MTG Salvation

I would suggest we first discuss a mission statement. What are the goals of the cube. Brainstorm some high ideas for that. Discuss ideas. Then use that to drive the next stages.

But as Runner said, a mission statement would be best to start with.
Is it something that tries to get people into pauper cubing? Cause that would be like an Iconic Pauper cube, going through multiple standards and picking commons that defined that standard. Although this might be hard and result in somewhat parasitic keywords like infect and affinity showing up a lot.

I strongly support a community Pauper cube, and I also strongly support a Wizards cube. I do think that there are a number of problems with it, which have been mentioned here a little bit, but I think that it would be very good for us to detach ourselves from our babies a little bit. A mission statement would be very important. Here are a few of the considerations/questions for me:

-Who is the audience/how often would they play? The MTGO Cubes tend to be larger than most Cubes because they will be played more often by a larger number of people than most Cubes. The increase in variety is an important and desirable goal. I think if we were gunning for an MTGO style cube, we would want at least 720 cards. This does effect other questions.
-How often would we update/play? I strongly support the idea of a "Core" Cube that updates with each expansion release to play with the themes of the new set. This will work for some sets better than others, but a huge part of the charm of lower powered Cubes for me is digging through time and seeing how new mechanics and themes interact with old ones. For instance, I would expect War of the Spark edition to support various forms of Counters from over the year to play with all of the Proliferate.
-What is the power level of the Cube? I would shoot deliberately low, and be much more willing to cut for high power level or disruptive play than I am in my own Cube so that the rotating themes have more chance to shine.
-What is the desired play experience? This is a little hard to define, but I imagine it being something like "Default Limited Plus." We're playing with Commons, so we're playing with the simplest possible version of all of our themes. However, I do think there is a little more room for variety in our themes than we typically want or desire. For instance, I've been pretty down on specific, narrowly defined archetypes in the past, because I think they're directly responsible for many of the weakest parts of Magic in the past few years (which probably reached its nadir in BFZ). But I think this more explicit support would be much more desirable for a widely played, regularly updated "Community Cube."

I agree with default limited plus as our baseline.

IMHO, 720 may be too big. It’s harder and harder to support archetypes the bigger the cube. I agree with bigger than 360 but 450 is more where’d I want to be. Unless our ambition is to get this picked up by Wizards. That might be overreaching but if that’s our goal, even if it’s too lofty, it could give something to fall back on when informing our decisions.

I also think we should update it twice a year. Coincide it with the Masters-style set releases. This gives each limited format time to breathe and our cubes time to play with cards we were interested in. This would give us a first deadline of the Modern Horizons release