Restricted List Poll



  • @thecravenone completely agree, keep Facebook out of this.



  • @Chase_Dagger Platform isn't really my point. FB is fine, but there's no real conclusion to be drawn from that poll for anything except the specific sample of THAT group, and even then it's not really all that accurate. 122 out of 2042 participants in just that group is about +/-8.5% confidence. That 2042 isn't the entire vintage player population, either.

    It's about as useful as a couple dudes bitching about Shops on VSL.

    (All low level napkin math. A genuine expert could tell you more, I mostly do qual work.)


  • TMD Supporter

    @ChubbyRain said in Restricted List Poll:

    @Smmenen said in Restricted List Poll:

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

    How is it a distortion or deception when he presents the raw data right before his statement? Anyone with half a brain can do the math in less than a second and realize what the OP's intent and meaning was. Like, come on...

    Yeah: come on, man -- I'm not the only person who pointed out the distortion. It wasn't a nitpick. It was an enormous mischaracterization.

    Just because they can, not everyone will do the math. What makes it a distortion are claims (now corrected) that followed.
    Anyone who is even remotely familiar with media like Fox News knows how you can take objective data and distort it through framing and mischaracterization. Don't pretend to be so naive.

    It's been corrected now, so it's not a big deal, but it was -- intentionally or not - a mischaracterization.

    The bottom line is that less than 40% of people polled wanted Gush restricted, which not even a majority, let alone a "vast majority."

    I'm not even sure it's fair to describe 61-62% as a "vast majority."


  • TMD Supporter

    @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

    @thecravenone There is a much larger number if Vintage players there than on the Drain. Sample is multiple times what weve gotten here.

    Wow, that's not true either. The TMD poll was 100 players. The FB poll, as of this morning, wasn't even twice as large, let alone multiple times.



  • As always, I prefer exploring unrestriction options before restrictions, and being aggressive about unrestrictions; if I had my way all of the following would come off:

    Balance
    Chalice of the Void
    Demonic Consultation
    Flash
    Imperial Seal
    Library of Alexandria
    Lodestone Golem
    Memory Jar
    Ponder
    Windfall
    Yawgmoth's Bargain

    and then see how the metagame shakes out before restricting or re-restricting anything.



  • I don't think this was brought up earlier, so it seems worth pointing out that the FB group currently has 2,000+ members, and how many members are on TMD (500+)? I think in both cases we are dealing with a lot of non-response bias. My intuition is that the majority of people who did not answer the FB poll just don't go on FB that often, but there are probably quite a few that saw the poll and decided not to respond. In this case, it seems reasonable to assume that many of these people did not feel strongly enough to spend time advocating for a change.

    More generally, how many people do we think play Vintage worldwide? And what is the size of the core constituency that WOTC should be listening to in making these decisions. I feel like it should be TMD users, but that is personal bias.

    I guess I just think we should put these results in the context of the size of the community, and if we do so, my guess is there is that these polls tend to overestimate the desire for change. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing some un-bannings :)



  • @Smmenen Oh good lord you are here to point out more semantics! Where would Vintage be if we werent extremely careful with our language everytime we spoke!

    Maybe a much larger, less pretentious place.



  • @Cambriel "Low level napkin work."

    If this poll is that. I hate to break to you that all of your qualitative work is the same.



  • @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

    @fsecco This exhaustion is likely why the drain represents a very small sample of Vintage players.

    Top being banned instead parallels Gush being restricted here, no?

    It's not. Miracles has 3 versions that are played and have great results. Mentor Miracles, Predict Miracles (kill condition being Entreat the Angels) and Legendary Miracles (with Cliques and Vensers - but this version is less played right now). Mentor is an option in one of those versions, and it depends on meta to be the best choice. So it's not dominant as it is in Vintage, but it's an important card in the most prominent deck in the format. The difference between the formats make Mentor not that broken. Miracles has to play Terminus, and sometimes wipes out its own Mentor and tokens. There's more pressure on the board, so creature removal is much more prominent. There is a BAN list so there are cards that'll never see play with mentor. Dig Through Time was banned because it was too broken with Mentor and etc.

    In Vintage, if you restrict Gush and Probe, does it really make Mentor that less threatening? You still have Moxen, delve spells, and all the restricted cards that still make 4 Mentor a great threat. Then if you start restricting Gush, Probe, Misstep and Preordain in order to contain Mentor... well, then we're going on the opposite direction of what EVERYONE thinks is best for the format: a smaller Restricted List.



  • @mdenny There is a serious sampling problem that seems impossible to overcome. Im inclined to think that nonresponse means that they dont care.



  • @fsecco What evidence says everyone thinks smaller is better?



  • @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

    @fsecco What evidence says everyone thinks smaller is better?

    Well, everyone I've ever heard talking about restricted lists thinks that. The "better unrestrict something first" is that.

    I think what the polls we had mean is obvious: people are upset with Mentor's dominance. I for one believe restricting 1 card (Mentor) is better than restricting 2-3 (Gush, Misstep, Preordain, Probe). Things get way harder for the Mentor player when his 1 Mentor is exile with Swords, even if you managed to make 1-2 tokens with it. So you need to play more defensively, which makes the deck inheritedly less broken.

    If you ask me, the changes should be:
    Monastery Mentor is Restricted.
    Chalice of the Void is Unrestricted.


  • TMD Supporter

    I'm not going to argue that the FB poll is viable, but to me it's certainly more viable than a twitter poll. The only people voting in that poll would be people who willfully choose to follow a specific person or podcast. That seems like a far less diverse group than the FB group.

    I do think there's value in the twitter poll's observance of changes of opinion over time. And it might be more interesting to just pick 20-30 people and watch their views change over time, instead of random samples of vintage players.



  • @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

    @Stormanimagus Only card ever printed that answers both Mentor and Gush.

    For varying definitions of "only" and "answer"

    This forum is going to shit faster than yesterday's enchiladas.



  • @thecravenone Counterspell is an answer to Gush?



  • @thecravenone Mostly because we actually had like 20 posts debating semantics of the English language. I realise people get passionate when restrictions come into play but come on...



  • @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

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

    The only reason to make any other statement, like the one you made, is to try and prop up your position as being more solid than it is. So what if more than 50% of the people who want change want to restrict gush? Its 100% meaningless to make that statement. But it sure does sound good.

    Whats that old saying, "Lies, damned lies and statistics." Your statement is a perfect illustration of the meaning of that phrase.


  • TMD Supporter

    @Hrishi

    Is it really too much to ask posters are as accurate and truthful as reasonably possible, especially when the subject is controversial?

    Pointing out that a minority of poller voters support something instead of a "vast majority" is not semantics. It's not splitting hairs. Nor is claiming a poll has hundreds more voters than it does.

    It's abusing the frame to reduce these debates to "mere semantics." That's like saying the disagreement over climate change is just semantics.



  • Vitriol aside, aren't eternal weekend results fairly compelling that neither gush nor mentor need restricting? That Bob deck is pretty delightful vs Mentor.

    Is there a cogent, dialectical thread open currently discussing Why there is such a vehement push for these restrictions? Backlash/vengeance for chalice and golem? New blood to vintage thanks to online magic tired of seeing the deck in matchups online? Vintage changes slowly enough for paper but maybe not online demand? I'm sure one godzillion people have hashed it all before...



  • @BandsWithOthers 1/8 decks were not Gush/Mentor or anti-Gush/Mentor.


Log in to reply
 

WAF/WHF

Looks like your connection to The Mana Drain was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.