@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
But that’s why a categorical rule is silly. The same effect can be broken one year, and fair another.
When did Ben Shapiro get here?
@smmenen
Well sure... in 93/94 Workshop was fine. Today? It’s Black Lotus every turn. The further density of modern-day, powerful, cheap artifacts that get printed, the less the mana restriction on Workshop matters.
It’s pretty much a moot point though, as Brian pointed out, but I’d argue we have a much more interesting format if this weren’t the case.
@jaco
My idea is pretty simple. No deck should be playing 4 of any land that generates the same/more “mana” than Lotus over and over. Cards like that should be restricted. As @brianpk80 mentioned earlier, this seems unlikely due to reticent on the part of the regulators. But that’s what should be done.
@brass-man said in Budget/unpowered decks in 2019:
Bazaarless Survival - This has to be a thing. I'd have to spend some time to figure out exactly what the implications are (there could be many). Cutting Bazaar makes Hollow One worse but it makes your mana more consistent and frees up a lot of space. Maybe this deck is G/U or G/R for looting effects and some additional one-drops. You know you want to play G/R Bazaarless Faithless Survival. Admit it.
Certainly one could cut down to 1-2 Hollow One for such a build. I’d definitely play at least 1 Hogaak though. Probably interested in 4 ESG and maybe even stay as close to mono-green as possible?
@smmenen Cool. You're right. Glad we had this chat. 
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
Where do you think I derived my suggested, but fabricated contribution on what you could have said from? As I said, I already agreed with the points in the paragraph above. But my point is that, instead of blithely responding by calling my metaphor as "reductive" and "simplistic,"
@wfain said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
TLDR; I'm not saying the metaphor is reductive. I understand that's exactly what metaphors are. I'm saying the point you're making with the metaphor is reductive.
Something here doesn't add up... but whatever.
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
you could have responded in the manner in which I suggested, for better results.
Literally already have done, as you pointed out. This is verging on incessant. I'll have to let it go, I suppose.
I want people to enjoy discussing things with you, but I'm afraid I shall remain dissatisfied. I'm sorry I've so metaphorically lost the plot. For those reasons, I'm out. I'll go back to keeping my Survival list updated and leave you to pretend you're debating with someone else.
TLDR; I'm not saying the metaphor is reductive. I understand that's exactly what metaphors are. I'm saying the point you're making with the metaphor is reductive.
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
That's what metaphors are: they are simplifications of reality by mapping one or more element of thing A to thing B for some purpose or insight.
Not as smart as you, got it.
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
Your recommendation to "not write that way" is tantamount to asking me to avoiding analogies or metaphors altogether
Not at all. My suggestion is for you to not call something a metaphor, then say it is "directly applicable", "almost perfect", etc.. Though a metaphor, by definition is not meant literally (using your Trump as a baby analogy), to present the Orange Clown as an infant metaphorically and then say your metaphor matches almost perfectly would lead many readers to believe that all/most characteristics one associates with babies also apply to the Orange Clown (up to, and including the distinct possibility he wears diapers on the regular).
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
The point was to indicate what I agreed with, while also reinforcing the point that you called out my metaphor as "simplistic" and "reductive," when that's exactly what metaphors and analogies are. That's like criticizing oranges for being orange. Such criticisms are frustrating to deal with because they may seem to the casual reader as having some merit, when in fact, it's the most baseless possible critique.
The point, dear smmenen, which apparently I'll again fail to grasp ;P, is that you spent a lot of time comparing one thing to another and saying how perfect the comparison is. I didn't say your metaphor was reductive. I pointed very specifically to the part I find reductive and over-simplified (that the DCI is only in the trust-busting business). That's reductive. It has, and should have, other considerations and functions when making B&R determinations. I know how your metaphor works. I'm not terribad at the ol' metaphor game maself. I just think, as AJ said, it's not a very useful metaphor because it pushes people into certain assumptions (chiefly that the DCI is only in the trust-busting game when it comes to B&R choices). Of course that is one, I'll even grant a major, aspect of their process. Who is denying that? I'm certainly not. Perhaps I did not write with enough clarity in my initial post. The second time I went so far as to bold the bits I took issue with.
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
I disagreed with your point. To the extent that your point was that my metaphor of "DCI is an antitrust enforcer' is simplistic or reductive
This was never my point. Your metaphor is fine. I take issue with it being reduced to the function, when it is not. There's a lot more going on when they make those choices than simply "market-share."
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
You know what would have been a more productive post on your end? Instead of needling me because you over-read the limits of my analogy, and criticizing me on that basis, you could have said something like this:
Perhaps the DCI as anti-trust enforcer is too narrow, even as metaphor, to get at what Brian envisions. If we extend your analogy of 'decks as businesses' more generally, we can see how a wide range of background law and policy is designed to maintain competitive balance and background fairness in business and commerce, such as contract law, the law of fraud, etc. Seen form this vantage point, antitrust is just one of a much larger set of policy and regulatory concerns. Likewise, although the DCI may be (figuratively speaking) an antitrust enforcer (like the FTC), they are also like the SEC, whose mission is to maintain fair and orderly markets (or, in this case, metagames).
See the difference? You could have made a powerful and interesting contribution instead of needling me with a silly criticism because you over-read my analogy.
That's odd... I did speak to that earlier. But maybe you got so tied up in thinking I don't know what metaphors are that you missed it? I'll repost for your convenience:
@wfain said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
Irl anti-trust law is only one piece of the regulatory framework that purports to hold the machine of business together. Are there not countless laws, regulations, etc., which specifically interfere with businesses that are nowhere near any definition of monopoly simply because a sense of fair-play needs to be maintained? Aren’t there laws and regulations to ensure all actors in the marketplace operate under a similar set of rules? What happens when someone breaks those rules? Does it matter if they’re a monopoly if they engage in insider trading or securities fraud, or any litany of other crimes? Of course not!
If you find it helpful to think of this discussion like business and economics (understandable given your profession) I think we would all do well to remember that the regulatory and legal framework surrounding business is not just anti-trust law (or metagame dominance %) but also includes preemptive regulation and prohibition of the sort @brianpk80 suggests. If mom and pop shop X breaks law Y they still, theoretically, suffer the legal consequences regardless of their market share.
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
The fact that I called it a metaphor in my response to Brian suggests that it was, by definition, not meant to be taken literally. The FTC is a federal government agency. The DCI is not, it's a unit within Wizards of the Coast. Magic decks don't pay taxes.
No one said they did? We've got to get out of the weeds. If you'd said one aspect of the DCI could be thought of as akin to anti-trust enforcement? Fine. That's obviously true (and I literally, not metaphorically, don't have a clue who is arguing it isn't). I found it reductive to present that as the only function, as was done, and as I pointed out previously.
To begin; sorry for the long, digressive, diatribel nature of this post. I felt it warranted. And yes, I am fully aware that, in several instances, I communicate in much the same way smmenen did, it is purposeful and for effect, nothing more. My hope is some might read it and realize how difficult advice/criticism is to swallow when it comes from a place of unflinching self-superiority (example; I'm sorry you took my metaphor too literally).
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
This happens to be the main purpose of the DCI, according to their own explanation linked to earlier, in managing the Banned and Restricted lists. They maintain competitive balance and diversity of options by restricting and banning dominant strategies. Many aspects of anti trust law is directly applicable, including the difficult questions about how much market share is too much, etc.
In this respect, the metaphorical mapping of business markets to policy regulator is almost perfect. The function of the DCI is primarily to act as an antitrust enforcer.
This is the reductive part. Directly applicable. The function. Primarily. that's what's reductive. Of course that's part of their job, but metaphorically or not, it isn't the whole job. If you don't want us to oversimplify your metaphor maybe don't... write it that way?
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
All metaphors are reductive. A clock is not the universe, but the metaphor of a "clock work universe" helped Newton developed insights into physics.
See how yours is different? A clockwork universe vs. many aspects of anti-trust law [are] directly applicable? Thinking about the universe like a clock helped Newton gain insights vs. "[the DCI's] purpose is to ban and restrict cards from decks that monopolize... markets."
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
I don't disagree with anything you are saying here, but you took my metaphor too literally,
So you had to quote me twice and spend about four paragraphs proving I took you too literally just to deliver a backhanded, passive-aggressive attaboy? What's the point? You didn't have to do any of that. You could've just as easily said, yeah, you make a good point, maybe they should do some of that, too. You didn't functionally disagree with my point, just with how I interpreted your very literal metaphor and you had to spend time making that known, I guess. Here, I'll give you an example of how it could be differently done:
@brianpk80 said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
Wonderfully stated, William. The reason we don't talk about restricting Bazaar anymore is because of the statement from Wizards that Workshop and other iconic cards are off the table.
See how Brian actually said, wow, that's a good point you made! Here's a piece you may have missed, though, which throws your conclusion off just a tad. Instead you had to spend time trying to insult me (or something?) in order to? Make it seem like you're more right? I honestly don't know. In any event, it isn't helping your case. It just makes people not want to talk to you, which is a real shame.
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
I thought it was quite obvious that the DCI is not the FTC or the Justice Department's anti-trust division, and that decks aren't businesses that pay taxes and make profits, and make decisions business decisions to gain or lose market share.
You thought?
You wrote:
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
Many aspects of anti trust law is directly applicable, including the difficult questions about how much market share is too much, etc.
And:
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
In this respect, the metaphorical mapping of business markets to policy regulator is almost perfect.
And:
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
The function of the DCI is primarily to act as an antitrust enforcer.
How did you want us to take your metaphor, if not seriously and fairly literally? That's how you presented it. If you say a metaphor is nearly perfect that means it is to be taken very seriously and that it matches on nearly every point. If something is directly applicable that means it applies literally (or directly!) without the need of metaphor.
Anyhow... I just wanted to let you know that I don't not respect your opinion and expertise, but you could, maybe, potentially not do stuff like this:
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
I'm sorry that you took my metaphor/analogy literally
The only thing that accomplishes is to make you look mean-spirited (which I do not believe you to be). The way we communicate is just as, if not more, important than the what we communicate.
@smmenen said in July 8, 2019 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
This happens to be the main purpose of the DCI, according to their own explanation linked to earlier, in managing the Banned and Restricted lists. They maintain competitive balance and diversity of options by restricting and banning dominant strategies. Many aspects of anti trust law is directly applicable, including the difficult questions about how much market share is too much, etc.
In this respect, the metaphorical mapping of business markets to policy regulator is almost perfect. The function of the DCI is primarily to act as an antitrust enforcer.
Isn’t this waaaaaaaaaaay too simple? Reductive? Irl anti-trust law is only one piece of the regulatory framework that purports to hold the machine of business together. Are there not countless laws, regulations, etc., which specifically interfere with businesses that are nowhere near any definition of monopoly simply because a sense of fair-play needs to be maintained? Aren’t there laws and regulations to ensure all actors in the marketplace operate under a similar set of rules? What happens when someone breaks those rules? Does it matter if they’re a monopoly if they engage in insider trading or securities fraud, or any litany of other crimes? Of course not!
If you find it helpful to think of this discussion like business and economics (understandable given your profession) I think we would all do well to remember that the regulatory and legal framework surrounding business is not just anti-trust law (or metagame dominance %) but also includes preemptive regulation and prohibition of the sort @brianpk80 suggests. If mom and pop shop X breaks law Y they still, theoretically, suffer the legal consequences regardless of their market share.
In short; we can, and probably should, do both things. Metagame monopolies are obviously bad. Decks that routinely “break the law” are also obviously bad, regardless of often people use them.
@Smmenen @brianpk80
You lads should go on tour. High comedy.
It occurs to me the issue some people currently have is there are two branches of deck that get to completely or largely ignore the rules of the game (tap lands, spend mana, play spells). Shops and Bazaar. Shops has been restricted many times before (leading to the inevitable question; why not restrict the card itself?) and now seems to be quite good, but non-threatening (thanks in large part to FoV and FoW). Bazaar based, on the other hand, seem to become more consistent, more explosive, AND more reactive with each successive printing. We’re living in a world where 2 Bazaar decks exist that also support 8-10 free counterspells in addition to FoV, and can produce a power level “over 9,000” just by tapping 1 land.
And how does one fight this? No idea! Used to be Priest and Leyline were good answers. Now Hogaak and FoV make them decidedly mediocre. Jailer and Trap? Contagion and LLoSanctity (to say nothing of tons of free counterspells).
Then there’s the fact that even if you can land and protect one of 8 your hate cards long enough to matter you also may have to tangle with a parade of free 4/4’s. I can see why all that feels unfun and degenerate.
Personally, I don’t really enjoy where dredge is right now and I’d probably still play Survival (and I think it would still be very good) if Bazaar was restricted. So let’s just do that? Restrict Bazaar, make dredge play Faithless Looting.
@brass-man
“There has to be a budget deck that capitalizes on Collector Ouphe and Force of Vigor.”
4 Collector
4 FoV
2 Sylvan Library
8 Spirit Guides
4 Blood Moon
4 Magus
4 Misstep
That seems like a decent place to start. Now add in some sold green dudes (Scavenging Ooze, Tarmogoyf, etc). DRS and Wrenn and Six also seem good if you can afford the fetches to make it work. If you can then you also get access to Assassins Trophy.