Quote from wtwlf123 »P1P1 or most powerful or best are all wildly subjective, and completely contingent on the list you're drawing the data from, and the playgroup you're drafting it with.
Quote from hoodwink »I mean, "favorite cards" or whatever is way more subjective, since by definition it's nothing but personal opinion. At least P1P1 has some basis in objectivity w/r/t perceived power level.
Quote from calibretto »And Path should almost definitely be on a top twenty list for white.
Quote from braid of fire »I much prefer "most important to my cube" to "p1p1"
Quote from wtwlf123 »Quote from calibretto »And Path should almost definitely be on a top twenty list for white.
Then we're asking the wrong questions. Because if that's making a list of "top P1P1 cards", the data we're getting is pretty meaningless.
Quote from Calibretto »"These are the first twenty cards I'd include in X section in order of importance"?
Quote from Person_On_MTGS »But anyone trying to tell me that Crystal Shard is more powerful than Tinker will have a very hard time of it and save for the means to prove it, that person would be objectively wrong.
Quote from Person_On_MTGS »The argument that you should classify a card in the colours where it is strongest is strange to me. If this was my approach I would classify Wild Mongrel as B/G...
Quote from Person_On_MTGS »A whole bunch of thoughtful stuff.
Quote from BlackWaltz3 »What do you recommend? Don't want to make formatting a barrier to participation--the only extra thing I will ask is that people use spoiler tags. Beyond that, I was just going to have them number 1-20 and name the cards:
1. Card A
2. Card B ....
20. Card C
Quote from wtwlf123 »Quote from Calibretto »"These are the first twenty cards I'd include in X section in order of importance"?
The problem with this prompt is curve. A 20-card section wouldn't contain the 20 "best" white cards.
This would be exactly true for a cube that supports a blink/bounce/ETB trigger abuse deck and has no support to make Tinker powerful. Those kinds of cubes exist. Now, you're telling voters that they're objectively wrong because their notion of "best" isn't the same as yours ...when in fact they're 100% accurate and the only thing that changed was context.
The bigger problem is assuming that an amalgamation of the data is useful, when in fact, the opposite is true. If you combine the data from the Team Tinker's votes and the votes from team Shard into one dataset, and team Tinker has 20x the voting members ...what happens when you sit down to draft a cube with team Shard? The data is useless to you. And that's the problem. Cube powerlevel is too context-based to provide meaningful data with a small dataset. 25 people voting or whatever isn't anywhere near statistically significant enough to provide meaningful data. But if you ask a question that everyone can honestly answer using the same metrics, your dataset can be smaller and still produce worthwhile data.
tl;dr - If you ask the question "what are your 20 favorite white cube cards" people can look at that combined data and get a feel of what kinds of cards they could include in their cubes to make people happy. If you ask the question "what are the 20 best white cube cards" you would have to qualify that information with about 60 disclaimers before everybody's even voting with the same metrics.