In addition to the similar thread on the official forums, this thread will serve as a place where you can voice your (respectfully worded) feedback to the Rules Committee. From the ban list announcement:
As the popularity of Commander grows, it’s important for the Rules Committee to hear from a broader range of voices who share our vision of Commander and can contribute new and novel methods of implementing that vision. With that in mind, we’re excited to announce the formation of the Commander Advisory Group (CAG) to serve as the primary advisory body to the Commander Rules Committee (RC). Its membership is composed of well-known and well-regarded personalities from the Commander community. Members serve voluntarily, for indefinite terms, and at the discretion of the RC. Their role is to provide feedback on topics suggested by the RC, and raise issues that they believe need attention.
We searched far and wide to find the folks we think will best support our goals for the CAG and represent the great individual diversity of the people in the Commander community. There were definitely a greater number of deserving candidates than we had slots for. The members are:
Adam “Stybs” Styborski: Magic writer, content manager, 10-year Commander player, GP and Pro Tour Coverage team member. Twitter: @the_stybs. Website: thepaupercube.com
Charlotte Sable: Level 3 Judge, rules guru, Commander player since the EDH days. Twitter: @JqlGirl. Website: magicjudge.tumblr.com
Josh Lee Kwai: Former movie trailer editor at Disney and Universal. Current CEO of The Command Zone channel on YouTube and creator/director of Game Knights. Twitter: @JoshLeeKwai
Rachel Agnes: Content creator, a self-described faerie girl in an Eldrazi world. Commander player for about five years, huge Commander Cube fan. Rachel Agnes on Facebook and @baetog_ on Twitter and Twitch.
Ron Foster: Long time Organized Play figure, former Global Manager of the Grand Prix program; Japanese translator; brought/popularized Commander in Japan. Commander player from nearly the beginning. Twitter: @RonMFoster
Shivam Bhatt: Co-host of the Commanderin’ podcast, cultural critic. Commander player since 2011. Twitter: @ghirapurigears
Please join us in congratulating them on their selection and welcoming them to the team.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Commander Advisory Group (CAG) is twofold: First is to offer expert advice on management of the format. Second is to provide enhanced communication between the Commander Rules Committee (RC) and the Commander community.
ROLES
CAG members are the primary advisors to the RC on all facets of the format. They will work closely with the RC to shape, execute, and promote its philosophies and policies, having a hand in deciding the future of Commander.
Chosen from some of the format’s best individual ambassadors, the CAG will continue that role as a group. The CAG will offer input on how to better promote the format’s message and agenda.
CAG members will consult with RC to appoint new CAG members.
While CAG membership is not a guaranteed stepping stone to the RC, it is reasonable that exceptional performance will increase the likelihood of being selected to fill RC needs.
RESPONSIBILITIES
CAG members will maintain an ongoing conversation with the RC regarding issues surrounding the format.
Individual CAG members are free to publicly discuss their own inputs and recommendations to the RC; opinions and recommendations of the other members will be left to that other members’ discretion.
Members will represent their individual dealings and those of the CAG with the RC in a professional and courteous manner. Public disagreement is acceptable; public discord is not.
CAG members will not publicly discuss RC decisions before the public announcement of those decisions.
CAG members will not use insider information for any kind of financial gain.
If CAG members become privy to individual RC member votes, they will not publicly share them without the express consent of the individual.
OPERATIONS
The CAG will maintain independence on its own internal processes. The methods by which it offers input and recommendations are the CAG’s to decide.
The RC and CAG will use a secure Discord channel for sharing conversations, data, and recommendations and performing meetings.
CAG members will be invited to attend formal quarterly RC meetings.
Lines of communication between the RC and individual CAG members will not be limited to quarterly meetings.
The RC will both solicit advice from the CAG and accept it unsolicited. When the RC solicits advice, CAG members will not share the subject publicly without the express consent of the RC.
Occasionally, the RC will task the CAG with specific deadline-driven projects. The scope of those projects is only limited by the CAG’s willingness to accept them.
CAG members will serve at the discretion of the RC. Violation of individual responsibilities will be cause for dismissal.
I mentioned in the other chat, but I'll mention it here too I guess.
I don't know any of the members, their histories, or their views, but the way Sheldon describes what they looked for just makes it sound like an echo-chamber and while that in of itself isn't bad, it kinda makes you wonder what's the point.
I would be interested to hear if this group was formed and took part in discussion before the decision of no change or if this is announcing that the group will be formed and in the future banned list change announcements will have some hearing from them in them.
It doesn't really matter too much but I am just curious as to when this group is kind of officially instated is all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
The thing I find a little disconcerting is that they (appear to have) went out and looked, which indicates the same prejudices they might bring to the RC work would prejudice their selection of a hiring pool as it were.
I'd have expected soliciting applications as well as inviting some folks to apply.
Obviously, hiring decisions can fall prey to the same issues but being forced to consider a pool of interested people seems more likely to achieve a diverse result.
There's a reason that corporate policies in general require posting positions publicly vs. hiring from internal candidates or the like.
That said, I'm just working off what they said so perhaps more went into it than they seem to have said.
I would be interested to hear if this group was formed and took part in discussion before the decision of no change or if this is announcing that the group will be formed and in the future banned list change announcements will have some hearing from them in them.
It doesn't really matter too much but I am just curious as to when this group is kind of officially instated is all.
The CAG was not involved in the no change discussion; they weren't formed quite yet.
To address another point, the CAG was shaped so that it WOULDN'T be an echo chamber. We need some healthy disagreement (to either reinforce that we're right or fix where we're wrong), and we're confident that these folks can supply it.
Quote from Sheldon
JWK, absolutely agree with you that good ideas can come from everywhere. The heart of my question is what would be your discriminators for picking a less-known person (let's call them VSFP (very smart forum poster)? Content creators have a demonstrable body of work to draw on; it's much more difficult to distill what VSFP has to say, since unlike the content creator, they haven't assembled and focused it. The follow-on remains then how to discriminate between all of the VSFPs out there.
VSFPs who would really be considered would also presumably have a body of work, albeit of a different sort - things they have posted online. Let's say, purely as an example, y'all were considering Cryogen as a potential CAG member. You could go on the forum and look at his history of posts to see if his perspective on the format broadly matches what the RC is looking for while also bringing something new and interesting to the table. Then it would be a matter of someone reaching out and talking to him, to see if he was interested and if he seemed like someone who can play well with others, just like was presumably the case with the people the RC vetted and ended up choosing for the CAG.
Is this potentially a bit riskier than going with more well-known individuals? Possibly, I guess. But if one really wants to bring a wider range of perspectives to the table, it might be worth taking that bit of risk. I personally think the potential benefits outweigh the risk, YMMV, of course. In any case, I do think the basic idea of the CAG, and any attempt to bring in more input, is good. I simply would have liked to see that take a slightly different form.
From what I've gathered at least one of the members could provide some contrasting opinions to the general RC voice.
I agree that applications would have been nifty, but using Sheldon's example, I don't think I would have liked them to pick VSFUs vs people with more reach.
Edit because I got ninjad- Glad to hear that it seems like the members were picked with healthy disagreement in mind.
The issue with VSFUs is that no one really knows about them unless they're also in the same forum space as them and having someone completely unknown join that would feel kinda sketchy.
I know about half of the people. I think that this is a good selection. They are people who are very giving to the MTG community and represent different kinds of players.
I would have liked to see one person with PT experience, but more than anything I am happy to see something like CAG exist.
I am especially happy to see Charlotte Sable on the list - first person I thought of as I was reading the announcement. She gives a lot to the community without getting any kind of renumeration. Her tumblr page exists to help people understand rules questions, and she is very active.
That being said, I do not expect this to lead to a bunch of changes. I would hope that CAG will encourage the RC to be a little more aggressive with banning questionable cards, but it is not like we will get a huge overhaul. Maybe this is just a way to get feedback from people connected to the MTG community other than through discussion forums.
While here there seems to be a lot of support for the consideration of banning the fast mana rocks, Iona, etc, it could be that EDH players that do not participate in Forums have a very different opinion... Or not... but I hope that either way it will help the RC get a better grasp on the wider EDH community.
As side note I suspect that a robust survey strategy would be far more informative than an advisory committee (in terms of what people actually want and enjoy out of Commander). With a little work it'd be possible to reach a large subsection of the community, possibly in partnership with Wizards (who we know relies heavily on community engagement surveys).
As can be seen even from banlist polls in the Modern subforum we can see that it doesn't take much to get a representative sample from which many things can be extrapolated (ex. the results on Reddit with 10x the userbase as the Modern forum are nearly identical).
The Planeswalker as Commander survey is a pretty good example of this I think. Take that to Reddit and comment cards in Commander sets and so on and you could really understand the community pretty well.
Am I the only one who's kind of confused as to what the point of the CAG is in the first place? I mean, the explanation is sort of in the name; they're an advisory group. I just don't get why said group even needs to be delineated. Like, why are these particular people, aside from being Internet celebrities, a better source of advice than anyone/anywhere else? Is there something different about the way the RC is collecting information now? Are there now too many places where Commander is being talked about for the RC to reasonably keep tabs on all of them, making these particular folks more useful as conglomerators of data? Honestly, I haven't a clue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
As side note I suspect that a robust survey strategy would be far more informative than an advisory committee (in terms of what people actually want and enjoy out of Commander). With a little work it'd be possible to reach a large subsection of the community, possibly in partnership with Wizards (who we know relies heavily on community engagement surveys).
[...]
The Planeswalker as Commander survey is a pretty good example of this I think. Take that to Reddit and comment cards in Commander sets and so on and you could really understand the community pretty well.
Yeah, maybe some sort of short survey with some incentive inside the edh precons?
Am I the only one who's kind of confused as to what the point of the CAG is in the first place? I mean, the explanation is sort of in the name; they're an advisory group. I just don't get why said group even needs to be delineated. Like, why are these particular people, aside from being Internet celebrities, a better source of advice than anyone/anywhere else? Is there something different about the way the RC is collecting information now? Are there now too many places where Commander is being talked about for the RC to reasonably keep tabs on all of them, making these particular folks more useful as conglomerators of data? Honestly, I haven't a clue.
It would be nice to have an explanation of their duties, summaries of their meetings and discussions, etc.
Here's the link to today's article in which I expand on that some. The RC and CAG will be working together to put the finishing touches on their charter.
I, too, am a little unclear as to specifically why the CAG will exist. All of the members look to be decent folk as well as good fits; I guess it'd just be nice to have some clarification as to what their role actually comprises.
At present it seems like they'll be presenting some of the more reasoned, logical arguments for cards being banned, proposed format changes, so on and so forth. I don't have any problem with this, I think it's a good idea in theory. I might be a bit nosy and ask how they'll go about this, but I guess time will tell.
I'd also like to feed back that I think this is a really good idea. It's a shame that there's a contingent of people who seem to have a conception of the RC as elitist, and hopefully this will go some way to dispelling that notion. I think it's a falsehood anyway, you guys have done a fantastic job keeping the format balanced, social and fun. You can't please everyone, but if this means you guys get less grief and players feel like their opinions are being heard, I'm all for that.
Even after reading the recent article, I'm still skeptical on the whole idea... in a few different ways. Having read it, I'm aware the whole thing just started and has nothing practical to show for it, but the skeptical part of me cannot stop murmuring "it's merely a formality", but not the in the "RC is in an echo chamber and made it larger" way, but in the "RC is already listening to the community from many online resources, how does the entire concept itself particularly change anything to begin with" way.
While I do trust the RC to definitely not just stop listening from the sources they're already observing from, the formal introduction of the group now still puts the nagging doubt into "RC's now going to put more priority to listening to this group than us". The rational mind tells it isn't true, but the human instinct to the formal introduction itself doesn't take it quite as well. Doesn't help that I don't actually know any people from this group since I don't really keep in touch with the social media aspect of the game, despite my own trust in the RC's general decisions as well as the article itself stating the "trustworthiness" (I couldn't think of the exact word, don't take it too tightly) of the group in it, but eh like I said human instinct kicks in again.
That being said, it's not like I actually know the RC, but grew to trust them (or at least their general direction, I have proven I don't agree on all specific decisions), so it might just take time for the whole thing to seat in, after all this is just my kneejerk instinctual reaction to the formal introduction.
Then again, taking into account I'm reacting how I am is because being in MTGS (where RC members do participate in) and reading Sheldon's articles regularly, I'm in a (better-than-most) position of understanding how the RC works. Now the group has extended to include members of social media I don't follow, it creates the opposite distancing effect to me (and I suppose people like me as well) instead, even if they're just an advisory group. I don't feel the need to be obligated to follow them on their social media outlets to be able do the guesswork for influences behind decisions that would be made from now onward, but any changes would also have me bugged to wonder if I missed out anything in the decision-making process. I know the article also sort of addressed that (as in not letting the group's duty influence the way the individuals' social medias work), but well human instinct to change once again...
I do recognize I'm also in a bubble of my own making and this change would seem way better to many others who are the opposite of me (mainly those who follow the CAG's social media and don't partake in the forums / read Sheldon's articles), but I will play by caution and therefore appeal to the RC (and probably Sheldon in particular) to bridge the "gap" (from my perspective, admittedly) without having to resort to "you'll have to follow their social media" as pretty much the only solution, perhaps by having occasional articles about the discussions between the RC and the CAG (the same way the RC ones are, but I sorta expect more "meat" since there's more people involved).
Am I the only one who's kind of confused as to what the point of the CAG is in the first place? I mean, the explanation is sort of in the name; they're an advisory group. I just don't get why said group even needs to be delineated. Like, why are these particular people, aside from being Internet celebrities, a better source of advice than anyone/anywhere else? Is there something different about the way the RC is collecting information now? Are there now too many places where Commander is being talked about for the RC to reasonably keep tabs on all of them, making these particular folks more useful as conglomerators of data? Honestly, I haven't a clue.
As someone who has sorted data like this, a lot of it is you cannot have a back-and-forth conversation with a forum full of people. Direct answers to direct questions move the discussion along a good path. A discrete set of know persons, who you can directly speak to, without outside influence, helps tremendously.
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.
Even after reading the recent article, I'm still skeptical on the whole idea... in a few different ways. Having read it, I'm aware the whole thing just started and has nothing practical to show for it, but the skeptical part of me cannot stop murmuring "it's merely a formality", but not the in the "RC is in an echo chamber and made it larger" way, but in the "RC is already listening to the community from many online resources, how does the entire concept itself particularly change anything to begin with" way.
While I do trust the RC to definitely not just stop listening from the sources they're already observing from, the formal introduction of the group now still puts the nagging doubt into "RC's now going to put more priority to listening to this group than us". The rational mind tells it isn't true, but the human instinct to the formal introduction itself doesn't take it quite as well.
Yeah, this is sort of my fear as well. Maybe it's ridiculous for me to believe this, but I believe that the excessive amount of time I pour into theorizing about Commander and meticulously curating what I write somehow indirectly translates into a better Commander for all, partly because the RC peruses these boards, but also because regular forumites can enjoy the fruits of my labor as well. If I didn't think I was somehow making a difference, I wouldn't be wasting my time here. But with this recent announcement, I definitely feel more... invisible? It's probably something I shouldn't even concern myself over, but it feels a bit painful nonetheless.
Doesn't help that I don't actually know any people from this group...
And I don't know any of these people either. I mean, I've heard of the Command Zone, and I've heard of the Commanderin' podcast, but beyond that I can't say anything else. I guess these content creators are really the face of Commander.
What really worries me is that all of these people have Twitter accounts. Maybe that comes with the territory of being a content creator in the year 2019, but as someone who sees social media as a net negative, not a positive, I'm concerned that these folks, despite my trust in the RC choosing them, won't really have nuanced opinions because nuance is something Twitter can't do. That's extremely important when it comes to what I'd expect from an advisory group. Then again, I don't know any of these people, like I said before, so it could be that my fears are completely unfounded here.
As someone who has sorted data like this, a lot of it is you cannot have a back-and-forth conversation with a forum full of people. Direct answers to direct questions move the discussion along a good path. A discrete set of know persons, who you can directly speak to, without outside influence, helps tremendously.
Fair enough. I had just previously assumed that members of the RC had always just gone out of their way to converse with such people in the first place. Like, if the RC valued these folks' opinions so much, why weren't they already talking with them about important topics? And if they were already doing that, then what's the point of suddenly delineating it as the CAG? The entire premise just doesn't make sense to me. Not that I'm against it or anything. I just don't see the value in forming some kind of official advisory group. If I were a member of the RC, I would just seek out people whose thoughts I believe were valuable and talk to those people, be they part of some official group or otherwise.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Based on my own conversation with Sheldon, the draft version of his announcement yesterday, the official announcement/SCG article, and some applied reasoning, my impression of this group is that it is to supplement and enhance what the Rules Committee is already doing, not take the place of it.i fully expect Sheldon will continue to visit forums and interact with other people at the ground level.
My own interpretation is that the day to day role of a CAG member is to interact with their respective community, push the overall message and intent of the RC (not to be confused with spreading "propaganda" or being an echo), and gathering the various feedbacks. Then when it comes time for a meeting, these various CAs can discuss what they've heard and seen, and now instead of a four person group trying to represent the entire world, you have a ~10 person group which is now comprised of different play styles working towards a similar end state.
The people seem pretty cool overall, though I think I've only heard of Josh-Lee Kwai, and he's pretty sweet so I'm glad to have him on board.
Overall though, this won't mean much unless there are changes to the banned list (hello abundant tutors and fast mana rocks) and as that does not look to be happening at any time, and I expect to see "No changes" in permanence on each update, I'll keep my Commander playing to a minimum and focus on Duel Commander, MTG Arena and building my sweet, sweet Mirage-Ice Age Block 5th Ed Standard Cube.
(I know that sounded a little snarky, so I'll re-forumulate a bit here. It's great to have new and different voices. It has been needed. But if overall the banned list stays the same, I'm not sure what the Advisory Committee is outside of a public outreach forum, or perhaps a Comms group to get the message out there in a timely fashion. It cannot hurt, I suppose, but I'm unclear about its purpose, even after reading Sheldon's take on the topic. I'd like a really thorough explanation about what kind of Commander these players play (any of them cutthroat combo players? Any of them on a strict budget? Any of them just build casual clunky fun/theme decks? Any of them online only players?) and I hope to hear from them here, on the forums, as well as the official Commander forums. Welcome all! )
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The "Crazy One", playing casual magic and occasionally dipping his toes into regular play since 1994.
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
So I did a quick looking up of these people listed on the cag, and what i'd be worried about is how diverse is this group really?
Am i wrong in thinking that they all basically represent a north-american perspective on the game? I couldn't actually figure out where these people are from nor where they live, so i might be wrong in that. Shouldn't we have a somewhat more diverse voice in this group? I'm not sure how similar the EDH
'meta' looks worldwide, but i know that the legacy meta definitely looks different comparing here (europe) with the US, so i'd guess that the EDH meta would look and feel highly different comparing say chinese with australian, brazilian with nigerian.
I can definitely understand that it might be harder to find people from other places, especially when language can be a barrier, but it would be pretty good if that were possible.
Also, is there a way for us to know for example, how actually 'un-echoey' this group actually is? as in is it possible to have a short-list of hot-topics in the EDH rules and see how diverse the voices are within those topics (or is this just asking for trouble)? As in 30-starting life, remove commandsr damage, 100-card strict size limit, ban-list, implementation of a points-restriction list, sol ring and so on?
So I did a quick looking up of these people listed on the cag, and what i'd be worried about is how diverse is this group really?
Am i wrong in thinking that they all basically represent a north-american perspective on the game? I couldn't actually figure out where these people are from nor where they live, so i might be wrong in that. Shouldn't we have a somewhat more diverse voice in this group? I'm not sure how similar the EDH
'meta' looks worldwide, but i know that the legacy meta definitely looks different comparing here (europe) with the US, so i'd guess that the EDH meta would look and feel highly different comparing say chinese with australian, brazilian with nigerian.
I can definitely understand that it might be harder to find people from other places, especially when language can be a barrier, but it would be pretty good if that were possible.
Also, is there a way for us to know for example, how actually 'un-echoey' this group actually is? as in is it possible to have a short-list of hot-topics in the EDH rules and see how diverse the voices are within those topics (or is this just asking for trouble)? As in 30-starting life, remove commandsr damage, 100-card strict size limit, ban-list, implementation of a points-restriction list, sol ring and so on?
I’d appreciate it if you would provide a definition of “diversity”. A list of as many reasons as you can think of as to what it is about the committee that doesn’t seem diverse enough for you. Why such diversity is relevant to the game of Magic and Commander in particular (and even more specifically to the “hot-topic” issues you’ve listed). And then, most importantly, a list of possible solutions to the (supposed) problem of a lack of diversity within the committee. TYIA. I look forward to it.
But he did provide one. They all seem to at least live in America. Seeing how other formats have different meta's in different parts of the world it would be fair to assume the same would be true for EDH, with different cards being problematic in some places while not at all in others.
So I did a quick looking up of these people listed on the cag, and what i'd be worried about is how diverse is this group really?
Am i wrong in thinking that they all basically represent a north-american perspective on the game? I couldn't actually figure out where these people are from nor where they live, so i might be wrong in that. Shouldn't we have a somewhat more diverse voice in this group? I'm not sure how similar the EDH
'meta' looks worldwide, but i know that the legacy meta definitely looks different comparing here (europe) with the US, so i'd guess that the EDH meta would look and feel highly different comparing say chinese with australian, brazilian with nigerian.
I can definitely understand that it might be harder to find people from other places, especially when language can be a barrier, but it would be pretty good if that were possible.
Also, is there a way for us to know for example, how actually 'un-echoey' this group actually is? as in is it possible to have a short-list of hot-topics in the EDH rules and see how diverse the voices are within those topics (or is this just asking for trouble)? As in 30-starting life, remove commandsr damage, 100-card strict size limit, ban-list, implementation of a points-restriction list, sol ring and so on?
I believe Sheldon on a recent podcast stated that a goal was to eventually find potential CAG members from outside North America. He even remarked at how one person brought an entire market to Japan and how big that thing became (I can't remember the exact specifics and am too lazy to look, but the important part I'm mentioning is that he was aware of wanting geographic diversity in addition to ethnic, gender, and playstyle diversity).
Sheldon also went into greater detail in his weekly SCG article.
SCG discussion article for the CAG charter
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I don't know any of the members, their histories, or their views, but the way Sheldon describes what they looked for just makes it sound like an echo-chamber and while that in of itself isn't bad, it kinda makes you wonder what's the point.
It doesn't really matter too much but I am just curious as to when this group is kind of officially instated is all.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
I'd have expected soliciting applications as well as inviting some folks to apply.
Obviously, hiring decisions can fall prey to the same issues but being forced to consider a pool of interested people seems more likely to achieve a diverse result.
There's a reason that corporate policies in general require posting positions publicly vs. hiring from internal candidates or the like.
That said, I'm just working off what they said so perhaps more went into it than they seem to have said.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
The CAG was not involved in the no change discussion; they weren't formed quite yet.
To address another point, the CAG was shaped so that it WOULDN'T be an echo chamber. We need some healthy disagreement (to either reinforce that we're right or fix where we're wrong), and we're confident that these folks can supply it.
VSFPs who would really be considered would also presumably have a body of work, albeit of a different sort - things they have posted online. Let's say, purely as an example, y'all were considering Cryogen as a potential CAG member. You could go on the forum and look at his history of posts to see if his perspective on the format broadly matches what the RC is looking for while also bringing something new and interesting to the table. Then it would be a matter of someone reaching out and talking to him, to see if he was interested and if he seemed like someone who can play well with others, just like was presumably the case with the people the RC vetted and ended up choosing for the CAG.
Is this potentially a bit riskier than going with more well-known individuals? Possibly, I guess. But if one really wants to bring a wider range of perspectives to the table, it might be worth taking that bit of risk. I personally think the potential benefits outweigh the risk, YMMV, of course. In any case, I do think the basic idea of the CAG, and any attempt to bring in more input, is good. I simply would have liked to see that take a slightly different form.
I agree that applications would have been nifty, but using Sheldon's example, I don't think I would have liked them to pick VSFUs vs people with more reach.
Edit because I got ninjad- Glad to hear that it seems like the members were picked with healthy disagreement in mind.
The issue with VSFUs is that no one really knows about them unless they're also in the same forum space as them and having someone completely unknown join that would feel kinda sketchy.
I would have liked to see one person with PT experience, but more than anything I am happy to see something like CAG exist.
I am especially happy to see Charlotte Sable on the list - first person I thought of as I was reading the announcement. She gives a lot to the community without getting any kind of renumeration. Her tumblr page exists to help people understand rules questions, and she is very active.
That being said, I do not expect this to lead to a bunch of changes. I would hope that CAG will encourage the RC to be a little more aggressive with banning questionable cards, but it is not like we will get a huge overhaul. Maybe this is just a way to get feedback from people connected to the MTG community other than through discussion forums.
While here there seems to be a lot of support for the consideration of banning the fast mana rocks, Iona, etc, it could be that EDH players that do not participate in Forums have a very different opinion... Or not... but I hope that either way it will help the RC get a better grasp on the wider EDH community.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
As can be seen even from banlist polls in the Modern subforum we can see that it doesn't take much to get a representative sample from which many things can be extrapolated (ex. the results on Reddit with 10x the userbase as the Modern forum are nearly identical).
The Planeswalker as Commander survey is a pretty good example of this I think. Take that to Reddit and comment cards in Commander sets and so on and you could really understand the community pretty well.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Yeah, maybe some sort of short survey with some incentive inside the edh precons?
It would be nice to have an explanation of their duties, summaries of their meetings and discussions, etc.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
I hope this charter will be made public!
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
At present it seems like they'll be presenting some of the more reasoned, logical arguments for cards being banned, proposed format changes, so on and so forth. I don't have any problem with this, I think it's a good idea in theory. I might be a bit nosy and ask how they'll go about this, but I guess time will tell.
I'd also like to feed back that I think this is a really good idea. It's a shame that there's a contingent of people who seem to have a conception of the RC as elitist, and hopefully this will go some way to dispelling that notion. I think it's a falsehood anyway, you guys have done a fantastic job keeping the format balanced, social and fun. You can't please everyone, but if this means you guys get less grief and players feel like their opinions are being heard, I'm all for that.
While I do trust the RC to definitely not just stop listening from the sources they're already observing from, the formal introduction of the group now still puts the nagging doubt into "RC's now going to put more priority to listening to this group than us". The rational mind tells it isn't true, but the human instinct to the formal introduction itself doesn't take it quite as well. Doesn't help that I don't actually know any people from this group since I don't really keep in touch with the social media aspect of the game, despite my own trust in the RC's general decisions as well as the article itself stating the "trustworthiness" (I couldn't think of the exact word, don't take it too tightly) of the group in it, but eh like I said human instinct kicks in again.
That being said, it's not like I actually know the RC, but grew to trust them (or at least their general direction, I have proven I don't agree on all specific decisions), so it might just take time for the whole thing to seat in, after all this is just my kneejerk instinctual reaction to the formal introduction.
Then again, taking into account I'm reacting how I am is because being in MTGS (where RC members do participate in) and reading Sheldon's articles regularly, I'm in a (better-than-most) position of understanding how the RC works. Now the group has extended to include members of social media I don't follow, it creates the opposite distancing effect to me (and I suppose people like me as well) instead, even if they're just an advisory group. I don't feel the need to be obligated to follow them on their social media outlets to be able do the guesswork for influences behind decisions that would be made from now onward, but any changes would also have me bugged to wonder if I missed out anything in the decision-making process. I know the article also sort of addressed that (as in not letting the group's duty influence the way the individuals' social medias work), but well human instinct to change once again...
I do recognize I'm also in a bubble of my own making and this change would seem way better to many others who are the opposite of me (mainly those who follow the CAG's social media and don't partake in the forums / read Sheldon's articles), but I will play by caution and therefore appeal to the RC (and probably Sheldon in particular) to bridge the "gap" (from my perspective, admittedly) without having to resort to "you'll have to follow their social media" as pretty much the only solution, perhaps by having occasional articles about the discussions between the RC and the CAG (the same way the RC ones are, but I sorta expect more "meat" since there's more people involved).
Yeah, this is sort of my fear as well. Maybe it's ridiculous for me to believe this, but I believe that the excessive amount of time I pour into theorizing about Commander and meticulously curating what I write somehow indirectly translates into a better Commander for all, partly because the RC peruses these boards, but also because regular forumites can enjoy the fruits of my labor as well. If I didn't think I was somehow making a difference, I wouldn't be wasting my time here. But with this recent announcement, I definitely feel more... invisible? It's probably something I shouldn't even concern myself over, but it feels a bit painful nonetheless.
And I don't know any of these people either. I mean, I've heard of the Command Zone, and I've heard of the Commanderin' podcast, but beyond that I can't say anything else. I guess these content creators are really the face of Commander.
What really worries me is that all of these people have Twitter accounts. Maybe that comes with the territory of being a content creator in the year 2019, but as someone who sees social media as a net negative, not a positive, I'm concerned that these folks, despite my trust in the RC choosing them, won't really have nuanced opinions because nuance is something Twitter can't do. That's extremely important when it comes to what I'd expect from an advisory group. Then again, I don't know any of these people, like I said before, so it could be that my fears are completely unfounded here.
Fair enough. I had just previously assumed that members of the RC had always just gone out of their way to converse with such people in the first place. Like, if the RC valued these folks' opinions so much, why weren't they already talking with them about important topics? And if they were already doing that, then what's the point of suddenly delineating it as the CAG? The entire premise just doesn't make sense to me. Not that I'm against it or anything. I just don't see the value in forming some kind of official advisory group. If I were a member of the RC, I would just seek out people whose thoughts I believe were valuable and talk to those people, be they part of some official group or otherwise.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
My own interpretation is that the day to day role of a CAG member is to interact with their respective community, push the overall message and intent of the RC (not to be confused with spreading "propaganda" or being an echo), and gathering the various feedbacks. Then when it comes time for a meeting, these various CAs can discuss what they've heard and seen, and now instead of a four person group trying to represent the entire world, you have a ~10 person group which is now comprised of different play styles working towards a similar end state.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Overall though, this won't mean much unless there are changes to the banned list (hello abundant tutors and fast mana rocks) and as that does not look to be happening at any time, and I expect to see "No changes" in permanence on each update, I'll keep my Commander playing to a minimum and focus on Duel Commander, MTG Arena and building my sweet, sweet Mirage-Ice Age Block 5th Ed Standard Cube.
(I know that sounded a little snarky, so I'll re-forumulate a bit here. It's great to have new and different voices. It has been needed. But if overall the banned list stays the same, I'm not sure what the Advisory Committee is outside of a public outreach forum, or perhaps a Comms group to get the message out there in a timely fashion. It cannot hurt, I suppose, but I'm unclear about its purpose, even after reading Sheldon's take on the topic. I'd like a really thorough explanation about what kind of Commander these players play (any of them cutthroat combo players? Any of them on a strict budget? Any of them just build casual clunky fun/theme decks? Any of them online only players?) and I hope to hear from them here, on the forums, as well as the official Commander forums. Welcome all! )
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
Am i wrong in thinking that they all basically represent a north-american perspective on the game? I couldn't actually figure out where these people are from nor where they live, so i might be wrong in that. Shouldn't we have a somewhat more diverse voice in this group? I'm not sure how similar the EDH
'meta' looks worldwide, but i know that the legacy meta definitely looks different comparing here (europe) with the US, so i'd guess that the EDH meta would look and feel highly different comparing say chinese with australian, brazilian with nigerian.
I can definitely understand that it might be harder to find people from other places, especially when language can be a barrier, but it would be pretty good if that were possible.
Also, is there a way for us to know for example, how actually 'un-echoey' this group actually is? as in is it possible to have a short-list of hot-topics in the EDH rules and see how diverse the voices are within those topics (or is this just asking for trouble)? As in 30-starting life, remove commandsr damage, 100-card strict size limit, ban-list, implementation of a points-restriction list, sol ring and so on?
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
I’d appreciate it if you would provide a definition of “diversity”. A list of as many reasons as you can think of as to what it is about the committee that doesn’t seem diverse enough for you. Why such diversity is relevant to the game of Magic and Commander in particular (and even more specifically to the “hot-topic” issues you’ve listed). And then, most importantly, a list of possible solutions to the (supposed) problem of a lack of diversity within the committee. TYIA. I look forward to it.
I believe Sheldon on a recent podcast stated that a goal was to eventually find potential CAG members from outside North America. He even remarked at how one person brought an entire market to Japan and how big that thing became (I can't remember the exact specifics and am too lazy to look, but the important part I'm mentioning is that he was aware of wanting geographic diversity in addition to ethnic, gender, and playstyle diversity).
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg