Mark:
On 4/28/06, Gottlieb, Mark <
Mark.Gottlieb@wizards.com> wrote:
> "Form letter"? Seriously? When the first person wrote me an email about
> Time Vault, I wrote a detailed reply that addressed his points and
> explained my line of thinking. Then, when the next person wrote me
> essentially the exact same email with the exact same concerns, I could
> have constructed a brand-new letter to address his points... or I could
> send that person the text that I had just written that answered his
> question. Do you think I should have written twenty wholly different,
> original letters that all somehow made the same points without using the
> same words? My emails were customized to address what I was being asked
> (some people questioned the timing of the errata because they didn't
> know the pre-set Oracle update schedule, for instance, but others
> didn't), and I did the best I could to give people the answers they were
> looking for. "Form letter" implies that I put no thought or effort into
> addressing people's concerns, and that my response was actually
> nonresponsive.
I think this response is ironic because I think it reflects the
problem that I am accusing you of with regard to Time Vault.
My claim about Time Vault is that, textually speaking, it is
ambiguous. To me, "form letter" does not at all imply that there was
"no thought or effort put into addressing people's concerns" or that
"the response was nonresponsive." I was using a descriptor, perhaps
incorrectly, for your general response to the points which were raised
to you.
I think the fact that this was the first thing you mentioned in your
reply is ironic for two reasons. First of all, the fact that I called
your response a "form letter" was a rather trivial statement. The
fact that you spent several paragraphs on it just reflects what I
think is a misplaced focus regarding errata policy in general.
Second, you are reading things into words that are simply not on the
text. The fact that you think there is a "naturally intuitive"
reading of Time Vault that excludes other reasonable readings is
further evidence of this.
>
> Forsythe's statements about the errata policy still hold true. We are
> past the days when we "correct" power-level concerns on cards such as
> Great Whale by issuing errata, and we're not going back. But that was a
> case of issuing errata to take the card's functionality AWAY from what
> it says. Time Vault is a case of issuing errata to take the card's
> functionality BACK to what it says.
>
Is it? I disagree. The 1996 errata adding a "time counter" has not
been reversed. Assuming for the moment that you are correct that the
most recent errata does make the card closer to the original
functionality, there is a tremendous gulf between what the card
currently says and what the text says. To truly achieve your goal,
you need to remove the Time Counter.
> And then you start to make odd statements:
>
> "First of all, as I've already explained, there is no intuitive reading
> of Time Vault."
>
> That's your opinion. Perhaps the fact that you find that to be the case
> means, by definition, that you're right. But those of us who discussed
> the Time Vault case and reached the decision to errata it obviously
> disagree with you.
Obviously the few of you who reached the decision to errata it
disagree. But that is merely your opinion, not objective fact.
Did you conduct a study asking a random statistically significant
sample of people what they felt the most intuitive reading was?
The fact of the matter is that cards are sometimes ambiguous because
sentences can have multiple interpretations, particularly when poorly
phrased, as Alpha cards often were.
I think you guys should have taken a very close look at the text. The
people who errated Time Vault to untap at any time weren't just making
things up - they had a basis for their errata based upon one reading
of the card. It may not have been the *most* reasonable
interpretation of the card, but it was one.
Bottom line is this: textually speaking, the card text does not
preclude the possibility that time vault could untap at any time.
The relevant part of the card says:
"Time Vault doesn't untap normally during the untap step; to untap it,
you must skip a turn."
In my opinion, I think the key ambiguity is the word "normally." But
strictly reading that text, the left side of the semi-colon is a
command and the right side is a condition. Nothing on the text
itself, strictly read, prohibits a reading of Time Vault that it could
untap at any time provided you satisify the condition right of the
comma.
>
> "Second, as great as this is as an ideal, these old cards are horribly
> phrased. Go read the card text on Illusionary Mask, Alpha Paralyze, or
> even Bazaar of Baghdad. Moreover, people won't even know what a poly
> artifact, mono artifact, or interrupt is."
>
> "The cards are confusing" is not a valid argument for "We might as well
> ignore what they're supposed to do."
Again, you seem to be stuck in this rut that cards are "supposed" to
do something. I suspect that you may not even admit the idea that
cards are sometimes ambiguous.
That's ok though. You are tasked with the job of choosing one
interpretation over another.
I have no quarrel with that. My problem is that you chose one
interpretation over another at a great cost and in a manner that is
inconsistent with your company's approach to decision making
generally.
>If a player is unfamiliar with the
> term "mono artifact," that player will have to consult Oracle when
> confronted with such a card and there's nothing that can be done about
> that. But if a player knows what it means (and they still exist), or
> learns what the term means, then the card should work the way it says it
> does. Furthermore, Bazaar of Baghdad's Oracle wording reflects its
> printed functionality quite well. The same is true for Alpha Paralyze
> (if you buy into the Mana Vault/Time Vault premise, which you apparently
> don't). Illusionary Mask, on the other hand, is clearly wrong. The
> printed text says "As soon as a face-down creature receives damage,
> deals damage, or is tapped, you must turn it face up." The current
> Oracle wording doesn't reflect that functionality and it should. Would
> that change affect the Phyrexian Dreadnought combo? Not in the least,
> but, again, that's not really my concern.
>
I think there are two problems with this. First of all, it should be
your concern. The rationale behind the errata is what you call the
"integrity of the card." But principles are not adhered to because
they are a principle - they are adhered to because the principle is
support by the great weight of reason.
Rationale decision making is cost-benefit decisionmaking. The
principle that restoring the integrity of the card by issuing new
errata to "restore functionality" is that newcomers will be pleased
that the cards work as they intuit. That is a plausible argument.
But if, in the process, you make a great number of people unhappy and
you aren't choosing one clearly correct interpretation over a clearly
incorrect textual reading, then you aren't really making those
newcomers that much more happy. If the card is ambiguious, then
someone will always be displeased to find that the card doesn't work
as they thought.
On a regular basis I see people in Vintage upset that Lion's Eye
Diamond does not work as they thought.
> "If Workshops started to dominate Vintage, then people like myself would
> sell our Workshops."
>
> Are you proposing that our policies regarding Eternal cards should be
> crafted so they financially benefit the *savvy* Eternal players?
Hardly. I could have been clearer in making my point.
If Workshops were in danger of being restricted, the market price
would reflect that. People would start selling their shops and the
equilibria price would reflect a price level where people are
comfortable with the risk of owning the card. It has nothing to do
with savvy. Discussions would break out about shops and people who
own them and play them in Vintage would generally be aware of that
risk.
>
> "Moreover, these things [bannings] happen in regular intervals." ...
> "The erratum is literally Deus ex errata - it's out of nowhere..."
>
> Oracle updates also happen in regular intervals. Oracle is updated no
> more than 3 or 4 times a year. When a new set has its Prerelease, that
> set is folded into Oracle, and since the door to Oracle is open, all
> fixes and changes that have been brought to our attention over the past
> few months are implemented at the same time. We are strictly hands-off
> at all other times. There is absolutely no chance that a card might be
> given errata in Oracle on, say, next Wednesday.
>
I was exaggerating by saying "it's out of nowhere." Clearly, it
wasn't out of "nowhere" - but it was a tremendous surprise and shock.
I understand that oracle updates occur on a regular basis, but the
point of my sentence wasn't that errata was completely unexpected, so
much as this particular errata was quite surprising.
> "Does that mean that the no-reprint policy is no longer in effect? That
> would be a logical conclusion from such a statement."
>
> Using the Time Vault errata to extrapolate implications to the reserved
> list policy is flat-out ludicrous. One has nothing to do with the other.
>
I was strictly construing one of your quotes and making a logical
inference. Granted, I don't think you intended that inference to be
made, but the text of the quote I quoted permitted it.
>
> "There is no 'reality' to Time Vault. There is no 'original intent.'"
>
> We humbly disagree.
>
> Mark
But you have yet to:
a) refute my textual arguments that the other interpretation was
precluded by the text of Time Vault
or
b) suggest textual basis for your position other than the text of mana
Vault (which as I've suggested, is a flawed basis for this decision).
I think there are a number of other factors that are tripping you up.
First, I'm not convinced that you are open to the possibility that
sometimes a card simply has no "naturally intuitive" reading. This is
a problem because your position requires you to make clarifications in
the face of ambiguity. If you are making errata in the misguided
belief that there is always a naturally intuitive reading, then I
think you are ignoring the reality of the situation and risk making
further dangerous decisions. Second, I think that the select group of
you who found there to be a "naturally intuitive" reading may be doing
so not because of the strict text of Time Vault itself but, in part at
least, for other reasons. For example, the custom that cards which
don't untap on the untap step instead untap on upkeep may incline you
toward one reading over another, particularly since those of you who
made the decision are steeped in magic custom. A fresh read of the
text uncluttered with knowledge of custom and the history of the game
would not, in my view, be as inclined toward that position.
Finally, I think that the whole argument that you are restoring the
card to its original text is terribly flawed. There is still a time
counter on the card.
If you are so concerned about the text, then do the right thing and
remove that counter. While your at it, undo past power errata.
Stephen Menendian
