Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop



  • @wfain said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    This is Keynesian v. neoliberal now-

    NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE





  • @mediumsteve yup yup yup yup yup?



  • There is a possibility I do not understand the greater issue in this thread. If this is an unwarranted sidetrack, I apologize.

    I keep wondering why we (the vintage players/TMD) just come up with our own community restricted list, and reject the Wizards list?

    -Mike



  • not everything needs to be politicized. especially b&r.


  • TMD Supporter

    @megantic said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    I keep wondering why we (the vintage players/TMD) just come up with our own community restricted list, and reject the Wizards list?

    Because it would be impossible to come to a consensus on what the list should be, as this thread has shown, and would likely just fracture an already small community between those that follow the DCI list and those that follow the community list.



  • @mediumsteve it’s not. They’re arguing from those perspectives. Brian’s side, basically, says to use regulation aggressively to ensure desired outcomes (though not Pardoxical ones 😉 ) while the other people are arguing that regulation hurts and stifles everything and that the Smithian invisible hand of metagame% or win% should take care of everything on its own.


  • TMD Supporter

    @wfain said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    @mediumsteve it’s not. They’re arguing from those perspectives. Brian’s side, basically, says to use regulation aggressively to ensure desired outcomes (though not Pardoxical ones 😉 ) while the other people are arguing that regulation hurts and stifles everything and that the Smithian invisible hand of metagame% or win% should take care of everything on its own.

    Uh, not really. A market fundamentalist approach would oppose all regulation into the "market." The approaches that Brian and I have espoused both support the presence of a strong 'market' regulator, so to speak. Where we differ is on the grounds for intervention.

    My viewpoint (which is more fully elaborated here) begins with a recognition of the role of Vintage in the pantheon of Magic formats. As the format with the largest card pool, and no bannings-for-power-level, it is the last home in constructed magic for many cards. Therefore, I believe the overriding philosophy of the format should be that players should be permitted to play as many of their cards and in maximum quantities possible.

    It follows from that, that I - like probably most Vintage players - prefer a smaller Restricted List, all things equal. Every restriction takes a card away from a player, and should be justified only on the strongest possible basis.

    I also put a great deal of emphasis on the importance of strategic diversity. I believe that strategic diversity - having a variety of viable strategies to select from - is the sine qua non of a healthy format. It's the most important consideration - although not the only one - that defines what a fair, fun and healthy format is. As I said in the article linked above:

    In my view the goal of any policymaker should be to balance the goal of allowing players to play with as many cards and in maximal quantities as possible with the equally important goal of promoting and enhancing strategic diversity.

    Therefore, it follows that the most legitimate and appropriate ground for restriction, in my view, is metagame dominance. I also think that a duopoloy or oligopoly format is a format worth intervening.

    In that regard, I view the DCI as essentially the Federal Trade Commission - an anti-trust and fair competition regulator.

    So, I'm do not advance a 'hyperlibertarian' position or narrative. Such a position would be anti-interventionist entirely. I strongly support intervention, but only when it the case is strong and the implementation is fair.

    In contrast, the view of the format endorsed by the two Brians is one that focuses much more on the subjective quality of game play as the chief criterion for managing the format. Both Brian Kelly and Brian Weissman's position would have a much larger restricted list (Brian would restrict cards like Show and Tell and Dack Fayden), and endorse banning cards for power level.

    The "Brian's" approach is problematic in my view for multiple reasons. I will review them:

    1. It takes away deck options from players, unnecessarily, and reduces the strategic diversity of the format. As I said, earlier DCI management regimes have followed the approach that Brian now seeks, and it has resulted in way, way too many restricted cards, denying creative and innovative players perfectly legitimate and fair options for attacking the metagame. It results in a bloated restricted list, and that harms players by denying them the resources and tools to compete with prevailing strategies.

    This has the result of reducing the diversity of deck options in the metagame. The best decks that emerged in the wake of the late 1990s restrictions tended to be overly-based on the restricted list, and veered toward highlander decks. Academy and Keeper decks circa 2001 were basically just large swaths of the restricted list. At a fundamental level, there is probably a trade off in Vintage between promoting a strategically diverse format and promoting a subjectively "fair" format. Some decks, which help create strategic diversity, are just never going to be viewed as acceptable in Brian's eyes.

    A perfect format is one that is both diverse and interactive. But I would rather have a format that is a bit less 'interactive' according to a subject view, but more diverse, as I believe that is better, overall, than a format that is more interactive, but less strategically diverse. In other words, I would prefer a format at Point A over one at Point B on the graph below:

    alt text

    1. It's biased. There is no question - and experience backs me up on this - that a DCI management regime that is overly concerned with what Brian calls "fair game play" is unfair and biased in favor of slower, blue decks, and biased against combo decks, dredge decks, and prison decks, as well as other varieties of more aggressive blue decks.

    Let me be clear here: I do believe that an approach which primarily focuses on metagame percentages is more objective, but objectivity and subjectivity is not the chief issue. A survey could be used to make prevailing opinion "objectively" known. Rather, my problem is that the approach of the Brian's is not "neutral." I believe that the policymaker should be strategically neutral, insofar as they can be. An approach which privileges or prefers a certain kind of game play or tactics, and denigrates another, is not a neutral approach.

    And contrary to the idea that Vintage players are an undifferentiated or homogeneous mass, players tend to organize their preferences and strategic commitments based upon their experiences. Among the 6 prevailing "Schools of Vintage Magic," it is very rare for a player to be a master of more than two Schools. That's because the time and energy commitments required for mastery in any school are so intense, that maintaining a high level mastery of more than two schools is generally infeasible. This is why players who become Dredge experts generally remain so, and same with Shops, Oath, etc.

    So, when the DCI restricts cards, the impact of those restrictions are not evenly felt. They harm some players more than others. Brian denies this explicitly, but implicitly acknowledges it when he says that the reason he felt that Gush should have been given a commutted sentence was because of my Gush book. Therefore, it follows that restrictions should only occur - if they are to be fair - when neutrally decided and when based upon the strongest possible empirical and evidentiary basis. Anecdotal testimony should not suffice.

    @nanakini said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    I would say that the ratio of really good, close and interactive matches versus the matches where players are essentially taking turns in blowing out their opponents is a little bit off.

    Fine, but compared to what? Compared to when? When did you find that ratio to be better?

    Let me give you some options in the last 4 years into periods that reflect more or less stable metagames:

    1. Sept 20, 2014- January 21, 2015: This was the period of Treasure Cruise dominance after the release of Khans. One of the most clearly dominant cards and decks ever.

    2. January 21, 2015 - Sept 28, 2015: This was the period from the restriction of Treasure Cruise and release of Fate Reforged through the release of Dragons of Tarkir until the release of Battle for Zendikar and the restrictions of Chalice and Dig.

    3. Sept 28, 2015-April 4, 2016: this was the period starting from BfZ and the Chalice/Dig restrictions through Oath of the Gatewatch (withthe Eldrazi) up until the restriction of Lodestone Golem and release of Shadows over Innistrad.

    4. April 4, 2016-Sept, 2016: This covers the period from the restriction of Golem until the release of Kaladesh, which gave us PO, and others.

    5. Sept. 2016-April 24, 2017: This period includes the printing of Walking Ballista, and up to the restriction of Gush and Gitaxian Probe and the release of Aether Revolt, up to Amonkhet.

    6. April 24, 2017-August 28, 2017: This is the period that included the release of Hour of Devastation and ended with the restrictions of Thorn and Mentor.

    7. August 28, 2017-January 13, 2018: This period goes from the restrictions of Mentor and Thorn through Ixalan and up to the release of Rivals of Ixalan. It includes the NA Vintage Championship which featured 5 Shop and 3 Oath decks.

    8. January 13, 2018 until today.

    Tell me, which of those periods do you feel has a higher ratio of "really good, close and interactive matches" than today? I really want to know.

    Because I would argue - and it's not even close in my mind - that period 8 is by far the best period of the 8 listed above.

    If I had to rank those periods from best to worst, in terms of game play and format diversity, this would be my ranking: 8, 5, 4, 3, 2, 6, 7, 1. Period 6 is probably the worst duaopoly ever seen, but I actually thought the game play and skill level was pretty high - and the restrictions were the wrong restrictions, making the format even worse for a while. 7 was atrocious, based largely on the results of the Vintage Championship. PO has opened up the metagame tremendously.



  • @smmenen
    “It follows from that, that I - like probably most Vintage players - prefer a smaller Restricted List, all things equal. Every restriction takes a card away from a player, and should be justified only on the strongest possible basis.”

    Neoliberal economics from Britannica: In particular, neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its confidence in free markets as the most-efficient allocation of resources, its emphasis on minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs, and its commitment to the freedom of trade and capital... The intellectual foundations of [neoliberalism] were primarily the work of the Austrian-born British economist Friedrich von Hayek, who argued that interventionist measures aimed at the redistribution of wealth lead inevitably to totalitarianism.

    I’m doing this from mobile or I’d quote other posts you’ve made that relate more aptly to von Hayek’s opinions. I’d also quote where you claim to be in favor of a strong intervention and then say what I did quote- namely that you want the smallest possible amount of intervention with the highest possible bar beforehand. I didn’t say you were anarchic- desirous of no intervention and no governing authority, only that you prefer, if at all possible, that nothing at all be done. That’s pretty much neoliberalism; it’s not a perfect analogy, but it suffices here in my estimation.
    Of course, you’ll counter with a wall of disagreeable text, because you’re disagreeable by nature, I suppose. I’ll just skip it, if that’s at all instructive in how much time you should spend so composing. In the end, you believe in your own objectivity and only the subjectivity of your perceived opponent whilst failing to acknowledge that your extrapolations, while based in some small data, are in point of fact purely subjective.
    They’re just, like, you’re opinion, man.



  • @smmenen further you present this statement as fact in multiple posts-

    “This has the result of reducing the diversity of deck options in the metagame.”

    but it cannot be proved. You assume it is true, but it is quite literally impossible to know. We simply don’t know what would’ve been playable with different/less restrictions. Maybe more decks, maybe less. You think more because it supports your preconceived notion of the appropriate method of intervention, but you simply cannot know- unless you have some way to teleport to a Mandela effect universe and bring back the metagame data for us (even so, unless all players have identical doppelgängers with identical experiences prior to this restriction difference that data isn’t an objective proof of your claim, only a possible one).



  • When I pick up the cards, I kind of just wanna have fun. Build sweet decks, make insane plays (there are so many of them).

    For all the faults of WotC they basically understand what a fun experience is (even if they more than occasionally miss the mark at how to create it). So I’m ok with them continuing to manage the BR list.

    Dredge needs dealing with. It’s become an impediment to fun gameplay.

    I’d be sad if we banned things. It’s fun coming to this format and brewing with things.


  • TMD Supporter

    @wfain said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    @smmenen further you present this statement as fact in multiple posts-

    “This has the result of reducing the diversity of deck options in the metagame.”

    but it cannot be proved. You assume it is true, but it is quite literally impossible to know. We simply don’t know what would’ve been playable with different/less restrictions.

    No offense, but your statement reflects ignorance about the use of banning and restriction and its' effects, not only in Vintage, but other formats.

    We have literally decades of metagame data illustrating the effects of various restrictions on the resulting composition of Magic metagames. And in that history, we know that restrictions based upon metagame dominance tend to open up the metagame, while restrictions not based on it tend to reduce the diversity of the metagame.

    It's just math. Take this hypothetical metagame:

    50% Deck A
    25% Deck B
    15% Deck C
    5% Deck D
    2.5% Deck E
    2.5% Deck F

    Restricting Deck A is virtually guaranteed to open up metagame share to other decks. In the history of Magic, it's almost impossible for a deck to reach 50% of the metagame. The only way a deck gets close is if it is suppressing other decks. If you understand the predator-prey relationships, then you can get pretty close to predicting exactly what the resulting metagame would look like, assuming that new sets don't radically change the balance of power.

    This isn't rocket science. When the restriction of Gush was announced, I predicted exactly what % of the metagame I thought would be % of mentor and % of Shops, and I was spot on in my on-record predictions +/- 5%. You can find them on these forums.

    If, for example, we know that Deck A is keeping Deck D down, then we can assume that restricting something in Deck A will result in an increase in the metagame share of Deck D.

    Now, what happens if you restrict Deck D? Will it increase or reduce the diversity of the format? Since it isn't large enough to be suppressing anything else, it will very likely reduce the diversity of the format.

    That's why restrictions based on factors other than 'predominance' tend to reduce the diversity of the format. Their metagame share goes to the predominant decks, while restricting decks that predominate create space for new decks to emerge and other decks to share the pie taken by the dominant deck.

    Here are the metagame shares of Top 8s in Vintage Challenges for the first 6 months of 2018:

    23% Shops
    17% PO
    17% Jeskai Mentor & other Tx decks
    10% Oath
    13% Dredge
    8% BUG(r)
    2% Eldrazi
    2% DPS
    2% Landstill
    6% Other

    Would the restriction of Bazaar of Baghdad make this metagame more or less diverse? Since Dredge does not predominate, it would almost certainly reduce the strategic diversity in the metagame. This is why restrictions not based on predominance tend to reduce strategic diversity.

    That's also why I oppose restricting cards in Dredge despite Brian's disgust with it. While it might make some games "feel" better, it would reduce the diversity of the metagame, since it's not close to a dominant deck.

    The Top of the Vintage metagame right now is pretty close to a Rock Paper Scissors format with TX, PO, and Shops. The only deck I would support a restriction from is Shops, since it's the best performing deck. Restricting from anything else would likely increase Shops share of Top 8s.

    @wfain said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    @smmenen
    “It follows from that, that I - like probably most Vintage players - prefer a smaller Restricted List, all things equal. Every restriction takes a card away from a player, and should be justified only on the strongest possible basis.”

    Neoliberal economics from Britannica: In particular, neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its confidence in free markets as the most-efficient allocation of resources, its emphasis on minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs, and its commitment to the freedom of trade and capital... The intellectual foundations of [neoliberalism] were primarily the work of the Austrian-born British economist Friedrich von Hayek, who argued that interventionist measures aimed at the redistribution of wealth lead inevitably to totalitarianism.

    I’m doing this from mobile or I’d quote other posts you’ve made that relate more aptly to von Hayek’s opinions. I’d also quote where you claim to be in favor of a strong intervention and then say what I did quote- namely that you want the smallest possible amount of intervention with the highest possible bar beforehand. I didn’t say you were anarchic- desirous of no intervention and no governing authority, only that you prefer, if at all possible, that nothing at all be done. That’s pretty much neoliberalism; it’s not a perfect analogy, but it suffices here in my estimation.

    You are pretty confused: typically people contrast Keynesianism with Neo-classical economics, not "Neoliberalism," which is as much a political as an economic theory. You even cited Adam Smith and the invisible hand, but Smith was a classical economist, not a neo-liberal.

    Your analogy doesn't suffice because you don't really know what you are talking about. Neo-liberals support a strong state in terms of defense, police, etc. What they care about is minimal government interference in the economy (not police, army, defense, etc.). Thus, a market fundamentalist position vis-a-vis the DCI is not anarchic: it just means no interference in the market, but typically has no qualms about a strong criminal justice system or a large military. Thus, they only care about a small state in some respects.

    More to the point, your analogy breaks down because my position isn't based on efficiency: it's based upon diversity. I believe that a more diverse metagame is preferable to a less diverse one, as players have more deck options, and therefore more fun.

    Your attempts to put this into a political frame don't really work. This isn't a right v. left debate. Both Brian and I are extremely politically progressive, and we both believe in a strong DCI. We just disagree on whether and how the DCI should regulate the format based upon our relative emphasis on play patterns versus metagame composition.

    Of course, you’ll counter with a wall of disagreeable text, because you’re disagreeable by nature, I suppose.

    Eh, nice attempt to discredit any possible reply. I'm not disagreeable by nature. I just strongly disagree with the position that Brian Weissman and now Brian Kelly have taken, as I've seen the harm its done. It's distressing to think that people might agree with it even though we've went down that path before, and can easily see the wreckage his preferred B&R list would create on the metagame.

    I’ll just skip it, if that’s at all instructive in how much time you should spend so composing. In the end, you believe in your own objectivity and only the subjectivity of your perceived opponent whilst failing to acknowledge that your extrapolations, while based in some small data, are in point of fact purely subjective. They’re just, like, you’re opinion, man.

    You just, like, don't really understand what I'm talking about, man.

    Re-read what I said in my previous post: "objectivity and subjectivity is not the chief issue. A survey could be used to make prevailing opinion "objectively" known. Rather, my problem is that the approach of the Brian's is not "neutral." I explained why there.



  • @smmenen cool. I’m just going to block you now because your persona is awful. You understand everyone, no one understands you. We get it. You’re the smartest, the bestest, the mostest, the rightest. You constantly say things that are either not provable as if they’re settled, objective fact or totally distort things to appear factually beneficial to your point. I’m done talking to you. You bring no value at all when I can just imagine if I say- “the sky is blue!” that you’ll respond with 12 paragraphs that start with “well, actually, that’s just an unseen bias for grindy blue decks.”


  • TMD Supporter

    I actually went out of my way to provide examples and straightforward hypotheticals to illustrate key ideas. Not to obfuscate or shade, but to clarify. But if you don't want to engage them based on a false belief I'm gaslighting you or just being quarrelsome, that's your prerogative. You didn't really make any attempt to understand what I was saying, resorting to a flimsy and dismissive analogy, and broad and unfounded generalizations about my rhetoric.

    At the end of the day, most Vintage players share my view that a smaller restricted list is better, and feel that restriction should be an act of last resort. Brian Kelly's views are a radical outlier, as Matt Murray pointed out.

    Maybe you want to see a 60+ card restricted list, and agree with him that the DCI should restrict cards like Show and Tell, Cabal Therapy, and Wasteland. Or maybe your gripe is with a smaller class of cards that starting with PO. Fine, again, that's your prerogative.

    But it's my job as a format historian to point out the problems with such arguments, the damage of unnecessary restrictions to the diversity of the format, and the players unfairly harmed by such a policy. You can disagree with me, but your glib remarks don't help advance a dialogue or improve understanding.



  • If the DCI would just restrict Misstep, we could all resolve our Cages, Dredge would suck, and this thread would be less of a shithole than it’s become.



  • @stormanimagus said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    You lose all credibility in my mind when you argue for the restriction of cards that clearly aren't an issue in the format because they are in decks that represent 10% or less of the field and 20% or less of top 8's.

    It's been stated countless times that I don't subscribe to the metagame % dominant view of format regulation. Evidently, you do. Hence, there is an obvious mismatch re: individual choices when there is a large a philosophical difference.

    If they were to ban Cruise and Dig for power level then they'd have to ban Recall, Walk, Lotus, the Moxen etc etc. You are on record saying these cards are "Sacred Cows." According to who? You?! When did you become emperor?

    In 2015. And I'm not only the Emperor, I'm also the Prom King and Miss Congeniality. Now, away with thee, peasant.

    More seriously though, and to state the clarion obvious, Power 9 are indispensable fixtures of Vintage while Treasure Cruise and Dig through Time are disposable afterthoughts. This is not controversial or arcane.

    @smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    Your mockery merely perpetuates the marginalization of those archetypes and the harm done to adherents and disciples of those Schools.

    There was no mockery; it was an anguished heartfelt poem.

    I'm joking, of course. Are you joking about incalculable "harm" done to some mysterious people who weren't able to play 4 Dream Halls in the year 2003? That does not sound very serious to me.

    @smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    Hardly. I was asking a question in good faith. I understood everything in that person's post, and thought it all made sense, up until that sentence. This player says that there is "nothing" in Vintage for them, and I find that hard to believe. After all, as you just said, winning isn't everything. Vintage has much to offer, even for the casual fan.

    The format, by its own virtue, is entitled to his support without any modification on the part of its stewards to make it something he actually enjoys. If he doesn't want to play, then something is wrong with him, not the format. Hmm... I've heard this logic before, somewhere. I can't remember where.

    Additionally, wfain made some insightful points with a thought-provoking analogy. There will always be a degree of imprecision with an analogy; that is intrinsic to its definition. However, instead of engaging him amicably, you attempted to humiliate him with a pedantic wall of text that ended up corroborating his point.

    Tsk, tsk.

    Honestly, it would serve you and your objectives better if you opted for statements like "I disagree because..." instead of "Your statement reflects ignorance."; "This isn't rocket science."; "You just ... don't really understand what I'm talking about.";"You are pretty confused."

    These should not be such caustic and humorless discussions. There's absolutely no reason for that demeanor. We are among the very few human beings on this earth with a deep interest in a niche subdivision of a declining strategy game. This is a rarefied group and its voices should not be treated so acerbically.

    @smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    Everyone can see that the current DCI's manner and mode of analysis is far more sophisticated than in years past and under previous management regimes.

    This is an example of projecting your own opinion onto the community at large. Not everyone or even anyone can see these things because the process is not transparent. All you are saying here is that you believe their current approach is more acceptable (and I agree it's better than it was pre-2015) but instead of simply saying that, you declare it as though it's axiomatic and universally known to a degree such that anyone who did not share your opinion would be a delusional pariah worthy of ridicule. This is all the more alarming considering the statement being advanced here is so wrong on its face, that being the falsehood that "everyone" can see something that is, in reality, notoriously hidden.

    @smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    Brian Kelly's views are a radical outlier, as Matt Murray pointed out.

    "I don't agree with you, Brian, but I love you. You are my favorite radical outlier in Vintage."

    You've decontextualized and cited this comment twice, so I suppose you believe its worthy of remark.

    Matthew understands the Overton Window. Popular mainstream ideas are often scorned by the powerful as fringe or "radical" to deter their proliferation. As I said before recently, my "radical" ideas (which are not grounded in unpopular lunacy) frequently (though not always) become fully mainstream once they are explored in depth. I don't expect my viewpoint to be shared universally but I believe it is valuable and should be stated. This is very distinct from believing "I have all the answers and I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt why everyone else is wrong." I don't find your opinion threatening, but I do not find that sentiment to be mutual.

    @ribby said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    Dredge needs dealing with. It’s become an impediment to fun gameplay.

    Ding. Ding. Ding.

    Succinct and the greatest takeaway from this thread (especially the pre-Rabbit Hole part).


  • TMD Supporter

    @brianpk80 said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    @smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    Your mockery merely perpetuates the marginalization of those archetypes and the harm done to adherents and disciples of those Schools.

    There was no mockery; it was an anguished heartfelt poem.

    I'm joking, of course. Are you joking about incalculable "harm" done to some mysterious people who weren't able to play 4 Dream Halls in the year 2003? That does not sound very serious to me.

    It’s a generalizable point to any card restricted without merit. Point wasn’t to focus on Dream Halls; it is to illustrate the potential harms that we quite literally can’t calculate

    @smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    Hardly. I was asking a question in good faith. I understood everything in that person's post, and thought it all made sense, up until that sentence. This player says that there is "nothing" in Vintage for them, and I find that hard to believe. After all, as you just said, winning isn't everything. Vintage has much to offer, even for the casual fan.

    The format, by its own virtue, is entitled to his support without any modification on the part of its stewards to make it something he actually enjoys.

    Not at all. As I said, I thought he had a well conceived post that skipped the tracks when I hit that sentence. My question was not rhetorical. Nor was my follow-up question, that if he finds this format so problematic then which period of the format does he think is better? I laid out seven other options for him to pick from.

    wfain made some insightful points with a thought-provoking analogy. There will always be a degree of imprecision with an analogy; that is intrinsic to its definition. However, instead of engaging him amicably, you attempted to humiliate him with a pedantic wall of text that ended up corroborating his point.

    Tsk, tsk.

    His post was couched in caustic & glib rhetoric that did not actually engage the serious issues I raised.

    I’m not trying to score points. I’m trying to win an argument based on reason and logic. I presented hypotheticals and real data to support that position and in response he did little but mock & attack my form and expression of argument, while using a very problematic analogy, without actually engaging the substance of what I was saying. It’s easy to label something as a way of dismissing it, which is exactly what he was doing. Neo-liberal? Hardly.

    Hell I went through all the trouble to create a nifty 2-axis chart to illustrate an idea, And he responded by defending his label rather than even try to consider the points I made.

    I Don’t mind disagreement, but let’s not use labels as a rhetorical strategy to brush off serious, painstakingly developed arguments.

    @smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    Everyone can see that the current DCI's manner and mode of analysis is far more sophisticated than in years past and under previous management regimes.

    This is an example of projecting your own opinion onto the community at large. Not everyone or even anyone can see these things because the process is not transparent.

    Actually, everyone can see based upon the public pronouncements over the last two years. Whether they choose to see that is up to them. But if you look at each of the banned and restricted list announcements over that period, do you really think that there is a viable argument that it is less sophisticated than the previous regime?

    In other words, if you lined up the statements made by previous regime with those of the current regime, the level of sophistication & detail is obviously superior today. The latest announcements presented by Ian Duke are far more detailed, carefully written, and well conceived. Whether People choose to read those announcements and Digest them is up to them.

    All you are saying here is that you believe their current approach is more acceptable (and I agree it's better than it was pre-2015) but instead of simply saying that, you declare it as though it's axiomatic and universally known to agree such that anyone who did not share your opinion would be a delusional pariah worthy of ridicule.

    No, that’s not what I was saying. I was saying that the level of care, detail, and analysis in pronouncements of Ian Duke are much greater than those offered by previous management regimes. I’m not even opining on the correctness of decisions between regimes.

    It’s like comparing the writing of an 8th grader to that of a PhD student.

    "I don't agree with you, Brian, but I love you. You are my favorite radical outlier in Vintage."

    You've decontextualized and cited this comment twice, so I suppose you believe its worthy of remark.

    I love you too Brian, just as I adore Brian Weissman, but believe he was proven wrong , w/r/t his preferred restrictions in the table I linked to, with the benefit of history & hindsight. The cards he wanted restricted werent close to deserving it. Cards like Rector and Illusionary Mask.

    I don't expect my viewpoint to be shared universally but I believe it is valuable and should be stated. This is very distinct from believing "I have all the answers and I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt why everyone else is wrong."

    But that’s not my position. I am super explicit about my values, starting premises and assumptions. I don’t expect everyone to care as much as I do about the format diversity as a measure of format health. But I am trying to demonstrate the costs of alternative preference sets.

    I don't find your opinion threatening, but I do not find that sentiment to be mutual.

    Sadly, you are correct. 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.

    If there is one thing I’ve learned in 25 years of magic, it’s that players love to complain & calling for restrictions is the easiest thing in the world. Standing up for easy-to-hate decks like Dredge is harder.



  • @stuart Restrict Misstep?!? How darest thou!
    Seriously though, that’s a very interesting perspective. Do you think that would lead to a maelstrom of other 1cmc cards being restricted? Preordain for example? Or Deathrite Shaman? Goblin Welder would probably come back to some degree.
    I wonder what the world looks like with the following:

    • restrict Misstep

    • restrict Preordain

    • restrict Narcomoeba

    • restrict Hollow One

    • restrict Paradoxical Outcome



  • @wfain

    Still a world where Workshops is the best deck...



  • @vaughnbros Maybe. Idk though. Might require hitting Ravager or Ballista too, but I don’t think Shops is that good right now. Restricting most of the taxing effects to which they have access really pushed it down to just an aggro deck with a busted land to power things out imo.

    I wonder if what all this comes down to is that many long time Vintage players don’t feel they should have to build their decks to fight creatures because there are several spell based decks that are super powerful that require a multiplicity if answers in order to fight (Storm and Outcome spring immediately to mind). Maybe if these hyper spell-centric decks weren’t prevalent Shops/Dredge wouldn’t even be good because people could afford to build decks that can fight creatures?

    If we really think back to why we started playing in the first place, I imagine most were enamored with attacking with various types of creatures (I loved the knights and dragons particularly). In the early years most games were won in the combat phase, not on the stack with a pile of spells. Somewhere along the way Vintage became a format obsessed by executing multi-spell sequences that would either win outright (10drills), create such devastating advantage as to never be overcome (Gush/Cruise decks), or virtually locked the game out (Vault/Key, Oath/Griselbrand/FoW). The taxing Shops decks of yore took advantage of the proliferation of such by playing high threat dudes and grinding resource accrual to a halt. But what if there is a world where Vintage is about attacking again? What if people had to be prepared to win the combat step primarily and the stack secondairly?

    Is it possible Shops/Dredge/Survival/Eldrazi have only been good because the other decks refuse to address the combat step?


Locked
 

WAF/WHF