Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Oct-23 5:11 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 215 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Having Your Voice Heard
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-12 10:42 am 

Joined: 2019-Jul-12 10:30 am
Age: Wyvern
Hi Sheldon. I'm going to just repost something I posted over at /r/EDH. I want to preface by saying that I know you're in a somewhat hopeless position where you can;t please everyone, and I believe that you are in fact trying to do what you think is best for the format. Please take the below as intended to be constructive criticism. Thank you for reaching out with this thread, and thank you to the Redditor who posted the link on the subreddit so more of us would see it.

Share where you're getting your data. the RC uses terms like "warping the format" and "ubiquitous," but Commander is inherently played in such a way that does not facilitate easy collection of play statistics. Tournaments register decklists, but LGS and kitchen table casual play does not. A lack of consistent, objective data to support the RC reasonings lends strong weight to the feeling that these decisions are entirely arbitrary. The little data I can see is from sites like EDHREC, and for example Paradox Engine was only in 6% of eligible lists. That's very far from "format-warping" or "ubiquitous." Iona had all of 40 decks registered with her as Commander, and appears in 4% of eligible lists. Again, this wasn't exactly a card that was breaking the format.

Stop using the Rule 0 copout. It is a copout, and nothing more, in the way the RC refers to it - it's a way to deflect criticism. Rule 0 is an inherent fact of casual play - when there are no judges or tournament rules to enforce, of course playgroups get to do what they want. The banlist literally cannot affect that. The banlist is the common ground for public play, where you don't have a consistent group to establish agreements with. Saying "this is banned but your playgroup can let you play it" serves no real purpose. Many people don;t have the luxury of a regular playgroup, and nobody wants to spend money on a deck that can;t be played without a new round of negotiations every time you try to play it.

Stop explicitly stating that you are ignoring specific portions of the community. Commander is for everyone now. Stop discouraging any type of play - that's not healthy for the format. It's exclusive, when the format needs to be inclusive. Players who want to play battlecruiser Magic should do that. Players who want to play stax should do that. Some of Sheldon's statements seem to agree with this, but other words and the actions of the RC specifically contradict this sentiment. More specifically, when you say that competitive play is not considered, that sends a specific and exclusive message to a large number of players. It reaches farther than just the specific cEDH community - lot of EDH players enjoy high-powered decks that aren't actually cEDH, and these comments affect us as well. Balancing the format for the competitive end naturally balances it for the casual players - banning Flash will fix a huge problem in a lack of deck diversity in cEDH right now without really affecting casual players (I run Flash Rector in my Tuvasa Enchantress deck, but otherwise I don't really see it). Deck diversity on the competitive end helps deck diversity for everyone else, too, because there isn't just one objectively superior strategy.

Tying into that, be more responsible with your communications. Sheldon is the face of the RC, for better or for worse. Some members of the CAG have this issue as well. When you make a statement, it carries weight for the entire community, whether we like it or not, because your views and decisions impact the banlist. When you write articles like "cards you shouldn't play in Commander," you're basically just trying to shame people who have different play preferences from yours. "The cards are legal, but you're a bad person if you play them." Maybe that's what Sheldon intended, maybe it's not, but that was the result. If players are having fun playing Commander, that's all that matters, full stop. If they want to play Wound Reflection, and their group is having fun, then they should play Wound Reflection. When you make comments like Sheldon did on Planeswalkers as Commanders, and just say "hard no, this will not happen while I am on the RC," that tells the community that you're not listening to us, you're just taking your personal opinion and enforcing it on the community.

Keep your bans very rare. This is one thing I agree with the RC on. Bans should happen when cards present a real problem for the format. Bans should not happen to discourage certain types of play. With [[Prophet of Kruphix]], I actually liked the RC reasoning for what they meant about "Warping the format:" every deck needed to run this card, and games became about who could get it out first, or who could steal it. Now, I'm not sure I agree or disagree that Prophet actually had that issue, but I like the rationale for what "Warping" means. TO carry this to Paradox Engine, if it had actually "Warped the format," I would have expected to see far more comments about that card on this subreddit, I would have expected to see it in 75%+ decks on EDHREC (since it can go in literally any deck); if, as the RC stated, it just provides value without any cost in deckbuilding, that should have been the case. I would have expected to see a large uptick in instant-speed artifact removal and theft cards to deal with this ubiquitous threat.

Use more firm language. Terms like "negative play experience" don't have a lot of consistent meaning. What one player dislikes might be fun for another. I liked playing around Iona. I like finding a way to win on the spot, "out of nowhere" (after like 4 tutors from Razaketh..."out of nowhere" is very rarely actually out of nowhere) after the opponent to my right just resolved a massive Genesis Wave and shut down all remaining tutors and draw and exiled my graveyard and was going to value everyone to death next turn. Maybe you would have found those to be "negative play experiences," but I sure as hell loved them. The fuzzy nature of this communication means that nobody really knows quite what you mean.

Consistency. This ties into several of my previous items, really. One of the biggest issues with the RC is the perception that decisions are reached with no consistency in application. The community is left wondering why A is banned and B is okay. When we have no idea what data the RC is using to base their decisions on, when the RC uses fuzzy language, when members of the RC make statements outside of the rulings, the community is left feeling like all of these decisions just come from personal preferences, are entirely subjective and arbitrary and made up. You create anxiety in the community with every announcement, because we have no idea what you'll ban next or why. The Philosophy Document is totally unclear, and, as a recent Professor video entertainingly illustrated, you're basically saying "these things aren't banned but you should decide to not use them." That's not helpful to anyone. If anything it creates conflict over the "spirit of the format" and what it means.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Having Your Voice Heard
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-12 10:51 am 

Joined: 2019-Jul-12 10:40 am
Age: Egg
Just spit-balling here, but what if we actually did split the format. I don't know the number of cEDH vs normal EDH, and I can understand if this may not be something people want, especially the cEDH folks, but there may be some merit to having some special rules or a slightly different format for cEDH.

It could be called Blitzkrieg or something, and it would be used as rule -1, instead of rule 0. People could sit down at their lgs with people they've never played with before and even in before talking about how strong their decks are, say "Blitzkrieg/cEDH or Casual/Normal EDH. I get this already happens (hopefully).

But maybe having a different RC and Banlist, while at first strange might be good for both sides. cEDH could ban cards like Flash and Hulk, or Isochron Scepter, while normal edh can keep Iona and things like paradox engine banned (Though I think engine shouldn't be banned in either format) Some random thoughts I guess.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Having Your Voice Heard
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-12 11:05 am 

Joined: 2010-Mar-10 1:31 pm
Age: Dragon
Shen wrote:
Some quick ideas from my POV:
[*] Update this website. It's 2019.

This is being worked on i believe viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19128

_________________
onlainari wrote:
trappedslider wrote:
EDIT: so if i somehow manged to get down to 1 life,played Repay in Kind followed by Decree of Annihilation then it owuld be bad evil juju?

That's not how magic works. You can't equate cards and situations linearly like that!


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Having Your Voice Heard
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-12 11:49 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Nov-27 4:39 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Midgard
PurpleOmega0110 wrote:
He should allow someone else to take his place who doesn't have this pedigree, and who the community trusts and knows will do the thing with neutrality.

In other words, even if Sheldon is trying to be impartial in his decision-making, his public facing persona as the Father of Commander is problematic because he also makes clear his feelings on what is fun, what is good, and what is bad.

I'm not sure how this is readily possible. If you want somebody "the community trusts," the only way to trust them is through their words--how they describe themselves as players, their opinions on cards and the format, their feelings towards various Commander related subjects--and that they continue to stand by their words.

Which is pretty much what you're saying Sheldon is doing.

paragon_deku wrote:
Of course I'm biased on the matter, and I would never argue that the majority of players believe something when I'm not in their heads, but I regularly play at two fairly big LGS's and no one I talk to in person is generally favorable towards the RC. I've had several people say they want Sheldon to step down. I don't care either way.

I'd challenge you to talk to more people at those LGS. You seem to suggest you have your finger on the heartbeat of these entire stores, but if they are actually "big" locations then I'm guessing responses are more nuanced than this always unfavorable.

_________________
Current:
Decklists are posted here. They can all be found in the Decklist Forum.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Having Your Voice Heard
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-12 12:12 pm 

Joined: 2019-Jul-12 8:24 am
Age: Egg
Hi!! I’d like to introduce myself before I give my response. My name is Bill. I started playing magic in junior high , I was buying revised off the shelves as a kid. I played magic weekly into college and took a break , got back into it around 2010, played a bunch and quickly got into edh. I’ve been playing edh weekly for at least 8 years. I’ve watched the format grow from the game a couple of us played in the corner to being the main thing played at most of the local stores. I am invested in edh... absolutely invested.

Now that you know who I am I gotta let you know how I feel... when I heard your most recent announcement my response was “ do these guys play edh?” I’ll start with the biggest kick in the balls, banning Iona... wtf? Do you guys hate white decks? White has been crazy under powered over the years with one of its strongest cards banned from the beginning ( balance) and now one of the only answers it has to many decks is banned ( Iona). The thing that was frustrating was the half thought out justifying of the ban. Let’s be honest here, you banned Iona to unban painters servant.. but you make claims of it not helping fun play.... bull crap! There are so many cards that are much much more of an issue. Iona can be killed and then it’s over...vorinclex can be killed and people are still locked out a full rotation.This whole decision is just half baked and is adding sooooo many more awful combos in a format that is being killed by infinite combos.

While I hopefully have your attention, you should absolutely reverse the tuck rule. Having no way to properly eliminate a commander has been nothing but problematic.

Thank you for making this post and I hope we are heard.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Having Your Voice Heard
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-12 12:48 pm 

Joined: 2019-Jul-12 11:25 am
Age: Egg
I do not feel that my--or really anyone's--voice is figuratively heard by anyone on the rules comittee at this time. I understand that this may be a cynical point of view, but please, allow me to explain myself.

The recent banlist update has attracted a lot of attention, and caused a massive controversy within the Commander/EDH community. Many people, including myself, feel that the banning of Iona and Paradox Engine was unnecessary, and the unbanning of Painter's servant even more so. I don't believe that there was any communication with the community in order to find out the general opinion on these cards, and as far as I know, the only thing that will make the rules commitee listen is a massive negative reaction, such as that to Leovold. P

I can try to guess the reasoning as to why Iona would be banned: after all, with the color identity rule, Iona can lock players out of the game if they are running a monocolored deck (presuming that they don't have colorless removal). It has a much more powerful effect in commander than it does in other formats, and it can easily be cheated out through Kaalia of the Vast or graveyard shenanigans. It could also be flickered to block a different color on each player's turn. and it could theoretically be your commander. I'm fine with this card being banned, but I honestly had never seen one in play, not even when I was playing cEDH.

As to my guess on Paradox engine, well... Basically, I believe that their reasoning would be something along the lines of this article: http://www.starcitygames.com/articles/37865_Commander-Cards-You-Shouldnt-Play.html
And this is where I get rather upset.
I look at this and say, "Oh, well then, how is this any less 'degenerate and unfun' than Isochron Scepter + Dramatic Reversal? Or rings of brighthearth + basalt monolith? or Animar + Ancestral Statue + any draw-on-creature-spell effect? Or Phyrexian Altar, Reveillark and Karmic guide? Or Slivers existing? or Cyclonic Rift? or Flash into Protean Hulk? or Painter's Servant and Grindstone or a dozen other things?
And then I would find my upset self sliding down the slippery slope of "Let's just ban everything!"
Heck, Paradox Engine isn't an infinite combo on it's own. You would have to figure out a way to infinitely cast a spell in order to go infinite with it. Of course it can enable you to win the game...but it's not a legendary creature, and you can only have one copy in your deck, and it doesn't seem to me that it needed to be banned. Of course, I am also upset because I wanted to get one and put it in my Urza deck...but still.

And the unbanning of Painter's servant...I don't know what to think about that. It messes with the basic elements of the game of magic and creates so many combos that are much more broken than Iona and Paradox Engine.

This leads me to believe that the rules committee is not paying attention to the commander community as a whole, nor are they considering that their bans are not going to stop people from doing things that they might find overpowered. If they want to ban all infinite combos, I wish them luck, but they won't be able to. Sure, they could smack the more prominent ones, like Kiki-Jiki, Splinter Twin, Animar, Rings of Brighthearth...but there are so many that it would be unfeasible, and more would inevitably be printed. The same goes for staxy things like ensnaring bridge and Grand Arbiter Augustin IV. They could also ban all land destruction...but then, what happens to decks that revolve around combinations of lands? Nobody can disrupt them anymore?

If I could send a collective letter to the commander rules committee, this is what it would say:

1. Be aware that you are trying to police a legacy-style format with a unique ruleset. Due to the enormous amount of cards that exist at this time, you can hit one card with the banhammer, but there will probably be another that can do the exact same thing.

2. Beware the slippery slope of "My opinion on how commander ought to be played determines what cards should be banned and unbanned." Thousands of people play this format. If a group of four players likes to play cutthroat win-at-all-costs decks that have infinite combos on turn 2, shouldn't they be allowed to play that way? Or if there's another playgroup that likes to play only with cards that depict furniture, shouldn't they be allowed ot play that way? Sure, you might say that chair tribal is stupid, and cutthroat commander decks shouldn't exist, but would you appreciate it if someone told you that the way you play commander in your playgroup was wrong? I doubt it. In my opinion, the rightness or wrongness of the way a player and/or playgroup plays the game should be determined by the players, not a committee, and cards should not be banned because the opinion of any person--in the world. Cards should not be banned because of someone's opinion, but because there are statistics that show that they have an extreme negative effect on gameplay and the format in general.

3. Consider the scope of the cards that are currently legal in Commander and how each card on the banlist compares to each. Some cards on there are obviously overpowered; Black Lotus, Ancestral Vision, and Time Walk come to mind, and it's completely reasonable to have cards that are restricted in vintage banned. But certain things look like they should be unbannned, because "they're not as OP as such and such." Rofellos comes to mind along with Biorhythm, Tolarian Academy, and Library of Alexandria. Is it reasonable to ban card X when another card Y has an identical effect? If cards are going to be taken off the banlist, I would think that these would be the first to take off that list. The reverse is also true: if Isochron Scepter + Dramatic Reversal, arguably better than paradox engine, is legal to play, then why should paradox engine be banned? Also, if you can only have one copy of a card in a 99-card deck, can it be judged on the same power scale as it would be in a format where you can play 4 copies instead?

4. Be willing to listen to your community's reasoned arguments. I am sure that many members of the rules committee have received enough angry twitter comments or facebook posts that say "Ban [card] because it's toxic and ruining the format!" I do not mean these. I mean that people willing to write a detailed post like this one should be have their opinion heard. I would also suggest that you present an opportunity for such reasonable discussion.

5. Be willing to take back your decisions. After all, there might be a massive outcry about some broken Painter's Servant combo that has not been forseen. Or perhaps unban Paradox engine or some such. Be willing to take things off of the ban list, and ban new things; but also, I would advise you to only ever ban cards if they have a massive warping effect on the format and are more of a "you must either have this card or hard counter it" similar to why skullclamp was banned almost directly after it came out.

In short, I believe that more communication between the rules committee and the community is a neccessity to ensure a healthy format and to avoid backlash like the recent one over the previous set of bannings. I suggest that there should be some form of forum for discussion about commander rules and the banlist at regular intervals, at least quarterly. While I understand that the rules committee has an incredibly large task of policing the Commander format, I believe that they would both have an easier time of it and be able to do it more effectively if they listen to the Commander community.

Thank you for your time.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Having Your Voice Heard
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-12 2:02 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Mar-24 12:14 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Oakland, CA
PurpleOmega0110 wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EDH/comments/ccc2nr/sheldons_call_for_feedback/
Here's one comment that didn't receive much attention there:
Demonic Snow wrote:
I think the biggest thing would be more frequent posts regarding the current thoughts from the RC and CAG and, if possible, polls or more community interaction. I know this isn't supposed to be a full time job from them, but all we get currently are sporadic messages and articles from Sheldon. And it warps the view. A lot of people see Sheldon as the RC. People don't know everybody on the RC. People don't know what types of players make up the RC. We generally conflated Sheldon's opinions with the RC's focus and outlook for the format.

So, I hope this thread gets read over, but I think even just a monthly or once every two month's post regarding current thoughts, maybe a rotating RC member's current favorite deck or legendary creature, would be pretty cool.
And one of the top comments:
Sephyrias wrote:
Sheldon wrote:
I'd like to get your opinions on how you think that we might demonstrate to you that we're listening
What would make you go "Well, they didn't agree with me, but at least I felt like they considered my position?"
I'm not even sure, if reddit here is the right place to post our thoughts. That's one of the main problems. We just don't see them around, only maybe a Starcity Games interview with Sheldon once a year or the occasional twitter post, also by Sheldon.

An official reddit account would be interesting, with something like a monthly Q&A sticky thread.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Having Your Voice Heard
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-12 3:33 pm 

Joined: 2019-Jun-06 6:25 am
Age: Drake
intreped wrote:
PurpleOmega0110 wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EDH/comments/ccc2nr/sheldons_call_for_feedback/
Here's one comment that didn't receive much attention there:
Demonic Snow wrote:
I think the biggest thing would be more frequent posts regarding the current thoughts from the RC and CAG and, if possible, polls or more community interaction. I know this isn't supposed to be a full time job from them, but all we get currently are sporadic messages and articles from Sheldon. And it warps the view. A lot of people see Sheldon as the RC. People don't know everybody on the RC. People don't know what types of players make up the RC. We generally conflated Sheldon's opinions with the RC's focus and outlook for the format.

So, I hope this thread gets read over, but I think even just a monthly or once every two month's post regarding current thoughts, maybe a rotating RC member's current favorite deck or legendary creature, would be pretty cool.
And one of the top comments:
Sephyrias wrote:
Sheldon wrote:
I'd like to get your opinions on how you think that we might demonstrate to you that we're listening
What would make you go "Well, they didn't agree with me, but at least I felt like they considered my position?"
I'm not even sure, if reddit here is the right place to post our thoughts. That's one of the main problems. We just don't see them around, only maybe a Starcity Games interview with Sheldon once a year or the occasional twitter post, also by Sheldon.

An official reddit account would be interesting, with something like a monthly Q&A sticky thread.

I think the more interesting comment is this:
Quote:
not saying "you are having fun the wrong way" would be a good start

_________________
ImageImage
ImageImage


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Having Your Voice Heard
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-12 5:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2008-Mar-24 12:14 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Oakland, CA
paragon_deku wrote:
I think the more interesting comment is this:
Quote:
not saying "you are having fun the wrong way" would be a good start

Well, that one also got a lot of votes, so I guess it's important to look at the sentiment behind it, but I don't know how valuable that feedback is, for three reasons.

First, I don't believe that's a direct quote from Sheldon or any other RC member (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). So if simply "not saying" it is the goal, hey, the RC has already achieved it.

Second, I think the nature of being the Rules Committee means it IS their responsibility to decide what types of game to promote and what to leave alone and what to outright discourage/eliminate. Like, if there's a player out there who is angry with WotC for the 4-of rule because they want to play with all 20 of their Black Lotuses in one deck, and WotC shouldn't be telling them how to have fun, can we agree that person is free to play that way if they can find another player who wants to but that the 4-of rule is intentionally present in most formats and should not be changed/abandoned to cater to that one person's idea of 'fun'? The RC had a philosophy of the kinds of games they want to foster, and have grown the format into what it is in service of that philosophy. You could make an argument that the population who plays the format has changed and that the format should change to reflect that, but even if you have a whole new RC who establish a new philosophy and new rules, aren't they still dictating which way the format is 'supposed' to be played?

Finally, the question Sheldon asked was about how to change the perception that the RC doesn't hear what people have to say. The quotes I carried from that thread did provide feedback toward that specific request, this comment looks more like general complaining to me. A post with more words is not inherently more valuable than a short post, but this one doesn't offer much context or solution.

All that said, I do think the perception of the RC as antagonizing the players IS a problem and that there ARE things that they can do to correct that perception. A lot of people on reddit are still fuming about Sheldon's language in the Commander Cards You Shouldn't Play article, particularly the language of the clickbaity title. It's interesting because in the article itself Sheldon explains why he chose the words of the title; that it was short and provocative. He also says:
Sheldon wrote:
while a play style might not resonate with me or the rest of the RC, it might be just what you like. We'd like to keep as many of those avenues open to you as is reasonable.
One possible lesson to take from the emotional backlash is that Sheldon and the RC might have a responsibility to NOT be provocative. While I read the tone as lighthearted and fun, the title itself caused many of its readers (assuming they even read it and didn't just skim through the card images) to perceive it as coming from a place of condescension and spite.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Having Your Voice Heard
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-12 10:22 pm 

Joined: 2019-Jul-12 10:01 pm
Age: Hatchling
To preface this, I am not trying to be accusatory with this response, and I apologize if it strays in that direction at times.

To me, the main problem is that the RC explicitly do not wish to hear feedback from a subset of the playing population - the so-called cEDH community. I get that the RC has a vision for the format, and I can support the idea that it is intended to be curated as a casual format. I can understand cEDH not being the main concern... But what grinds my gears is the idea that the RC will never ban a card based on power level alone. Seeing Sheldon's recent SCG article, where he discusses not banning Flash or Hulk felt like a slap in the face - The RC knows the combo is overpowered, but is unwilling to do anything about it. This despite the fact that Flash has never been used for a non-degenerate purpose, and that banning it would impact zero casual players.

At its core cEDH is just EDH played by Spikes. Same rules, same cards, same banlist. I get that Spikes are not the RC's main focus, but when the RC deliberately ignores Flash Hulk and explains that they will never ban for power level I feel that we are not a focus at all. I feel ignored. And as a player, that feels bad.

Other factors that bother me are the "Rule 0" argument. To me, if Paradox Engine was a problem where players were taking too long with it, that would be a perfect candidate for a "Rule 0" ban. Played by competent players it neither wasted time or had a ubiquitous role in decks. It was a sweet card for many of us, enabling Johnny and Spike fun without being busted. But when it is banned over cards like Stasis, Tangle Wire, or Trinisphere it seems that the "player experience" argument is inconsistent. These ruin casual fun much harder, and also contribute heavily to time/resource asymmetry. Hell, Expropriate is a prime contender for a ban if we go by the logic of the last ban, but I never see the RC discuss it. As such, the bans come across as arbitrary.

I dunno, for me I'm fine with not being the RC's preferred type of player... But I do want to feel like I have a seat at the table. And right now, the RC doesn't represent me at all, and doesn't listen to my community at all. Recognizing that we (Johnnys, Spikes, high-power players) also exist and want to enjoy the format fully, and having that come across in actions, that would make me feel like my voice was heard.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Having Your Voice Heard
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-12 10:54 pm 

Joined: 2019-Jul-12 10:01 pm
Age: Hatchling
One idea I've seen in a few places would be to go to the people, instead of expecting them to come to you. Reddit, EDHRec, and other sites are far better for engaging the community than a site that (quite frankly) I have never before heard of, seen, or see any reason to use in future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Having Your Voice Heard
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-12 11:05 pm 

Joined: 2019-Jul-12 10:39 pm
Age: Hatchling
Before I begin, I would like to start by saying I was largely unaffected by the most recent bans. I play neither PE or Iona in any decks and was lucky enough to trade copies I had away before the announcement.

I think the main issue for my playgroup and others I have spoken to is that, other than simply not being able to play with the magic cards the own anymore, there is a real concern for cards on similar power levels/flavour (think isochron sceptre/contamination) that could potentially now be banned in the near future.

No one wants to own a card like mana crypt or any other expensive card that wins games in the wrong way thinking that the Rules committee is on the proverbial war path for anything that doesn't match their enlightened idea of what should and should not be played in commander. Where do you draw the line at what is a bannable 'unfun' card and what is legal? Will those cards still be legal next week? This uncertainty is the direct result of the most recent bans. The honest truth is, commander has grown exponentially over the last few years and now means many different things to many different people. While the format has grown, the RC has remained inert in its beliefs.

My question to you is, what gives you the right to tell people how they are supposed to play? And, while i have the utmost respect for you and the rest of the RC, how much do we really need you anymore?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Having Your Voice Heard
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-12 11:31 pm 

Joined: 2019-Jul-12 10:30 pm
Age: Hatchling
The philosophy update comes across as the RC trying to dictate what's good fun and what's wrong bad fun. I think EDH is strongest when the social contract of each group decides that.

If ubiquity and consistency are problematic then land & tutor packages should all be banned.

If limiting options is bad then ban control.

If consistency is bad then ban combo.

EDH isn't healthiest if it's just for a bunch of intentionally bad battlecruiser decks.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Having Your Voice Heard
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-12 11:33 pm 

Joined: 2019-Jul-12 10:30 pm
Age: Hatchling
Best bet is to probably not make decisions that cause people to want to be heard. I never felt a desire to be heard about this stuff before.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Having Your Voice Heard
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-13 2:35 am 
EDH Rules Committee

Joined: 2006-May-18 5:21 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Superb_Parsnip wrote:
My question to you is, what gives you the right to tell people how they are supposed to play?


We don't tell people how they are supposed to play.

We created a format for a style of game we wanted to play, because the available options weren't what we were looking for. It turned out that a whole lot of people also wanted to play it that way. What we do is tell people how we envision this format, try to point them towards what we believe is best, and give them a lot of latitude to mold it as they see fit.

There's a wide gap between "Commander is built for this type of play that we're interested in" and "You must play Magic in this way". You are welcome to do whatever you want; we're not coming to your house and making demands.


Superb_Parsnip wrote:
And, while i have the utmost respect for you and the rest of the RC, how much do we really need you anymore?


That's up to you. If you're not enjoying the product we're pretty clearly advertising, then you don't need us at all. You may be part of an underserved niche, in which case you're where we were back in 2005 or so.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 215 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: