Questioning Decks

[Zherbus]

I am genuinely curious about how this hopes to win against something like Deathlong or Belcher with only 4 FOW. Is it a match that you just write off?

Also, against established benchmarks, why is this better than:

Meandeck Titan?

Control Slaver?

Stax?

I have a question; why is it that anytime somebody posts something new, everybody wants to talk a bunch of shit about it, rather than testing the deck and talking out of their ass?

That being said, the only people who seem to have added anything constructive or useful to this thread seem to have been Dante, GI, and Rico Suave.

The much maligned VideoGameBoy (VGB) has been working on a deck like this for quite some time, with posts on the old TMD and the new (http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19091), which have mostly gone ignored. That is obviously a precursor to the development of this deck, and I'm aware this is significantly different, but why not show a little love to VGB?

Regardless of how it looks, it has performed, and that alone warrants looking at it. I really like it, but between testing my own decks and school, I don't have time to test this. But really, I hate to sound like a n00b, but some of you do have a tendency to stifle new ideas unless they're your own.

I have a question; why is it that anytime somebody posts something new, everybody wants to talk a bunch of shit about it, rather than testing the deck and talking out of their ass?


I have a question; why is it that anytime somebody questions the validity of card choices, everyone gets defensive instead of answering the questions?

"Test it." is about as good as a response as "Just because." There is a way to explain and articulate everything when it comes to magic. For example, when Hi-Val asked if the deck was any better of a deck choice than 3 other decks, we can put aside bruised ego's because not everyone fellates you for making the deck. Instead, Eastman could have saved some needless dialogue between himself and Hi-Val and went right into answering the question as he did a few posts later.


But really, I hate to sound like a n00b, but some of you do have a tendency to stifle new ideas unless they're your own.


How was what Doug said STIFLING? Eastman had answers, so why shouldn't Doug ask them?

Instead, Eastman could have saved some needless dialogue between yourself and Hi-Val and went right into answering the question as he did a few posts later.

I didn't understand Hi-Val's question so I couldn't answer it right away and told him so. I have answered all the other questions people have asked. When he clarified I went ahead and answered it. There is no issue here.

I appreciate those trying to 'defend' the deck. First of all I'm not the deck and I've got no particular attachment to it or desire for it to be perceived as more potent then it should be. Constructive criticism and critique are what I posted it here for.

There are a few members who think their non n00b status gives them a right to break the fundamental rules of posting (toad above) but this isn't uncommon, nor it is particularly new. Rather than arguing, I'd really rather those of you who do have constructive input go ahead with it, rather then contributing (even with good intentions) to the flaming.

I'm not fellating any deck, nor does it have anything to do with my ego. I had no say in the building or testing of the deck, and thus nothing personally invested in it. But it is a fact that many times when a new idea like this comes along, outside of the minds of Mean Deck or Short Bus, there is a bunch of nitpicking about random things, rather than anything constructive. Take for example, when Mean Deck went around promoting and yelling about their 'Breakout Deck' Workshop Slaver. People weren't really questioning that, because it came from Mean Deck. As it turns out, once the deck was tested by everybody, that it was average at best, and not really the shit that everyone was proclaiming it to be. As Jacob Orlove wrote, lateral thinking is a way of thinking which seeks the solution to intractable problems through unorthodox methods, or elements which would normally be ignored by logical thinking.

[Zherbus]

For the love of God, take this absurd reasoning and put it rightfully to rest. These aren't newbies to Vintage that posted this decklist. Sorry if everyone can't be as intuitive as yourself Toad, but if you don't have the time to test a decklist (which has been piloted to success by respectful  members of the community), and least shut your pie hole about what you consider to be "multiple flaws".

For the 100th time, if everyone discredited decklists on the premise that they "appeared to have multiple flaws", what would become of innovation?

[Zherbus]

For the love of God, take this absurd reasoning and put it rightfully to rest. These aren't newbies to Vintage that posted this decklist. Sorry if everyone can't be as intuitive as yourself Toad, but if you don't have the time to test a decklist (which has been piloted to success by respectful  members of the community), and least shut your pie hole about what you consider to be "multiple flaws".

For the 100th time, if everyone discredited decklists on the premise that they "appeared to have multiple flaws", what would become of innovation?

That's funny, because I see this kind of discrediting happening almost daily here. What qualifies it to be warranted versus anti-innovation? Is it because it was posted by an Adept? (I won't even go into my thoughts on that whole thing.) Most of the time, I'm also annoyed when I see snide, non-constructive posts regarding decks, especially when they're aimed at a thread which is trying to push innovation in a new direction (like this one). However, this comment made me want to point out the obvious.

[Zherbus]

If everyone would explain what appear to be flaws like Eastman did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Testing a deck should not be a requirement to discuss a deck list. By that "logic" we would have to completely test every deck that pops up on the radar, which is not only retarded by downright impossible... that's why we rely on the deck builders to answer questions for is.

How do you know these questions that are asked aren't helping some other reader out? If I post a deck and get questioned about ANY card choice, I always explain it with a reason and never with "if you haven't tested it, shut your pie hole."

But it is a fact that many times when a new idea like this comes along, outside of the minds of Mean Deck or Short Bus, there is a bunch of nitpicking about random things, rather than anything constructive. Take for example, when Mean Deck went around promoting and yelling about their 'Breakout Deck' Workshop Slaver. People weren't really questioning that, because it came from Mean Deck. As it turns out, once the deck was tested by everybody, that it was average at best, and not really the shit that everyone was proclaiming it to be.

First off, your notion that decks that come out by Mean Deck and Short Bus aren't questions is way off. If anything we get MORE analyzed by the community because of the people who don't want to lend credability to a Mean Deck creation. The loathing some of you people have for Mean Deck is another subject altogether, however.

Our Workshop Slaver was a fine deck that later served as a Skeleton for another successful deck, 7/10 split (a deck that was top8'ing all summer long). We took a play from the Short Bus playbook and started using Titan's over Slavers ourselves. There was nothing fundimentally wrong with the deck, but it certainly could have evolved. Should people have questioned it? Only if there was actually anything to question... for example "How does this deal with Null Rod if you can't get Chalice for 2 online?" was never posed, but if you had thought of it, why didn't you ask? Is this 20/20 hindsight or did we make you feel so inferior that you didn't dare question the mighty Team Mean Deck, because they are sooo obviously above answering questions?

[Shock Wave]

How do you know these questions that are asked aren't helping some other reader out? If I post a deck and get questioned about ANY card choice, I always explain it with a reason and never with "if you haven't tested it, shut your pie hole."

Ummm, are you kidding me? My post was not in response to a user who posted a thoughtful piece of criticism. I think it is justified to tell someone to back off when they are essentially spamming a thread with posts such as:

“This deck name sucks.�
“I don’t test decks that have multiple flaws at 1st sight.�

… especially when that person is an administrator. If anyone else would’ve posted that crap, it would almost automatically be red-marked with the possible inclusion of a warning.

My post was not insinuation that you should test EVERY decklist, but rather that if you’re going to shit talk a deck, make sure you have some credible evidence to back yourself up, and that DOES include testing. To ask questions isn’t a problem, that’s what these boards are all about. However, to attack the viability of a deck with lame posts absolutely warrants some evidence in the form of testing and/or tournament results.

[Eastman]

I think most of this conflict stems from the fact that Toad made some pretty atrocious posts. People reacting to that have made more general statements for fear of attacking an Admin directly, others (such as you, Zherbus) have felt a need to defend yourselves.

I agree with Shockwave that:

I think it is justified to tell someone to back off when they are essentially spamming a thread with posts such as:

“This deck name sucks.�
“I don’t test decks that have multiple flaws at 1st sight.�

but that and an over generalized reaction were the only issues here I think.

[Zherbus]

Toad's first post WAS red-marked and I have spoken with him... over a day ago. There's no need for you to tell anyone to back off after I've already done it. You're either beating a dead-horse or blowing off some steam. Either way, you were out of line.

As for 'shit-talking' a deck...

Would you say that if I pointed out to a deck that it only has 4 Force of Wills and that will be a weakness in some matchups, that is shit-talking? Or constructive criticism? Do I need to spend 3 hours running this thing through a complete gauntlet to ask the person who created the deck and ALREADY put the hours of testing in why it might be better or worse than a set of decks? Am I missing something or is there actually something wrong with that?

[Razvan]

I think there's a lot of circular logic going on here, too.

Testing a deck should not be a requirement to discuss a deck list.

However, so many times, I hear (see) everyone screaming their heads off that decks weren't tested before they were placed here. So which one is it, now?

And if/when you test, how can you demonstrate the results? Percentages are bad, as it starts flame wars (never seen, but I'd believe it). Stating that you won/lost a certain ammount of matches is the exact same thing. Giving a qualitative ammount, such as strong/weak/needs work is the exact same thing.

Analyzing the deck is just as good, and perhaps even better. I think most people here are knowledgeable enough (sentience, however, is debateable ) to take a look at 2 deck lists and at least predict what the problem will be.

I mean, use reduction, people. Most things can be reduced to a very simple statement.

Example: 4 of's in a deck mean, on average, a 40% chance of having them in the opening hand, first turn. Knowing that, think of how your deck can function should it face that one card. Concrete Example: Null Rod vs. your workshop build. Can your deck work under Null Rod? Can it win? Can it get defense? How about, Null Rod AND Force of Will? Take it like that.

It will take much less time than testing, and then you can just worry about tweaking it to improve those match-ups. Alternate Solution to above example Use Artifacts that do not have activation. Maindeck ways to deal with Null Rod.

Okay, that's it for testing.

As for assaulting everyone, what can you do. A lot of people do base too much on past credentials. There's a lot of innovation outside of Meandeck and Short Bus, but it gets ignored, until those people start winning mainstream tournaments. And since most mainstream tournaments are in New England, and it's hard for some of us to go there, we'll just have to let you people win, and proceed to teach you all how to play magic when we do make it down there.

[Zherbus]

However, so many times, I hear (see) everyone screaming their heads off that decks weren't tested before they were placed here. So which one is it, now?

Are you fucking kidding? Use some common sense! If you're going to present a deck idea, it should of course be tested. If you want to ask a question about a deck, that shouldn't require complete testing.

[Eastman]

Toad's first post WAS red-marked and I have spoken with him... over a day ago. There's no need for you to tell anyone to back off after I've already done it. You're either beating a dead-horse or blowing off some steam. Either way, you were out of line.

As for 'shit-talking' a deck...

Would you say that if I pointed out to a deck that it only has 4 Force of Wills and that will be a weakness in some matchups, that is shit-talking? Or constructive criticism? Do I need to spend 3 hours running this thing through a complete gauntlet to ask the person who created the deck and ALREADY put the hours of testing in why it might be better or worse than a set of decks? Am I missing something or is there actually something wrong with that?

I don't want to be characterized as one of the people who was really upset about all this... I wasn't and I don't think I acted as if I was.

I answered the question about the number of force of wills.

[Zherbus]

Dave, you're being a total gent about all of this. I just needed to use the example.

[Shock Wave]

Toad's first post WAS red-marked and I have spoken with him... over a day ago. There's no need for you to tell anyone to back off after I've already done it. You're either beating a dead-horse or blowing off some steam. Either way, you were out of line.

I don't monitor your post surveillance patterns, so I have no idea when you spoke to Toad about it nor could I forecast when you were planning to. I opened a thread, saw crap that apparantly nobody commented on posted by an adminisitrator, and felt compelled to put in my 2 cents. If you think that's out of line, then do your worst. I frankly don't give a shit. It's your board, do as you please.

If I had any idea that the issue had been addressed, then believe me, I wouldn't have interjected at all. When I posted, Toad's 2nd comment was still very visible, but now it seems to have disemminated into the vastness of the Internet. Was I supposed to predict that deletion was pending for that message? lol.

As for 'shit-talking' a deck...

Would you say that if I pointed out to a deck that it only has 4 Force of Wills and that will be a weakness in some matchups, that is shit-talking? Or constructive criticism? Do I need to spend 3 hours running this thing through a complete gauntlet to ask the person who created the deck and ALREADY put the hours of testing in why it might be better or worse than a set of decks? Am I missing something or is there actually something wrong with that?

Look, I have no idea where you're going with this. My response was in direct reference to a specific pair of posts that presented no such argument akin to what you've used for comparison above. I have no problem with that approach, but that was not the type of approach that I was reprimanding.

[Zherbus]

I opened a thread, saw crap that apparantly nobody commented on posted by an adminisitrator, and felt compelled to put in my 2 cents. If you think that's out of line, then do your worst. I frankly don't give a shit. It's your board, do as you please.

Thank for being both mature and constructive.

I left Toad's second message there because I had hoped he would elaborate. When he didn't I moved the content here and deleted that post. The first post was red-marked before you had posted. We agree he was out of line, but I am asking you to leave things like that to me.

Me talking to people about bahavioral issues > flamewar.

[Hi-Val]

Above all, the benchmark is a tool that we need to respect as deckbuilders and innovators. When people question a deck (as I did) they compare it to decks that work similarly to determine if it is, in fact, better than the existing decks. This isnt' "stifling innovation". This is taking the wheat from the chaff, if you will.

I like to think that the reason I can build nice decks is that I can quickly determine whether a strategy can be made that surpasses benchmarks. It's the BASF test:

Does it lock harder than Stax?

Does it control more than 4cc?

Does it weld faster than Titan?

Does it combo faster than Deathlong?

There's a definite difference between criticizing decks and discounting the ideas. It's not a case of "OMG YOUR STIFLING INNOVATION!" It's people wondering why they should devote time to the deck. You need to sell a deck to the community the same way you'd sell a car to a buyer. Say why it's better than what they have already. If you can't come up with reasons for it, maybe you shouldn't be posting your deck.

[Shock Wave]

I opened a thread, saw crap that apparantly nobody commented on posted by an adminisitrator, and felt compelled to put in my 2 cents. If you think that's out of line, then do your worst. I frankly don't give a shit. It's your board, do as you please.

Thank for being both mature and constructive.

I left Toad's second message there because I had hoped he would elaborate. When he didn't I moved the content here and deleted that post. The first post was red-marked before you had posted. We agree he was out of line, but I am asking you to leave things like that to me.

Me talking to people about bahavioral issues > flamewar.

Sure thing. I definitely am not interested in playing daddy here as some of my posts aren't exactly lush with constructive content. However, sometimes we all need to be told we're out of line.

Hi Val: Again, there's a difference between posing legitimate questions about a deck and proliferating nonsense. I don't think anyone had a problem with any of the issues you've raised about the deck.

[Saucemaster]

Hi Val: Again, there's a difference between posing legitimate questions about a deck and proliferating nonsense. I don't think anyone had a problem with any of the issues you've raised about the deck.

Well, JACO apparently did, but even an idiot Meandecker like myself can tell that JACO isn't Shockwave, so distinction noted.

More generally, I think what's happening is that people who already feel like underdogs, or who feel that their opinions are less respected than they should be, are therefore overly sensitive to criticism.  This is, of course, NOT directed at Eastman--I agree 100% with Zherbus there--since the questions he was asked, he answered, honestly and well.  This goes more generally to the overall defensiveness of a number of the reactions in that thread.

I honestly understand the genesis of that reaction, but I would view it as oversensitivity.  What in the world is the point of posting a decklist in the Vintage forum on TMD if you're not looking for criticism?  Hell, we should be ripping into decks and tearing them apart.  It's not about stifling innovation, it's about directing it, and focusing on innovation that WORKS.  Innovation for innovation's sake alone is useless in competitive magic, however aesthetically pleasing it might be in a more casual setting.  Innovation that works, and that alters the metagame, should be encouraged.  What criticism should be trying to accomplish--and this is how I read Hi-Val's "benchmark" question--is to weed out the decks that are innovative, but not good enough, from the decks that have real potential to change the metagame.  If you can't answer the criticism, your deck probably isn't ready for the big time.  Work on it some more, or for heaven's sake just *acknowledge* that the deck has a weakness and open it up for suggestions.  

Oh, and @ Razvan:

However, so many times, I hear (see) everyone screaming their heads off that decks weren't tested before they were placed here. So which one is it, now?

In case Z's upset reply wasn't clear (): If you're going to POST a deck, if you're going to give your baby up to TMD to evaluate, criticize, and dissect, then you HAVE to have tested it and be ready with some answers to the questions you will inevitably be asked.  Otherwise you're just brainstorming a list and throwing it up, the best result of which is that most people ignore you and your thread dies an ignominious death (leading to the sense that your ideas are less valued and the extra-defensiveness I mentioned above), the worst result of which is that some long-suffering souls actually DO read the thread, and feel their time was wasted when it becomes clear that the list has never been tested and has nothing in particular to recommend it.

On the other hand, those criticizing a deck obviously cannot be expected to test it against a full gauntlet before they ask even the most rudimentary questions.  That's your job as a deckbuilder, to be able to answer those questions.  Think of it as trying a case before the Supreme Court, except that this time the bench is just the community of your fellow TMDers.  They're going to interject, they're going to dissect your argument, and they're going to expect you to have answers ready.  And those answers need to be backed up by something.  And that's the EASY part, because if you answer their initial questions and criticisms, then they really ARE going to test it, and you're going to have to respond to much more in-depth and penetrating criticisms.  See Rico Suave's post in the thread that gave birth to this one.

Teams, it should be pointed out, have a natural advantage here, because they have an established network in place over which they can spread out the labor of testing and defending a deck; and they encounter much of the criticism early on from within the team, so they've already dealt with much of the initial questions that arise, and the decklist usually addresses it.  This means that the initial criticism is often swept out of the way fairly quickly, which I suppose appears to some people as if there's less criticism of the "name" teams' decklists.  There isn't, it's just that the low-level criticism (getting over the initial hump) is more easily dealt with, and to be honest, not that many people engage in tested, high-level criticism of decklists.  And when teams do it, it's usually not in their best interests to post the results.

EDITED because my initial post was a bit confusing.

[rvs]

Just a small 2 cents from me (so what else is new!).

There is no wrong whatsoever in pointing out a deck has design flaws, as long as you elaborate and what those are and why they are flawed. Toad just needed to be a little more specific about the apperent flaws that he saw.

Also, I would like to mention that if you have a problem with a specific post, report it. There's no reason to make a reply and tell someone they made a shitty post when you might as well PM somebody. If you're going to reply to a serious topic, stay on the subject (Yeah, I'm still dutch ).

Anyway, that's what I think...

[JACO]

Hi Val: Again, there's a difference between posing legitimate questions about a deck and proliferating nonsense. I don't think anyone had a problem with any of the issues you've raised about the deck.

Well, JACO apparently did, but even an idiot Meandecker like myself can tell that JACO =/= Shockwave.

More generally, I think what's happening is that people who already feel like underdogs, or who feel that their opinions are less respected than they should be, are therefore overly sensitive to criticism.  This is, of course, NOT directed at Eastman--I agree 100% with Zherbus there--since the questions he was asked, he answered, honestly and well.  This goes more generally to the overall defensiveness of a number of the reactions in that thread.

Oh come now, Rich is like 4 inces taller and about 30 pounds heavier than me (all muscle, I'm sure). ; )

You're right, I did have an issue with that thread, but mainly the way people were approaching it. After Z cleaned it up, it is EXACTLY what I want to see in a thread when looking at a deck; people bouncing good ideas off each other. It's not that I feel like an underdog, I just want to see something good come of a thread with potential, rather than become a haven for weak posts and minimal thought.

I honestly understand the genesis of that reaction, but I would view it as oversensitivity.  What in the world is the point of posting a decklist in the Vintage forum on TMD if you're not looking for criticism?  Hell, we should be ripping into decks and tearing them apart.  It's not about stifling innovation, it's about directing it, and focusing on innovation that WORKS.

Exactly; it's about focusing on card choices and streamlining a given deck. As I said, I think the thread is now a model that others should be based on. Questions about strategy, card choices, tutor targets, and more, are what helps the community understand how the deck works, and what helps the deckbuilders get some subtle help on card choices they may have not thought about before.

[Razvan]

Are you fucking kidding? Use some common sense! If you're going to present a deck idea, it should of course be tested. If you want to ask a question about a deck, that shouldn't require complete testing.

First of all... this wasn't the discussion. Dave posted a deck, and people kept bitching about how it was just an expension of another deck, and how it had some glaring holes. Right?

Where's the "question about a deck you mention"? Maybe I am missing something. I thought you just said that testing a deck should not be a requirement to discuss a decklist. He posted a decklist, analyzed it, even took it to a tournament, and people complained that it wasn't tested and it had problems, right? I will re-read the thread again, but that's the jist of it, right? I agreed with you, when I said, and I quote:

Analyzing the deck is just as good, and perhaps even better.

You then went off on me. What am I missing?

In case Z's upset reply wasn't clear (): If you're going to POST a deck, if you're going to give your baby up to TMD to evaluate, criticize, and dissect, then you HAVE to have tested it and be ready with some answers to the questions you will inevitably be asked.

That is not a problem. And yet again, I admit I was unclear. I understand the basic concepts of deckbuilding, don't worry, and I would dare anyone to find an occasion where I didn't test or analyze anything I have posted (and yes, I almost expect someone to look through all my posts to find a contradiction, if they are as bored at work as I am).

My problem is that there are no clear guidelines as to what testing should be, and in certain occasions, testing is pointless. As before, adding 2-3 artifact solutions maindeck to Oshawa Stompy, and still checking to see whether it trounces Mono Blue or Landstill. An analysis is just as good. Since it still has Trolls, Gibbons, Bazaars, whatever, it still trounces it.

Dave's deck is Dragon and Titan. It has the basic concepts of either. We all know how Dragon acts, and we all know how Titan acts. Again, unless I miss the point, it was for each aspect to fix the weaknesses in the other (which Dragon already did before, without the Welders), and to have a more obfuscated game plan, thus reducing the risk of running into some specific hate, even though graveyard hate hits both parts.

Otherwise you're just brainstorming a list and throwing it up, the best result of which is that most people ignore you and your thread dies an ignominious death (leading to the sense that your ideas are less valued and the extra-defensiveness I mentioned above), the worst result of which is that some long-suffering souls actually DO read the thread, and feel their time was wasted when it becomes clear that the list has never been tested and has nothing in particular to recommend it.

Agreed, again.

[Jacob Orlove]

Testing a deck should not be a requirement to discuss a deck list.

However, so many times, I hear (see) everyone screaming their heads off that decks weren't tested before they were placed here. So which one is it, now?

It's very simple: when you POST a deck, you're expected to have tested it. NO ONE is accusing Eastman of failing to do this.

When you COMMENT on a deck, you are not necessarily expected to have gone out and tested it. HOWEVER, people (again, not Eastman) WERE accusing some of the people criticizing Eastman's deck of not testing it before offering criticism. THIS is what Zherbus was talking about.

Is this all clear now?

[Razvan]

Testing a deck should not be a requirement to discuss a deck list.

However, so many times, I hear (see) everyone screaming their heads off that decks weren't tested before they were placed here. So which one is it, now?

It's very simple: when you POST a deck, you're expected to have tested it. NO ONE is accusing Eastman of failing to do this.

When you COMMENT on a deck, you are not necessarily expected to have gone out and tested it. HOWEVER, people (again, not Eastman) WERE accusing some of the people criticizing Eastman's deck of not testing it before offering criticism. THIS is what Zherbus was talking about.

Is this all clear now?

Could you run it by me one more time?



Yeah, it's clear. Come to think of it, it was clear before too, I just didn't see it properly.

[dicemanx]

It's very simple: when you POST a deck, you're expected to have tested it. NO ONE is accusing Eastman of failing to do this.

Just want to point out something: "theoretical decks" that do not have this "requisite testing" behind them are not devoid of value. They can be inspirational - you see an idea that might be untested but put in the time and effort to develop it and tweak it yourself.

I look at all of the ideas that are presented on this site, even by players in the newbie forum, and not be too dismissive.


By the way, I completely understood Razvan's initial point. He got very unfair treatment in response, even though the idea he was trying to present was pretty clear.

[Zherbus]

I apologize if I came off to hard, but I literally couldn't read past that first sentance. If there was a useful point buried in there, I couldn't sift my way to it. Thankfully, my more patient friends explained what needed to be said.

[Mykeatog]

The issue that bothered me enough that I responded has to do with tone. Though I am not going to get into specific situations, note the difference in the following two statements...

A. Why have you chosen to use TfK, are you sure that Intuition is worse?

B. Use Intuition, this deck is obviously sub-par to dragon because of the inferior draw engine.

Though this is a shitty example, the point I am trying to make is; Yes, everyone wants to be a construtive deck building assistant. There are some people in the community who can do that without trying to look like a bad ass in front of all their TMD friends, and some who can't. I will admit that I get defensive sometimes; but I remember when replying to that thread earlier this week saying to myself 'Oh, right... this is why we stopped posting decks on TMD'.

Do I want your help with my deck? Always, but I want you to smile and shake my hand while you do it.

[Eastman]

Ok, two things really.

First, I did agree with Mike. After toad's second post (this is thing 2 in a sec) I thought 'well this is why I don't post so much here anymore'

BUT after Z cleaned it up, and I looked at the thread and how it was developing, I was really impressed. There is really intelligent and constructive discussion there. I changed my position then to 'well I should start posting more'. I'm really pleased with how that thread is going.

Also, I would like to mention that if you have a problem with a specific post, report it. There's no reason to make a reply and tell someone they made a shitty post when you might as well PM somebody.

I disagree. The reply isn't to inform them of their shitty post. It's to inform the hundreds of people who will read it before a mod gets to it/decides to change it. That can take a long time, particularly in cases where the offending poster is an admin where (lets be perfectly honest here) you've only got one or two mods with the balls to do something about it.

When someone publically posts poorly, it doesn't do any good to chastise them over PM really because the damage has already been done to the posting habits of the people who read it. IF however they see a comment below it remarking on how that is a bad way to post, the damage can be reversed.

I've said over and over to the moderators that when I criticize someone's post, I would take no offense to them deleting or editing the post AND my criticism of it. I think that's the right way to go about it.

[Grand Inquisitor]

I'd like to open a minor aside in response to this comment:

Innovation that works, and that alters the metagame, should be encouraged. What criticism should be trying to accomplish--and this is how I read Hi-Val's "benchmark" question--is to weed out the decks that are innovative, but not good enough, from the decks that have real potential to change the metagame. If you can't answer the criticism, your deck probably isn't ready for the big time. Work on it some more, or for heaven's sake just *acknowledge* that the deck has a weakness and open it up for suggestions

The problem I have with the above statement is that often times our card pool is big enough (although small enough to be recognizable), and our metagames eclectic enough so that rogue decks are completely viable as an effort to win a tournament.  This may sound like heresy, but I build sideboard slots and even maindeck hedges against creations like Robtheswordsmen, eureka.dec, and italian counter-burn when facing a large event.

At a small event I'm not disgraced to run maindeck groundseals, teferi's response in the SB, or other choices which look like mistakes, until they win you games which other more 'acceptable' cards would only cause you to lose less.

My main point here is that since our cardpool is more diverse and our metagame is more fluid than any other format, try to keep a broad horizon, I direct this especially to our more experienced and hegemonic critics.

CA offers a deck that excels in certain respects, yet obviously has some frailties.  Try not to exclude discussion to decks that are strictly superior.  Instead, look at the middle ground and try to see where innovation can carry the other factors: playskill and metagaming, beyond what is expected at the next power tourney.

[Saucemaster]

The problem I have with the above statement is that often times our card pool is big enough (although small enough to be recognizable), and our metagames eclectic enough so that rogue decks are completely viable as an effort to win a tournament.  This may sound like heresy, but I build sideboard slots and even maindeck hedges against creations like Robtheswordsmen, eureka.dec, and italian counter-burn when facing a large event.

Actually, I think our positions are less at-odds with each other than they might appear.  A particular deck, tailored for a particular tournament at a particular time, can and SHOULD be modified to suit that metagame.  But I view those as local, one-time changes to the basic deck, and I guess I figure the purpose of a thread on TMD is not to develop a specific list for a specific place, but to come to some kind of consensus as to the "generic" build of a deck.  This goes to the "T1 as PTQ format" point.  Richard Shay is actually a great example of this: he won big with a 3-color Control Slaver list, but rather than simply play what is probably the generically superior list at the next event, he metagamed--dropping to two colors, maindecking Blood Moons, etc.  That's exactly what we all SHOULD be doing, but with the proviso that many changes like that aren't intended to make the deck stronger against the field in general, but instead to take advantage of a particular feature of a metagame.

I would say, though, that if another deck X is actually strictly superior to deck Y, there seems to be little reason to continue to explore deck Y.  After all, it should be possible to revamp deck X for a particular metagame and win that way, with the added benefit of playing a more inherently powerful deck.  However, if you expect some set of circumstances to hold that make deck Y a better choice, then barring some very, very strange metagames, I'd submit that X may not have been "strictly superior" to begin with.

[MuzzonoAmi]

I think I agree with your statements for the most part, but I think that another possibility in your scinerio would be that 'while deck X is strictly superior to deck Y, deck Y has a unique idea or approach to the game that has the potential to either generate metagame shifts (much as was the case with Fish) or be turned into a deck on a par with deck X'.