Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Nov-17 2:36 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-09 11:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Dragon
Swmystery wrote:
Mr Degradation wrote:
So, the thing here that gets me is that the slow development and change cycle of Commander is being portrayed something that isn't a virtue.


To be precise, it's that it's not always a virtue. If the banlist is flawed in some way- perhaps an important way- it being slow to change is not a good thing, because problems should be fixed as quickly as possible.

It doesn't matter what you think the problem is with the banlist. It's literally just to say that if there's a card which should (all-things-considered) be unbanned or banned, that change should ideally happen as fast as possible. And since there are changes which I think should be made, and have not been made, the slow change cycle is self-evidently not always a good thing.

I know full well that metrics of power level in EDH are different and the point of the format is not breaking it. That doesn't impact on anything I've said.


Again, this concept befuddles me- because EDH is based on a game that's more complicated than something like a MOBA, where small, frequent tweaks help handle design oversights. From my perspective, the banlist prescribed, and the attitude taken towards it by the RC makes slow development a virtue. This means. that our format has a sense of stability- that it's okay to intentionally play high-power interactions between our own cards. On the larger scale, since the banning of Griselbrand, I've been quite fond of the rate of change- even if cards like Leovold got to inhabit the format for longer than they probably should have in an ideal world.

Sheldon has explained that the RC takes a democratic approach- with one member, never to be known by the rest of us suggesting a list change, and another member playing devil's advocate for the opposing view point until the debate has met a satisfactory end, and votes are cast. This certainly slows down the banlist development process (they really wanted to give Leovold a chance, for example) but it ultimately means that cards which are simply powerful aren't banned.

When Iona comes up, I find a perplexing issue- because even without the shared experience of the RC to back it, it's very easy to see a devil's advocate argument in Iona's favor. For starters, she costs a boatload of mana, and cheating her out isn't exactly easy. Second, the only time she really effects a multiplayer table in an oppressive way is when the player with Iona has already effectively won, or when the table all try to use the same color identity in their decks. With that in mind, it becomes more a playgroup issue- something that has to be handled internally, as opposed to a RC issue, because their focus on big picture makes it unjustified to fix a color hate card used to mess with a playgroup where everyone plays U, B, G, or all-3. This is why Iona is niche- most EDH decks are multi-color, EDH usually involves 3+ people, and Iona only gets to lock one color down. In the end, it's a powerful card that in some groups creates stress and feelbads, but in others creates epic moments. Each group has to discuss cards like Iona, and use their own extended banlist, if they feel necessary. Officially banning Iona will mostly effect flavor decks which wanted to have Magic's biggest, baddest angel among their ranks.

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 1:28 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
The ideal would be for the right cards to be banned at the exact right moment.

But that will never happen. So instead it is better to have a card persist in the card pool kept in check as best as possible by social pressures until it is certain that it must be banned. Otherwise we subject the format to impulsive bannings and biases, which would not be good for growth and stability in this format.

I like that its being heavily supported with new cards. If the format dies then I won't get that support for my favorite way of playing magic.

While I sympathize with those who have suffered from the use of a stupid card because it wasn't officially banned, I have to defer to the social contract. It works for the majority of groups, maybe not perfectly, but it works. The ban list shouldn't be necessary except to set the expectations for new players and rein in those wackos who like pestering people with Iona and Mike and Trike who might otherwise do even worse.

Speaking of which... I was actually thinking of throwing Workhorse into Ghave with Mikaeus.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 2:17 am 

Joined: 2013-Jun-23 10:18 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Mr Degradation wrote:
Again, this concept befuddles me- because EDH is based on a game that's more complicated than something like a MOBA, where small, frequent tweaks help handle design oversights.


It's really not that complicated. Cards which do not belong in the format, whatever your metric for that is, should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity. There is no advantage to be gained, for example, in knowing Griselbrand that needs banning but opting to leave it legal for an extra three months for the sake of format "stability".

I understand the RC often needs time to judge whether a card meets their criteria, and I'm not criticising them for that. I'm only suggesting that that decision should be taken as early as possible. The same goes for unbannings. The slow pace of change should therefore not be taken as an inherent virtue- which, remember, is where this all started- because changes should only take as long as they need to.

Mr Degradation wrote:
When Iona comes up, I find a perplexing issue- because even without the shared experience of the RC to back it, it's very easy to see a devil's advocate argument in Iona's favor. For starters, she costs a boatload of mana, and cheating her out isn't exactly easy. Second, the only time she really effects a multiplayer table in an oppressive way is when the player with Iona has already effectively won, or when the table all try to use the same color identity in their decks. With that in mind, it becomes more a playgroup issue- something that has to be handled internally, as opposed to a RC issue, because their focus on big picture makes it unjustified to fix a color hate card used to mess with a playgroup where everyone plays U, B, G, or all-3. This is why Iona is niche- most EDH decks are multi-color, EDH usually involves 3+ people, and Iona only gets to lock one color down. In the end, it's a powerful card that in some groups creates stress and feelbads, but in others creates epic moments. Each group has to discuss cards like Iona, and use their own extended banlist, if they feel necessary. Officially banning Iona will mostly effect flavor decks which wanted to have Magic's biggest, baddest angel among their ranks.


This is not an Iona thread, but everything I have bolded in the above post is flat-out wrong. If you want to discuss specifically Iona further, I am more than happy to take it elsewhere.

niheloim wrote:
The ideal would be for the right cards to be banned at the exact right moment. But that will never happen. So instead it is better to have a card persist in the card pool kept in check as best as possible by social pressures until it is certain that it must be banned. Otherwise we subject the format to impulsive bannings and biases, which would not be good for growth and stability in this format.


I draw a different conclusion. Given it's impossible for cards to be banned (or unbanned) at exactly the right moment, we should aim for them to be banned or unbanned as close to that moment as possible. That can certainly be done. This goal, however, does not square with the approach of keeping everything legal for as long as absolutely possible*, because for certain cards the ideal time for them to be banned is "as soon as possible"- Griselbrand and Worldfire being examples where this actually happened, if I remember my timelines correctly.

niheloim wrote:
While I sympathize with those who have suffered from the use of a stupid card because it wasn't officially banned, I have to defer to the social contract. It works for the majority of groups, maybe not perfectly, but it works. The ban list shouldn't be necessary except to set the expectations for new players and rein in those wackos who like pestering people with Iona and Mike and Trike who might otherwise do even worse.


Right. And I'm in favour of those people being reigned in as quickly as possible when they get a new toy to pester people with (e.g. Leovold), not letting them have it for as long as the format can tolerate it.

*as you seem to be suggesting here. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

_________________
Current Commanders: 7/32.

Daretti, Scrap Savant (Red Artefacts).
Ephara, God of the Polis (Azorius Men O'War)
Etrata, the Silencer (Dimir Blink)
Rubinia Soulsinger (Bant Polymorphs).
Kess, Dissident Mage (Grixis Treasure).
Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper (Jund Apostles).
Mathas, Fiend Seeker (Mardu Judo).


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 2:53 am 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Perhaps I missed it and if so I apologize. But how is it a mistake to ban something as soon as possible? What is on the line for not acting fast enough (or too fast, which is just as bad)?

EDH does not have to worry about unhappy players making a noticeable dent in tournament attendance or lost sales. And the RC has always strived to keep the list as stable as possible, rather than relying on a "whoops we dun goofed" to be corrected next time around (see their stated mistake with the trial Rofellos unban). More importantly, think about all the cards that are obnoxious in their first months of play which suddenly don't seem like problema once the hype wears off and the meta game adjusts for it. Ideally, no card should be unbanned before a year in play, except for one's that are truly oppressive.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 3:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Dragon
@SWMystery

lol. "Your opinion and experience are wrong, but let's not discuss it here". How can I argue this flawless logic? :P

@cryogen

If the format shifts constantly, there's no stability. This is why many people are opposed to the aggressive bannings that took place in standard last year to pre-empt the format- which itself lead to decline in format participation. If the banlist changed more frequently, EDH's banlist would go from being a foundation for house-rules to being but an unstable set of balance-focused bans which defeats the philosophy of the format as it's own format and as a platform.

The more deliberate each change is, the better, and the more the RC takes time to parse through flavor of the month issues, and separate "this destroys the entertainment value of games", from "this is unfun, because it feels unfair"- the better.

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 3:12 am 

Joined: 2013-Jun-23 10:18 am
Age: Elder Dragon
cryogen wrote:
Perhaps I missed it and if so I apologize. But how is it a mistake to ban something as soon as possible? What is on the line for not acting fast enough (or too fast, which is just as bad)?


It's not (usually) a mistake to ban something as soon as possible. Certain cards warrant that, and I'm generally advocating a more proactive stance here.

What I think you're asking, given the second questions- and correct me if I'm wrong- is why it's wrong to leave certain banworthy cards legal for longer than strictly necessary?

cryogen wrote:
EDH does not have to worry about unhappy players making a noticeable dent in tournament attendance or lost sales. And the RC has always strived to keep the list as stable as possible, rather than relying on a "whoops we dun goofed" to be corrected next time around (see their stated mistake with the trial Rofellos unban). More importantly, think about all the cards that are obnoxious in their first months of play which suddenly don't seem like problema once the hype wears off and the meta game adjusts for it. Ideally, no card should be unbanned before a year in play, except for one's that are truly oppressive.


So, what's lost by taking a "wait and see" approach is that if you eventually ban the card anyway, as was the case with Leovold or Sylvan Primordial, there's this (potentially quite large) block of time in between which those cards wreck games and drain fun out of the format and so on and so forth. And that's goddamn miserable to live through, because we both know that although the social contract should ideally regulate those kinds of cards, there's a great many players and groups who don't care about other people's fun- and not everyone has the option of just not playing with those people, assuming they want to play at all.

The thing is, I'm not sure there actually are a lot of cards that have seemed obnoxious initially and then turned out to be fine. Everything I find truly obnoxious in EDH I've more or less continued to find obnoxious throughout it's lifespan. And that's not a long list of cards, either- the four I cited early in the discussion are pretty much the only ones which seriously bug me now that Leovold is gone.

The Standard analogy with Felidar Guardian is a good one to think about- by not taking action sooner, Wizards effectively wrecked a good chunk of a Standard season that could have been averted if they'd banned the cat as soon as the community discovered the combo. No banworthy card in EDH wields that much power individually, of course (well, except maybe original Emrakul?) But the principle is the same- by leaving these cards legal to make certain they're banworthy, a large number of games and player experiences are made worse by their continued presence.

This is why I made the point about inertia, incidentally. I genuinely believe, and it has been my consistent experience, that Iona has been wrecking games for as long as she's been legal, and would be banned if the card were printed today (because more people would have access to it and would be using it in a negative fashion, because that's what Iona does). The process by which a card needs to reach a critical mass of problematic-ness before it's dealt with has allowed her to sit consistently under that line and wreck a great many games that could have been much improved with her gone.

Does this answer your question?

_________________
Current Commanders: 7/32.

Daretti, Scrap Savant (Red Artefacts).
Ephara, God of the Polis (Azorius Men O'War)
Etrata, the Silencer (Dimir Blink)
Rubinia Soulsinger (Bant Polymorphs).
Kess, Dissident Mage (Grixis Treasure).
Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper (Jund Apostles).
Mathas, Fiend Seeker (Mardu Judo).


Last edited by Swmystery on 2017-May-10 3:28 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 3:15 am 

Joined: 2013-Jun-23 10:18 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Mr Degradation wrote:
@SWMystery

lol. "Your opinion and experience are wrong, but let's not discuss it here". How can I argue this flawless logic? :P


You might start by reading the whole post. Specifically this bit:

Me wrote:
This is not an Iona thread, but everything I have bolded in the above post is flat-out wrong. If you want to discuss specifically Iona further, I am more than happy to take it elsewhere.


I did not go into a detailed rebuttal of your post about Iona because this is not a thread about Iona, and I do not wish to derail the conversation any more than I already have done. I merely used her as an example of a problematic card inertia has kept legal. As I said, if you want to debate Iona specifically go set up the thread and I'll stay as long as you like.

_________________
Current Commanders: 7/32.

Daretti, Scrap Savant (Red Artefacts).
Ephara, God of the Polis (Azorius Men O'War)
Etrata, the Silencer (Dimir Blink)
Rubinia Soulsinger (Bant Polymorphs).
Kess, Dissident Mage (Grixis Treasure).
Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper (Jund Apostles).
Mathas, Fiend Seeker (Mardu Judo).


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 5:28 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
Swmystery wrote:
niheloim wrote:
The ideal would be for the right cards to be banned at the exact right moment. But that will never happen. So instead it is better to have a card persist in the card pool kept in check as best as possible by social pressures until it is certain that it must be banned. Otherwise we subject the format to impulsive bannings and biases, which would not be good for growth and stability in this format.


I draw a different conclusion. Given it's impossible for cards to be banned (or unbanned) at exactly the right moment, we should aim for them to be banned or unbanned as close to that moment as possible. That can certainly be done. This goal, however, does not square with the approach of keeping everything legal for as long as absolutely possible*, because for certain cards the ideal time for them to be banned is "as soon as possible"- Griselbrand and Worldfire being examples where this actually happened, if I remember my timelines correctly.
Not at all my suggestion. However, "As soon as possible" would be the moment a card is released and the committee can convene. This is not always the right choice for banning. In some cases it can be determined quickly. Other times it cannot. Certainty is the goal, sometimes this comes quickly, other not so much.

Quote:
niheloim wrote:
While I sympathize with those who have suffered from the use of a stupid card because it wasn't officially banned, I have to defer to the social contract. It works for the majority of groups, maybe not perfectly, but it works. The ban list shouldn't be necessary except to set the expectations for new players and rein in those wackos who like pestering people with Iona and Mike and Trike who might otherwise do even worse.


Right. And I'm in favour of those people being reigned in as quickly as possible when they get a new toy to pester people with (e.g. Leovold), not letting them have it for as long as the format can tolerate it.
Why not allow the format to tolerate things? Thats what is being done with all number of cards. So many breakable cards... and yet they are not all banned because the format can tolerate them.

its when they become intolerable, as became Leo, that they need to be banned.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 6:21 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2013-Aug-06 1:27 pm
Age: Drake
This thread has been fun to read.

I’m pretty neutral to how the committee has been handling the format. I don’t agree with the direction that they’re going, but I don’t think it’s making the format much worse. Lately, I've just been investing more of my time and money into different games and Duel Commander.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 7:06 am 

Joined: 2013-Jun-23 10:18 am
Age: Elder Dragon
niheloim wrote:
Not at all my suggestion. However, "As soon as possible" would be the moment a card is released and the committee can convene. This is not always the right choice for banning. In some cases it can be determined quickly. Other times it cannot. Certainty is the goal, sometimes this comes quickly, other not so much.


"As soon as possible" would not be the moment the committee can convene. "As soon as possible" means "as long as it takes to judge it as problematic", as you said. Also, I don't think certainty is the goal, because certainty is functionally impossible. Very high probability seems closer to the truth.

niheloim wrote:
Why not allow the format to tolerate things? Thats what is being done with all number of cards. So many breakable cards... and yet they are not all banned because the format can tolerate them.

its when they become intolerable, as became Leo, that they need to be banned.


See my response to Cryogen. There are real costs to leaving a banworthy card legal in the format for longer than is necessary.

In Leo's case, I'm perfectly happy with the claim that it should have been banned as fast as Griselbrand and Worldfire were. No good could possibly have come from that card by the nature of its design, although I understand the RC's desire to essentially wait and hope people didn't break it.

_________________
Current Commanders: 7/32.

Daretti, Scrap Savant (Red Artefacts).
Ephara, God of the Polis (Azorius Men O'War)
Etrata, the Silencer (Dimir Blink)
Rubinia Soulsinger (Bant Polymorphs).
Kess, Dissident Mage (Grixis Treasure).
Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper (Jund Apostles).
Mathas, Fiend Seeker (Mardu Judo).


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 8:38 am 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Swmystery wrote:
cryogen wrote:
Perhaps I missed it and if so I apologize. But how is it a mistake to ban something as soon as possible? What is on the line for not acting fast enough (or too fast, which is just as bad)?


It's not (usually) a mistake to ban something as soon as possible. Certain cards warrant that, and I'm generally advocating a more proactive stance here.

What I think you're asking, given the second questions- and correct me if I'm wrong- is why it's wrong to leave certain banworthy cards legal for longer than strictly necessary?

cryogen wrote:
EDH does not have to worry about unhappy players making a noticeable dent in tournament attendance or lost sales. And the RC has always strived to keep the list as stable as possible, rather than relying on a "whoops we dun goofed" to be corrected next time around (see their stated mistake with the trial Rofellos unban). More importantly, think about all the cards that are obnoxious in their first months of play which suddenly don't seem like problema once the hype wears off and the meta game adjusts for it. Ideally, no card should be unbanned before a year in play, except for one's that are truly oppressive.


So, what's lost by taking a "wait and see" approach is that if you eventually ban the card anyway, as was the case with Leovold or Sylvan Primordial, there's this (potentially quite large) block of time in between which those cards wreck games and drain fun out of the format and so on and so forth. And that's goddamn miserable to live through, because we both know that although the social contract should ideally regulate those kinds of cards, there's a great many players and groups who don't care about other people's fun- and not everyone has the option of just not playing with those people, assuming they want to play at all.

The thing is, I'm not sure there actually are a lot of cards that have seemed obnoxious initially and then turned out to be fine. Everything I find truly obnoxious in EDH I've more or less continued to find obnoxious throughout it's lifespan. And that's not a long list of cards, either- the four I cited early in the discussion are pretty much the only ones which seriously bug me now that Leovold is gone.

The Standard analogy with Felidar Guardian is a good one to think about- by not taking action sooner, Wizards effectively wrecked a good chunk of a Standard season that could have been averted if they'd banned the cat as soon as the community discovered the combo. No banworthy card in EDH wields that much power individually, of course (well, except maybe original Emrakul?) But the principle is the same- by leaving these cards legal to make certain they're banworthy, a large number of games and player experiences are made worse by their continued presence.

This is why I made the point about inertia, incidentally. I genuinely believe, and it has been my consistent experience, that Iona has been wrecking games for as long as she's been legal, and would be banned if the card were printed today (because more people would have access to it and would be using it in a negative fashion, because that's what Iona does). The process by which a card needs to reach a critical mass of problematic-ness before it's dealt with has allowed her to sit consistently under that line and wreck a great many games that could have been much improved with her gone.

Does this answer your question?

It does, but I don't necessarily agree with it. Using your Sylvan Primordial example, this was a card which from the moment it was spoiled had some people predicting it would be banned, and the longer it remained legal, the more people agreed with this sentiment. Perfect example of a card which should have been banned sooner rather than later. Compare this to Prophet of Kruphix (as well as Felidar Soverign). Ignoring the fact that R&D missed this two card infinite combo, these were both cards which despite their obvious strength, should have been fairly easy to answer and deal with because of the abundance of removal spells and disruption available. So prematurely banning them prematurely was not the correct answer because it removed cards from the available pool. However, as time passed it because apparent that the cards were too powerful and rather than adding to a diverse card pool, they actually homogenized decks and strategies. So in hindsight, listening to the players and banning them sooner was the correct move. But without allowing the cards to remain free and get played, you don't know if a card will be Omniscience or Prophet of Kruphix.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 12:23 pm 
EDH Rules Committee

Joined: 2006-May-18 5:21 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
cryogen wrote:
you don't know if a card will be Omniscience or Prophet of Kruphix.


Or Shaman of Forgotten Ways. Remember all the calls for emergency banning over that one?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 1:30 pm 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
Swmystery wrote:
niheloim wrote:
Not at all my suggestion. However, "As soon as possible" would be the moment a card is released and the committee can convene. This is not always the right choice for banning. In some cases it can be determined quickly. Other times it cannot. Certainty is the goal, sometimes this comes quickly, other not so much.


"As soon as possible" would not be the moment the committee can convene. "As soon as possible" means "as long as it takes to judge it as problematic", as you said. Also, I don't think certainty is the goal, because certainty is functionally impossible. Very high probability seems closer to the truth.
That might what you meant by it, but "as soon as possible" is pretty clear. The only things required to ban a card are its release and for the Committee to vote. If they chose to vote without adequate discussion, trying to hit that "as soon as possible" mark we would likely have a problem.

Each card requires an amount of time to thrive or fail. If this is what is meant by "as soon as possible" then we're both saying the same thing.
Quote:
niheloim wrote:
Why not allow the format to tolerate things? Thats what is being done with all number of cards. So many breakable cards... and yet they are not all banned because the format can tolerate them.

its when they become intolerable, as became Leo, that they need to be banned.


See my response to Cryogen. There are real costs to leaving a banworthy card legal in the format for longer than is necessary.

In Leo's case, I'm perfectly happy with the claim that it should have been banned as fast as Griselbrand and Worldfire were. No good could possibly have come from that card by the nature of its design, although I understand the RC's desire to essentially wait and hope people didn't break it.
There's plenty of good that could come from it.
I had a great deck planned for him... stuff like Arcane Denial, Prosperity, Vision Skeins, Howling Mine etc. He was just to expensive for me to want to goof around with immediately.

As for real costs... Yes the costs are real, but I cannot believe that any significant damage has been done by any card banned recently other than some hurt feelings and the occasional angry rant on these forums.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 1:32 pm 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
papa_funk wrote:
cryogen wrote:
you don't know if a card will be Omniscience or Prophet of Kruphix.


Or Shaman of Forgotten Ways. Remember all the calls for emergency banning over that one?

Wait... that guy wasn't banned?

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Banlist Discussion Stuff
AgePosted: 2017-May-10 9:32 pm 

Joined: 2012-Mar-31 11:52 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Of course it was. You don't see anyone playing it, do you?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 43 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: