This entire article makes me feel like I need a college degree to have any word, thought, or opinion on Vintage instead of the 24 years of playing under my belt.
Don't ever believe that. If someone is trying to make you feel stupid, they may not have good intentions.
There are a lot of brilliant minds who avoid higher education. And higher education is overflowing with wealthy well-educated mediocrities. There are some great people and minds there as well, but it's still just a fraction, very possibly the same % as you'd find in the general population.
I love you too Brian, just as I adore Brian Weissman
Likewise, there is a great deal of mutual respect in addition to disagreement.
Vintage is the last place where you can play with all of the cards
That isn't true. Not only are there many other places where one can use any card (kitchen table, gaming room) and even other formats (EDH, various homebrew and existing plus forthcoming experimental formats) but there are literally hundreds of Magic cards you cannot play in Vintage. I can't play Gleemox. I can't play Chaos Orb. I can't play Adriana's Valor. I can't play a Collector's Edition Birds of Paradise. There are so many asterisks on the predilection to not ban that the exceptions swallow any rule that might exist (which it does not).
Increasing enjoyment of the experience of the game should clearly be a viable criterion for banning. It's always been on the table and the fact that Mind Twist and Channel no longer meet that criterion does not mean the criterion has been abandoned.
just shows you frankly ignorant you are about the terms of these debates
Your paragraph here is so problematic on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start the incision.
Questions like the one you just asked aren't just annoying, they are so long-ago settled that it's impossible to actually address without derailing threads among people who share a set of assumptions and knowledge that you quite obviously lack.
This is so rude, Stephen! Even if you believe, objectively, that someone is ignorant on a topic, there are much less indulgently pejorative methods of communicating that.
Your position is seductive, just like the siren call of nationalism we see around the world. I feel that my position and preference for a smaller restricted list and using restriction as a last resort was hard won, like democracy, but is now in danger of backsliding.
Hmm, in broad strokes I find myself more analogous to "Fun for everyone, not just the 1%" rather than "Make Vintage Great Again." Though certainly, despite the connotation, the latter slogan would fit since Type One was much more popular and heavily regulated than this cesspool of "lol Force ur Dredge hate" and "lol scoop up my board, replay it again."
He does not believe that metagame predominance should be a driving criteria for restriction, but instead believes that it should be motivated by play patterns and interactive game play. // No, no, no, no. Brian doesn't care at all about metagame share in B&R discussions.
My position is mostly understood, yes. Props. Though to be clear, metagame data would not be prohibited from consideration; its role would simply not be paramount to the degree it currently is. Rather, it would be a single factor in a totality of circumstances.
He would restrict cards that have 0% metagame share based upon play pattern alone.
I would acknowledge the reasonableness were that done, yes. Though as a practical matter, with the amount of more urgent work needed to effectuate a Renaissance that carries the format into the next two decades, I certainly would not prioritize cards like Show and Tell.
William is more telegenic so he automatically wins, even in audio.