What are you trying to get out of this post. Is this active trolling? I'm noticing a pattern where you make long posts on controversial topics while preemptively insulting people who might respond.
everyone and their little brother has a strong opinion about regardless of whether they have any idea what they are talking about.
Is there are specific vintage-related point you're trying to make, or change you're trying to campaign for? TMD is not a great place to campaign for change, but it seems from your post that you are not interested in that sort of thing. Is there a question you're trying to answer?
How were you hoping this thread was going to play out?
No, I'm not trolling anything. I'm advancing a specific point, which is that Reserve List discussions should not fixate on the specific cards on the List, but rather should focus on lobbying WotC to make new cards that don't violate the list.
I made an effort to make sure this was really clear and completely explained and I spent some time building a chart to prove that WotC actually does print cards that substitute for RL cards.
Brassman, this is your forum. If you consider this kind of post "trolling," then I'll follow your lead. But, I'm really surprised that you would have that kind of reaction. It might be that you've got a gut reaction to the post simply because it mentions the Reserve List at all -- even though the whole point is to talk about the negative space around it, not the list itself.
EDIT: What is this pattern you are referring to about actively insulting people? I'm surprised by that, too. Are you talking about the posts I made over on the Errata policy forum where I provided a dump of the background data for the discussion?
You've brought this argument but I think you've done a poor job dismissing it. Of these three examples, the average scores for substitutes are, out of six, 2.75, not listed, and 2.67. The best card you've listed as a replacement for any of these examples is only a 4. I think this further strengthens the argument against your argument.
It depends on what the argument is. I never suggested Wizards has, in fact, reprinted totally acceptable substitutes for all RL cards. Obviously they have not.
All I am saying is that they can, and they are willing to do so as we can tell from many other cards which do have suitable replacements. In other words, the RL as such is not a barrier to printing substitutes. (Power level concerns certainly are.) And, if that is the case, wouldn't it be better to work towards getting more 5s and 6s on the chart rather than fixating on the specific RL cards themselves?