot now; the Established forum is what it is. It's functional, if boring. I thought my idea would be a little more fun and serve the dual purpose of exposing netdecks that are good, but not quite good enough to be "Proven" while simultaneously acknowledging those crazy homebrewers who put a lot of time and effort into their creations.
As I mentioned both in the OP and in a post earlier, if a deck was unjustifiably excluded, I encourage posters to bring it to my attention. When going through thousands and thousands of decks, you miss things. UW Tron clearly fits the 6+ Dailies rule so it can be added.
Thanks to everyone who helped out in the process! The final product is pretty darn good and everyone did a great job in working together to make it a reality.
Thank you for your work.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Warned for censor evasion.
It was moved to Creation.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=491407
Don't forget to use our search feature if you are looking for a deck.
MAKE THE FORUMS LIKE LEGACY AND BE DONE WITH ALWAYS MOVING TOPICS AROUND FOR THE REST OF US TO GET LOST LOOKING FR THEM.
Decks I play and stuff.
Legacy Burn
Modern Mono U Tron
There are a few ways we can handle this, but all of them involve balancing two sets of issues: Consistency versus quality.
1) Update the forums every ban cycle
BENEFIT: Information is extremely current as to where a deck goes.
DRAWBACK: Threads get moved every 3 or so months.
2) Update the forums every other ban cycle
BENEFIT: Balance between current information and consistency of where threads are located.
DRAWBACK: Information becomes dated after the first ban cycle.
3) Keep threads in a forum for 6+ months for the sake of consistency
BENEFIT: You will always know where a thread is.
DRAWBACK: Information is never current and there is no reliable indication of whether a deck belongs in a certain place.
Currently, I am tentatively considering updating Proven/Established every ban cycle. This keeps information updated and current, but at the cost of decks moving around every 3 months. If there is interest in having it changed every OTHER ban cycle (6 months or so), then that's fine too, but we sacrifice accuracy in doing so.
Also, I think a large part of dissatisfaction with threads moving around is that it is unpredictable. Under the new plan, threads would move between predictable forums for predictable reasons. It's just a matter of "how often".
I should also add that part of this issue stems from the subforum headers themselves, which were decided by staff months before I became a moderator. Instead of changing those broader structures, which were decided upon for good reasons, we have been working to change things within those subforums. That means updating the criteria that gets decks into subforums, and making sure that our forums reflect current information on the metagame.
I think moving it every ban cycle is good: allows for a good number of GPs and results to be able to fit your criteria for proven/established.
Honestly, I don't see decks moving around every 3 months as a big deal. Maybe the deck you were looking for moved up or down. Takes less than a minute to figure out and 3 months is infrequent enough.
Thankfully, we still have almost 2 months of data just from late September, all of October, and half of November. Assuming the folks at Wizards get their act together by mid-December in 3-4 weeks, we would be able to capture data for the rest of December and all of January. Of course, that assumes that the folks at Wizards do in fact get their act together. But if they do, that's a lot of data to make up for the missing month. And if they don't, then we can address that issue if and when it arises. I'm open to suggestions in that worst case scenario, though.
Someone was saying that they would publish data from the 8-mans too, though I have no confirmation and am not sure how relevant it will be.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
This is what I was gonna say! You took the words out of fingers before I even knew you existed. I would prefer idea 2, seeing as Primers that are well-written and consistently updated are often the ones I enjoy seeing the most. I personally hate seeing a poorly written primer in the Proven/Established sections. As long as the Primer meets certain expectations, it should be Established. If it's competitive, sticky it. That's my 2 cents anyways.
Many thanks to user DOLZero for the AMAZING banner and avatar!
Decks
Modern
:izzet:Weird's Paradise [Primer]
URDelverRU
WWeenies! [Primer]W
UWTempered RelicWU
WBTainted SteelBW
Pauper
GStompyG
UDelvin'U
WWeeniesW
RRDWR
Legacy
URDread OrbRU
RUDelver's ServantUR
WDeath & TaxesW
WUGDelver!GUW
GUInfectUG
BUGDelver!GUB
EDH
WUBGainin' Life (feat. Oloro)BUW
1) Assault Loam
2) Boros (if this refers to the Norin Soul Sisters deck then OK, it could stay, but that's not what the primer has me believe)
3) Faeries (I know some Delver decks play Mutavault, Spellstutter Sprite and Vendilion Clique, but if it has Delvers or lacks Mistbind/Scion then it's Delver. Not Faeries.)
4) Restore Balance
5) Eternal Command
Just what I think.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
Just moved Eternal Command to Creation. That thread slipped through the cracks last night and doesn't belong in Established.
All the rest meet the benchmarks to move up, which probably seems strange. For Faeries, there was a bit of a classification issue with separating that deck from Delver. If a Delver deck had Clique/Sprite but neither Mistbind nor Scion, then I had been classifying it as "Delver". But if it had either Scion/Mistbind even if it also had Delver, then I put it in the Faeries category. I think this is fair because Delver is such a good card in Faeries that it might just be the new normal. The key was that the Fae deck also needed to have Scion/Mistbind; Clique/Mutavault/Sprite werent enough on their own.