Restricted List Poll



  • The poll has been up for a few days now in one of the biggest Facebook groups, https://www.facebook.com/groups/VintageMTG/permalink/1233536173411127/.

    119 think there should be a change. 44 think there shouldn't be a change. That's a ratio of 2.7, or 73%.

    102 think that Mentor should be restricted. 63 think that Gush should be restricted. Both numbers are substantially more than the people who want no change.

    36 also want Gitaxian Probe restricted, and 23 want Misstep restricted. That rounds out those that are within a ratio of 0.5 of the No change people.

    The top unrestrict cards were Balance followed by Ponder, Chalice and Golem.

    It seems pretty clear from these results that a vast majority of Vintage player's want change.
    Of those who want change, a majority specifically identify Gush and Mentor as targets for restriction.

    However, I want to see how this sample compares to those here, but the polling option doesn't seem to be function so I made a doodle poll: http://doodle.com/poll/xgi5gp9e47cp336g


  • TMD Supporter

    Link to the referenced poll?



  • @revengeanceful Added to OP.


  • TMD Supporter

    @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

    It seems pretty clear from these results that a vast majority of Vintage player's want change, and specifically want Gush and Mentor gone.

    That's not true.

    118 people voted for a change. 42 voted for no change. Among those who voted for a change, 61 voted to restrict Gush and 99 for Mentor.

    Only 38% want Gush restricted. That's a clear minority, contrary to what you said.

    (61% want Mentor restricted.)

    It's amazing that you'd so brazenly distort the truth, either by sloppy analysis/phrasing or be design.



  • @Smmenen I'm not sure if you just can't count or what. Its up to 122 for change, and 103 for Mentor now.

    A majority want change, and of those that want change a majority want Gush gone. That is a truth. 65/122 > 50%.

    Also a fact is that more people are for a Gush restriction than for no change, 65>42.

    You are pretty clearly on a tirade to make sure that your favorite card is not hit with a restriction. Which is funny because you were complaining about Vocal Minorities destroying the format before. According to the results of this much larger poll than the previous, you are in fact visibly the vocal minority.


  • TMD Supporter

    @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

    @Smmenen I'm not sure if you just can't count or what. Its up to 122 for change, and 103 for Mentor now.

    A majority want change, and of those that want change a majority want Gush gone. That is a truth.

    But you said a vast majority of Vintage players polled want Gush restricted.

    Based on the poll, that's a bald-faced lie. It's less than 40%. You are continuing to distort and deceive.

    For example, although more people voted to restrict Gush than no restrictions, that doesn't count the the people who voted to restrict Mentor, but not Gush. By deliberately ignoring them you are completely deceiving people here.

    Your point about "not counting" is ridiculous as obviously a few more recent votes does not mean I can't count. You, on the other hand, are just lying.

    This is not a subjective thing. It's clear in black and white. It's simply a lie.



  • @Smmenen Read what I said again. Thats not the statement I made.



  • @vaughnbros No man, you're doing the math wrong. It's not 65 votes out of 122 but 65 out of the total sum of votes (YES + NO). So it's 65 out of 165 (121 + 44 now), making Gush restriction-worthy for 39% of the voters. I'm no saying this is a small number, and it's clearly higher than "no changes", but it's not > 50%.



  • @fsecco On what am I doing the math wrong? Steves claims about what I said are not what I said.

    Of the people that want change, they want Mentor and Gush.



  • @vaughnbros Well, Steve said Gush summed 38% and you said it didn't, so you're doing it wrong. There's not a majority of people that want Gush restricted.



  • @fsecco For the total population. I never made that statement though.


  • TMD Supporter

    @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

    @Smmenen Read what I said again. Thats not the statement I made.

    Yes you did:
    "It seems pretty clear from these results that a vast majority of Vintage player's want change, and specifically want Gush and Mentor gone."

    The second clause states that the vast majority of vintage players (the subject of the sentence) specifically want Gush and Mentor gone (meaning restricted)

    For Gush, that's clearly factually untrue (based on the poll).



  • @vaughnbros There's a way to read your post that implies the majority of players want Gush restricted, you even backed this up a little with your 65/122 > 50% counting.

    I understand though that everyone thinks something's gotta change and that the targets are clearly Mentor and Gush.


  • TMD Supporter

    @fsecco it appears that @vaughnbros does not understand how words work or is lying.



  • @fsecco Theres also a way to read it how I intended. Im not here to argue to ambiguity of the English language. That always seems to be Steves go to when he doesnt like what someone has presented.


  • TMD Supporter

    @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

    @fsecco Theres also a way to read it how I intended. Im not here to argue to ambiguity of the English language. That always seems to be Steves go to when he doesnt like what someone has presented.

    That was not an ambiguous sentence. It was just false.



  • @Smmenen Its pretty clear you will find a way to turn every arguement into semantics. Im really over speaking to you. Feel free to make up whatever BS you want.



  • Intention is important, but well... we could talk about discourse analysis for ages here to understand that what you intent isn't always represented by what you actually write. And I know @Smmenen gets overprotective of his Gushes. 😛

    That's a funny note to the poll too. I like polling, but we should always take results with a grain of salt. For example, I know for a fact a player has voted to unrestrict both Golem and Chalice because he's a Shops player. People vote with their personal preference biases, unregarding format balance or whatever.



  • @fsecco Right, that is the problem with any democratic result. In this case its a game though and liking something is actually a legitimate reason to vote 1 way or another.

    Its still the largest poll conducted on this topic.


  • TMD Supporter

    @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

    @Smmenen Its pretty clear you will find a way to turn every arguement into semantics. Im really over speaking to you. Feel free to make up whatever BS you want.

    Just stop lying or be more careful, and I won't.

    What you said was either exceptionally sloppy phrasing or plain deception. Either way, it was problematic and needed correction. Not as a matter of semantics, but on facts.

    This was not an ambiguous phrase or a had a clear drafting intent.

    Please be more careful in the future.


 

WAF/WHF