I know it's been brought up before, but is now an okay time to mention that Lullmage Mentor is a card? I'm not going to say it's awesome or anything, but worth mentioning.
In each case, that was all that was written about the particular card. Such posts masquerade as being constructive without adding anything to the discussion. With over ten thousand unique cards in the card pool, anyone could find an unused card and suggest it for inclusion without any supporting evidence. In fact, many people do. So what makes your suggestion different? Your value to any discussion is your unique insight and analysis.
This is what led to my original sig:
Most people blindly suggest new cards for decks. Smart people also suggest what to remove. It's not about what's good, but rather what's better than the current selections.
There are hundreds of cards that we'd like to put into every deck, so how do we choose? The benchmark for inclusion isn't "good" but "better than." It's not enough to say, "This is darn useful." You must be able to say, "This is so good I'm willing to take out this staple card." Otherwise, your idea doesn't stand out from the countless other similar suggestions for cards that would merely be "good" in the deck.
Thinking about what to remove is useful for three reasons:
It increases the signal to noise ratio by encouraging genuinely constructive posts. We all want to add cards to decks to increase the number of options we have, but taking cards out is painful. This is why new players hate sideboarding and mulligans: you have to lose something in the process. Simply apply this heartache to deck construction to test out new ideas. Does this card perform a specific function better than an existing card? Maybe it performs a different and more useful function?
If you can't even convince yourself that the card improves the deck, it probably doesn't. When someone recognizes an obviously weak suggestion and doesn't post it, it allows everyone to concentrate on more viable strategies.
It's about fairness and respecting others' time. It might take you a few seconds to write a quick card suggestion post, but you're using the time of hundreds of others who might read your post. Posting without consideration is a lazy act that asks other people to do the critical thinking for you. Quoting the Stack Exchange guy:
Ultimately, this is about fairness: if you're going to ask us to spend our valuable time helping you, it's only fair that you put in a reasonable amount of your valuable time into crafting a decent question. Help us help you!
Lastly, critical thinking helps you too. The better you get at analyzing why cards belong in a deck or not, the better you get at tweaking your deck to perform better in your particular metagame, the better you get at knowing when to mull a hand because it doesn't have the necessary tools to fight a particular matchup, and the better you get at knowing what cards to side out because thinking in terms of relative utility will be familiar.
Of course, one person can't be expected to think of everything. Maybe there's some critical flaw to a card that you happened to miss. Maybe you see why a particular card might not work by itself, but others could suggest a better shell to enhance that card's strengths.
If we had to be absolutely sure of every idea, we'd never get anything done. You might not think of everything but you can still make an effort, and explain those considerations when you post.
Taking a minute to think about things before posting will not only improve the forums but will also improve our skills as deck designers and players. What's not to like?
Sure but sometimes its the other case where suggesting a cut is increasing the sig-noise ratio
as an example if someone told me that in their meta, literally everyone played zombies in standard and they were having trouble with their red deck in that meta... I'd suggest RSZ and let them figure out how they want to manage their burn base and fit in themselves.
Not everyone runs EXACTLY the same 75 anyway and suggesting a cut to a card someone may not be running is near worthless this applies even more so to formats such as modern and especially legacy where the pool opens up even wider
It seems what you are looking for is a recipe step by step for deck design and if thats what you want then you will need to wait till people doing the hard work post results you can pull down from tournaments
deck design and tweaking is ALL ABOUT bouncing ideas off of players.... the problem isnt the way its being done here its simply the quality of players and how vehemently people will defend bad ideas like its a personal insult, if you surround yourself with legit good players who can take criticism and provide it you would find thats exactly how ideas "get legs" to the point where cuts to make room for them are considered.
I understand that metagame considerations are always important, but generally speaking, there are a few accepted builds with common cards between them. In established and well-optimized decks, most of the differences are seen in the sideboards, but people still toss out blind suggestions for maindeck cards with little thought.
It seems what you are looking for is a recipe step by step for deck design
Deck design is about putting together cards in novel ways and trying them out. My post above deals exclusively with suggesting individual cards for existing designs, though analyzing the relative power and utility of cards is helpful even when designing decks from scratch. Whether it's for a new or established deck, each addition must be paired with a removal. It's the relative strengths of the new card over an existing card that tells you if the change would really improve the deck.
deck design and tweaking is ALL ABOUT bouncing ideas off of players.... you would find thats exactly how ideas "get legs" to the point where cuts to make room for them are considered.
I agree, I love the ability of a group of people to come up with ideas and optimise the best ones. We just disagree on when the cutting should be considered. My point is that at least some thought should go into an idea before it's presented.
If you really want to give your idea some traction, the best way is to present arguments for it. Playtesting results are even better, as it means that you've not only cut something for the new card, but can show how the change behaves in real matchups.
It's important to not be so tied to your ideas that you take it personally if it doesn't work out, but a little deliberation at the beginning doesn't hurt either.