Now that Dalkon has retired as a mod, is this sub section worth keeping around?
I tried to legitly get my list posted here, and it was turned down for some valid reasons. I don't even know who to approach now for an appeal if I planned too. I also had reasonable grounds to know that Dalkon was at least a fair judge of what constituted a list that belongs here, and one that doesn't. Is our new mod meta game savy?
Is this forum actually achieving what it set out to do anymore?
I'd argue no... There are about 5-7 threads here actually getting decent amounts of attention and many that I'd argue don't belong. At least under the same reasons mine wasn't accepted (not enough discussion seemed to be the primary culprit). I'm not even trying to be butt hurt over it, as I realized I didn't much care where my list was anymore, as being here hasn't meant many lists got anymore attention then it normally would. Oddly enough, the 5-7 threads getting attention, were getting the same attention before the big shift, they are just slightly more easy to find now.
The "proven, and primer" community hasn't exactly rallied around the other threads and offered a plethora of discussion or new ideas either. People are mostly sticking to their threads only. I don't blame anyone for that either really, it's just an observation, possibly propagated by the fact that the people posting here already think their list is perfect, and may not actually be open to discussion.
As I said, just an honest question. I think the split between EDH "chat" and "decklists" certainly improved things, I just think the additional split hasn't, and unless it gets picked up, this sub section in particular is either 1) going to get stale, or 2) get bombarded with lists that "think" they belong, when they actually don't.
I'm not for the sub forum in the first place but, at the least, there could be some stricter modding when it comes to multiple threads on the same general, especially when they are created by the same person. In 28 threads, there's 3 Ghost Council, 2 Sharuum & 2 Arcum.
In pretty much every other forum on MTGSal you have a forum by deck type and there's no reason why all the Ghost Council etc can't be put in together. At the very least that would encourage discussion on builds rather than everyone starting their own threads.
On a general level, the difference in traffic between this and the casual forum suggests that EDH players are voting with their feet and staying over in the casual section.
Unlike other formats, EDH decks may share a general, but be completely different in strategy and the cards they use to achieve their goals. In reality, all decks are different, they might share similarities, but that's it.
On the topic, I would as well like to see some moderating around here. The decks posted here should be held at a higher standart then those still in early stages of development.
I agree to a certain extent but, just for arguaments sake, take the three Ghost Council threads in here. One slightly skewed to recursion, one straight up Ghost Council & one "Ghost Council with WWK updates" started by the same person who started the straight up build. In fact the straight up build was started after the WWK thread was originally started (title changed) so effectively one guy has two seperate and active threads for the same deck.
Granted the Arcum threads are at least '1v1' and 'multiplayer' but the two Sharuum threads are effectively the same content, though there is some divergence in the deck lists.
In the forum in general, the modding has been poor: Dalton wasn't given access to be able to move EDH decks that had been posted into the "Variant format" forum. They are still there.
There's 5 threads on Jareth on page 2 of the Casual and there's 50 sharuum threads in total between the main, casual and competitive. You can't honestly say that with 50 threads, many even being new threads by users who have already started topics with the same general, there's not a huge amount of overlap?
Yes, the arguament about the decks being different is valid but I think there's a limit and one of them is, at a minimum, merging UserX's 3 Sharuum threads, deleting the misposts and multiple posts and generally getting players to invest in the existing deck discussions before regurgitating an existing list, changing a Forest to a Plains and calling it theirs.
As to developing & your "decks of a higher standard" (which is hugely elitist btw, well done! ;)) this forum, if it is to function as it was intended to, shouldn't have any "developing" decks: It's "Proven" and "primers" only.
I think this forum is unnecessary too. However, I appreciate the added discussion in the original posts of the Primers. People went to a lot of effort to describe card choices and how to play their decks, and I'm glad that's encouraged. On the other hand, I think that there has never been a clear idea of what's "proven" and I think that the lack of clarity is one reason why there's overlap in discussions across the three subforums of EDH (main discussion, developing, and proven). I appreciate the attempt at organization, but "proven" just has no meaning in EDH like it does in other formats.
When the subforums were first created, they were not Proven and Developing, but rather Competitive and Casual. Some people got their feathers in a ruff over a perceived insult to the casual side of the format, and the names were changed.
Nevertheless, I think that many people, myself included, still think of the subforums as Competitive and Casual, and this is a meaningful distinction.
Some people design their decks to win, and are looking for suggestions that will help them win more. Others build decks because they like the flavor, and think it will fun to play. These people tend to prefer suggestions that reinforce the flavor of the deck (if they're looking for suggestions at all).
There's nothing wrong with either of these groups, but because they're looking for completely different kinds of feedback, I feel that it does make sense to separate them via subforums.
If anything, I'd suggest renaming the subforums again, as I agree that "Proven" means very little in the context of this format.
When the subforums were first created, they were not Proven and Developing, but rather Competitive and Casual. Some people got their feathers in a ruff over a perceived insult to the casual side of the format, and the names were changed.
I was one of those "ruffled feathers". You and I had ample agreeable discussion in said thread, where we each conceded very valid points to each other.
Competitive was proven just as much to be subjective as "proven" (I was against proven as well, because I thought it too was bull☺☺☺☺, my opinion was this should be strictly a Primer section devoted to people who had well planned out lists, and were truly open to discussion, and others could post similar lists and collaborate ideas).
No one could define competitive, because it was highly subjective to your meta, and what you perceived as competitive. The exact same problem that is happening now (people posting their lists willy nilly) would happen in the competitive section as well, unless you had some sort of divine moderator who could make a distinction past the strictly obvious lists.
Nevertheless, I think that many people, myself included, still think of the subforums as Competitive and Casual, and this is a meaningful distinction.
If anything, I'd suggest renaming the subforums again, as I agree that "Proven" means very little in the context of this format.
Frankly, I do too. If the "competitive" section became the place for serious feedback it would merely push that place as the "place" to post, instead of the current "developing" section. I'm more perturbed by lack of available moderation then I am of labels though. The labels are just that, labels. It's how the forums are handled that's the issue.
Some people design their decks to win, and are looking for suggestions that will help them win more. Others build decks because they like the flavor, and think it will fun to play. These people tend to prefer suggestions that reinforce the flavor of the deck (if they're looking for suggestions at all).
There's nothing wrong with either of these groups, but because they're looking for completely different kinds of feedback, I feel that it does make sense to separate them via subforums.
I design all my decks to win, and that is the exact kind of feedback I am looking for, within the context of my deck (I run multiple lists, so while a card like Necropotence might be the best damn thing since sliced bread, I don't want to have to go out and get a playset of the damn things to run in every black list I have, especially if I've found agreeable ways to work without it, that are more context appropriate to my list) . I rarely get feedback on these forums for any of them. I submitted a deck for the "proven" section, and was rejected on ground of lack of discussion and a few other things I thought just weren't true. I tried to rally my list for feedback and get it pushed, but not one of the people for the proven/competitive and primer section bothered to jump in and offer feedback or even say "hey your list is pretty good..." or "you know, I think your close, but... these cards really have to in here before..." or even "sorry, this stinks, I suggest starting over".
That's what sucks about the current system. You and other proudly proclaimed "competitive" players are all people who could rally around and make the forum the way you want it to be, but I hardly ever see any of the most known ones actually post feedback in lists outside of the ones you are interested/invested in. There is a further problem with this in that, while I respect your opinions, what if someone doesn't? Then there is a third problem, in that anyone who "thinks" their list is competitive 50% of the time respond with "what do you know, my list is awesome where I play, gtfo".
Don't get me wrong, I am not ignorant enough to say that it's your guys responsibility to monitor these things, nor do I expect you to capture and look at every list. But if not you guys, the main pushers for the split of the forums, who else? Because right now, the "proven & primer" section almost feels a bit "clique". It consists of a few people who like each other's lists and offer infinite feedback to each other, and then there is every other list, and therefore by current rules, shouldn't even belong in there. That's no different to the way it was before, at all. All threads currently getting ample feedback now, were getting ample feedback before, there just easier to find now.
If you open up the forum and allow anyone to post there, you'll get the floodgate of people who "think" their list is competitive, posting it, and then getting extremely butt-hurt when Hyenas land and tear it apart. At that point, which Moderator wants the responsibility to move said list to the "casual" section? One with big kahuna's I'd imagine. It's not easy like say the Standard section, where governance is expected to be efficiently cutthroat.
Can you not see how flawed the current non-existent system is? You could label the forums whatever the heck you want, and it wouldn't change anything without ☺☺☺☺ loads more work done in the background. Work that would have to done voluntarily by people like you who appear to have some level of pulse on the barrier entry between "competitive" and "not".
I'd love to get on MSN or whatever and chat about this more with you, because please be aware, I do respect your opinion, and I do understand what you are trying/want to achieve. I don't really want to get in another big circle debate on the forums though. Enough of those going on in the official forums at the moment ><.
I just think the old way is better then the half ass way things are now. I'd really love to able to put my lists to the test and see if I can get them with the big boys. I like to compete on many levels, design especially. As it stands, I don't even know how to go about doing it and that by definition is detrimental to the idea of making something popular (which I am sure you are for, you are putting ample work in other areas to do so). I don't want to incessantly bump my post in vain for attention and look like a idiot, and other then PM'ing you my lists, I've basically given up on the whole idea. PM'ing you would almost be in vain, because at the moment, other then leverage, you don't actually have any power (no offense sincerely intended, just stating the truth). Right now, the only push I could see doing would be giving a big FU to the rules, posting my list in the "Proven & Primer" section, and watch it get equally ignored as it was in the "developing" section, more so, because people would know I've commited a "taboo" and therefore don't want to have anything to do with it, while they wait for a moderator to sweep by and move it to the other place, where it will get ignored.
Then the other part of me goes "honestly, do I really care?". It's not worth getting in a shouting match with someone over the internet, about whether or not my list is considered "competitive" in what is suppose to be a "casual" format. That's my perception of things, and I think many others.
Competitive was proven just as much to be subjective as "proven" (I was against proven as well, because I thought it too was bull☺☺☺☺, my opinion was this should be strictly a Primer section devoted to people who had well planned out lists, and were truly open to discussion).
No one could define competitive, because it was highly subjective to your meta, and what you perceived as competitive. The exact same problem that is happening now (people posting their lists willy nilly) would happen in the competitive section as well, unless you had some sort of divine moderator who could make a distinction past the strictly obvious lists.
The trouble with a Primer-only section is that primers don't really differentiate between people building for wins and for fun. Primers can be written for either style, so what's the point in separating them? Also, primers require lots of writing and formatting--what if someone has an exceptionally well-planned out list, but doesn't have time to write a full primer? I think that such a deck would still belong in the forum with other well-designed decks, and could instill some good discussion.
I can define competitive easily enough. A competitive deck is one that is designed to win as much as possible, with winning games as its first priority. This doesn't mean that it can't be fun too, but its ability to win games should not be compromised in the interest of fun. A casual deck is any deck that is not primarily designed to win.
Frankly, I do too. If the "competitive" section became the place for serious feedback it would merely push that place as the "place" to post, instead of the current "developing" section. I'm more perturbed by lack of available moderation then I am of labels though. The labels are just that, labels. It's how the forums are handled that's the issue.
There shouldn't be a tension between competitive and casual sections. There just isn't any reason for that. There is no single place for serious feedback--that feedback can be given in both sections. It makes sense to separate the sections because the feedback desired is different.
Allow me to illustrate by example. Imagine an Oona, Queen of the Fae combo deck posted in the competitive subforum. It's designed to generate infinite mana with a combo, then win in one shot with an Oona activation. If I was offering feedback for this deck, I'd be suggesting anxillary combos it might wish to use, the best tutors to make the deck more consistent, and the best countermagic to protect the combo. I would certainly recommend cards like Mana Drain and Mana Crypt, with the caveat that they are expensive. Perhaps more importantly, I'd be calling out any cards that don't fit the gameplan of the deck as well as they should, including cute or on-theme cards.
Now, imagine an Oona tribal faerie deck posted in casual. Am I going to try to turn it into the above, competitive deck? No. Because the deck is meant to be tribal, and probably not a combo deck, I'll be suggesting good faeries that may have been missed. I'll still suggest good synergies, but they'll be fun and flavorful as well as powerful, like Dire Undercurrents. I won't be suggesting cards like Mana Drain because there's just no point--that's clearly not the intention of the designer. The feedback I give is very different.
Now, do I necessarily need subforums to tell me what kind of feedback to give? No, because I can tell competitive from casual by looking at the list. However, it still helps, and it's certainly true that not everyone can distinguish so easily. Our hypothetical deck designers in this example have very different mentalities when it comes to deck building--so where's the sense in mixing them together? It's helpful to everyone when the people offering feedback understand what a deck is trying to be.
I design all my decks to win, and that is the exact kind of feedback I am looking for, within the context of my deck (I run multiple lists, so while a card like Necropotence might be the best damn thing since sliced bread, I don't want to have to go out and get a playset of the damn things to run in every black list I have, especially if I've found agreeable ways to work without it, that are more context appropriate to my list) . I rarely get feedback on these forums for any of them. I submitted a deck for the "proven" section, and was rejected on ground of lack of discussion and a few other things I thought just weren't true.
From your first sentence, you're clearly a competitive player, and your decks belong in the competitive subforum. I frankly have no idea how these forums are moderated, but there doesn't seem to be much of it going on these days.
Your list being rejected was probably a mistake, but one caused by calling the competitive subforum "Proven." Your list wasn't proven, but that really shouldn't matter (few of the lists posted there are really proven, I suspect).
Your "Necropotence" comment is pretty off-putting though, given what you're saying. For one thing, no one ever said you have to get a playset of Necropotence. Can you play 4 decks at the same time? There are several cards that I only possess one copy of, yet I play them in multiple decks. I just keep track of where they are and swap them over when I want to play something.
Even if you're adverse to doing that though...come on. Necropotence is a $3 card on most card sites. I just took a glance at Ebay, and there are several up there for $0.99. If you know Necropotence belongs in your deck and you want people to take your competitive list seriously, you should probably suck it up and add Necropotence. Remember, for any competitive deck, you should be trying to optimize it to win. I can completely sympathize with someone unwilling to drop $220 on Imperial Seal, but "I'm too cheap to spend $3 for Necropotence" or "I'm too lazy to move Necropotence over from my other deck" really doesn't cut it. This kind of extremely minor monetary constraint should not factor into design of a competitive deck.
That's what sucks about the current system. You and other proudly proclaimed "competitive" players are all people who could rally around and make the forum the way you want it to be, but I hardly ever see any of the most known ones actually post feedback in lists outside of the ones you are interested in. There is a further problem with this in that, while I respect your opinions, what if someone doesn't? Then there is a third problem, in that anyone who "thinks" their list is competitive 50% of the time respond with "what do you know, my list is awesome where I play, gtfo
You're fetishizing feedback. No system of organization is going to make people post feedback for decks they're not interested in. As you say, the current system of organization doesn't change what decks receive feedback--it just makes it easier for people to find decks they're interested in. That's the whole point.
You need to understand that the quality of a deck has absolutely nothing to do with the volume or quality of feedback it receives. In fact, it's frequently terrible decks that receive the most feedback, because there's so much that can obviously be improved upon. The fact that your decks don't receive much feedback doesn't necessarily reflect on their quality or originality--perhaps they just don't inspire discussion. This is true of many decks, don't take it personally.
If you open up the forum and allow anyone to post there, you'll get the floodgate of people who "think" their list is competitive, posting it, and then getting extremely butt-hurt when Hyenas land and tear it apart. At that point, which Moderator wants the responsibility to move said list to the "casual" section? One with big kahuna's I'd imagine. It's not easy like say the Standard section, where governance is expected to be efficiently cutthroat.
Actually, despite the lack of moderation, I think the current system is working reasonably well. If anything, I'd say that there are many more competitive decks being posted in the casual subforum than vice versa (probably because people get confused by the meaning of "proven"). At a casual glance on the first page of the proven forum, I see 29 deck threads. Of those, I'd say all but 3 belong there (and one of those 3 was moved there when the forums were split, by a mistaken moderator). Considering the lack of moderation, that's really a pretty good proportion. I don't see any "floodgate of people" invading the wrong subforum. There are a few decks that ought to be moved, but it's not a big problem.
I just think the old way is better then the half ass way things are now. I'd really love to able to put my lists to the test and see if I can get them with the big boys. I like to compete on many levels, design especially. As it stands, I don't even know how to go about doing it. I don't want to incessantly bump my post in vain for attention and look like a idiot, and other then PM'ing you my lists, I've basically given up on the whole idea. Right now, the only push I could see doing would be giving a big FU to the rules, posting my list in the "Proven & Primer" section, and watch it get equally ignored as it was in the "developing" section.
Again, you're taking things too personally. Don't ask anyone's permission--I've already told you that your decks should be posted in the competitive section, because that's clearly your intent. Putting them in the competitive section clues us in as to the type of feedback they should receive.
Just don't get pissed off if they don't receive feedback...as I've said, lots of decks don't, and it has nothing to do with their quality or location. You're not automatically entitled to feedback from anyone. Look at EroticPunch's Arcum deck in this subforum--it's a very well thought out list that's been here for ages, yet it has only 2 responses (one of them from me). He's received basically no feedback, and that's not unusual. It's not a big deal--sometimes people just have nothing to add.
PM'ing you would almost be in vain, because at the moment, other then leverage, you don't actually any power (no offense sincerely intended, just stating the truth).
I don't have any power, nor do I want it. I just use my brain. If you really want my feedback on your decks, go ahead and PM them to me (or post them and I promise I'll comment). I can't speak for anyone else though.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what you want--it looks like you want your posts to become multi-page pinnacles of discussion, but you need to understand that no one has the power to make that happen. If your decks are interesting enough, that might happen...but trying to rearrange the forum structure because you don't think your decks received enough attention won't solve anything. It won't get them any more attention.
Necropotence was a bad example. I came up with the quickest staple card I could think of that theoretically sees no reason not to be in any other list.
Saying that, for a person who lives overseas, finding these cards isn't as simple as ordering them. A 3$ card to you cost me that + shipping, + tracking it down etc. etc. Not trying to make an excuse, it's just not clear cut.
I'm not looking for a utopia forum at all, where everyone and everyone rallies around and posts.
My personal examples were merely the best way to express my intent, wrong or right. This is not some vendetta I have against people not giving me feedback.
I do however think much more could be done to "raise" the bar so to speak.
If the forums serve no other purpose then to distinguish between a lists that want to win, and those that don't, I don't get it. I can describe my intent in the first line if my post, or in the subject. I don't need a seperate forum for that. Those too lazy to do that, aren't taking things seriously anyway no?
What I am trying to say, is this sub section was sold as more then just the above. I think it can be more.
I think Khymera has a legitimate point, which, if I may paraphrase, is that some people prioritize winning, while others prioritize fun. That doesn't mean people who have fun don't want to win, or vice-versa, but just a question of primary motivations.
However, I also agree with Pysces larger point, which I take to be that the discussion in the "proven" section is stale. I just don't really read this forum that much because I know what I'm going to get. There might be a place to discuss the 1-2 card differences between Clique lists. When there are differences, the "discussion" is sometimes just a series of lists with no defense, or people with radically different takes; in essence, either people have too much common ground, or too little, for interesting discussions.
I have a two proposed solutions:
Proposal 1: 1v1 and Multiplayer forums
As far as I can tell, the "competitive" and "playing for fun" distinctions often break along 1v1 and multiplayer lines. I think 1v1 players, as a group, are 95% of the time "competitive," and multiplayer players are like 75% "fun" players. Of course, everyone wants to win, but I like Khymera's example, who's going to be playing Dire Undercurrents?
This solution has the added benefit of eliminating the clunky labels on thread titles, or pointless confusion in threads.
Another benefit of this re-labeling would allow there to be a place for MTGS tournament 1v1 ban lists to be located, as well as other info relevant to tournaments.
Proposal 2: Edited forums
Competitive forums in other formats are typically highly restricted to eliminate people just posting willy-nilly. This is easier for other formats because there are tourney results to base decisions on. Because this isn't the case for EDH, I don't know if this proposal would work. However, the 1v1 Compendium Khymera posted in the general forum is such a cool thread to me. There are so many interesting ideas in those decks! Having a place where innovation was recognized would be cool. This would, of course, live and die by the efforts of whoever was moderating it. There would probably also be a lot of sour grapes from people who didn't make it in too. But I still think this is the only way to reliably establish "competitive," "proven," or "innovative." Maybe we could have community votes on which decks got included too? Something akin to the top 35 cards. Like the top 10 decks per general or something. I'm kind of brainstorming here, but you all get the idea I think.
some people prioritize winning, while others prioritize fun. That doesn't mean people who have fun don't want to win, or vice-versa, but just a question of primary motivations.
Yep.
As far as I can tell, the "competitive" and "playing for fun" distinctions often break along 1v1 and multiplayer lines. I think 1v1 players, as a group, are 95% of the time "competitive," and multiplayer players are like 75% "fun" players.
Also agreed.
I would be in favor of splitting up the forums between 1v1 and multiplayer EDH. They really are quite different formats in some ways. I think that this distinction would make a reasonable separator. It also has the benefit of promoting the French style 1v1 banned list + 30 starting life, which is definitely a major boon. (Anyone who thinks the multiplayer banned list is better for 1v1 hasn't tested the 1v1 list enough. It makes absolutely no sense to use a banned list intended only for multiplayer in the competitive metagame of 1v1 EDH.)
There are two potential problems I see.
One, some people like to make decks for a mix of 1v1 and multiplayer. They might get confused. However, it's really impossible to make a deck that will perform at its best potential in both multiplayer and 1v1. As such, I think it's not too much to expect such players to pick either multiplayer or 1v1 to focus on, and post it in the appropriate place. This shouldn't be too much of a hurdle.
The other potential problem is that some multiplayer purists hate the fact that 1v1 EDH exists, and would rather everyone play multiplayer or gtfo. There's no reasoning with them; I've tried. However, there don't seem to be many of this type on these forums, so it probably won't be an issue.
The trouble with your second proposal is that the moderator in charge would need to really be attentive and understand the format to keep things running perfectly. The situation right now is essentially edited forums, only the moderator isn't doing much, if any, editing. I could do it, but I'm not sure that the community would want me to (and I don't really want to do it either).
Your first proposal could work though. It has my approval.
EDIT: Short Version - 1v1, Primer, and Normal forum split sounds good to me.
Alright so rewinding a little and after a day at the beach to think about it, my perspective has changed a bit.
As said before, Necropotence was a bad example. Force of Will would clearly illustrate my point a bit better.
You make a valid point about swapping cards between lists. If I absolutely wanted to be cutthroat with my lists, I'd swap my good cards between them. I don't like doing that but if thats the line you draw, that's the line you draw.
That however made me realize another point.
The assertion that I'm a competitive player is wrong. I'm actually a deck builder, plain and simple, just with really high standards.
See if I only own one Force of Will, and can't easily get another, I'll work around it unless the card is absolutely vital to the strategy. In general, I don't like using cards more then once or twice anyway, because I lose interest in the list when it covers ground I've already explored.
I'm also extremely reluctant to use infinite combos. While I understand competitively they are the best way to outright win a game, from a deck building perspective, I consider it an easy out. I'm more interested in wining without them, as I get more satisfaction out of my list as a whole. For instance I can take infinite turns with Vorosh, but I don't feel weird about it, because I don't need those infinite turns to win, just enough to grow Vorosh big enough to one shot everyone at the table (doesn't take long). Sadly, I can't figure out if I just made a hypocritical statement here (and yes, the Vorosh list is blatantly ripped from tampakingpin).
Anyway, in contrast, my Thraximundar list is also perfectly setup to abuse infinite turns, and just by putting a Time Warp in it, I could argue that I've given the deck a 4th back up plan and win condition and for relatively little deck space. From a competitive standpoint, I should probably run it, but I won't, because I've already covered that ground in Vorosh. I also don't run Pestermite, despite running Kiki-Jiki, because I made an active design constraint that every card had to be relevant on its own, rather then reliant on something else. It would also warp the deck, because the best two tutor targets would almost always be those first.
So while every list I make is designed to win, I'm happy with self imposed deck constraints, actively made or not. Big Jim made a good point though, every list is designed to win, it's to what degree that is important. So I also concede this point completely.
So clearly, I'm not willing to do everything to win. Therefore, I'm probably not a competitive player.
I post in the casual section then, fine, but, just as much as you want a easy convenient way to distinguish between the lists that are tilted towards competitive and not, I'm looking for an easy way to distinguish my lists in a manner that says "no, I'm not interested in turning my Thrax list into a Zombie themed deck, thank you very much" just as much as you aren't interested in a literal interpretation of Oona, Queen of the Fae.
I guess I'm one step below competitive, but my experience has been that the feedback from competitive players is more in line with the feedback I am looking for, and the conversation points more interesting to discuss. It's inline with my real life experience as well. A competitive player can look at my list and see things a casual player can never see. They can make much more poignant cuts, help sort the chaff from the real meat of the list and are happy to discuss minute details of one cards benefit over the other. Even the cutthroat suggestions are helpful, and a interesting point of discussion, even if I ignore them for reason X.
So I think you caught me out, your right and I apologize, I have no vested interest in Competitive EDH, your post took me to realize that though. When I say I want to play with the big boys, what I am actually saying is I want to discuss with the big boys.
I stand by my assertion that the current split isn't working, "Proven" has to go, and that's why I made this thread. I think a separate sub-section for Primer's only is appropriate, because it offers a focal point of discussion and keeps a thousand stickies out of the principal forum. I'd love to see more Primers and I wish people would use them more, as I still see tonnes of generic list X posted in the casual forum, without enough differences to warrant a whole new topic. They'd get better advice reading and discussing their list in the Primer section.
I acknowledge however from a purely cutthroat perspective that your definition of a split (Casual & Competitive) would be more distinct and probably work a lot better. I worry that a split like that are going to take the like minded people I like to discuss with further away. This has nothing to do with my lists in particular, in that if you aren't interested in my list, I'm not losing sleep over it or pawing for attention. It's more so that if I do find some mutual point of interest to discuss, outside of PM'ing you (which unless invited to do so, I don't want to be PM'ing people everytime I think they might be interested in something, especially strangers), the opportunity is more likely missed. That does make me sad, because I like to discuss things with people who clearly show aptitude at doing so.
I hope I am much, much more clearer then I was before.
One, some people like to make decks for a mix of 1v1 and multiplayer. They might get confused. However, it's really impossible to make a deck that will perform at its best potential in both multiplayer and 1v1. As such, I think it's not too much to expect such players to pick either multiplayer or 1v1 to focus on, and post it in the appropriate place. This shouldn't be too much of a hurdle.
EDIT: Short Version - 1v1, Primer, and Normal forum split sounds good to me.
Pysces has a good idea; instead of 1v1 and multiplayer, we just have 1v1, normal forum, and primer.
I like this idea because it answers your concern, Khymera, people who want 1v1 and multiplayer can mix it up in the normal forum. The normal forum would assume people are playing the way God intended EDH to be played, multiplayer, but would probably be accepting of lists meant to be 1v1 too.
Another way to think about it would be that the 1v1 forum uses the French/MTGS 1v1 ban-list, while the normal forum uses the "official" EDH ban-list. Of course, this wouldn't be a hard and fast rule, but it would break down nicely like this I think.
I also don't want to lose the primers. I think that they are cool, and have their place. An additional problem we haven't discussed yet is that "non-competitive" generals deserve primers too. Right now, that's discouraged.
The other potential problem is that some multiplayer purists hate the fact that 1v1 EDH exists, and would rather everyone play multiplayer or gtfo. There's no reasoning with them; I've tried. However, there don't seem to be many of this type on these forums, so it probably won't be an issue.
I'm kind of one of those. I would prefer to play EDH multiplayer most of the time, though I'm gradually getting curious about 1v1. I actually think differently from you though; I think purists would prefer 1v1 in it's own section.
The trouble with your second proposal is that the moderator in charge would need to really be attentive and understand the format to keep things running perfectly. The situation right now is essentially edited forums, only the moderator isn't doing much, if any, editing. I could do it, but I'm not sure that the community would want me to (and I don't really want to do it either).
Yeah, I sure as hell wouldn't want take the time to do. I was just trying to say that what we have now is kind of a half-measure towards this. There is some implied editorial direction in the competitive board, e.g., the "Primer's Primer", but no real follow-through.
I was also just really impressed with the selections you made for your other 1v1 Compendium thread, and would love to see decklists like those highlighted more. Unfortunately, I ultimately don't think this suggestion of mine would work because I think that people, for the most part, want to discuss their decks, even if they are basically the same as the next person's. I think that whoever became the moderator in the way I've proposed would just have to deal with a lot of complaining, and we don't want to, as a community, ask someone to do a really time consuming, thankless job.
Hey guys, I've been so busy trying to clean up Discussion I'm just now getting around to cleaning up the subforums, sorry it's taken this long.
I see some good points here that I'll take into consideration. I can see the issue with the subforums causing some prejudices, and personally I've never been a fan of "competitive" versus "casual". I know my so-called casual decks can beat a number of high-tier decks for example.
That said, I'm not going to jump to any decisions about changing the forums. I do like the idea for creating a 1v1 and multiplayer or normal forum instead of Proven vs. Developing, especially since there's so much grey area in EDH as an unsanctioned format.
Please PM me with your suggestions as to how to make this forum more agreeable for all of you. I'm just here to make you enjoy it more so I don't want to make changes that aren't wanted.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 2 Judge
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I tried to legitly get my list posted here, and it was turned down for some valid reasons. I don't even know who to approach now for an appeal if I planned too. I also had reasonable grounds to know that Dalkon was at least a fair judge of what constituted a list that belongs here, and one that doesn't. Is our new mod meta game savy?
Is this forum actually achieving what it set out to do anymore?
I'd argue no... There are about 5-7 threads here actually getting decent amounts of attention and many that I'd argue don't belong. At least under the same reasons mine wasn't accepted (not enough discussion seemed to be the primary culprit). I'm not even trying to be butt hurt over it, as I realized I didn't much care where my list was anymore, as being here hasn't meant many lists got anymore attention then it normally would. Oddly enough, the 5-7 threads getting attention, were getting the same attention before the big shift, they are just slightly more easy to find now.
The "proven, and primer" community hasn't exactly rallied around the other threads and offered a plethora of discussion or new ideas either. People are mostly sticking to their threads only. I don't blame anyone for that either really, it's just an observation, possibly propagated by the fact that the people posting here already think their list is perfect, and may not actually be open to discussion.
As I said, just an honest question. I think the split between EDH "chat" and "decklists" certainly improved things, I just think the additional split hasn't, and unless it gets picked up, this sub section in particular is either 1) going to get stale, or 2) get bombarded with lists that "think" they belong, when they actually don't.
RW Kalemne, Disciple of Iroas
In pretty much every other forum on MTGSal you have a forum by deck type and there's no reason why all the Ghost Council etc can't be put in together. At the very least that would encourage discussion on builds rather than everyone starting their own threads.
On a general level, the difference in traffic between this and the casual forum suggests that EDH players are voting with their feet and staying over in the casual section.
Commander BLOG: The Crazy 99
Gonti ; Sissay
I agree to a certain extent but, just for arguaments sake, take the three Ghost Council threads in here. One slightly skewed to recursion, one straight up Ghost Council & one "Ghost Council with WWK updates" started by the same person who started the straight up build. In fact the straight up build was started after the WWK thread was originally started (title changed) so effectively one guy has two seperate and active threads for the same deck.
Granted the Arcum threads are at least '1v1' and 'multiplayer' but the two Sharuum threads are effectively the same content, though there is some divergence in the deck lists.
In the forum in general, the modding has been poor: Dalton wasn't given access to be able to move EDH decks that had been posted into the "Variant format" forum. They are still there.
There's 5 threads on Jareth on page 2 of the Casual and there's 50 sharuum threads in total between the main, casual and competitive. You can't honestly say that with 50 threads, many even being new threads by users who have already started topics with the same general, there's not a huge amount of overlap?
Yes, the arguament about the decks being different is valid but I think there's a limit and one of them is, at a minimum, merging UserX's 3 Sharuum threads, deleting the misposts and multiple posts and generally getting players to invest in the existing deck discussions before regurgitating an existing list, changing a Forest to a Plains and calling it theirs.
As to developing & your "decks of a higher standard" (which is hugely elitist btw, well done! ;)) this forum, if it is to function as it was intended to, shouldn't have any "developing" decks: It's "Proven" and "primers" only.
Commander BLOG: The Crazy 99
Gonti ; Sissay
Nevertheless, I think that many people, myself included, still think of the subforums as Competitive and Casual, and this is a meaningful distinction.
Some people design their decks to win, and are looking for suggestions that will help them win more. Others build decks because they like the flavor, and think it will fun to play. These people tend to prefer suggestions that reinforce the flavor of the deck (if they're looking for suggestions at all).
There's nothing wrong with either of these groups, but because they're looking for completely different kinds of feedback, I feel that it does make sense to separate them via subforums.
If anything, I'd suggest renaming the subforums again, as I agree that "Proven" means very little in the context of this format.
I was one of those "ruffled feathers". You and I had ample agreeable discussion in said thread, where we each conceded very valid points to each other.
Competitive was proven just as much to be subjective as "proven" (I was against proven as well, because I thought it too was bull☺☺☺☺, my opinion was this should be strictly a Primer section devoted to people who had well planned out lists, and were truly open to discussion, and others could post similar lists and collaborate ideas).
No one could define competitive, because it was highly subjective to your meta, and what you perceived as competitive. The exact same problem that is happening now (people posting their lists willy nilly) would happen in the competitive section as well, unless you had some sort of divine moderator who could make a distinction past the strictly obvious lists.
Frankly, I do too. If the "competitive" section became the place for serious feedback it would merely push that place as the "place" to post, instead of the current "developing" section. I'm more perturbed by lack of available moderation then I am of labels though. The labels are just that, labels. It's how the forums are handled that's the issue.
I design all my decks to win, and that is the exact kind of feedback I am looking for, within the context of my deck (I run multiple lists, so while a card like Necropotence might be the best damn thing since sliced bread, I don't want to have to go out and get a playset of the damn things to run in every black list I have, especially if I've found agreeable ways to work without it, that are more context appropriate to my list) . I rarely get feedback on these forums for any of them. I submitted a deck for the "proven" section, and was rejected on ground of lack of discussion and a few other things I thought just weren't true. I tried to rally my list for feedback and get it pushed, but not one of the people for the proven/competitive and primer section bothered to jump in and offer feedback or even say "hey your list is pretty good..." or "you know, I think your close, but... these cards really have to in here before..." or even "sorry, this stinks, I suggest starting over".
That's what sucks about the current system. You and other proudly proclaimed "competitive" players are all people who could rally around and make the forum the way you want it to be, but I hardly ever see any of the most known ones actually post feedback in lists outside of the ones you are interested/invested in. There is a further problem with this in that, while I respect your opinions, what if someone doesn't? Then there is a third problem, in that anyone who "thinks" their list is competitive 50% of the time respond with "what do you know, my list is awesome where I play, gtfo".
Don't get me wrong, I am not ignorant enough to say that it's your guys responsibility to monitor these things, nor do I expect you to capture and look at every list. But if not you guys, the main pushers for the split of the forums, who else? Because right now, the "proven & primer" section almost feels a bit "clique". It consists of a few people who like each other's lists and offer infinite feedback to each other, and then there is every other list, and therefore by current rules, shouldn't even belong in there. That's no different to the way it was before, at all. All threads currently getting ample feedback now, were getting ample feedback before, there just easier to find now.
If you open up the forum and allow anyone to post there, you'll get the floodgate of people who "think" their list is competitive, posting it, and then getting extremely butt-hurt when Hyenas land and tear it apart. At that point, which Moderator wants the responsibility to move said list to the "casual" section? One with big kahuna's I'd imagine. It's not easy like say the Standard section, where governance is expected to be efficiently cutthroat.
Can you not see how flawed the current non-existent system is? You could label the forums whatever the heck you want, and it wouldn't change anything without ☺☺☺☺ loads more work done in the background. Work that would have to done voluntarily by people like you who appear to have some level of pulse on the barrier entry between "competitive" and "not".
I'd love to get on MSN or whatever and chat about this more with you, because please be aware, I do respect your opinion, and I do understand what you are trying/want to achieve. I don't really want to get in another big circle debate on the forums though. Enough of those going on in the official forums at the moment ><.
I just think the old way is better then the half ass way things are now. I'd really love to able to put my lists to the test and see if I can get them with the big boys. I like to compete on many levels, design especially. As it stands, I don't even know how to go about doing it and that by definition is detrimental to the idea of making something popular (which I am sure you are for, you are putting ample work in other areas to do so). I don't want to incessantly bump my post in vain for attention and look like a idiot, and other then PM'ing you my lists, I've basically given up on the whole idea. PM'ing you would almost be in vain, because at the moment, other then leverage, you don't actually have any power (no offense sincerely intended, just stating the truth). Right now, the only push I could see doing would be giving a big FU to the rules, posting my list in the "Proven & Primer" section, and watch it get equally ignored as it was in the "developing" section, more so, because people would know I've commited a "taboo" and therefore don't want to have anything to do with it, while they wait for a moderator to sweep by and move it to the other place, where it will get ignored.
Then the other part of me goes "honestly, do I really care?". It's not worth getting in a shouting match with someone over the internet, about whether or not my list is considered "competitive" in what is suppose to be a "casual" format. That's my perception of things, and I think many others.
RW Kalemne, Disciple of Iroas
The trouble with a Primer-only section is that primers don't really differentiate between people building for wins and for fun. Primers can be written for either style, so what's the point in separating them? Also, primers require lots of writing and formatting--what if someone has an exceptionally well-planned out list, but doesn't have time to write a full primer? I think that such a deck would still belong in the forum with other well-designed decks, and could instill some good discussion.
I can define competitive easily enough. A competitive deck is one that is designed to win as much as possible, with winning games as its first priority. This doesn't mean that it can't be fun too, but its ability to win games should not be compromised in the interest of fun. A casual deck is any deck that is not primarily designed to win.
There shouldn't be a tension between competitive and casual sections. There just isn't any reason for that. There is no single place for serious feedback--that feedback can be given in both sections. It makes sense to separate the sections because the feedback desired is different.
Allow me to illustrate by example. Imagine an Oona, Queen of the Fae combo deck posted in the competitive subforum. It's designed to generate infinite mana with a combo, then win in one shot with an Oona activation. If I was offering feedback for this deck, I'd be suggesting anxillary combos it might wish to use, the best tutors to make the deck more consistent, and the best countermagic to protect the combo. I would certainly recommend cards like Mana Drain and Mana Crypt, with the caveat that they are expensive. Perhaps more importantly, I'd be calling out any cards that don't fit the gameplan of the deck as well as they should, including cute or on-theme cards.
Now, imagine an Oona tribal faerie deck posted in casual. Am I going to try to turn it into the above, competitive deck? No. Because the deck is meant to be tribal, and probably not a combo deck, I'll be suggesting good faeries that may have been missed. I'll still suggest good synergies, but they'll be fun and flavorful as well as powerful, like Dire Undercurrents. I won't be suggesting cards like Mana Drain because there's just no point--that's clearly not the intention of the designer. The feedback I give is very different.
Now, do I necessarily need subforums to tell me what kind of feedback to give? No, because I can tell competitive from casual by looking at the list. However, it still helps, and it's certainly true that not everyone can distinguish so easily. Our hypothetical deck designers in this example have very different mentalities when it comes to deck building--so where's the sense in mixing them together? It's helpful to everyone when the people offering feedback understand what a deck is trying to be.
From your first sentence, you're clearly a competitive player, and your decks belong in the competitive subforum. I frankly have no idea how these forums are moderated, but there doesn't seem to be much of it going on these days.
Your list being rejected was probably a mistake, but one caused by calling the competitive subforum "Proven." Your list wasn't proven, but that really shouldn't matter (few of the lists posted there are really proven, I suspect).
Your "Necropotence" comment is pretty off-putting though, given what you're saying. For one thing, no one ever said you have to get a playset of Necropotence. Can you play 4 decks at the same time? There are several cards that I only possess one copy of, yet I play them in multiple decks. I just keep track of where they are and swap them over when I want to play something.
Even if you're adverse to doing that though...come on. Necropotence is a $3 card on most card sites. I just took a glance at Ebay, and there are several up there for $0.99. If you know Necropotence belongs in your deck and you want people to take your competitive list seriously, you should probably suck it up and add Necropotence. Remember, for any competitive deck, you should be trying to optimize it to win. I can completely sympathize with someone unwilling to drop $220 on Imperial Seal, but "I'm too cheap to spend $3 for Necropotence" or "I'm too lazy to move Necropotence over from my other deck" really doesn't cut it. This kind of extremely minor monetary constraint should not factor into design of a competitive deck.
You're fetishizing feedback. No system of organization is going to make people post feedback for decks they're not interested in. As you say, the current system of organization doesn't change what decks receive feedback--it just makes it easier for people to find decks they're interested in. That's the whole point.
You need to understand that the quality of a deck has absolutely nothing to do with the volume or quality of feedback it receives. In fact, it's frequently terrible decks that receive the most feedback, because there's so much that can obviously be improved upon. The fact that your decks don't receive much feedback doesn't necessarily reflect on their quality or originality--perhaps they just don't inspire discussion. This is true of many decks, don't take it personally.
Actually, despite the lack of moderation, I think the current system is working reasonably well. If anything, I'd say that there are many more competitive decks being posted in the casual subforum than vice versa (probably because people get confused by the meaning of "proven"). At a casual glance on the first page of the proven forum, I see 29 deck threads. Of those, I'd say all but 3 belong there (and one of those 3 was moved there when the forums were split, by a mistaken moderator). Considering the lack of moderation, that's really a pretty good proportion. I don't see any "floodgate of people" invading the wrong subforum. There are a few decks that ought to be moved, but it's not a big problem.
Again, you're taking things too personally. Don't ask anyone's permission--I've already told you that your decks should be posted in the competitive section, because that's clearly your intent. Putting them in the competitive section clues us in as to the type of feedback they should receive.
Just don't get pissed off if they don't receive feedback...as I've said, lots of decks don't, and it has nothing to do with their quality or location. You're not automatically entitled to feedback from anyone. Look at EroticPunch's Arcum deck in this subforum--it's a very well thought out list that's been here for ages, yet it has only 2 responses (one of them from me). He's received basically no feedback, and that's not unusual. It's not a big deal--sometimes people just have nothing to add.
I don't have any power, nor do I want it. I just use my brain. If you really want my feedback on your decks, go ahead and PM them to me (or post them and I promise I'll comment). I can't speak for anyone else though.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what you want--it looks like you want your posts to become multi-page pinnacles of discussion, but you need to understand that no one has the power to make that happen. If your decks are interesting enough, that might happen...but trying to rearrange the forum structure because you don't think your decks received enough attention won't solve anything. It won't get them any more attention.
Necropotence was a bad example. I came up with the quickest staple card I could think of that theoretically sees no reason not to be in any other list.
Saying that, for a person who lives overseas, finding these cards isn't as simple as ordering them. A 3$ card to you cost me that + shipping, + tracking it down etc. etc. Not trying to make an excuse, it's just not clear cut.
I'm not looking for a utopia forum at all, where everyone and everyone rallies around and posts.
My personal examples were merely the best way to express my intent, wrong or right. This is not some vendetta I have against people not giving me feedback.
I do however think much more could be done to "raise" the bar so to speak.
If the forums serve no other purpose then to distinguish between a lists that want to win, and those that don't, I don't get it. I can describe my intent in the first line if my post, or in the subject. I don't need a seperate forum for that. Those too lazy to do that, aren't taking things seriously anyway no?
What I am trying to say, is this sub section was sold as more then just the above. I think it can be more.
Longer answer to come later.
RW Kalemne, Disciple of Iroas
However, I also agree with Pysces larger point, which I take to be that the discussion in the "proven" section is stale. I just don't really read this forum that much because I know what I'm going to get. There might be a place to discuss the 1-2 card differences between Clique lists. When there are differences, the "discussion" is sometimes just a series of lists with no defense, or people with radically different takes; in essence, either people have too much common ground, or too little, for interesting discussions.
I have a two proposed solutions:
Proposal 1: 1v1 and Multiplayer forums
As far as I can tell, the "competitive" and "playing for fun" distinctions often break along 1v1 and multiplayer lines. I think 1v1 players, as a group, are 95% of the time "competitive," and multiplayer players are like 75% "fun" players. Of course, everyone wants to win, but I like Khymera's example, who's going to be playing Dire Undercurrents?
This solution has the added benefit of eliminating the clunky labels on thread titles, or pointless confusion in threads.
Another benefit of this re-labeling would allow there to be a place for MTGS tournament 1v1 ban lists to be located, as well as other info relevant to tournaments.
Proposal 2: Edited forums
Competitive forums in other formats are typically highly restricted to eliminate people just posting willy-nilly. This is easier for other formats because there are tourney results to base decisions on. Because this isn't the case for EDH, I don't know if this proposal would work. However, the 1v1 Compendium Khymera posted in the general forum is such a cool thread to me. There are so many interesting ideas in those decks! Having a place where innovation was recognized would be cool. This would, of course, live and die by the efforts of whoever was moderating it. There would probably also be a lot of sour grapes from people who didn't make it in too. But I still think this is the only way to reliably establish "competitive," "proven," or "innovative." Maybe we could have community votes on which decks got included too? Something akin to the top 35 cards. Like the top 10 decks per general or something. I'm kind of brainstorming here, but you all get the idea I think.
Yep.
Also agreed.
I would be in favor of splitting up the forums between 1v1 and multiplayer EDH. They really are quite different formats in some ways. I think that this distinction would make a reasonable separator. It also has the benefit of promoting the French style 1v1 banned list + 30 starting life, which is definitely a major boon. (Anyone who thinks the multiplayer banned list is better for 1v1 hasn't tested the 1v1 list enough. It makes absolutely no sense to use a banned list intended only for multiplayer in the competitive metagame of 1v1 EDH.)
There are two potential problems I see.
One, some people like to make decks for a mix of 1v1 and multiplayer. They might get confused. However, it's really impossible to make a deck that will perform at its best potential in both multiplayer and 1v1. As such, I think it's not too much to expect such players to pick either multiplayer or 1v1 to focus on, and post it in the appropriate place. This shouldn't be too much of a hurdle.
The other potential problem is that some multiplayer purists hate the fact that 1v1 EDH exists, and would rather everyone play multiplayer or gtfo. There's no reasoning with them; I've tried. However, there don't seem to be many of this type on these forums, so it probably won't be an issue.
The trouble with your second proposal is that the moderator in charge would need to really be attentive and understand the format to keep things running perfectly. The situation right now is essentially edited forums, only the moderator isn't doing much, if any, editing. I could do it, but I'm not sure that the community would want me to (and I don't really want to do it either).
Your first proposal could work though. It has my approval.
Alright so rewinding a little and after a day at the beach to think about it, my perspective has changed a bit.
As said before, Necropotence was a bad example. Force of Will would clearly illustrate my point a bit better.
You make a valid point about swapping cards between lists. If I absolutely wanted to be cutthroat with my lists, I'd swap my good cards between them. I don't like doing that but if thats the line you draw, that's the line you draw.
That however made me realize another point.
The assertion that I'm a competitive player is wrong. I'm actually a deck builder, plain and simple, just with really high standards.
See if I only own one Force of Will, and can't easily get another, I'll work around it unless the card is absolutely vital to the strategy. In general, I don't like using cards more then once or twice anyway, because I lose interest in the list when it covers ground I've already explored.
I'm also extremely reluctant to use infinite combos. While I understand competitively they are the best way to outright win a game, from a deck building perspective, I consider it an easy out. I'm more interested in wining without them, as I get more satisfaction out of my list as a whole. For instance I can take infinite turns with Vorosh, but I don't feel weird about it, because I don't need those infinite turns to win, just enough to grow Vorosh big enough to one shot everyone at the table (doesn't take long). Sadly, I can't figure out if I just made a hypocritical statement here (and yes, the Vorosh list is blatantly ripped from tampakingpin).
Anyway, in contrast, my Thraximundar list is also perfectly setup to abuse infinite turns, and just by putting a Time Warp in it, I could argue that I've given the deck a 4th back up plan and win condition and for relatively little deck space. From a competitive standpoint, I should probably run it, but I won't, because I've already covered that ground in Vorosh. I also don't run Pestermite, despite running Kiki-Jiki, because I made an active design constraint that every card had to be relevant on its own, rather then reliant on something else. It would also warp the deck, because the best two tutor targets would almost always be those first.
So while every list I make is designed to win, I'm happy with self imposed deck constraints, actively made or not. Big Jim made a good point though, every list is designed to win, it's to what degree that is important. So I also concede this point completely.
So clearly, I'm not willing to do everything to win. Therefore, I'm probably not a competitive player.
I post in the casual section then, fine, but, just as much as you want a easy convenient way to distinguish between the lists that are tilted towards competitive and not, I'm looking for an easy way to distinguish my lists in a manner that says "no, I'm not interested in turning my Thrax list into a Zombie themed deck, thank you very much" just as much as you aren't interested in a literal interpretation of Oona, Queen of the Fae.
I guess I'm one step below competitive, but my experience has been that the feedback from competitive players is more in line with the feedback I am looking for, and the conversation points more interesting to discuss. It's inline with my real life experience as well. A competitive player can look at my list and see things a casual player can never see. They can make much more poignant cuts, help sort the chaff from the real meat of the list and are happy to discuss minute details of one cards benefit over the other. Even the cutthroat suggestions are helpful, and a interesting point of discussion, even if I ignore them for reason X.
So I think you caught me out, your right and I apologize, I have no vested interest in Competitive EDH, your post took me to realize that though. When I say I want to play with the big boys, what I am actually saying is I want to discuss with the big boys.
I stand by my assertion that the current split isn't working, "Proven" has to go, and that's why I made this thread. I think a separate sub-section for Primer's only is appropriate, because it offers a focal point of discussion and keeps a thousand stickies out of the principal forum. I'd love to see more Primers and I wish people would use them more, as I still see tonnes of generic list X posted in the casual forum, without enough differences to warrant a whole new topic. They'd get better advice reading and discussing their list in the Primer section.
I acknowledge however from a purely cutthroat perspective that your definition of a split (Casual & Competitive) would be more distinct and probably work a lot better. I worry that a split like that are going to take the like minded people I like to discuss with further away. This has nothing to do with my lists in particular, in that if you aren't interested in my list, I'm not losing sleep over it or pawing for attention. It's more so that if I do find some mutual point of interest to discuss, outside of PM'ing you (which unless invited to do so, I don't want to be PM'ing people everytime I think they might be interested in something, especially strangers), the opportunity is more likely missed. That does make me sad, because I like to discuss things with people who clearly show aptitude at doing so.
I hope I am much, much more clearer then I was before.
RW Kalemne, Disciple of Iroas
Pysces has a good idea; instead of 1v1 and multiplayer, we just have 1v1, normal forum, and primer.
I like this idea because it answers your concern, Khymera, people who want 1v1 and multiplayer can mix it up in the normal forum. The normal forum would assume people are playing the way God intended EDH to be played, multiplayer, but would probably be accepting of lists meant to be 1v1 too.
Another way to think about it would be that the 1v1 forum uses the French/MTGS 1v1 ban-list, while the normal forum uses the "official" EDH ban-list. Of course, this wouldn't be a hard and fast rule, but it would break down nicely like this I think.
I also don't want to lose the primers. I think that they are cool, and have their place. An additional problem we haven't discussed yet is that "non-competitive" generals deserve primers too. Right now, that's discouraged.
I'm kind of one of those. I would prefer to play EDH multiplayer most of the time, though I'm gradually getting curious about 1v1. I actually think differently from you though; I think purists would prefer 1v1 in it's own section.
Yeah, I sure as hell wouldn't want take the time to do. I was just trying to say that what we have now is kind of a half-measure towards this. There is some implied editorial direction in the competitive board, e.g., the "Primer's Primer", but no real follow-through.
I was also just really impressed with the selections you made for your other 1v1 Compendium thread, and would love to see decklists like those highlighted more. Unfortunately, I ultimately don't think this suggestion of mine would work because I think that people, for the most part, want to discuss their decks, even if they are basically the same as the next person's. I think that whoever became the moderator in the way I've proposed would just have to deal with a lot of complaining, and we don't want to, as a community, ask someone to do a really time consuming, thankless job.
I see some good points here that I'll take into consideration. I can see the issue with the subforums causing some prejudices, and personally I've never been a fan of "competitive" versus "casual". I know my so-called casual decks can beat a number of high-tier decks for example.
That said, I'm not going to jump to any decisions about changing the forums. I do like the idea for creating a 1v1 and multiplayer or normal forum instead of Proven vs. Developing, especially since there's so much grey area in EDH as an unsanctioned format.
Please PM me with your suggestions as to how to make this forum more agreeable for all of you. I'm just here to make you enjoy it more so I don't want to make changes that aren't wanted.