We're going to be trying something new on monday when the B&R announcement drops.

All discussion of B&R is going to be limited to a single thread in community. Any existing threads at that time will be locked, and any new threads will be deleted. The initial post will contain only a link to the announcement and the summary of the changes, if any (no editorialization). This includes discussions about cards to restrict, unrestrict, ban, etc. This will be the only thread for B&R until the next announcement.

As always, the site is a living experiment, and if it doesn't work we can reverse the policy and try something else.

I like this idea. MtgSalvation does something similar; is this based on their model?

@brass-man Will you be posting the thread?

Seems reasonable.

This is my new favorite post on TMD.

Yay for experiments.

@brass-man said in Heads up about B&R discussion on Monday:

The initial post will contain only a link to the announcement and the summary of the changes, if any (no editorialization).

I propose that this be made more strict to avoid any disagreements over whether the summary is editorialized. The info in the intial thread should be:

• Link to annoucement
• What the changes are, eg "Channel is unrestricted. Abandon Hope is restricted."
• Copy+paste of the reasoning given for Vintage changes or lack thereof

...I like rules...

@brass-man said in Heads up about B&R discussion on Monday:

All discussion of B&R is going to be limited to a single thread in community. Any existing threads at that time will be locked, and any new threads will be deleted.

If there's an external article written about the B&R, should that go in the B&R thread or have its own thread as other articles do?

@thecravenone said in Heads up about B&R discussion on Monday:

• What the changes are, eg "Channel is unrestricted. Abandon Hope is restricted."

RELEASE THE BEAST!

@cutlex and honestly it's about time Abandon Hope gets restricted. That card is so overpowered. Finally get some breathing room in this format!

I would allow one new thread to be opened up in anticipation of the next (after Monday) B&R restriction about a month beforehand, rather than pile on the aftermath of the Monday discussion. Long threads with potentially new issues (e.g., metagame shifts, new printings or technology) are not very helpful.

Not Abandon Hope! What will I name with Pithing Needle when it doesn't matter?

@cutlex said in Heads up about B&R discussion on Monday:

@brass-man Will you be posting the thread?

I'll post the thread if it's not around yet, but I'm assuming I won't be the first person to see the changes. If that's the case, I'm fine with anyone posting the first thread, as long as they follow the rules laid out,

Just the link to the announcement, and the list of changes, in the initial post. That's it.

@thecravenone said in [Heads up about B&R discussion on Monday]:

I propose that this be made more strict to avoid any disagreements over whether the summary is editorialized.

yup! what you described was basically what I intended, but to be clear, by summary I didn't mean "description", I meant literally just saying what the changes are (as you suggested)

I would actually recommend NOT quoting the reasoning in the initial post, just sticking with the link, for fear of anyone just quoting the bits relevant to their agenda.

Note that if you're the one who posts the B&R update first, it is totally fine for you to respond immediately afterwards with a second post including as much opinion-based commentary as you want - I just want to make sure that the absolute first post in the thread is facts-only.

@hierarchnoble I don't like this one bit. First Sarpadian Empires, Vol. VII, then Abandon Hope. What's next? Abandon Reason? It's a slippery slope down into the (Zzzyxas's) abyss.

@thecravenone said in Heads up about B&R discussion on Monday:

If there's an external article written about the B&R, should that go in the B&R thread or have its own thread as other articles do?

For now, I would say an external article is fair game. If someone writes an article off-site about the B&R, you can talk about the B&R in the appropriate Vintage News thread.

This is not a free pass to turn any tournament report into an argument to restrict any cards the writer mentions. Try to stick to the actual points laid out in the piece.

Some leeway there makes sense, but if that board ends up getting swamped by those threads, we update rules accordingly

@chubbyrain obviously the answer here is Sorrow's Path. If I had a dollar to every game I lost to that card. Geez. Just below Abandon Hope I tell ya. I really think this B&R list is going in all the wrong directions. The sorrows path/abandon hope archetype is truly out of control. Throw in leeches to the mix. Immediate concession.

@chubbyrain said in Heads up about B&R discussion on Monday:

Not Abandon Hope! What will I name with Pithing Needle when it doesn't matter?

I've been going with Abandon Reason more and more lately. It might be reflective of sanity slippage.

@chubbyrain Floral Spuzzem, obviously. Card is too stronk.

@wiley a truer statement does not exist. A naked 2/2 dealing zero to destroy an artifact. This card kills a mox all day long and blows up a key vault combo! Imagine the possibilities.