JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL



  • @Islandswamp agreed - no creatures on the restricted list!



  • I was always in the camp of only restricting Golem. It was in one archetype. COTV was played in Shops, yes, but was also played in Merfolk and Hatebears.dec. And before jaco.drazi emerged as a playable budget deck, having 4 COTVs was the budget players equivalent to playing moxen.

    And the ironic part about COTVs restriction is that decks are now playing less than 5 moxen which has never happened before in Vintage, imo. Meaning that COTV set to 0 is not as back breaking as it once was. But I do understand why it will be forever on the restricted list.



  • @darkquarterer said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    Throwing this out there, I think Mentor is the card I'd restrict. Would open up so much more diversity in blue based decks IMO. Its by far the best creature ever printed in vintage and its incredible hard to deal with.

    Agreed. While Mentor's power level is not obscene, it is very powerful. Also, as skill intensive as the card actually is to maximize its potential, more often the case is that it eliminates the importance of play skill, as its brute strength is good enough to win many board states. Like Brainstorm or Ponder, it wouldn't be restricted for degeneracy reasons but rather because of deckbuilding diversity.


  • TMD Supporter

    This post is deleted!


  • This post is deleted!


  • This post is deleted!

  • TMD Supporter

    Super interesting that a twitter poll posing exactly the same question, but yesterday, instead of January 9th, has almost exactly the same result:

    https://twitter.com/ManyInsanePlays/status/841418020618608640

    NO CHANGES TO RESTRICTED LIST. RIGHT OR WRONG DECISION BY WOTC?

    62%Yes. Right decision.
    38%No. A change was needed.
    111 votes



  • @Smmenen Well that's a bit of a warped poll. It's presumably only seen by those who follow you on twitter. Certainly not indicative of the entire Vintage playerbase, just a sub-section of them.

    That would be similar to you polling everyone who purchased your Gush book as to whether they feel Gush should be restricted or not, as if it was indicative of anything but a specific group of Vintage players.


  • TMD Supporter

    It was definitely not seen only by people who follow me on twitter - as it wasn't posted on a personal account. It was posted by the SMIP show, and retweeted by Kevin for broader viewing. I never said it was a perfect sample of the vintage player base, but I do think it's interesting that the results are very similar to the January poll here.



  • @Smmenen That's 38% of people that think the format is not fun right now. Seems like a problem to me.

    I also agree with Hrishi that the poll is potentially biased. Its only going to be responded to by people who listen to your podcast, which lets be honest that will have a lean towards Gush players.

    It also has a bias in that people who are so disgruntled by what the format has become are likely not even going to be following anything at all.



  • It's maybe not that surprising that the people advocating for the restriction of cards from a deck that's performed with a close to 50% win rate for the past year are immune to data.

    Regardless, the assumption here that the entire 38% agree with this Gush/Mentor/Preordain/Probe/Misstep witchhunt is more flawed than any bias of the poll itself. We have no data about what change that "problematic" 38% would propose. Just as many might be for restricting Workshop as restricting Gush, even though these are somewhat opposed views of the format.

    In other words, we can't assume the 38% agree with each other. It might be the case that 38% disapproval is the thinnest possible way to slice the cake, any other decision resulting in a higher share of dissatisfied players. There's as much evidence to suggest 38% is "as low as possible" as it is "problematic," which is to say almost zero.

    Regardless of the validity of Steve's sample, it's clear to me that the people citing statistical errors are at least equally capable of confirmation bias.



  • @vaughnbros said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    I also agree with Hrishi that the poll is potentially biased. Its only going to be responded to by people who listen to your podcast, which lets be honest that will have a lean towards Gush players.

    A bigger bias that exists on both of these polls is that they only poll people who are are very into the format. This is the same problem that comes up every time people try to argue with WotC about their own polls: Most people don't care enough to vote in, or even see, these polls. I'm an avid SMIP listener and I never saw the poll. Heck, I didn't even see the poll in this thread until today because I try to block out discussion of B&R list because it tends to be two sides arguing at eachother instead of with them.



  • @thecravenone Yep, I listen to mostly every SMIP episode as well. I never saw the poll until Steve posted here.



  • Dunno, I would imagine that the people who are very into the format would be the exact audience WotC would want to please.



  • @BazaarOfBaghdad That doesn't grow the format. The people that are very into it are likely going to be playing no matter what.



  • @wappla You are bringing up the issue with the false dichotomy that the poll brings up. You are only given the option of Yes/No.

    In addition to not breaking out the No's to say what card they think should be restricted. It also does not break down the Yes category.

    There is no option of, yes I am fine with no decision, but the format would benefit from a restriction. Or yes, but I would be okay with a restriction. Or even yes, but I think a restriction is likely needed in the near future.

    38% is far from "as low as possible".



  • @vaughnbros said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    @wappla You are bringing up the issue with the false dichotomy that the poll brings up. You are only given the option of Yes/No.

    In addition to not breaking out the No's to say what card they think should be restricted. It also does not break down the Yes category.

    There is no option of, yes I am fine with no decision, but the format would benefit from a restriction. Or yes, but I would be okay with a restriction. Or even yes, but I think a restriction is likely needed in the near future.

    38% is far from "as low as possible".

    right... and because the poll didn't do the former, I don't see how you can assert the latter.

    It's perfectly possible that any change would increase the number of people who think another change needs to be made.



  • @wappla The poll results are that 38% of people currently want a change in the format. I'm not sure where you got that is the "lowest possible" or where you can come to the conclusion that some blue card is not what everyone wants to restrict. Its impossible to come to these conclusions.

    I pointed out Gush because that is a clear sampling bias that will result from Steve's listener base compared to the average Vintage player. If this was a poll conducted in New York by Nick, I'd have mentioned the bias towards Shops players.


  • TMD Supporter

    I created the twitter poll because we were recording an SMIP show Monday evening on the DCI's B&R list update. We recorded it Monday, and many of the issues arising here are addressed in our podcast. That said, I'll respond to a few comments.

    @vaughnbros said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    @wappla You are bringing up the issue with the false dichotomy that the poll brings up. You are only given the option of Yes/No.

    I disagree that the poll question is a false dichotomy. I think the question posed is inherently dichotomous.

    I think what you are getting at, and perhaps getting tripped over, is that the survey only asks one question, and thus masks perhaps a great diversity and differences of opinion within each answer. That's a given.

    Anyone answering "No" to the OP question or the twitter poll question might have voted that way because they think something sholud be unrestricted rather than restricted. It's possible, although unlikely, that some voter thinks Necropotence should be unrestricted for example.

    If you were designing a rigorous research survey, and wanted to understand the spectrum of views within each group, you would create a set of layered questions such that one response can trigger a set of follow-up questions that can better understand those differences.

    If it wasn't obvious, I intentionally posted exactly the same question (phrasing and even punctuation) as the OP in this thread. That's why I posted the twitter poll results in this thread.

    The truth is that every survey approach has risks of bias. I never claimed that a twitter poll was a scientifically valid survey instrument. In fact, I explicitly said two days ago that "I never said it was a perfect sample of the vintage player base."

    I am not even sure how you would design a poll for a perfect sample of the Vintage player base, or even how you define "vintage player."

    The reason I posted the twitter poll response here was 1) I posted the exact same question as the OP here on twitter, and 2) the poll results, despite being two months later, were very similar. Surprisingly similar, I'd say.

    Many of the comments being raised, perhaps in objection to the twitter poll, are equally applicable to the OP poll. So, I'm not sure why they weren't raised in January.

    I also agree with Hrishi that the poll is potentially biased. Its only going to be responded to by people who listen to your podcast, which lets be honest that will have a lean towards Gush players.

    This is probably overstated or untrue. Before we moved to EC as a host, MTGcast internal statistics showed that SMIP was in top 3-5 of all Magic podcast downloads, meaning that a huge number of listeners don't even play Vintage. In any case, as I already noted, Kevin retweeted to reach a broader segment, so it was visible to more than SMIP listeners.

    @wappla said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    Regardless, the assumption here that the entire 38% agree with this Gush/Mentor/Preordain/Probe/Misstep witchhunt is more flawed than any bias of the poll itself. We have no data about what change that "problematic" 38% would propose. Just as many might be for restricting Workshop as restricting Gush, even though these are somewhat opposed views of the format.

    In other words, we can't assume the 38% agree with each other.

    I think we are in accord here, but for the record, anyone who read the poll results that way would be misreading the results. It's possible that some people who voted that way want just Gush restricted, while others just want Mentor restricted, and others still want PO and Gush restricted. Or, that they want something unrestricted. Or something else entirely.

    I suppose if I were creating a layered survey, the second question for anyone who answered "No," would be:

    1. Do you feel that the DCI should have
      a) restricted a card
      b) unrestricted a card
      c) or both

    And then, the follow up question would be:

    1. Please indicate which card should have been restricted, if any:
      [insert a list and allow people to vote for more than one]

    2. Please indicate which card should be unrestricted, if any:
      [insert a list, and allow people to vote for more than one]

    @vaughnbros said in JANUARY 9, 2017 BANNED AND RESTRICTED ANNOUNCEMENT POLL:

    @Smmenen That's 38% of people that think the format is not fun right now. Seems like a problem to me.

    I also agree with Hrishi that the poll is potentially biased. Its only going to be responded to by people who listen to your podcast, which lets be honest that will have a lean towards Gush players.

    It also has a bias in that people who are so disgruntled by what the format has become are likely not even going to be following anything at all.

    If that's true, I don't think there any survey that could overcome that particular problem. If someone quits the format because of unhappiness with the format, then they, by definition, do not count as a "Vintage player," I would assume.

    Aside from the methodology of either the sample taken by me in the twitter poll or the thread here, here's what I think are the key questions to consider:

    1. Assume that less than 50% of Vintage players think a change to the B&R list was needed this week (or, in January - and either claim is certainly a plausible view), should the DCI make changes to placate a minority view?

    I don't think so. I think that the threshold inquiry into any possible restriction should be at least some consensus among the player base that a change is needed. And consensus, at a minimum, is majority support. Otherwise, you are catering to a minority, and possibly a very vocal minority.

    In our epic B&R threads last year, I said that I felt that greatest danger to the format's legitimacy is the perception, real or not, that the DCI's B&R decisions are captured by a vocal minority. That led to some disastrous historical B&R policy, where it was obvious that the DCI was catering to Keeper pilots. When that happens, the DCI is managed to serve discrete and insular player segments rather than the health of the format as a whole, and the legitimacy of the format is destroyed.

    1. Assume that my twitter poll survey has a very large margin for error or is biased in some clearly directional way, is it really hard to believe that the results of a valid poll would be pretty similar to the results of the poll in the OP?

    Put another way, do we really think that any appreciable portion of the Vintage player base has changed their views of any particular restriction between January 9th and March 13? I doubt it. Even if some people have changed their views, there are probably offsetting segments.

    So, even if you think that my twitter poll was somehow flawed, the validity of the OP poll results serve as a stand-in.

    In any case, as I state in the upcoming SMIP podcast, I do think Vintage (and perhaps DCI policy in general) would benefit from more rigorously designed survey instruments. That was not my intent here.



  • @Smmenen

    My problem is that people, including yourself, seem to be making definitive conclusions based on this poll. Yes, your poll results are the similar to those in this poll. Maybe its true that of current Vintage players that are monitoring these polls that a majority favor no changes, and a fairly large minority want a change. However, there are numerous issues with both polls from a survey design and sampling stand point. This suggests that there is at the very least some sort of confidence band around that estimate of 38%. Maybe its large, maybe its small. We don't really know because there was very little put into these designs. Thus it could very well be that the true estimate is over this arbitrary 50% cut point you are setting us into. Its not not exactly like 40% (or 38%) are really that far from the median line.

    This brings me to my next point. Just because someone is in the minority does not make their ideas wrong. How many examples in politics and history have the minority been the ones that were actually right? Evolution? Earth being round and revolving around the Sun? "You are only 38%, we don't care what your opinion is." Just seems so incredibly wrong. I know for a fact that you do not believe in just disregarding minority opinions. Otherwise why would you be working the position that you are?


Log in to reply
 

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