On DCI openness

[Eastman]

The thread title is talking about Restrictions.

Of course, WE do a lot of that, all over the forums and MIRC and on road trips to big events.

What I want to do here is discuss how the DCI talks about restrictions...

That is, they really don't. The DCI acts like the burning bush and moses wrapped up into one... every once in awhile they anonymously declare their will from on high. What is often lacking are real detailed explanations of WHY they're doing what they are doing or even some very clear standard as to what they believe the requirements for and purposes of restriction are.

When the supreme court makes a decision, each member releases a detailed description of why the decided as they did.

Of course the supreme court also understands constitutional law... the DCI probably has only a shallow understanding of the Vintage format (at least compared with the individuals you see arguing on these boards)

Rather than allowing us to bicker away about what should be restricted, why it should be restricted, what the requirements for restrictions should be, how they should be imposed, the dci needs to open up and give us some insight into the process, and even what they are thinking before they do it.

I'm done praying to the restriction gods at the DCI, who make our decisions for us behind closed doors in relative ignorance. It's time for the DCI to open up completely and let the community at large know what's going on.

Thoughts?

[virtual]

Deja-vu all over again...


anyways,  I tend to agree with you Eastman, that I would like to see more information made public about the DCI policy regarding their decisions.  Yes, they do enumerate in a few paragraphs how they decided, but given their criteria we are really left guessing each round.  

That being said, I think that spending even more time explaining the nature of their decision might take away the power that they exercise in their restrictions.  If a complete list detailing restriction criteria were published, even more articles would appear trying to use what is the "criteria" to propose certain restrictions.  (Skullclamp effect, goblin welder)  Having their restrictions be more of a black box, we are left to trust them, and there is no single body that competes with them, so they become the de-facto standard.  

In general I feel like they have made wise decisions, so although I am curious, I am happy enough with their decisions that their meager paragraphs will do.

[Machinus]

The justices of the Supreme Court explain their decisions because they have a responsibility to the democracy they have been chosen to serve. If they were to abuse their power too much, it would be taken back from them.

The DCI is a private corporation that is used to monitor and arbitrate games for WotC so that they stay in business and make lots of money. If they don't want to tell us what they do, they don't really have to.

That contrast being made, I too have a certain trust in the DCI (more so than development, haha). They have performed well, especially in the last year, so I don't see any reason to get frustrated with them. More insight is something I think everyone would like to see - but I didn't just start wanting that yesterday. I have wanted that since I got into this game, and it has never seemed realistic, since WotC runs a business with private information that we don't really have a right to.

Think about it like this: the primary goal of WotC is profit. To this end they created the DCI and hired a bunch of people to run it and serve the company. This means that the primary goal of the DCI...is profit. This is hard to apply to Vintage since (as has been said before) vintage doesn't fit well into their business model. But the underlying principle is the same, and that is that our satisfaction with their methods and policies is less important than their financial success.

[Eastman]

We don't have a right to the information, but they have no real corporate interests in keeping it secret. If there was a really good reason NOT to be forthcoming, that'd be one thing... does anyone have an idea what that reason might be?

[Matt]

They may not actually have anything to hide - there may not even BE strict criteria for restriction. They probably just play it by ear, with history and precedent playing at most the role of guideline.

The restricted list and the "all your cards are legal" overriding principle of Vintage really distort what would be otherwise applicable lessons from other formats' B&R announcements.

The presence of the restricted list itself is enough to make any kind of prediction based on "well, this is what happened in 1.5 or 1.x or T2" totally irrelevant.

[Dr. Sylvan]

I doubt we can expect even one-tenth the decision clarity of actual courts. The DCI is more like a jury than a judge, and the internet is a free-for-all trying to build up evidence for conviction or acquittal of various cards. A jury doesn't explain itself even a bit. Let's not get carried away expecting perfect understanding from them. In 2003 Ric_Flair's article (at least apparently) directly brought about the quarterly article explaining the announcement, and I don't see why we need more exacting discussion. They tell us which cards got the microscope, what they saw as the biggest threat, and what they did about it.

What specifically would you like to hear more about? We only have a few examples of announcement discussion articles, and I've always felt they covered it pretty well. When Burning Wish and LED got axed, they told us, "We tried this thing out and got like 8957695876 first turn kills. So we killed it." How much clearer could they be? I don't think it's necessary for them to write a position paper on the impact of every major borderline card every three months, especially since they would then be nailing themselves in a corner if they wanted to change positions at some future point.

I also don't see why we're talking about the need for more openness before we see how open they will be on this very important announcement. Can we as a format not wait for a lousy three days between decision and closure?

[ctthespian]

We heard rumor this last time about bannings in Standard.  The fact is I think the restrictions are made up by a comitte of individuals so the Jury anology is pretty fitting.  They don't meet every day, in fact I think we've been eluded to that they meet quartely.  I think in that meeting they each come with their own opinions and then come to a consesus about what changes they should bring about to the list.  I'm sure these individuals have better things to do than devote all thier time to that silly list.

[jpmeyer]

They also kind of need to wing it with Vintage changes.  You can't really apply the rules that they use in Standard/Extended because of the fact that:

a) Standard and Extended rotate, so they never have to deal with unbannings there
b) Vintage never rotates, so it's harder to wait for problems to just go away
c) Bannings are different from restrictions both in that the card is still available for decks if it's restricted but is totally gone if it's banned.  Also, if a card is banned in a format like Standard or Block, it pisses people off when they open one in a pack while if a card is restricted in Type 1, people may never even see that card or it might never come up in any situation.
d) Vintage runs year round, while Standard/Extended/Block really only run during specific times during the year.  Therefore, you don't need to make restrictions "in advance" like you might elsewhere in order to actually have them apply in time so that they can actually be relevent.

[Milton]

We don't have a right to the information, but they have no real corporate interests in keeping it secret. If there was a really good reason NOT to be forthcoming, that'd be one thing... does anyone have an idea what that reason might be?

They have a few very good reasons for not establishing criteria.

1) They don't want to put themselvs into a box with set standards for restriction.  

2) They want to be somewhat reactive.  

3) They want the format to be able to fix problems and act only in an emergency.  

4) Cards will meet established criteria that are not format distorting or are not worthy of restriction.  List any criteria for restriction and I would immagine that Force of Will and Goblin Welder meet those criteria.  

By the way, the DCI has done a damn good job managing the BR list lately.  So much so that I have full confidence in the trinisphere decision.

[dandan]

Which DCI decisions of the last 2 years or so concerning Vintage have been remotely unclear? Berserk? Mind's Desire? Chrome Mox? Burning Wish? I can't say I've been scratching my head over any of them.

I'm pretty sure we will be told about Trinisphere tomorrow. (That is not to say we will agree with their logic but we will be told why they did it)

I can also understand that several cards haven't been unrestricted simply because they want to see the effects of previous restrictions/unrestrictions first.

To be honest, the DCI making good decisions and then an article explaining those decisions seems to be a pretty good situation (Would anyone here like to compare their track record on calls for restriction/unrestriction to the DCI over the last 2 years or so?)

The only thing I would like to know is something that I am sure they are sensible enough not to explain - Has Workshop joined FoW and Mana Drain in the Vintage 'untouchables' club?

[Bram]

the DCI probably has only a shallow understanding of the Vintage format (at least compared with the individuals you see arguing on these boards)

That is the most pompous and biased comment I think I've ever read by an intelligent member of these boards. There is no evidence for that statement at all. It's only too easy (and tempting) to assume that others know less than we do. It's human nature to think that all the hours we put in must count towards something. Truth is, maybe the DCI knows as much about Vintage as we do (or possibly just thinks about it in a completely different fashion) and maybe they don't, but two facts are undisputed:

1. They have access to knowlegde that we don't (namely what cards will be coming added to the format in the near future), which may impact their decisions in ways we cannot even fathom, and:

2. It doesn't even matter. Why would they be open about it? It's not like we can take our case to a higher court or anything. Actually, the whole supreme court comparison is nonsensical. They have no obligation to us to explain themselves. This is not a democracy. We should be happy with the scraps of insight Forsythe will throw us tomorrow.

I really wish you people would start treating the list as a given and just act on it. I thought we were about advancing the format. Apparently, however, we are all about hypothetical discussion and complaining about lack of disclosure nowadays. I doubt this sort of thing is even discussed by the top Standard teams in the world (teams we should, IMO, be looking up to as a shining example). You really think pros waste time arguing about how Affinity was hit too hard, and about if they maybe can't sign some petition or whatever to gain more influence in the process? No, they don't. They put their Affinity builds in their binders and start 'breaking' the format anew.

I apologize if this is coming over a bit harsh, but I feel very strongly about this, and it just suprises me that this is a subject of discussion at all.

[Methuselahn]

It's all about money.

They are not paid to develop Vintage.  Producing new sets costs money.  This is a business, new sets keep the money rolling in so that they can fatten their wallets, rightfully so.  When they take time to explain themselves they open themselves into debate.  Debate eats up payroll time.  It is far more efficient to let these ex-pros just read the boards, discuss amongst themselves and promise a quarterly B&R list.  How much time would be spent if they did explain themselves more?  Well, since all the other formats would want this privilege, then probably alot.  If you really want your voice heard, you have to go sanctioned.  Speak with money.

I agree that not discussing the list because of future sets is a perfectly legitimate excuse.

Eastman has every right to want some action.  Why not.  It's obviously a hobby that he spends more time on than the people that make the decisions.  These are public boards, what else are we going to talk about? decklists?

[CHA1N5]

the DCI probably has only a shallow understanding of the Vintage format (at least compared with the individuals you see arguing on these boards)

That is the most pompous and biased comment I think I've ever read by an intelligent member of these boards. There is no evidence for that statement at all.

R&D has admitted on several occasions (specifically, during discussions of the impact of Mirrodin block last year) that they do not have the resources to test T1. Perhaps "shallow" is an overly strong term, but the fact remains that they do not have the resources to devote to having an encompassing understanding of T1.

I really wish you people would start treating the list as a given and just act on it. I thought we were about advancing the format. Apparently, however, we are all about hypothetical discussion and complaining about lack of disclosure nowadays. I doubt this sort of thing is even discussed by the top Standard teams in the world (teams we should, IMO, be looking up to as a shining example). You really think pros waste time arguing about how Affinity was hit too hard, and about if they maybe can't sign some petition or whatever to gain more influence in the process? No, they don't. They put their Affinity builds in their binders and start 'breaking' the format anew.

Following with my previous point, it holds that we as a community have a vested interest in understanding the rationale of these decisions.  T1 is unique among formats concerning its relationship to its B/R list.  

Those who go through bannings in T2 do not have as much of a vested interest in the results of said, because their format is going to change 50-100% in any given year, regardless.

[Vegeta2711]

the DCI probably has only a shallow understanding of the Vintage format (at least compared with the individuals you see arguing on these boards)
 

Even if this was true... so what?

Seriously, it's the DCI or a bunch of 12 year olds running around all screaming their little bias opinions about wanting stuff changed. Even if they have a 'shallow' understanding of Vintage, it's better than any sort of alternative that I can see. They give us the quarterly B/R article with any sort of changes and that's plenty. The fact that they disclose anything has already been a large step farther.

Besides what's the point of explaining more when half the community will disagree with whatever criteria/reasoning they used for no good reason anyways?

I really wish you people would start treating the list as a given and just act on it. I thought we were about advancing the format. Apparently, however, we are all about hypothetical discussion and complaining about lack of disclosure nowadays. I doubt this sort of thing is even discussed by the top Standard teams in the world (teams we should, IMO, be looking up to as a shining example). You really think pros waste time arguing about how Affinity was hit too hard, and about if they maybe can't sign some petition or whatever to gain more influence in the process? No, they don't. They put their Affinity builds in their binders and start 'breaking' the format anew.

Agreed.

[Toad]

Actually, most of the French pros I know have been complaining about the new T2 restrictions too. They almost all admit that the DCI had no clue about what should be restricted to severely harm Ravager and hence has restricted billions of things to be sure they wouldn't miss the real culprit.

[BigMac]

I am with Bram for the most part. As for the reasons to restrict trinisphere i can think of a few reasons to restrict it.

Is it in a overbearing deck: no. Look at the results of the past year and you will see that stax is not in every top 8 winning every tourny.

Is it gamedistorting: i think yes. Why a yes here. Lets just look at the discussion this way. When starting to build a deck, everybody now starts with a concept to beat a turn 1 trinisphere. If you dont you are bound to get killed somewhere in the tourny by a random trinisphere. So when every deck is packing a trini or something to beat it, i think the card is distorting.

Next to this i think there has yet to come a card with more discussion about it than trini. Another reason for restricting the card is have a bigger cardpool for more different decks which in the end means more sold cards which is better for WotC. People like playing critterdecks, trini (as well as other cards) pretty much killed that. People saying such and such deck was dead before trini are right, but a couple of other decks got the axe as well due to trini.

In the end the DCI will never admit that a decision may have a moneymark on it, but i know a lot of people that have stopped playing because of the trini impact in vintage. That is bad for the format as well as WotC. The vintage players may not be the biggest cardbuyers, but they surely are part of the market, if the market gets less the provider will react. This may just be a reaction to marketsounds.

If the DCI will ever fully unclose their reasons i do not know. Frankly i do not really care, as long as the majority of the community has a feeling that our format is being watched (the unrestriction of cards is proof of that) and the decisions arent random, i think discussing this is kinda pointless. Leave them at it and let us just try to make good decks with the cards we have available to make decks.

[CHA1N5]

R&D has admitted on several occasions (specifically, during discussions of the impact of Mirrodin block last year) that they do not have the resources to test T1. Perhaps "shallow" is an overly strong term, but the fact remains that they do not have the resources to devote to having an encompassing understanding of T1.

And again today.

[Jacob Orlove]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af56

Open enough for you?

[Smmenen]

Make sure to read the whole artifcle - becuase its clearly applicable to the Trinipshere decision.  Moreover, it is quite clear that they were being extremely cautious with restrictions, I suspect in some marginal way, due to the criteria I had put forward for restriction of dominance/distortion.  This is a very clear repudiation of that.  It was also clear that I had sensed a very cautious approach and this is the inevitable backlash.  

They value interaction and they value fun.  The question is: when dark ritual becomes restricted (it's practically inevitable as losing on turn 1-2 is not "Fun" for the opponents), will they let Mana Drain exist despite it's inevitable dominance over the format?  What if a mana drain dominanted format is "Fun"?

[Machinus]

when dark ritual becomes restricted (it's practically inevitable

The weakening of prison certainly indicates a surge in strength for combo. However, both ritual and tendrils existed before trinisphere. What are the new cards in your tendrils deck? Night's whisper? Is NW breaking type 1 combo decks?

I have read your argument about the "dialectic" and "turning back the clock," and again I follow and agree with your reasoning here. It is true that the format is irreversibly changed now. But significantly advanced? Are choices like three maindeck rebuild/hurkyls in TPS still good, and do they really make combo more streamlined? Can you still beat FoW with your combo deck? How about all of those tournaments where combo players (good ones, like yourself) didn't lose because of stax? Does the metagame, now that stax is less of a threat and lots of maindeck and sideboard space is free, become weaker against combo with that extra design space? Without having to consider MORE and BASIC lands every time you want to build a new/er deck?

I think it is too hasty to say that dark ritual is necessarily going to go because combo is going to go apeshit on the format. There is still room for it in vintage.

[Matt]

Metagame balance is nowhere near as important as fun. Right after Invasion was released, in one of the original Metagame Clock articles, the author noted that the Fires-dominated metagame was nowhere near as balanced as the Saga/Masques Standard had been. But that didn't matter, because people liked it more. And in that sense, no objective criteria for restriction amount to a hill of beans next to the subjective ones. It is not enough that a format be balanced, it must also be enjoyable, and I haven't enjoyed Type One in a very long time.

I love how everyone's whining about Smmenen's "insider status" when it's becoming abundantly clear that Team Reflection is the group truly in the know.

[dandan]

I'm satisfied with the today's article explaining the restriction. It is clear that further restrictions are neither planned nor anticipated. I think that we can now officially add Workshop to the Vintage 'unrestricted for format reasons' group (FoW and Mana Drain). The comment that they considered restricting Trinisphere before release suggests that they see the ability to cast 3cc artifacts as an inherent part of Vintage.

I really don't see the threat of Dark Ritual. I agree that the only way to slow down combo is to attack the fast mana and a logical conclusion from that is the addition of more (and slow/expensive) tutors makes little difference to good combo (possibly making them marginally more stable at the expense of speed). Combo with Portal tutors is not significantly more dangerous than it was before Trinisphere (and remember that Workshop decks will still run 1 Trinisphere so we are actualy comparing old combo pre-Trinisphere with new combo in a format with Trinisphere, albeit restricted. Is combo good? I'm sure it is, but due to the skill level requirements, difficulty of playtesting (can you find someone to playtest combo against?) and fluid nature of the metagame (the key to combo IMHO is the ability to function through the 'hate' cards but the type and number of such cards depends on the metagame), most people agree that it will remain a fairly small part of the metagame. I don't remember calls for Dark Ritual to be restricted before Trinisphere. What has changed?

I really don't expect the new 'unfun' reason for restriction to cause them to hit combo in a format where everyone expects broken stuff to happen.

In any case, the admission that this restriction was not justified on grounds of metagame domination/distortion is about as open as it gets. Whilst we have every right to complain about the decision, I can't see any grounds at all to complain about them not being open about the decision making process.

[BigMac]

So i was wrong and right.

I was wrong in the assumption they wouldnt say it was partly a money decision. (more people having fun means more people buying cards)

I was right it was a fun decision. To much discussion with a lot of people complaining was actually a reason. Lets just hope that the people that lost the fun will find it again. I sure hope it will bring more people to vintage.

I still have faith in the DCI. And now for all those new possible decks to surface with trini gone and no more "you have to be able to beat a turn 1 trini".