I apologize if you've taken anything I said personally. I have tried to limit my criticisms to the thoughts you've expressed or your manner & mode of expression.
Your sloppy presentation style and fairly lackadaisical posting style makes it difficult to understand your ideas with precision, and when pressed or challenged, you wriggle out of what you've already (seemingly) said.
The entire debate over what you mean by "consistent" is a pretty absurd example of this.
Anyone reading your statement that "A deck that can consistently go off on turn 1 is not good for the format" would interpret it largely the way I did. Which is to mean a deck that can regularly go off on Turn 1. Then, you later explain you meant "more consistently" than before. Which could mean almost nothing if the baseline is like 2%.
That's exactly why I did not want to engage you substantively on the issue until I precisely understood what you meant. I wasn't ignoring your questions, I was trying to make sure I carefully understood your views first.
But this is another good example of what I mean when I criticized you for sloppy construction/thinking:
More than any other format, we should be wary of cards that are pushing us towards these games where one player literally does not get to play a single card from their hand.
I mean, every single reason I can think of would suggest that this should be LESS true of Vintage than any other format, as I noted in post 31.
To get the thread on track, my position is that this a slow enough format that it can afford to be sped up very slightly, closer to historical norms, in order to increase strategic diversity.
To do that, I'd start by unrestricting Bargain and/or Windfall, and seriously consider unrestricting Flash.
If I had to further parse those unrestricions, I'd say that unrestricting Flash probably gives you the highest probability of creating a new archetype that can crack the 5% barrier.