The issue, as you framed it, is whether data analysis has a role in Vintage Restricted list debates. Your position is that it should not. Mine is that it should.
Your posts reveal a lack of understanding of how data has been used in these debate, by the community and DCI.
My contention is that the debate cannot be framed as a purely analytical one as well as a purely subjective/feels based one. There is some overlap but by and large the two stances are inherently arguing different things and when they interact they often create a insurmountable barrier.
The DCI just took action in Standard because of Win Percentages.
They also decided to ban Rampaging Ferocidon, a card they themselves admit was not specifically the largest offender compared to Hazoret or Bombat. If we were to base the decision purely on win percentages, they would not have made this call, but sided on the side they perceived to be the more fun (or less unfun as it were) course of action. The data they used to make this judgement was in large part because of some sort of future league testing that likely did not have nearly as much of a sample behind it, as well as some healthy assumptions based on what they thought interactions would be with cards not yet released.
I do not believe that WOTC/DCI make banning decisions on results alone, and things such as player perception, monetary ramifications, and tourney attendance are equally large drivers. Some of those have data sets behind them, and they may not all tell the same story. Player perception is very much more a judgement call than it is a hard science.
Magic is not slots. There are different standards for fun in Magic than slots.
You yourself said:
"Fun" is not entirely subjective. The core element to fun is meaningful choice: meaningful deck choice, meaningful game choices, etc. To have fun, players need meaningful choice among decks. This requires a diversity of decks. When a deck is monopolistic or dominant, there is no meaningful deck choice. Therefore, data is integral to B&R discussions. It's the main purpose of them.
You did not frame that as pertaining only to magic, you said fun, so i used a parallel gaming example.
So, if the data tells you that, then why are you against using data in B&R list discussion? That seems ridiculous given what you just said. Your posts are incoherent and barely make sense. I'm surprised, because I haven't seen or don't recall this kind of behavior from you before.
I am not totally against using it, I am suggesting guardrails on it's usage in discourse that was not intended to be a hard analytical look at a topic. I am against the fact that I have seen no compelling discussion take place on this board or others in recent years that does not eventually get derailed by a straw man argument about data and how it trumps all. If enough players are upset enough that it would affect how much they play, what they play, even if it is based on faulty information, it is still relevant to the decision making process.
It's like coming into a post about which classical artist was more relevant to a person, Da Vinci or Michelangelo, and having someone walk into that post and say that Da Vinci had more popularly known pieces and is thus the definitive correct answer.
That you are surprised by my behavior is of no concern to me, because I am not in the market to cater my opinion to conform with expectations you may have. I have been an advocate for the restriction of workshops for some time now, and that is evidenced in some of my other posts. Also displayed in those posts are data driven arguments by people saying I am incorrect to want that, even though my want for it is subjective and based on my perception and assumptions of what the format would be if the card was reduced in numbers, yet not devoid of data based reasoning.
I truly believe that workshops (and some other cards but most egregiously workshops) is the reason that the format has X amount of viable archetypes and not X+Y. Tournament win percentages and representation will not show you what decks are not viable to bring to an event, just how the things that were there did.