November 26 Banned & Restricted Announcement

@chubbyrain said in November 26 Banned & Restricted Announcement:

@smmenen said in November 26 Banned & Restricted Announcement:

@chubbyrain said in November 26 Banned & Restricted Announcement:

This point literally came up on the SCGTour in reference to Modern when I was watching it this past weekend:
"Not ever card on the banned list needs a defense attorney."

As an attorney, I love this idea. Well, the opposite.

Every card deserves the strongest, most vigorous advocacy. That’s the only way we know it really deserve to be restricted.

Cards aren't people, Steve. There is no ethical imperative, no presumption of innocence.

Presumption of innocence isn't a universal legal principle; it's a standard for criminal cases, and that isn't even true everywhere. Most legal cases in the United States are civil, and the usual standard in civil cases is prepronderance of the evidence.

I never said that there is an ethical imperative.

The point I was making is that a designated advocate, like an attorney, would make the best possible case for card, even against a mountain of opposition. That would help make sure that a card is deserving of restriction or banning, even if the grain of opinion is against it.

The point of zealous advocacy is to get to the truth, when contesting the weight of general opinion. General opinion, inflected by prejudice, is often wrong. Only a zealous advocate, like an attorney, can help make the best possible case and not risk social opprobrium, or go along to get along. Only when the best possible case is made, can a neutral body weight the merits.

The way that DCI has historically operated, like a committee, is not actually a good way to get to the truth. Juries get to truth, but only when presented with both sides of a case. The DCI committee-style approach is not a very good one for getting to truth. That's why academic journals use peer review, etc. There are actual standards for truth-seeking.

The point wasn't that the DCI hire attorneys as part of DCI debates. My point is that I like the idea that card's be given the strongest possible defense on their behalf, and that that is the only way we can be sure that a card truly merits that treatment, as opposed to meretricious treatment.

My broader point is that I like the sentiment, if not the operationalization, of the view that 'every card on the banned list needs a defense attorney,' or, to sharpen the analogy, a good appellate lawyer.

last edited by Smmenen

@smmenen But again, the truth isn't what matters. A fun, enjoyable format matters. Magic (and by extension, Vintage) is a game. And in my opinion, that is pretty dang close to what we have right now. Which is why I get pretty nervous when players start saying "unrestrict Channel" and "restrict Mental Misstep". They really don't seem to be considering the fact that Magic is a game and both players should be participants into the equation.

@chubbyrain said in November 26 Banned & Restricted Announcement:

@smmenen But again, the truth isn't what matters. A fun, enjoyable format matters. Magic (and by extension, Vintage) is a game. And in my opinion, that is pretty dang close to what we have right now. Which is why I get pretty nervous when players start saying "unrestrict Channel" and "restrict Mental Misstep". They really don't seem to be considering the fact that Magic is a game and both players should be participants into the equation.

Oh, the old “magic is just a game” trope.

The NFL is just a game.

Major-league baseball is just a game.

The NBA is just a game.

The Olympics are just a game.

These are way more than just games. And so is magic. Magic is a hundred million dollar product for Hasbro.

This isn’t trivial pursuit or monopoly. This is a game the players invest heavy parts of their incomes & lives into. It’s a platform for community and identity.

The management of the formats matters. It makes a difference in peoples lives.

I happen to agree with you on mental misstep. But it’s galling to trivialize DCI policy by reducing it to “a game.”

last edited by Smmenen

@smmenen Oh, for Pete's sake...I never even implied that crap.

Go into politics. Or Fox News commentary. The level of spin here is absurd.

Games matter. I never said they didn't and I wouldn't be on this board talking to you if they didn't.

Are you going to behave like an adult and have a conversation? Or are we done here?

It wasn’t implied; it was explicit. You trotted it out the “it’s a game” trope as a way of diminishing the gravity of what I was talking about.

And when I expressed my sympathies for the underlying idea, you spun that by saying “there’s no presumption of innocence.” Which isn’t even a universal legal standard, And frankly had nothing to do with what we were talking about.

last edited by Smmenen

@smmenen No, I wasn't. I was making my point. Allow me to be explicit.

"Fun should (and does) matter in banned and restriction decisions in vintage and in other formats. I wish vintage players would be more cognizant of that when they are discussing potential decisions."

The implication that games don't matter is false. The implication that rules shouldn't take into account fun is false. Running down your list:

  • The NFL has changed several rules over the past decade to favor the offense and favor higher scoring games.
  • Major league baseball implemented a pitch clock to speed up pace of game.
  • The NBA adjusted the shot clock after offensive rebound to 14 seconds this year.

These are changes made almost entirely for entertainment purposes.

Edit: But it was clear from context that wasn't the meaning of what I wrote....

last edited by ChubbyRain

I never said nor implied that B&R policymaking shouldn’t take account of “fun.” In fact, I said the opposite over and over again. So you’re arguing against the strawman.

Zealous advocacy on behalf of a card is not inconsistent with a case based on fun. One role for a hypothetical “restricted list appellate advocate” would be to show how such cards make games & formats more fun.

As I said:

Every card deserves the strongest, most vigorous advocacy. That’s the only way we know it really deserve to be restricted.

last edited by Smmenen

@smmenen I would love for a restricted list appellate who focused on that aspect. It's definitely frustrating to put up with less rigorous remarks on here that seem to be "unrestriction for the sake of unrestriction". Perhaps I did misunderstand you opinion as three people responded to my point at the same time. I think have a better view of you position now. Thank you for explaining.

@chubbyrain Maybe I missed it. Who in this thread was advocating unrestriction for the sake of unrestriction? None of us with the info that's available to the public can be rigorous about what should or should not be restricted. There isn't enough information necessary to allow a rigorous analysis of what cards have what effect on the gaming experience.

The best we can do (those of us not working for WotC) is play a lot of games, gather some empirical evidence, maybe gather some basics stats on win rates, metagame diversity and such from tournaments, to support our claims. A lot of these have been done by most people who posted here. I don't think you can expect people to be much more considered than that in this context.

We had an interesting discussion yesterday at the Deal Me In Games tournament with the following changes proposed and supported by a handful of shops players who were in attendance:

Restrict: mental misstep, arcbound ravager, walking ballista
Unrestrict: thorn of amethyst, flash and possibly brainstorm

These of course would be hand in hand restrictions and unrestrictions, to happen all at once. They were not intended to be individual ideas people threw out there.

  • 76
    Posts
  • 7481
    Views