I have never felt that tags fit all that well. I have never considered my own decks to be competative, budget, or casual. Sure I don't play infinite combo, MLD, or stasis effects but the fact that I don't want to play Craterhoof Behemoth or Expropriate are not something I can express in a generic tag either.
In my mind, competitive is a tag that validly states that you are trying to go absolutely to the extreme of making the deck better at any cost. Tags of percentage don't contain any information like that. Something like Budget often dictates that suggesting cards that cost > $10 likely aren't an option and I think that is a valid tag as well.
I just don't see what these kind of tags would really give to readers.
If you build a tune deck with no budget but intentionally dont run certain cards, you might be a 75%er.
I was always under the impression that "interacts poorly with the format" meant that a card behaved differently because of a Commander specific rule. Sort of how Riftsweeper was OP when there was no command zone and generals hung out in exile until cast.
Gifts works exactly the same in 60 card Magic as it does in Commander. The only difference is that they were able to cost it more aggressively because the drawback of having to thin your deck to just a few playsets. So in practice Gifts has power level issues, but not interacting poorly.
I think this is a good idea as well (at least, having a few thread tag options to describe your intended power level). These subjective tags never work since I could have a casual deck running Beta duals just because they're cards I already own and you think that simply the act of running duals makes it more competitive. But even though they won't ever prevent arguing over the competitive level, most of the time tags are helpful.
I wish spreading false rumors that can be confirmed as false was a reportable offense.
Report it for trolling and let the staff investigate. Technically, you can report any post you feel is bad even if it doesn't neatly fit into one of the rules categories. It's only when you start going crazy with the report system that the mods care.
Interesting. Honestly I would like something to shake the format up a little. I feel like we have been just kind of playing it safe with the banned list for the last few years. I am trying to remember the last thing that happened on the banned list and the last thing that comes to mind would probably be the unban of P Hulk which was what??? 2 years ago now?
(I don't count that brief silver boarder allocation stunt)
The format doesn't need to be shaken up. WotC already does that enough when they make God awful commander cards.
So, wondering how it will go down if, let's say you promote a card to 1,000 points & you have exactly 1,000 points. Will the promotion not be visible or will one go into negative points (yes, it is a thing, I've gone into negative points twice, lol)... This feels like a Gremlins conundrum of the seed being stuck in the teeth & midnight just past, hehehe....
I believe that you won't be visible, but I've also gotten error messages when I tried to make a package and it said they didnt have enough points, so.....
I'm not saying it wasn't used, I'm saying it wasn't maintained by the author. Similar to Blackjack's guide, which is great so long as you dont mind a guide that is five years old and doesn't address new cards. When I was on staff and part of the decision making at the time that was one of our main concerns with not calling it an official primer. Maybe the current mods feel differently.
For anyone who is unaware, the new promotion system went live across the site. Now you only pay a promotion fee once the card is committed. They also cut the fees, so the fee will work out to be the same or less if you're promoting under 100% (although you'll end up paying more once you go above 100% bonus).