It's not so much that they don't try to please everyone, it's that they don't try to please anyone (except those that agree with them).
And yet, if they can't please everyone, then how shall they pick which ones to please and which ones not to? Wouldn't pleasing themselves and those who agree with them be the best way to go? Why should they make changes that could alienate that core group in the vain hope of pleasing someone else? Have you ever seen a film or read a book that felt really generic and soulless because its makers tried to please a target market rather than telling a story that they themselves were passionate about? Trying to please one group at the expense of another is not always the best way to go.
Sure, I've also seen movies that catered so strongly to the director's "vision" that it failed to please even the small audience it was aimed at. While I can respect an artist's drive to create what they want to create I don't have the same respect when it comes to a body that is governing a wide and varied group (many of whom have little alternative).
Hypothetical: if you ever felt that your vision was no longer desired by the majority of the players in the format, would you change the direction you're taking with the format?
Majority? No. Overwhelming majority? Still pretty much no. I'll draw an analogy to a TV show, like maybe Arrested Development. From the beginning the show had a particular vision of the kind of comedy it was going to do. When the masses didn't like it, the producers continued with their vision, even if in the end, the ratings got so low they were cancelled. For them, the important part was the vision, not the popularity. It's kind of the same with us. We want to make the format accessible to a broad audience, but since there's no way that audience ever includes everyone, raw populism is just a path to destruction. We never want to a be a least common denominator thing (and unlike a TV show, don't need to worry about money). Our message the whole time is "this is the direction we're going, we hope you follow along," understanding that YMMV. If our vision leads to the death of the format as we know it (which we have pretty good evidence won't happen), then so be it. I'd rather die as myself than live as someone else.
Just supplying it since I referenced it a number of times. There are other more concise quotes but this is the most brazen one.
I'm actually glad that they are honest about this. Having worked in film, I have to say I wish more people would think like that rather than churning out generic stories just to cash in.
Well I can at least agree that I'm glade they are honest about it. It sets a very clear line as to what one can expect from them and lets you know when your efforts are fruitless.
Too be honest I didn't know there was a "vision" behind the format and for that matter probably 98% (that's probably being kind) of the commander players don't either.
Seems you're often misinformed.
You're also inventing numbers.
You have no evidence, only your opinion. Which is fine. It's as wrong as everyone elses.
Sure, I've also seen movies that catered so strongly to the director's "vision" that it failed to please even the small audience it was aimed at. While I can respect an artist's drive to create what they want to create I don't have the same respect when it comes to a body that is governing a wide and varied group (many of whom have little alternative).
This is such a cop out. There isn't some requirement that people play EDH to do anything. Its not part of a Pro tour or anything else they would need to do. People can choose to play or not, but they need to take some personal responsibility, either play with the rules provided or make their own. Just complaining that the RC does not change to suit them is also a fools errand. Feedback, sure. Honest opinions and data , absolutely. When thats actually done well, the RC takes it into account.
The community was instrumental in getting Metalworker unbanned, and Prophet banned. Thats taking actual responsibility for your fun. As is house rules, or not playing with the guy who stuffs every Mindslaver and TimeWarp effect into their deck and says 'Its legal!'. People have alternatives, they choose not to take advantage of them if they are playing EDH in games they don't like.
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.
Too be honest I didn't know there was a "vision" behind the format and for that matter probably 98% (that's probably being kind) of the commander players don't either.
Seems you're often misinformed.
You're also inventing numbers.
You have no evidence, only your opinion. Which is fine. It's as wrong as everyone elses.
Alright I crunched the numbers using official stats, and the result is 99.567% Wait more players just joined the format, its 99.569%. Man this is hard, every time I type the number just keeps getting bigger..
This is such a cop out. There isn't some requirement that people play EDH to do anything. Its not part of a Pro tour or anything else they would need to do. People can choose to play or not, but they need to take some personal responsibility, either play with the rules provided or make their own.
And again, that is not an option for many players. The argument that "You should change things for yourselves" is the cop out, not the other way around. The "official" banlist for the format should never rely on house rules or community policing, because just as you said, if that's an option then anyone can do that for themselves, they don't need a RC to do it for them. The "official" banlist is there for people who cannot use house rules for whatever reason.
And indeed, people have the option to simply not play (and there are those that do) but at that point you're simply getting back to the original issue I have with them. They would rather have everyone quit (hypothetically) than change their vision. Again, sure that's "respectable" (if self-destructive) for an individual to say, it's not nearly as admirable for a governing body to say, in my opinion of course.
The community was instrumental in getting Metalworker unbanned, and Prophet banned. Thats taking actual responsibility for your fun.
Instrumental you say? How so? I was around for both of those events and in neither case do I remember anything especially instrumental happening on the community end. Of course this is simply dragging things off onto tangents. There is no argument that the community isn't instrumental, the RC has literally said as much. Literally. The RC's "vision" is instrumental, the community is secondary. I'm honestly not sure why you're arguing that when they've said as such multiple times.
I have been playing Commander for about 4 years. The bulk of those 12k games are online.
So you have played an average of more than Fifty Eight games a week, for more than Two Hundred consecutive weeks?
Bull*****.
I used to play heaps, about 10 games a day. But recently playing about 38 games a week. This I can prove because mtgo has game logs for last 4 months. 618 for the last 4 months. I happy to send you the logs. It shouldn't be something I'm proud of, but I just spend a ***** time playing it.
Well, there's only one way out strictly speaking, that is to create your own variant of EDH (with your vision) and make it more popular than what currently exists, then convince Wizards to adopt the format instead.
From what I see, EDH as a whole follows a "minimalist concept", which is the basis of all Kitchen Table formats (which in its barest form technically is no banlist Vintage). But no-banlist Vintage has been around for ages and has never been successful, as well as literally almost every other Kitchen Table format. EDH is pretty much the first and only "truly successful" (I'm not going to argue about that because of variable metrics of measurement of the individual, but I daresay a majority will agree with this) Kitchen Table format to exist.
Wizards understands the basis of the Kitchen Table format is "minimalism". Their outright statement of (largely) not interfering with the RC's decisions is pretty much a declaration that because it is Kitchen Table format and requires minimal changes, they feel that's it's okay (and saving what "little resources" required) to leave those minor changes to the format's inventors instead. The "Commander" name exists solely for branding - EDH is an awkward name to put on product, plus the name itself was a legacy title (Elder Dragons being not the only choices) by then already. They just used the word that described the most defining aspect of the format as the title.
All because Wizards creates the product (with a brand) doesn't equate to the format needing to be competitively balanced - they certainly didn't stop people from playing no-banlist Vintage with Planechase/Archenemy (and while we're on that those formats were mostly played in tandem with EDH anyway...), WotC created the product as a bonus and officially announced that it's still a Kitchen Table format when they said they left the decisions to the RC, which means they were entering the most popular Kitchen Table format without attempting to convert it to Competitive one.
Okay, I've gone on about the RC and Wizards (and admittedly defending them) without explaining the crux point - why are Kitchen Table formats "minimalist"? It's simple - it's always easier to house-rule a ban rather than house-rule a unban. This is true for all formats (and is the reason why no-banlist Vintage didn't work, no central committee and the range is too wide). EDH has a central committee, but even when there's one, they need to keep to the "minimalist" approach. There are more groups out there house-banning Sol Ring than there are those unbanning Primeval Titan. It's socially easier to adapt by taking out a card (and weakening the deck) to match a groups' perceived power level rather than play a lower-powered deck in a group whose perceived power level is high. This is doubly true in the LGS scenario (as opposed to a consolidated actual Kitchen Table playgroup).
The fact that there are more groups with a house-rule-ban is not evidence that a card should be banned, it is evidence that the "minimalist approach" is working - the definition of "power" has always been different and its never possible to please everyone. Once you know that it's easier to house-rule-ban something than house-rule-unban something, the correct choice is to stick with the "minimalist approach" of keeping the number of banned cards low and siding with "higher power" instead, since those are easier to be neutered by house rules than the other way round. Therefore reasons for banning a card should NEVER include "plenty of groups are house-banning this" - the reasons for house-bans are varied and since "power level" (the most common reason) is subjective, it cannot be the sole reason. Primeval Titan was banned because of its centralizing properties (which were both the reasons for house-bans then and the official ban, but let's face it, prior-ban, all the complains just listed "too powerful" without filtering out the centralizing part to justify it).
This "minimalist approach" carries over to the meta as well. The most successful EDH "spin-off" is probably Duel Commander (sorry Tiny Leaders nowhere close), but even that isn't "successful enough" to eclipse the original - I've seen more and more groups (and store) simply accepting to play 1v1 matches using the Multiplayer banlist (to the point these forums even split to differentiate the two), making the original eclipse the spin-off instead. Why is that so? Simple - it's a minimalist approach from the player's perspective - it's easier to maintain the same deck to play both 1v1 and multiplayer, even if the 1v1 gameplay turns out to be less than refined. The very evidence that more and more players (and stores) adopt this formula (as well as the forum splitting) pretty much proves how Kitchen Table Formats have always worked successfully - through the "minimalist approach".
Always enlightening to hear that our work is considered "doing nothing," especially given the results. It's absolutely encouraging, given my recent medical diagnosis, to hear that I'm going to die. Thanks for helping lift a brother's spirits.
And to help settle the argument, community input was instrumental in the Metalworker and Kokusho unbans and the Prophet of Kruphix ban. That's not to say we abandoned our vision at any point, but sometimes the community can help make sure that we're fulfilling it.
George Carlin probably had it right, but I'm going to engage anyway. darrenhabib, you use the words "need" and "must" a fair amount. I'm curious as to what you think the imperative is here. Then you trot out the word "balance," which I'll wait for you to define in quantifiable terms before I can continue.
Nobody's obligated to follow the rules of Commander in their playgroups or stores.
WotC has been annoying when it comes to banlists - the community can't go wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BRGMy Deck(Modern): Bolts'n'Burns WMy other, WIP casual deck: Zero to Hero
Protection from Will-O'-the-Wisps, Ali-from-Cairos, and Uncle-Istvans
Legendary snow landwalk
---------------------------------------
On the reserved list: Wizards won't remove it. Only we can. In other words: Play Modern, Pauper, or No-RL Eternal.
Ah, yes. The old "greater community" ban list. You know, random strangers from the internet voting in open, easily manipulated polls to decide what should be banned and what isn't. Because that has more authority than a body of judges and high-level tournament players who literally created the format and are the reason it is so successful that you are here demanding that they be ousted. Oh and they do it well enough that WotC leaves them in charge, too. Go ahead, call it an appeal to authority, because I'm not wrong.
I can't believe you are as nice as your are to these -individuals-, Sheldon. They certainly don't deserve it.
OP, you and people like you have no qualification at all to run a ban list for a format. And the absolutes you speak in seem to be pretty Sith-y to me.
How is it that saying goes? Better the devil you know...
I may not agree with everything that Sheldon and the RC decide, but I don't think that I, or the majority of the community, would be stupid enough to take the reins away from them and give them to internet trolls instead.
No matter who is in charge of Commander Rules and the Banlist, someone is going to be unhappy, it's simply numbers.
If the suggestion that an online committee/WOTC/group mind/whatever is going to make all of the people happy all of the time - then this it's probably not worth discussing - as I personally think that's highly unlikely. If the suggestion that online committee/WOTC/group mind/whatever is going to do better then the current committee, that's certainly possible.
But let's take WOTC for example, there are complaints all the time over bannings in multiple formats and there are complaints for bannings all the time - just take a look around at all the various threads. People are going to complain no matter who is in charge.
I think that the current committee does a great job, let me give you some examples.
They take the time to evaluate cards, there were calls for the early banning of Prophet of Kruphix, but they gave it a chance to allow the format to self correct, when it didn't and it continued to warp the format -then came the hammer. They allowed the community to see and experience the bad parts of the Prophet - which lead to a better consensus that it should be banned.
They are themselves gamers, which makes them have a vested interest in having fun - mind you that WOTC wants you to have fun but since they are a business they can be seen at times to be motivated by Profit. Videos, articles, podcasts, blogs, forum posts, streams of EDH/Commander and related stuff by them promote the format - and you can see their enjoyment in it. They are generally not trying to "sell" the product, they generally do enjoy playing.
(Interesting my first 2 points mentioned Profit - just a minor aside to self)
The rules committee are involved in Magic in a variety of ways, I loved this fictional interpretation of who they are from back in 2014
One of RC members is one of Batman's fake identities, kind of like Matches Malone.
Another member's paying job is director of a government agency so secret, they kill everyone who knows what it's called.
One of the others is the world's best Britney Spears impersonator.
One of the members lives in an apartment wallpapered with Beta Black Lotuses. He uses Moxen as drink coasters.
Another is the guy who gave Richard Garfield the idea that eventually turned into Magic.
The last one, it's possible he's really a functional AI.
They have a solid foundation in the format going backwards and an understanding of other formats, there are Spikes, Timmies and Johnny's on the committee.
I am going to cut this short because there are more reasons to like the current committee, but you also need to remember that a large portion of magic players are fully content with the Rules Committee, let's face it fewer people speak up when they agree with things, the internet can often be about complaining.
The problem is putting a ban list on something meant to be played casually. It should be up to the play groups to monitor any shinanagins that occur, not a couple of people who meet up every once in a while. If someone is playing with degenerate combos then you stop playing with them. Either they change it up or they try and find new people to play with. The RC should only worry about the rules of the format, like whether 10 poison counters is too little and needs to be adjusted. Not whether X or Y card should be played or not. Bannings are designed around keeping tournaments fair, and since theres no Wizards sanctioned EDH tournaments there really is no point to a ban list. If Wizards took over control and decided to host EDH at the main events, I feel that they can add a ban list since winners would make cash, to make each player there have a fair chance.
The problem is putting a ban list on something meant to be played casually. It should be up to the play groups to monitor any shinanagins that occur, not a couple of people who meet up every once in a while. If someone is playing with degenerate combos then you stop playing with them. Either they change it up or they try and find new people to play with.
This is exactly what the RC says. 'Your group knows your group, regulate it'. But to people WITHOUT a group, there must be a baseline. The RC provides that.
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.
Commander is incredibly healthy. This is because of the RC not in spite of them. To everyone who thinks the RC does not listen or interact with the community at large it is apparent you are only going to their website for the ban list and not visiting their forums where they actively discuss the format with the players.
And the argument is that the baseline isn't protective enough.
That was not his argument. His argument was that the local scene should be the one doing the regulation. I agree, as does the RC. Not everyone has that.
Your position may be that it isn't protective enough, but that wasn't his. He is for peer regulation. He is for walking away from tables when people do uncool things (always an opinion that fluctuates by group). So please don't come back to that same old, when its clearly not his position.
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.
I didn't read the OP when I posted my previous reply (as I've read it before). I didn't see the need to.
However because you said his stance wasn't mine, I had to check back the first post.
Duel format does not reflect the multiplayer format.
This is more on Wizards of the Coast. They have decided that the same the rules and banning (http://mtgcommander.net) apply to both duel and multiplayer format. A lot of this might be due to them not really wanting to invest in two different outside groups making decisions. It is after all a recipe for conflicts. However if WotC were to take on the role of official moderators, then we would probably see the result of demand for better rules and banning for the dueling format as well.
Whats wrong with the current multiplayer ban list? (and duel for MTGO)
One of the biggest current problems is that Sol Ring and Mana Crypt creates a skewed advantage to games in general, where in starting hands, they determine the outcome of games far more than anything else.
In my close to 12,000 commander games I've played, without a doubt the experience that ruins it the most is frequency of games that are determined by a couple of cards in a players starting hand.
It's actually does one of the things that these rules committee (http://mtgcommander.net) didn't want:
I don't hafta quote the entire page, but it sure sounds the OP feels the RC is not protective enough. Have you been reading too?
Your position may be that it isn't protective enough, but that wasn't his. He is for peer regulation. He is for walking away from tables when people do uncool things (always an opinion that fluctuates by group). So please don't come back to that same old, when its clearly not his position.
Somehow the distinction between this and talking over things like adults bothers me a lot. I suppose to each their own, but...
I think I agree that house rules should be more prevalent, but I don't agree with the RC's expressed opinion on peer regulation. I feel that the RC should not rely on "You can use house rules" to justify not moderating the format more directly. Maybe Sheldon et. al. aren't trying to express that, and I welcome a contradiction.
That said, I also doubt that you (MRHBlue) are representative of the average EDH player any more than, say, ProfessorWhen, or other users who disagree more actively with the RC. I'd be very surprised just from seeing a sampling of a decent variety of groups in several parts of the USA and other countries if the average non-vocal EDH player isn't in agreement with most, but not all, of the banlist and format decisions, with little knowledge of the RC or the process behind the format. And I'd also be very surprised if it isn't the case that the vast majority of groups refuse to use house rules, sticking to the original banlist, and (this I'm less sure on) allowing people to experiment in some contexts, within reason.
In that vein, while I don't completely see eye-to-eye with the RC on many things, I do think that they do a good job, and that they are uniquely qualified to do the job.
Somehow the distinction between this and talking over things like adults bothers me a lot. I suppose to each their own, but...
Could you be more specific? The distinction between what and talking things over like adults? I assume you mean walking away from a table. If you think that means not discussion something first, thats incorrect. But when people continue to do things I don't care for, I get up. Or just not sit down in the first place (a VERY rare occurrence, but a practice I have for a few at the LGS I currently frequent). Not in a rude manner, and always with a 'thanks for the game'. But always with a why, and an offer to discuss it if they choose. Personal responsibility is a big deal to me, sitting there quietly getting combo'ed out a half dozen times, then blowing up one game isnt cool either.
I think I agree that house rules should be more prevalent, but I don't agree with the RC's expressed opinion on peer regulation. I feel that the RC should not rely on "You can use house rules" to justify not moderating the format more directly. Maybe Sheldon et. al. aren't trying to express that, and I welcome a contradiction.
Why should they 'regulate more directly', and what does that mean? I don't ask rhetorically, I mean what specifically would you do. And why would that be better than what currently happens? If you think house rules should be more used, why don't you think that's a solution to the known problem that no ban list will make everyone happy?
That said, I also doubt that you (MRHBlue) are representative of the average EDH player any more than, say, ProfessorWhen, or other users who disagree more actively with the RC. I'd be very surprised just from seeing a sampling of a decent variety of groups in several parts of the USA and other countries if the average non-vocal EDH player isn't in agreement with most, but not all, of the banlist and format decisions, with little knowledge of the RC or the process behind the format.
So you think most people are, or are not, in agrement with most EDH rules as currently constructed? What about my position do you think makes me outside the norm?
And I'd also be very surprised if it isn't the case that the vast majority of groups refuse to use house rules, sticking to the original banlist, (this I'm less sure on) allowing people to experiment in some contexts, within reason.
Why do you think they refuse to use house bans?
Where do you think I land on this?
[quote]In that vein, while I don't completely see eye-to-eye with the RC on many things, I do think that they do a good job, and that they are uniquely qualified to do the job.
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.
Could you be more specific? The distinction between what and talking things over like adults? I assume you mean walking away from a table.
Yeah. Though I guess I've also very rarely seen people just walk away politely with explanation. And that's probably mostly just a function of the fact that people get emotional over some very petty things.
Why should they 'regulate more directly', and what does that mean? I don't ask rhetorically, I mean what specifically would you do. And why would that be better than what currently happens?
While I feel that a short banlist makes sense, I tend to lead on the side of people in positions of power being more aggressive towards problems rather than letting things play out. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes not. But in my opinion, the rules committee could take a lesson from some of the other formats and not leave a few of the more egregious offenders out there to be played without discussion by a playgroup. If they erred more on the side of banning, and sourced data on what cards are problematic directly from community information (ala Duel Commander's regional coordinators) more than just going off of "a vision of the format," I think that the format is much more likely to be healthy. And while, yes, it's not going to please everyone, it's more likely to hit the nasties that turn tables sour in playgroups across the country.
If you think house rules should be more used, why don't you think that's a solution to the known problem that no ban list will make everyone happy?
I think the problem is that people gravitate towards the official banlist. And if the official banlist hits more cards, which people can remove with house rules, that's more likely to be done in my experience than banning cards with house rules, which, again in my experience, leads to entering players and established players both getting upset about particular cards more often than not.
So you think most people are, or are not, in agrement with most EDH rules as currently constructed? What about my position do you think makes me outside the norm?
I find that you are more in agreement with the rules than the average player just from what you express on these forums. And I also find that you appear to have thought significantly more about the rules than the average player. And that you are outspoken about your opinions on the rules and on defending the rules against people who differ in opinion from you much more than the average player.
Human beings like gaining or keeping choices and dislike losing choices. It is a recognizable pattern in psychology. To go on a bit of a tangent, there was a related study on a variant of the Monty Hall problem. If someone starts out with three doors, one of which has a small prize behind it and repeatedly picks a door, but whenever they pick one door, the other two doors get smaller and smaller, eventually disappearing, most human beings will keep on changing which door they pick to keep their choices even for as long as possible.
If you start out with a large banlist, and then say "You guys can use house rules to change this as you wish," some cards will be considered for unbanning or allowed for testing by various playgroups. Heck, nowadays the number of groups who will let you play with a Mox or another banned card that doesn't necessarily break the game or make things inherently unfun is much higher (at least in my experience, coast-to-coast in the US and in Spain and Chile) than the number of groups that will ban a card for being unfun. Groups will say "We don't find Armageddon fun, but if you're not being a jerk with it, go ahead." I have yet to see or hear of a playgroup without at least one player complaining about Sol Ring's presence in the format, and yet I've only once heard someone say to not play it. There are many groups that don't like Consecrated Sphinx, but very few that actually ban it. Now, do I think that all of these cards should be banned? No. But I do think that starting off of a heavier hand with cards that are ubiquitously problematic or seemingly violate format philosophy would make sense. Sol Ring and Iona, Shield of Emeria are two that come to mind in particular, but I'm sure that other points could be made. Expecting people to make bans beyond the banlist seems very disingenuous.
That question is not very nice... Okay. If I were to venture a guess, though it wouldn't surprise me if this was wrong, I would suppose that you feel that people should use house rules to get the game they desire, like the RC, and don't worry much about social norms, like the RC.
While I feel that a short banlist makes sense, I tend to lead on the side of people in positions of power being more aggressive towards problems rather than letting things play out. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes not. But in my opinion, the rules committee could take a lesson from some of the other formats and not leave a few of the more egregious offenders out there to be played without discussion by a playgroup. If they erred more on the side of banning,
Don't you think this would lead to a lot more cards being banned? I think the diversity of the format means so many cards could cause an issue, this just leads to more and more cards getting banned. I don't see that as desirable at all.
and sourced data on what cards are problematic directly from community information (ala Duel Commander's regional coordinators) more than just going off of "a vision of the format," I think that the format is much more likely to be healthy. And while, yes, it's not going to please everyone, it's more likely to hit the nasties that turn tables sour in playgroups across the country.
And you don't think the difference in goals between Duel and EDH would be a large issue as to whats 'nasty'? Isn't 'its not going to please everyone' code for make games you prefer better? I am not just saying you specifically, but people who disagree with the current position. It seems to disregard anyone who prefers very powerful cards, or using social interaction for what is acceptable. Giving more power up to the group you think isnt doing very well does not seem like a good idea.
I think the problem is that people gravitate towards the official banlist. And if the official banlist hits more cards, which people can remove with house rules, that's more likely to be done in my experience than banning cards with house rules, which, again in my experience, leads to entering players and established players both getting upset about particular cards more often than not.
I agree people gravitate to the official list, but why would people use house rules to add cards back in? I have only seen people ban cards by house rule, never add anything back. But I have no idea whats the norm, I don't think anyone can.
That question is not very nice... Okay. If I were to venture a guess, though it wouldn't surprise me if this was wrong, I would suppose that you feel that people should use house rules to get the game they desire, like the RC, and don't worry much about social norms, like the RC.
It was not meant to be mean, I didnt understand some of what you said about me, clarity only. How does what I have said make you think I or they don't worry about social norms? What social norms do you speak of? PM is fine if you don't want to discuss that publicly.
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.
Well I can at least agree that I'm glade they are honest about it. It sets a very clear line as to what one can expect from them and lets you know when your efforts are fruitless.
Seems you're often misinformed.
You're also inventing numbers.
You have no evidence, only your opinion. Which is fine. It's as wrong as everyone elses.
The community was instrumental in getting Metalworker unbanned, and Prophet banned. Thats taking actual responsibility for your fun. As is house rules, or not playing with the guy who stuffs every Mindslaver and TimeWarp effect into their deck and says 'Its legal!'. People have alternatives, they choose not to take advantage of them if they are playing EDH in games they don't like.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
And indeed, people have the option to simply not play (and there are those that do) but at that point you're simply getting back to the original issue I have with them. They would rather have everyone quit (hypothetically) than change their vision. Again, sure that's "respectable" (if self-destructive) for an individual to say, it's not nearly as admirable for a governing body to say, in my opinion of course. Instrumental you say? How so? I was around for both of those events and in neither case do I remember anything especially instrumental happening on the community end. Of course this is simply dragging things off onto tangents. There is no argument that the community isn't instrumental, the RC has literally said as much. Literally. The RC's "vision" is instrumental, the community is secondary. I'm honestly not sure why you're arguing that when they've said as such multiple times.
So you have played an average of more than Fifty Eight games a week, for more than Two Hundred consecutive weeks?
Bull*****.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
From what I see, EDH as a whole follows a "minimalist concept", which is the basis of all Kitchen Table formats (which in its barest form technically is no banlist Vintage). But no-banlist Vintage has been around for ages and has never been successful, as well as literally almost every other Kitchen Table format. EDH is pretty much the first and only "truly successful" (I'm not going to argue about that because of variable metrics of measurement of the individual, but I daresay a majority will agree with this) Kitchen Table format to exist.
Wizards understands the basis of the Kitchen Table format is "minimalism". Their outright statement of (largely) not interfering with the RC's decisions is pretty much a declaration that because it is Kitchen Table format and requires minimal changes, they feel that's it's okay (and saving what "little resources" required) to leave those minor changes to the format's inventors instead. The "Commander" name exists solely for branding - EDH is an awkward name to put on product, plus the name itself was a legacy title (Elder Dragons being not the only choices) by then already. They just used the word that described the most defining aspect of the format as the title.
All because Wizards creates the product (with a brand) doesn't equate to the format needing to be competitively balanced - they certainly didn't stop people from playing no-banlist Vintage with Planechase/Archenemy (and while we're on that those formats were mostly played in tandem with EDH anyway...), WotC created the product as a bonus and officially announced that it's still a Kitchen Table format when they said they left the decisions to the RC, which means they were entering the most popular Kitchen Table format without attempting to convert it to Competitive one.
Okay, I've gone on about the RC and Wizards (and admittedly defending them) without explaining the crux point - why are Kitchen Table formats "minimalist"? It's simple - it's always easier to house-rule a ban rather than house-rule a unban. This is true for all formats (and is the reason why no-banlist Vintage didn't work, no central committee and the range is too wide). EDH has a central committee, but even when there's one, they need to keep to the "minimalist" approach. There are more groups out there house-banning Sol Ring than there are those unbanning Primeval Titan. It's socially easier to adapt by taking out a card (and weakening the deck) to match a groups' perceived power level rather than play a lower-powered deck in a group whose perceived power level is high. This is doubly true in the LGS scenario (as opposed to a consolidated actual Kitchen Table playgroup).
The fact that there are more groups with a house-rule-ban is not evidence that a card should be banned, it is evidence that the "minimalist approach" is working - the definition of "power" has always been different and its never possible to please everyone. Once you know that it's easier to house-rule-ban something than house-rule-unban something, the correct choice is to stick with the "minimalist approach" of keeping the number of banned cards low and siding with "higher power" instead, since those are easier to be neutered by house rules than the other way round. Therefore reasons for banning a card should NEVER include "plenty of groups are house-banning this" - the reasons for house-bans are varied and since "power level" (the most common reason) is subjective, it cannot be the sole reason. Primeval Titan was banned because of its centralizing properties (which were both the reasons for house-bans then and the official ban, but let's face it, prior-ban, all the complains just listed "too powerful" without filtering out the centralizing part to justify it).
This "minimalist approach" carries over to the meta as well. The most successful EDH "spin-off" is probably Duel Commander (sorry Tiny Leaders nowhere close), but even that isn't "successful enough" to eclipse the original - I've seen more and more groups (and store) simply accepting to play 1v1 matches using the Multiplayer banlist (to the point these forums even split to differentiate the two), making the original eclipse the spin-off instead. Why is that so? Simple - it's a minimalist approach from the player's perspective - it's easier to maintain the same deck to play both 1v1 and multiplayer, even if the 1v1 gameplay turns out to be less than refined. The very evidence that more and more players (and stores) adopt this formula (as well as the forum splitting) pretty much proves how Kitchen Table Formats have always worked successfully - through the "minimalist approach".
And to help settle the argument, community input was instrumental in the Metalworker and Kokusho unbans and the Prophet of Kruphix ban. That's not to say we abandoned our vision at any point, but sometimes the community can help make sure that we're fulfilling it.
George Carlin probably had it right, but I'm going to engage anyway. darrenhabib, you use the words "need" and "must" a fair amount. I'm curious as to what you think the imperative is here. Then you trot out the word "balance," which I'll wait for you to define in quantifiable terms before I can continue.
WotC has been annoying when it comes to banlists - the community can't go wrong.
WMy other, WIP casual deck: Zero to Hero
Protection from Will-O'-the-Wisps, Ali-from-Cairos, and Uncle-Istvans
Legendary snow landwalk
---------------------------------------
On the reserved list: Wizards won't remove it. Only we can. In other words: Play Modern, Pauper, or No-RL Eternal.
I can't believe you are as nice as your are to these -individuals-, Sheldon. They certainly don't deserve it.
OP, you and people like you have no qualification at all to run a ban list for a format. And the absolutes you speak in seem to be pretty Sith-y to me.
How is it that saying goes? Better the devil you know...
I may not agree with everything that Sheldon and the RC decide, but I don't think that I, or the majority of the community, would be stupid enough to take the reins away from them and give them to internet trolls instead.
EDH:
G[cEDH] Selvala, Heart of the StormG
URW[cEDH] Narset, the Last AirmericanURW
GWUSt. Jenara, the ArchangelGWU
UBGrimgrin, Chaos MarineUB
GOmnath, Mana BaronG
URWNarset, Justice League AmericaURW
GWUBAtraxa, Countess of CountersGWUB
GWUEstrid, Enbantress PrimeGWU
If the suggestion that an online committee/WOTC/group mind/whatever is going to make all of the people happy all of the time - then this it's probably not worth discussing - as I personally think that's highly unlikely. If the suggestion that online committee/WOTC/group mind/whatever is going to do better then the current committee, that's certainly possible.
But let's take WOTC for example, there are complaints all the time over bannings in multiple formats and there are complaints for bannings all the time - just take a look around at all the various threads. People are going to complain no matter who is in charge.
I think that the current committee does a great job, let me give you some examples.
They take the time to evaluate cards, there were calls for the early banning of Prophet of Kruphix, but they gave it a chance to allow the format to self correct, when it didn't and it continued to warp the format -then came the hammer. They allowed the community to see and experience the bad parts of the Prophet - which lead to a better consensus that it should be banned.
They are themselves gamers, which makes them have a vested interest in having fun - mind you that WOTC wants you to have fun but since they are a business they can be seen at times to be motivated by Profit. Videos, articles, podcasts, blogs, forum posts, streams of EDH/Commander and related stuff by them promote the format - and you can see their enjoyment in it. They are generally not trying to "sell" the product, they generally do enjoy playing.
(Interesting my first 2 points mentioned Profit - just a minor aside to self)
The rules committee are involved in Magic in a variety of ways, I loved this fictional interpretation of who they are from back in 2014
But if you don't know who they are check here:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/commander-edh/commander-rules-discussion-forum/203612-commander-rulings-faq#i
They have a solid foundation in the format going backwards and an understanding of other formats, there are Spikes, Timmies and Johnny's on the committee.
I am going to cut this short because there are more reasons to like the current committee, but you also need to remember that a large portion of magic players are fully content with the Rules Committee, let's face it fewer people speak up when they agree with things, the internet can often be about complaining.
BWREDGAR MARKOV VAMPIRESBWR
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
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
Your position may be that it isn't protective enough, but that wasn't his. He is for peer regulation. He is for walking away from tables when people do uncool things (always an opinion that fluctuates by group). So please don't come back to that same old, when its clearly not his position.
However because you said his stance wasn't mine, I had to check back the first post.
I don't hafta quote the entire page, but it sure sounds the OP feels the RC is not protective enough. Have you been reading too?
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
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
Somehow the distinction between this and talking over things like adults bothers me a lot. I suppose to each their own, but...
I think I agree that house rules should be more prevalent, but I don't agree with the RC's expressed opinion on peer regulation. I feel that the RC should not rely on "You can use house rules" to justify not moderating the format more directly. Maybe Sheldon et. al. aren't trying to express that, and I welcome a contradiction.
That said, I also doubt that you (MRHBlue) are representative of the average EDH player any more than, say, ProfessorWhen, or other users who disagree more actively with the RC. I'd be very surprised just from seeing a sampling of a decent variety of groups in several parts of the USA and other countries if the average non-vocal EDH player isn't in agreement with most, but not all, of the banlist and format decisions, with little knowledge of the RC or the process behind the format. And I'd also be very surprised if it isn't the case that the vast majority of groups refuse to use house rules, sticking to the original banlist, and (this I'm less sure on) allowing people to experiment in some contexts, within reason.
In that vein, while I don't completely see eye-to-eye with the RC on many things, I do think that they do a good job, and that they are uniquely qualified to do the job.
Why should they 'regulate more directly', and what does that mean? I don't ask rhetorically, I mean what specifically would you do. And why would that be better than what currently happens? If you think house rules should be more used, why don't you think that's a solution to the known problem that no ban list will make everyone happy?
So you think most people are, or are not, in agrement with most EDH rules as currently constructed? What about my position do you think makes me outside the norm?
Why do you think they refuse to use house bans? We are in agreement there.
Yeah. Though I guess I've also very rarely seen people just walk away politely with explanation. And that's probably mostly just a function of the fact that people get emotional over some very petty things.
While I feel that a short banlist makes sense, I tend to lead on the side of people in positions of power being more aggressive towards problems rather than letting things play out. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes not. But in my opinion, the rules committee could take a lesson from some of the other formats and not leave a few of the more egregious offenders out there to be played without discussion by a playgroup. If they erred more on the side of banning, and sourced data on what cards are problematic directly from community information (ala Duel Commander's regional coordinators) more than just going off of "a vision of the format," I think that the format is much more likely to be healthy. And while, yes, it's not going to please everyone, it's more likely to hit the nasties that turn tables sour in playgroups across the country.
I think the problem is that people gravitate towards the official banlist. And if the official banlist hits more cards, which people can remove with house rules, that's more likely to be done in my experience than banning cards with house rules, which, again in my experience, leads to entering players and established players both getting upset about particular cards more often than not.
I find that you are more in agreement with the rules than the average player just from what you express on these forums. And I also find that you appear to have thought significantly more about the rules than the average player. And that you are outspoken about your opinions on the rules and on defending the rules against people who differ in opinion from you much more than the average player.
Human beings like gaining or keeping choices and dislike losing choices. It is a recognizable pattern in psychology. To go on a bit of a tangent, there was a related study on a variant of the Monty Hall problem. If someone starts out with three doors, one of which has a small prize behind it and repeatedly picks a door, but whenever they pick one door, the other two doors get smaller and smaller, eventually disappearing, most human beings will keep on changing which door they pick to keep their choices even for as long as possible.
If you start out with a large banlist, and then say "You guys can use house rules to change this as you wish," some cards will be considered for unbanning or allowed for testing by various playgroups. Heck, nowadays the number of groups who will let you play with a Mox or another banned card that doesn't necessarily break the game or make things inherently unfun is much higher (at least in my experience, coast-to-coast in the US and in Spain and Chile) than the number of groups that will ban a card for being unfun. Groups will say "We don't find Armageddon fun, but if you're not being a jerk with it, go ahead." I have yet to see or hear of a playgroup without at least one player complaining about Sol Ring's presence in the format, and yet I've only once heard someone say to not play it. There are many groups that don't like Consecrated Sphinx, but very few that actually ban it. Now, do I think that all of these cards should be banned? No. But I do think that starting off of a heavier hand with cards that are ubiquitously problematic or seemingly violate format philosophy would make sense. Sol Ring and Iona, Shield of Emeria are two that come to mind in particular, but I'm sure that other points could be made. Expecting people to make bans beyond the banlist seems very disingenuous.
That question is not very nice... Okay. If I were to venture a guess, though it wouldn't surprise me if this was wrong, I would suppose that you feel that people should use house rules to get the game they desire, like the RC, and don't worry much about social norms, like the RC.
I agree people gravitate to the official list, but why would people use house rules to add cards back in? I have only seen people ban cards by house rule, never add anything back. But I have no idea whats the norm, I don't think anyone can.
It was not meant to be mean, I didnt understand some of what you said about me, clarity only. How does what I have said make you think I or they don't worry about social norms? What social norms do you speak of? PM is fine if you don't want to discuss that publicly.