Restricted List Poll



  • @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.



  • @Smmenen Is it really too much to ask for posters to be civil?

    Making Vintage classy as always.



  • @Khahan If statistics didnt work, people wouldnt use them.



  • @BandsWithOthers There is such a vehement push for certain restrictions because, as you said, people know there is little evidence to support them.


  • TMD Supporter

    This post is deleted!


  • @vaughnbros Uh, yeah. Sometimes. Apples and oranges.

    In any event, I was referring to my calculation of the margin of error in the FB poll as "napkin math." Meaning I did a quick calc, and nothing more. I wasn't criticizing your poll, but rather the amount of time I spent assessing whether those results were reliable.

    Acknowedge it for what it is: a very small sample from a single online subset of vintage players. Setting aside whether or not popular vote is an appropriate method for determining restrictions, this poll doesn't have a representative sample of the population it would impact.

    FWIW, I voted on that poll and want Gush restricted. I just don't consider it hard evidence that everyone else did or does.


  • TMD Supporter

    @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

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

    @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

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

    I don't think I responded to the poll. I did see it, but I was busy. The group has a lot of posts so things get buried quickly. I can vote if you want though.

    I DO think that it's very hard to get responses from everyone for a variety of reasons, and much of that is not due to indifference. I know that personally I have been absorbed by work and family commitments far more than ever before, and this has lead me to pull away from all things magic as of late.

    On the topic of restrictions...

    Part of me really does want to see Gush go. Restricting Preordain to hit gush decks misses the point entirely and I firmly believe that would only make Gush decks better than their non-Gush peers.

    On the other hand, I enjoy playing with Gush. I think it's a very deep card, and it provides a chance for better players to leverage skill over opponents. For instance, I have won many Gush mirrors while watching my opponent misplay Gush repeatedly.

    I think Mentor is actually the best card to restrict. It's better than Tinker and many other win conditions. And restricted Mentor would mean the deck has fewer early Mentors and unstoppable kills.



  • @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

    The top unrestrict cards were Balance followed by whatever

    Well whoever is in this FB group is so savagely misinformed that I can't take the other results seriously. A 4 x Balance format makes Workshops, Bazaars and Gushes look like Wind Drakes.

    Decks would come down to either a completely backbreaking turn 1 Balance after a flurry of 0's and a small counter war or getting ahead and getting smashed by multiple Balances because you could craft your deck around it. Unrestricting Balance means taking the card type creature and literally incinerating it and smearing the ashes across the rule book. I'd guess maybe 5-10% of you played when 4 Balance was around so I'll give the uninformed a pass based on lack of scars.


  • TMD Supporter

    @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

    @Smmenen Is it really too much to ask for posters to be civil?

    Not all. We must insist upon it.

    But I take offense to the implication that I am otherwise. Critiquing someone's posts or arguments is not the same thing as attacking the person. I never attack people; only bad arguments or faulty data.

    If a rule of civility precluded critique, then there would be no debate on any point of disagreement.

    @nedleeds I'm not in the 'unrestrict balance camp,' but I don't think 4 Balance is quite as bad you suggest. It's horrendously unfair to get balanced, but Vintage decks are better at recovering than decks when Balance was last unrestricted, and cards like Mindbreak Trap can help keep T1 Balances in check. I'm not sure Balance is really worse than, say, Paradoxical Outcome. It's kinda similar: drop a ton of 0cc cards, and play a game breaking spell.

    The only clear effect of unrestricting balance would be to wipe out creature strategies. In the era of tokens, I'm not sure that's really all downside.



  • @Smmenen said in Restricted List Poll:

    @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

    @Smmenen Is it really too much to ask for posters to be civil?

    Not all. We must insist upon it.

    But I take offense to the implication that I am otherwise. Critiquing someone's posts or arguments is not the same thing as attacking the person. I never attack people; only bad arguments or faulty data.

    I know where you're coming from. I'm in your profession, and I know language matters. That said -- and I mean this with the utmost respect -- sometimes we all need to be aware that there are two sides to what someone says. There's the actual words, and then there's the idea the person is trying to convey. Ideally, those two things are one and the same, but sometimes, they're not.

    It's human to realize that sometimes people speak imprecisely, and be gracious to them when they do. In other words, give someone the benefit of the doubt. Whether it's Wizards mixing up "Sample Size" and "Sample," or someone misconstruing an on-line poll, we should give someone the benefit of the doubt when they speak and try to understand what they mean.

    I've noticed people get into endless semantic bickering around here, and sometimes it feels like it arises out of not doing this. Maybe just a little bit of, "Hey, I what you actually said is not true because X but I think your bigger point is Y, and here's what I think about that" seems like a more respectful way to address the situation.

    Just my two cents.

    If a rule of civility precluded critique, then there would be no debate on any point of disagreement.

    The cost of making sure to express respect for someone while disagreeing with them is very small compared to the benefits of doing so, though.

    The only clear effect of unrestricting balance would be to wipe out creature strategies. In the era of tokens, I'm not sure that's really all downside.

    Yeah, it might work out that way, but then again... can decks really afford to put a playset of Balance into their sideboard while still protecting against decks like Dredge, that can win with haste, or combo?

    And, here's another idea: would unrestricted Balance chance the "balance" between Horizontal and Vertical growth? We've had powerful cards like Thing in the Ice and Managorger Hydra forever, but they see no play only fringe play because vertical growth is so bad compared to horizontal growth.

    Yet, Balance in that situation hits the horizontal growth deck harder. If I Balance, my Hydra lives and all your monk tokens get sacced. A deck with horizontal growth can run Forbidden Orchard to totally protect its one large threat against Balance, but monk tokens remain vulnerable. I'm curious to see how this would develop.

    It might just be that Balance with no creatures is just so common that these distinctions are marginal, and all creature strategies get hosed. But, hard to know!



  • @nedleeds said in Restricted List Poll:

    @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

    The top unrestrict cards were Balance followed by whatever

    Well whoever is in this FB group is so savagely misinformed that I can't take the other results seriously. A 4 x Balance format makes Workshops, Bazaars and Gushes look like Wind Drakes.

    Facebook lets people create options in polls and I created the "Unrestrict Balance" option as a joke...

    Sadly, the unrestriction I was actually serious about, Dig through Time, has not gotten the same level of support...


  • TMD Supporter

    @MaximumCDawg said in Restricted List Poll:

    That said -- and I mean this with the utmost respect -- sometimes we all need to be aware that there are two sides to what someone says. There's the actual words, and then there's the idea the person is trying to convey. Ideally, those two things are one and the same, but sometimes, they're not.

    It's human to realize that sometimes people speak imprecisely, and be gracious to them when they do. In other words, give someone the benefit of the doubt. Whether it's Wizards mixing up "Sample Size" and "Sample," or someone misconstruing an on-line poll, we should give someone the benefit of the doubt when they speak and try to understand what they mean.

    That assumes there is a clear idea behind an imprecise expression. In my experience, inchoate and bad ideas hide behind the latter. In any case, there is often an asymmetry to such graciousness depending on the popularity of an idea. Expecting it in one case and ignoring it in another.

    I've noticed people get into endless semantic bickering around here, and sometimes it feels like it arises out of not doing this.

    That may be true, but that's not the case in this thread, and that entire frame problematically excuses some egregious cases.

    @ChubbyRain said in Restricted List Poll:

    @nedleeds said in Restricted List Poll:

    @vaughnbros said in Restricted List Poll:

    The top unrestrict cards were Balance followed by whatever

    Well whoever is in this FB group is so savagely misinformed that I can't take the other results seriously. A 4 x Balance format makes Workshops, Bazaars and Gushes look like Wind Drakes.

    Facebook lets people create options in polls and I created the "Unrestrict Balance" option as a joke...

    Sadly, the unrestriction I was actually serious about, Dig through Time, has not gotten the same level of support...

    OMG. Because cantrip strategies need more delve spells.

    Dig and Treasure Cruise broke the format as restricted cards. Unrestricting one is absurd.



  • @Smmenen said in Restricted List Poll:

    OMG. Because cantrip strategies need more delve spells.

    Dig and Treasure Cruise broke the format as restricted cards. Unrestricting one is absurd.

    Look at the Top 8 of Vintage Champs 2016: There was 1 Mentor deck, 1 Delver list, 1 Planeswalker Control list, 1 Grixis Thieves list, and BK Oath. Dig through Time was broken, for sure, but it enabled divergent Blue strategies to a much greater extent than Cruise did or Gush does now. It was a draw spell that played better with combos and individually powerful cards, rather than the synergistic Gush shells that abused Cantrips and Cruise and focused more on velocity and card quantity moreso that card quality. My preference would be for both Gush and Mentor to be restricted. If people are unwilling to get behind that, then I favor unrestricting a powerful draw spell that works mostly orthogonal to the Gush engine.

    I view it as much more absurd to unrestrict Balance, but whatever...


  • TMD Supporter

    @ChubbyRain I don't think Balance should be unrestricted (as I said above "I'm not in the 'unrestrict balance camp'").

    Dig is absurdly broken, far more than Gush in my opinion. I think there is a case to be made that Dig is even better than Cruise, but we didn't realize it until Cruise was restricted.

    Moreover, I disagree with your premise that Dig would enable a larger spectrum of strategies than Gush does. Gush can be played in just as many strategies as Dig, and probably more, because Gush is more inherently synergystic with storm combo (ie The Tropical Storm and Doomsday).

    Dig has really harmed the format. @diophan even said he would ban it. Unrestricting it is unfathomable relative to the power level of cards currently on that list.

    2 of 180+ players in the FB poll voted to unrestrict Dig. That should tell you how crazy that idea is.



  • I don't mean to troll but this stuff is hilarious, I am actively enjoying seeing some people make a fool out of themselves and in denial when the bias (if you can even still call it that at this point) is obvious to anyone on this website. #go get the popcorn.



  • I'm not sure why I'm responding to this banality, but unrestricted Balance leads to much more artifact mana to break the card, which leads to much more Null Rods, which leads to much more Shop hate. Any deck not in this paradigm falls to the wayside. I think we can all do without such an environment.



  • mtggoldfish listed ravager shops at close to 32% of the meta and Jeskai close to 19%


Log in to reply
 

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