Yes, Ron Foster was critical to bringing Magic and Commander to Japan. Yes, the CAG, like the RC, is more North American-centric than we'd prefer. Feel free to suggest content-producers from other areas of the world that we might want to consider.
Just a for instance but if there's a long standing high level judge, or a popular personality who isn't necessarily a writer, why not include them in your net?
Just a for instance but if there's a long standing high level judge, or a popular personality who isn't necessarily a writer, why not include them in your net?
It isn't necessarily, but they are the ones who you can most easily their resume.
Something strikes me as really wrong about the strong bias toward content producers but I'm not really prepared to make a strong case. Just rubs me the wrong way. Plenty of pillars of communities that don't write crap on the internet. I get that it's the easiest thing to review their body of work.
Not sure what my counter suggestion would be, it just sniffs wrong to me.
That's like saying it rubs you the wrong way that people are chosen as heart surgeons with a strong bias toward medical degrees (okay, the metaphor is a little strained, but you get the idea). I'd be happy to listen to how we might develop selection criteria for people who we literally have no information about (and I mean that with no sarcasm).
Something strikes me as really wrong about the strong bias toward content producers but I'm not really prepared to make a strong case. Just rubs me the wrong way. Plenty of pillars of communities that don't write crap on the internet. I get that it's the easiest thing to review their body of work.
Not sure what my counter suggestion would be, it just sniffs wrong to me.
Sorry that's kinda vague.
I kind of get what you're saying, since there isn't really much diversity on the CAG in that sense. But the issue remains, how does the RC find that pillar without being able to pull up a bunch of articles or podcasts to read/listen to?
That's like saying it rubs you the wrong way that people are chosen as heart surgeons with a strong bias toward medical degrees (okay, the metaphor is a little strained, but you get the idea). I'd be happy to listen to how we might develop selection criteria for people who we literally have no information about (and I mean that with no sarcasm).
I disagree with your comparison. Writing about magic doesn't imply much about how you play magic - lots of people are good magic writers but have middling success as players, and produce popular content but are not necessarily the kind of people I would want to play with.
The metaphor is definitely strained, as you point out, because it's a lot more like choosing heart surgeons based solely on the popularity of their journal publications with the general public Which is probably a pretty bad idea.
-------------------------------------------------
My suggestion would be to:
1) Solicit applications (perhaps during an annual window to keep the workload down)
2) Interview people
3) Review their references
4) Invite people who are recommended to you to apply (e.g. people like Cryogen)
This makes for a lot of work; but you can assign your newly minted CAG to review resumes/applications to spread the workload.
Creating a few gating criteria to make it easy to shelve certain applications, such as, someone must have ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
-A recommendation from a sitting CAG or RC member
-L2 or higher judge with a proven track record of running large events
-A strong portfolio of content
-A recommendation from WOTC
-Be a pillar of the community (e.g. tournament organizer at a large store, something like that)
Those are just some ideas off the cuff, but I think you're seriously selling the committee short by not taking applications. It's work, but it's worth it. You're going to get a very narrow view of the world if you don't have less visible people in my opinion.
(I don't know if this needs to be said but I have no interest and don't fit any of those criteria, so this is not about me in any way)
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.
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).
I get that diversity as a term doesn't necessarily mean anything in a vacuum, but for me, i'd like to have a nice cross-section representation for example between players who started in the 90s, 00s, 10s, males, females, styles of play, perspective of how the game should be played, intro/extroverted, and so on somewhere within the ranks of the RC/CAG. It's important, because we all follow the RC/CAG as a group who can represent what we feel is the 'spirit of EDH', right? But if there's no one within their ranks that represent what we think is the game, then we'd (and possibly other groups) feel like our voice is ignored. But more importantly, it's good for new players (to magic or to EDH) to be able to get into a format where they feel like the game they want to play is the game that the rules-committee is trying to foster. In other words, having a CAG that consists of only middle-aged caucasian guys who all started in 1993, still play vintage competitively and live within the same zip code in the US DOESN'T necessarily mean that they're going to be all for unbanning the power-9 and library, but what it DOES mean is that most other EDH players would feel alienated from not being represented. It's an extreme example, but the game involves people from all walks of life, and i want to see even the korean craw wurm-players who'd started playing EDH from the 2014 pre-cons or whatever feel like the rules are being made with people like him/her in mind.
I didn't realise that some of them had lived in Finland (or still lives there) and Japan, but aside from just a geographical-meta representation, it'd be great to know that one or more persons within these groups have an inclination for/against certain rules that exist in EDH. Geographically though, there doesn't seem to be any representation from south america nor australia nor africa. I'm not sure how widespread the game is out there, but it'd definitely be interesting to spread the game there too.
For example, as i understand it, there are some on the existing RC who're all-in on competitive, whereas some are definitely leaning on the casual, a good number of judges who understand how the game works/some who aren't judges at all, and some content creators/non-content creators.
On the subject of having content creators, i can sort of understand that; they're a known quantity, and it's easier to interact with them (since they already exist in the public sphere). Beyond that, followers of those creators have already carved a niche within the EDH community, meaning they naturally represent a good wide perspective (hopefully).
That being said, i'm wondering if having mostly content creators would be very one-dimensional in their perspective.
Oh, and before i forget, the only subset of EDH players i'd be wary of in inviting into the CAG, it'd be new players (as in new magic players. a month ago, i introduced a new player who thought that rakdos the defiler was waaaay OP. wheel of fortune and vampiric tutor on the other hand were fine). That being said, somewhat seasoned EDH players who constantly play WITH new players or introduce new players to EDH would definitely be a welcome addition.
Unfortunately, i'm part of a somewhat insular EDH group, and i don't really follow any content creators outside of the US regarding EDH. And i don't feel like anyone in my group would be a net positive inclusion into the CAG. I'll keep an eye out for potential candidates though (but y'all are going to have to put them through their paces/vet them properly).
Content creators are easier for the community to look up and go "oh okay so that's who this person is" and you can see and or hear how they feel about things quickly, but if you go with someone from like here for example it's like "who's that?" and "Oh salvation is still a thing?" (yes, I have heard that before)
Content creators are easier for the community to look up and go "oh okay so that's who this person is" and you can see and or hear how they feel about things quickly, but if you go with someone from like here for example it's like "who's that?" and "Oh salvation is still a thing?" (yes, I have heard that before)
Yeah, if you search one person's forum posts it is hard to get a sense of their stance and beliefs, unless they seldom post. For someone that posts a lot, such as myself, you'll probably find a lot of chaff mixed in.
The one benefit to a forum member rather than a content provider is that I'm pretty sure that the things a forum member says are genuine, but a CP to an extent is selling a product, if only to get more listens and not necessarily because they have sponsors. This might not change their opinions, but everything they say is packaged. For example, does so and so really think Commander damage should be removed, or are they just doing a show they know will get talked about and more plays?
I'd say CPers saying things that they wouldn't otherwise say just to get hits is more the outlier than we might expect. What's more likely is a CP exaggerating their stance on something. As one myself, I wouldn't say anything that I didn't wholeheartedly know to be the truth/believe in without making sure that folks know it's not my position, but a point worth considering. More than most CPs, I have to be careful about that. Asking an open question like "What would the game be like without commander damage?" equates in some minds to "OMG THEY'RE GETTING RID OF IT!!!" (Just so no one panics, commander damage is staying around).
I'd say CPers saying things that they wouldn't otherwise say just to get hits is more the outlier than we might expect. What's more likely is a CP exaggerating their stance on something. As one myself, I wouldn't say anything that I didn't wholeheartedly know to be the truth/believe in without making sure that folks know it's not my position, but a point worth considering. More than most CPs, I have to be careful about that. Asking an open question like "What would the game be like without commander damage?" equates in some minds to "OMG THEY'RE GETTING RID OF IT!!!" (Just so no one panics, commander damage is staying around).
I don't necessarily mean that they're going full Alex Jones, but there has been plenty of feedback already regarding some of your choices that things will happen because they said X Y or Z. I think it was Josh that at some point had said he would remove Commander damage, but it was in the context of if there was a do-over and the format was new, not something he was pushing for. Nonetheless, it made for a good show discussion and leads people to believe that is his stance when it really wasn't.
Sure, but you have to willfully misinterpret him to get to "JLK wants to get rid of commander damage."
Maybe that was a poor example. It just seems that when it comes to getting people to want to consume your content you have to present it in a manner which will make your audience want to spend a portion of their time focusing it on you, and that one way to do that is to give them something to discuss at the water cooler. I don't think I could actively point to any one EDH podcast in particular that I feel has been disingenuous or otherwise not presented something they didn't genuinely believe. As you said, exaggerating their stance is more likely.
And I don't think I spoke accurately before, because a random forum member who doesn't have their reputation on the line could be just as willing to exaggerate or misrepresent themselves.
I am going to try to get this out in a meaningful fashion but it's a somewhat slippery point, so bear with me.
I do think that there was something in the spirit of your point that is why I upvoted it, which is that there is a distinction between the comment of a writer who contributes to a forum for free vs. a public content producer who often is trying to monetize it in some way.
There's a lot more you can tell about a person by their public discourse on the internet than by their behavior while recording videos or carefully edited writing.
Something of the difference between extemporaneous speech and a prepared speech, or between say, chatter at a party vs. remarks for a broader audience.
Similarly, I think unscripted interviews are a far stronger way to determine someone's perspective than the content they have produced. And I assume you guys are interviewing people in a fashion, I just thinking content production is a very poor gating mechanism when what you're looking for are people with good opinions.
(a second ad mostly unrelated point I wanted to attempt to make)
Opinions that people like reading are not necessarily good opinions. Probably 90% of the things content producers have to say about modern (the format for which I have consumed more content, historically, so where I Have a frame of reference) is somewhere on the spectrum between half-informed nonsense and complete drivel.
My limited experience reading about commander has suggested that this is fairly similar in that content arena.
You're looking for smart people with good ideas who are in contact with a lot of the community, and very few of those things are connected with production of magic content, for a variety of reasons.
* The types of smarts it takes to write entertaining content are not necessarily those that create a long term fun format. Content is attempting to grasp bits of fleeting attention not necessarily cultivate something strategically - you get a narrow focus on people with marketing expertise and miss out on artists, fiction writers, game designers/developers, sociologists, statisticians, mathematicians, strategists, etc. Not to say there isn't some overlap there of course, but the cross section of that society is way different than the general public.
* People who like attention are different than people who do not. Focusing your search in an area with a higher percentage of people who crave attention is going to get you certain biases.
* Famous/well known people experience the world (and their communities) differently than others do.
A lot of that is speaking in generalities so please don't take it as specifics but the bottom line is you're limiting yourself to a cross-section of society that is not representative of your audience.
In conclusion I believe you would do far better with random sampling than selecting content producers (or anyone else, really, in a way that is subject to existing biases) and that this experiment is a mistake. But if you must, I strongly suggest you widen your net.
(apologies if the tone comes off as arrogant or condescending there, it is not my attention - you guys surely have done a good job running the format, so you deserve a lot of rope)
Pokken, your point is well-argued, and it fits into my own personal argument against competitive art (whether that's cooking or painting or whatever) because you don't get objectively the best art, you get the art that wins contests.
I'll disagree, however, that a random sampling would net better results (and it would certainly be more likely to lead to something disastrous). If it makes sense, the people who were chosen for the CAG were selected from a pool of content producers, but they weren't selected for the specific content that they produce (other than the fact that it's Commander content). The CP part of their selection was about their reach into the Commander community. The other part of their selection was their ability to make an argument or discuss a point, which is something you can obviously appreciate.
I can see all of that reasoning. Main point I differ on is that content producers I don't think will reach the community in the way you expect. They reach out vs in, and their experience will always be very different than actual members of communities.
Random sampling is very good at assessing community sentiment...when used responsibly. Far more likely to be accurate. There's a reasonit's used so widely.
Except you can’t even really get close to a decent sample on something so big, widespread, and that involves people of all walks of life who play the format in a mutltitude of ways. It’s literally the reason a minimalist approach has worked so well for making the format so large.
CPs have the double benefit of getting feedback and allowing RC communication from easily accessible “trusted sources”. If the committee was solely advisory aren’t weren’t expected to interact on behalf of the RC, then yes, maybe random people no one knows about could work.
The responses to the CAG are interesting, but the first thing that I thought of hasn't been brought up yet; I figured that this was a way for the RC to groom their successors. By giving them real-wold exposure to Commander players, giving them access to how the RC does things, and giving the RC hands-on experience with the CAG members, they can make sure that the next generation of the EDH Rules Committee is ready when it is time for some of the more senior members to step aside.
And I think that there is nothing wrong with them being content providers. They are already public figures and a familiar face to certain segments of the Commander community, they have a built-in forum for disseminating information or opinions, and they have access to lots of player feedback as part of what they do. Seems to me like these would be the kinds of people who you can go to not just hear their own opinions, but that they would also have a hand on the pulse of their audience.
The responses to the CAG are interesting, but the first thing that I thought of hasn't been brought up yet; I figured that this was a way for the RC to groom their successors. By giving them real-wold exposure to Commander players, giving them access to how the RC does things, and giving the RC hands-on experience with the CAG members, they can make sure that the next generation of the EDH Rules Committee is ready when it is time for some of the more senior members to step aside.
And I think that there is nothing wrong with them being content providers. They are already public figures and a familiar face to certain segments of the Commander community, they have a built-in forum for disseminating information or opinions, and they have access to lots of player feedback as part of what they do. Seems to me like these would be the kinds of people who you can go to not just hear their own opinions, but that they would also have a hand on the pulse of their audience.
Sheldon already said as much on a podcast. Not so much that people on the CAG will eventually join the ranks of the RC, but that they will certainly be under consideration.
And I think that there is nothing wrong with them being content providers. They are already public figures and a familiar face to certain segments of the Commander community, they have a built-in forum for disseminating information or opinions, and they have access to lots of player feedback as part of what they do. Seems to me like these would be the kinds of people who you can go to not just hear their own opinions, but that they would also have a hand on the pulse of their audience.
While the realistic (and what I believe to be correct) decision is to simply wait it out and wait for the trust in the CAG to be built over time (which would greatly require the RC's efforts considering a number of us probably aren't and won't be following the CAG on their social media) and that we're currently right on the starting point of the introductory phase no less, I felt the need to express concerns upfront first so the parties involve "get the memo", many of which that stem from our general impressions of content producers, which in turn is shaped by pretty much the entirely of its industry (relation to MTG not withstanding nor specific).
I've thought of how to phrase this "nicely" several times before, but I gave up, so I'm just going to be really blunt but with the full disclosure that it definitely isn't aimed at anyone specific nor a generalization that every content producer is like that. Alright, it basically boils down to how much content producers may be willing to "compromise" in order to garner views and because of how much time, effort and passion the industry demands of them (which is honestly a respectable thing, but hey irony), how much of said "compromising" nature seeps into their lives and becomes "second nature", so to speak.
Throw in the fact EDH is full of grey "flexible" areas (plenty of cards we won't miss being banned but don't really care either way, yet if we were to produce an ordered list our lists would most likely be all different in order), I cannot help but wonder if feedback from content providers would end up as a "marketing tool" for themselves rather than an amplifier for the communities they interact with, because they instinctively craft how they output their words on such a frequent basis. If Card A is one of those cards they don't care for regardless of state, but their community routinely wants it banned (and it shows up on statistics relating to their content related to the topic/card), would the way they present their opinions to the RC be the same or different from the way they present it to their own communities?
While I do trust the RC to have their own personal filters between themselves and the CAG as well (the same way they filter our opinions to begin with), I daresay content providers definitely have better skills at refining their words to appeal to a specific purpose and it's also likely much more ingrained into their lives as well due to the industry's demands. I'm doubting them sort of in the same way people further outside the details of the format like to simply accuse the RC of being an "echo chamber" of their own making, except that I'm marking the CAG as "an unknown quantity that could either be the best amplifier of their communities, or an echo chamber of wrongness if it goes wrong" and I reserve my right to "doubt first for clarity then to trust first and get burned".
I'm making it very clear that I can see both sides of the coin, but my natural deposition tilts me to err on the side of caution in this introductory phase and therefore it is both the RC's and CAG's job to display that trust-building to me. My emphasis on the "negative" side of the coin might seem like a downer (and probably is), but it also comes from the perspective that I'm trying to make sure both the RC and CAG are aware of this themselves (and acts actively to prevent it), but as I just said, this is me erring on the side of caution rather than being a downer for the sake of being a downer.
Sheldon, I know you had a separate thread in the main sub-forums for your own content suggestions, but since it's related very closely to this, it'll be nice to have periodical updates on your interactions with the CAG (rather than waiting for the usual update dates), so we have a clearer view on how the CAG interacts with the RC and also admittedly to assess on how the RCs filters their feedback, especially during this introductory phase (of initial doubt) and I would say this might be important as a habit down the road since you're intending to expand the CAG (and considering some of them as RC members/successors).
While the realistic (and what I believe to be correct) decision is to simply wait it out and wait for the trust in the CAG to be built over time (which would greatly require the RC's efforts considering a number of us probably aren't and won't be following the CAG on their social media) and that we're currently right on the starting point of the introductory phase no less, I felt the need to express concerns upfront first so the parties involve "get the memo", many of which that stem from our general impressions of content producers, which in turn is shaped by pretty much the entirely of its industry (relation to MTG not withstanding nor specific).
I've thought of how to phrase this "nicely" several times before, but I gave up, so I'm just going to be really blunt but with the full disclosure that it definitely isn't aimed at anyone specific nor a generalization that every content producer is like that. Alright, it basically boils down to how much content producers may be willing to "compromise" in order to garner views and because of how much time, effort and passion the industry demands of them (which is honestly a respectable thing, but hey irony), how much of said "compromising" nature seeps into their lives and becomes "second nature", so to speak.
Throw in the fact EDH is full of grey "flexible" areas (plenty of cards we won't miss being banned but don't really care either way, yet if we were to produce an ordered list our lists would most likely be all different in order), I cannot help but wonder if feedback from content providers would end up as a "marketing tool" for themselves rather than an amplifier for the communities they interact with, because they instinctively craft how they output their words on such a frequent basis. If Card A is one of those cards they don't care for regardless of state, but their community routinely wants it banned (and it shows up on statistics relating to their content related to the topic/card), would the way they present their opinions to the RC be the same or different from the way they present it to their own communities?
While I do trust the RC to have their own personal filters between themselves and the CAG as well (the same way they filter our opinions to begin with), I daresay content providers definitely have better skills at refining their words to appeal to a specific purpose and it's also likely much more ingrained into their lives as well due to the industry's demands. I'm doubting them sort of in the same way people further outside the details of the format like to simply accuse the RC of being an "echo chamber" of their own making, except that I'm marking the CAG as "an unknown quantity that could either be the best amplifier of their communities, or an echo chamber of wrongness if it goes wrong" and I reserve my right to "doubt first for clarity then to trust first and get burned".
I'm making it very clear that I can see both sides of the coin, but my natural deposition tilts me to err on the side of caution in this introductory phase and therefore it is both the RC's and CAG's job to display that trust-building to me. My emphasis on the "negative" side of the coin might seem like a downer (and probably is), but it also comes from the perspective that I'm trying to make sure both the RC and CAG are aware of this themselves (and acts actively to prevent it), but as I just said, this is me erring on the side of caution rather than being a downer for the sake of being a downer.
Sheldon, I know you had a separate thread in the main sub-forums for your own content suggestions, but since it's related very closely to this, it'll be nice to have periodical updates on your interactions with the CAG (rather than waiting for the usual update dates), so we have a clearer view on how the CAG interacts with the RC and also admittedly to assess on how the RCs filters their feedback, especially during this introductory phase (of initial doubt) and I would say this might be important as a habit down the road since you're intending to expand the CAG (and considering some of them as RC members/successors).
I think that any CAG member present and future should be able to express not only their opinions, but those of their audience with whom they might not necessarily agree. If I were approaching Sheldon and saying "hey Planeswalkers as Commanders has been a huge topic on MTGS recently, here are the main arguments being presented. My own personal opinion is....", then I should be able to separate what other people think from what I think. Similarly, I should be able to bring up my own concerns that might not necessarily be shared by many people here.
I am still waiting to know what the charter is going to look like.
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
Just a for instance but if there's a long standing high level judge, or a popular personality who isn't necessarily a writer, why not include them in your net?
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
It isn't necessarily, but they are the ones who you can most easily their resume.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Not sure what my counter suggestion would be, it just sniffs wrong to me.
Sorry that's kinda vague.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I kind of get what you're saying, since there isn't really much diversity on the CAG in that sense. But the issue remains, how does the RC find that pillar without being able to pull up a bunch of articles or podcasts to read/listen to?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I disagree with your comparison. Writing about magic doesn't imply much about how you play magic - lots of people are good magic writers but have middling success as players, and produce popular content but are not necessarily the kind of people I would want to play with.
The metaphor is definitely strained, as you point out, because it's a lot more like choosing heart surgeons based solely on the popularity of their journal publications with the general public Which is probably a pretty bad idea.
-------------------------------------------------
My suggestion would be to:
1) Solicit applications (perhaps during an annual window to keep the workload down)
2) Interview people
3) Review their references
4) Invite people who are recommended to you to apply (e.g. people like Cryogen)
This makes for a lot of work; but you can assign your newly minted CAG to review resumes/applications to spread the workload.
Creating a few gating criteria to make it easy to shelve certain applications, such as, someone must have ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
-A recommendation from a sitting CAG or RC member
-L2 or higher judge with a proven track record of running large events
-A strong portfolio of content
-A recommendation from WOTC
-Be a pillar of the community (e.g. tournament organizer at a large store, something like that)
Those are just some ideas off the cuff, but I think you're seriously selling the committee short by not taking applications. It's work, but it's worth it. You're going to get a very narrow view of the world if you don't have less visible people in my opinion.
(I don't know if this needs to be said but I have no interest and don't fit any of those criteria, so this is not about me in any way)
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I get that diversity as a term doesn't necessarily mean anything in a vacuum, but for me, i'd like to have a nice cross-section representation for example between players who started in the 90s, 00s, 10s, males, females, styles of play, perspective of how the game should be played, intro/extroverted, and so on somewhere within the ranks of the RC/CAG. It's important, because we all follow the RC/CAG as a group who can represent what we feel is the 'spirit of EDH', right? But if there's no one within their ranks that represent what we think is the game, then we'd (and possibly other groups) feel like our voice is ignored. But more importantly, it's good for new players (to magic or to EDH) to be able to get into a format where they feel like the game they want to play is the game that the rules-committee is trying to foster. In other words, having a CAG that consists of only middle-aged caucasian guys who all started in 1993, still play vintage competitively and live within the same zip code in the US DOESN'T necessarily mean that they're going to be all for unbanning the power-9 and library, but what it DOES mean is that most other EDH players would feel alienated from not being represented. It's an extreme example, but the game involves people from all walks of life, and i want to see even the korean craw wurm-players who'd started playing EDH from the 2014 pre-cons or whatever feel like the rules are being made with people like him/her in mind.
I didn't realise that some of them had lived in Finland (or still lives there) and Japan, but aside from just a geographical-meta representation, it'd be great to know that one or more persons within these groups have an inclination for/against certain rules that exist in EDH. Geographically though, there doesn't seem to be any representation from south america nor australia nor africa. I'm not sure how widespread the game is out there, but it'd definitely be interesting to spread the game there too.
For example, as i understand it, there are some on the existing RC who're all-in on competitive, whereas some are definitely leaning on the casual, a good number of judges who understand how the game works/some who aren't judges at all, and some content creators/non-content creators.
On the subject of having content creators, i can sort of understand that; they're a known quantity, and it's easier to interact with them (since they already exist in the public sphere). Beyond that, followers of those creators have already carved a niche within the EDH community, meaning they naturally represent a good wide perspective (hopefully).
That being said, i'm wondering if having mostly content creators would be very one-dimensional in their perspective.
Oh, and before i forget, the only subset of EDH players i'd be wary of in inviting into the CAG, it'd be new players (as in new magic players. a month ago, i introduced a new player who thought that rakdos the defiler was waaaay OP. wheel of fortune and vampiric tutor on the other hand were fine). That being said, somewhat seasoned EDH players who constantly play WITH new players or introduce new players to EDH would definitely be a welcome addition.
Unfortunately, i'm part of a somewhat insular EDH group, and i don't really follow any content creators outside of the US regarding EDH. And i don't feel like anyone in my group would be a net positive inclusion into the CAG. I'll keep an eye out for potential candidates though (but y'all are going to have to put them through their paces/vet them properly).
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
Yeah, if you search one person's forum posts it is hard to get a sense of their stance and beliefs, unless they seldom post. For someone that posts a lot, such as myself, you'll probably find a lot of chaff mixed in.
The one benefit to a forum member rather than a content provider is that I'm pretty sure that the things a forum member says are genuine, but a CP to an extent is selling a product, if only to get more listens and not necessarily because they have sponsors. This might not change their opinions, but everything they say is packaged. For example, does so and so really think Commander damage should be removed, or are they just doing a show they know will get talked about and more plays?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I don't necessarily mean that they're going full Alex Jones, but there has been plenty of feedback already regarding some of your choices that things will happen because they said X Y or Z. I think it was Josh that at some point had said he would remove Commander damage, but it was in the context of if there was a do-over and the format was new, not something he was pushing for. Nonetheless, it made for a good show discussion and leads people to believe that is his stance when it really wasn't.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Maybe that was a poor example. It just seems that when it comes to getting people to want to consume your content you have to present it in a manner which will make your audience want to spend a portion of their time focusing it on you, and that one way to do that is to give them something to discuss at the water cooler. I don't think I could actively point to any one EDH podcast in particular that I feel has been disingenuous or otherwise not presented something they didn't genuinely believe. As you said, exaggerating their stance is more likely.
And I don't think I spoke accurately before, because a random forum member who doesn't have their reputation on the line could be just as willing to exaggerate or misrepresent themselves.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I do think that there was something in the spirit of your point that is why I upvoted it, which is that there is a distinction between the comment of a writer who contributes to a forum for free vs. a public content producer who often is trying to monetize it in some way.
There's a lot more you can tell about a person by their public discourse on the internet than by their behavior while recording videos or carefully edited writing.
Something of the difference between extemporaneous speech and a prepared speech, or between say, chatter at a party vs. remarks for a broader audience.
Similarly, I think unscripted interviews are a far stronger way to determine someone's perspective than the content they have produced. And I assume you guys are interviewing people in a fashion, I just thinking content production is a very poor gating mechanism when what you're looking for are people with good opinions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(a second ad mostly unrelated point I wanted to attempt to make)
Opinions that people like reading are not necessarily good opinions. Probably 90% of the things content producers have to say about modern (the format for which I have consumed more content, historically, so where I Have a frame of reference) is somewhere on the spectrum between half-informed nonsense and complete drivel.
My limited experience reading about commander has suggested that this is fairly similar in that content arena.
You're looking for smart people with good ideas who are in contact with a lot of the community, and very few of those things are connected with production of magic content, for a variety of reasons.
* The types of smarts it takes to write entertaining content are not necessarily those that create a long term fun format. Content is attempting to grasp bits of fleeting attention not necessarily cultivate something strategically - you get a narrow focus on people with marketing expertise and miss out on artists, fiction writers, game designers/developers, sociologists, statisticians, mathematicians, strategists, etc. Not to say there isn't some overlap there of course, but the cross section of that society is way different than the general public.
* People who like attention are different than people who do not. Focusing your search in an area with a higher percentage of people who crave attention is going to get you certain biases.
* Famous/well known people experience the world (and their communities) differently than others do.
A lot of that is speaking in generalities so please don't take it as specifics but the bottom line is you're limiting yourself to a cross-section of society that is not representative of your audience.
------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion I believe you would do far better with random sampling than selecting content producers (or anyone else, really, in a way that is subject to existing biases) and that this experiment is a mistake. But if you must, I strongly suggest you widen your net.
(apologies if the tone comes off as arrogant or condescending there, it is not my attention - you guys surely have done a good job running the format, so you deserve a lot of rope)
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I'll disagree, however, that a random sampling would net better results (and it would certainly be more likely to lead to something disastrous). If it makes sense, the people who were chosen for the CAG were selected from a pool of content producers, but they weren't selected for the specific content that they produce (other than the fact that it's Commander content). The CP part of their selection was about their reach into the Commander community. The other part of their selection was their ability to make an argument or discuss a point, which is something you can obviously appreciate.
Random sampling is very good at assessing community sentiment...when used responsibly. Far more likely to be accurate. There's a reasonit's used so widely.
Interpretation can be hard though
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
CPs have the double benefit of getting feedback and allowing RC communication from easily accessible “trusted sources”. If the committee was solely advisory aren’t weren’t expected to interact on behalf of the RC, then yes, maybe random people no one knows about could work.
And I think that there is nothing wrong with them being content providers. They are already public figures and a familiar face to certain segments of the Commander community, they have a built-in forum for disseminating information or opinions, and they have access to lots of player feedback as part of what they do. Seems to me like these would be the kinds of people who you can go to not just hear their own opinions, but that they would also have a hand on the pulse of their audience.
Jalira, Master Polymorphist | Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder | Bosh, Iron Golem | Ezuri, Renegade Leader
Brago, King Eternal | Oona, Queen of the Fae | Wort, Boggart Auntie | Wort, the Raidmother
Captain Sisay | Rhys, the Redeemed | Trostani, Selesnya's Voice | Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight | Obzedat, Ghost Council | Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind | Vorel of the Hull Clade
Uril, the Miststalker | Prossh, Skyraider of Kher | Nicol Bolas | Progenitus
Ghave, Guru of Spores | Zedruu the Greathearted | Damia, Sage of Stone | Riku of Two Reflections
Sheldon already said as much on a podcast. Not so much that people on the CAG will eventually join the ranks of the RC, but that they will certainly be under consideration.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
While the realistic (and what I believe to be correct) decision is to simply wait it out and wait for the trust in the CAG to be built over time (which would greatly require the RC's efforts considering a number of us probably aren't and won't be following the CAG on their social media) and that we're currently right on the starting point of the introductory phase no less, I felt the need to express concerns upfront first so the parties involve "get the memo", many of which that stem from our general impressions of content producers, which in turn is shaped by pretty much the entirely of its industry (relation to MTG not withstanding nor specific).
I've thought of how to phrase this "nicely" several times before, but I gave up, so I'm just going to be really blunt but with the full disclosure that it definitely isn't aimed at anyone specific nor a generalization that every content producer is like that. Alright, it basically boils down to how much content producers may be willing to "compromise" in order to garner views and because of how much time, effort and passion the industry demands of them (which is honestly a respectable thing, but hey irony), how much of said "compromising" nature seeps into their lives and becomes "second nature", so to speak.
Throw in the fact EDH is full of grey "flexible" areas (plenty of cards we won't miss being banned but don't really care either way, yet if we were to produce an ordered list our lists would most likely be all different in order), I cannot help but wonder if feedback from content providers would end up as a "marketing tool" for themselves rather than an amplifier for the communities they interact with, because they instinctively craft how they output their words on such a frequent basis. If Card A is one of those cards they don't care for regardless of state, but their community routinely wants it banned (and it shows up on statistics relating to their content related to the topic/card), would the way they present their opinions to the RC be the same or different from the way they present it to their own communities?
While I do trust the RC to have their own personal filters between themselves and the CAG as well (the same way they filter our opinions to begin with), I daresay content providers definitely have better skills at refining their words to appeal to a specific purpose and it's also likely much more ingrained into their lives as well due to the industry's demands. I'm doubting them sort of in the same way people further outside the details of the format like to simply accuse the RC of being an "echo chamber" of their own making, except that I'm marking the CAG as "an unknown quantity that could either be the best amplifier of their communities, or an echo chamber of wrongness if it goes wrong" and I reserve my right to "doubt first for clarity then to trust first and get burned".
I'm making it very clear that I can see both sides of the coin, but my natural deposition tilts me to err on the side of caution in this introductory phase and therefore it is both the RC's and CAG's job to display that trust-building to me. My emphasis on the "negative" side of the coin might seem like a downer (and probably is), but it also comes from the perspective that I'm trying to make sure both the RC and CAG are aware of this themselves (and acts actively to prevent it), but as I just said, this is me erring on the side of caution rather than being a downer for the sake of being a downer.
Sheldon, I know you had a separate thread in the main sub-forums for your own content suggestions, but since it's related very closely to this, it'll be nice to have periodical updates on your interactions with the CAG (rather than waiting for the usual update dates), so we have a clearer view on how the CAG interacts with the RC and also admittedly to assess on how the RCs filters their feedback, especially during this introductory phase (of initial doubt) and I would say this might be important as a habit down the road since you're intending to expand the CAG (and considering some of them as RC members/successors).
I think that any CAG member present and future should be able to express not only their opinions, but those of their audience with whom they might not necessarily agree. If I were approaching Sheldon and saying "hey Planeswalkers as Commanders has been a huge topic on MTGS recently, here are the main arguments being presented. My own personal opinion is....", then I should be able to separate what other people think from what I think. Similarly, I should be able to bring up my own concerns that might not necessarily be shared by many people here.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg