I love Steve, but there needs to be a Ying to his Yang. Even if it were someone like myself, a near opposite on many things, I'd want there to be other cases made from different angles.
I hear you.
on all this consultant stuff....it couldn't be a current player. it'd have to be an active retiree. current players are too heavily tied to the decks they are playing to really give an objective opinion.
This is a valid concern, but their is no objectivity here. Zherbus' yin-yang comment about Smennen reveals my point. Yes, you can establish criteria that states such facts as, "Turn one wins, or virtual wins ie Trinisphere, are not acceptable. We will restrict cards until their is only a small chance that a player can win on turn one (the percentages would have to be worked out)." Yet, this 'objective' criteria comes from a set of values about what is best. We must first establish an ethical ground before we proceed with logic, thats why these discussions create so much debate. We are also balancing rationalism (values and their logical principles) and empiricism (tournament data) to inform the decision making process. If one is able to clarify their values and partially their assumptions then the issue of bias is highly diminished. For example, it is widely known that Menendian supports banning Yawgmoth's Will. Even if this would open up design space making a healthier format, WOTC and much of the community believes that this would violate the value that Vintage does not ban cards for power reasons but is the place where you can play every single card (excluding those involving gambling). A good consultant would not press this point, but would take his employers values and try to develop strategies that work from them.
Right now all of these variable and contexts are both obscured and appear to have some major inconsistencies. Having a consultant or a better yet multiple consultants could help to define and clarify to the community what it is that we are dealing with. Right now I don't think WOTC even knows what they are doing with Vintage, and if do know then they are not applying the principle of Universality in the way they approach restrictions which is the most worrisome point to me.
Part of the process should involve the clarification of the assumptions and values of each party involved. It's pretty clear from Smennen's articles that he leans to the side of less regulation and more brokenness. Part of this process would be for WOTC to articulate their values (or force them to think about what they are in this case) and what are the parameters of a healthy Vintage format. The first step would be the development and communication of the values involved which could then be applied toward restrictions/un-restrictions.
This wouldn't necessarily have to be formal. Even an interview article with Turian on the restricted list by someone from the vintage community could do wonders to open the process up. Being able to ask questions would be much better then just receiving a statement.
It would be a great improvement If the DCI would be willing to just email some of the vintage writers and get their take on the format before making changes to the list. The restriction of Brainstorm and especially Ponder sets a new precedent. What is it and where will it lead to?
Very well put! I'm glad I opened this thread.
My approach to restrictions is essentially summarized by a sentence in my most recent article:
My approach to the restricted list is intended to create as much diversity as possible while keeping the format tolerable (i.e. nothing that makes people just pack up and sell their cards).
To that I should add that I prefer a shorter restricted list rather than a longer one.
Although I think your analysis is *spot on*, I think the consultant proposal is problematic. As a practical matter, Vintage consultants exist at an informal level. There is communication between myself and the DCI, both from the fact that they read my articles and otherwise. And in any case, they communicate with other Vintage players and other magic experts, like Chapin, etc. And even if we had one, they may not have enough influence to stop restrictions such as the ones that just occured. Erik Lauer was apparently committed to doing what he did. I doubt that any Vintage consultant could have blocked it. I'm pretty sure that Wizards may find it easier to dismiss my opinion (or other people like me, or any of you) on the grounds that we are "too close" to the situation to see whats going on; that our minds have been warped by too much experience or that we lack a clear-eyed view of reality. I suspect that their revised explanation for Brainstorm will smack - between the lines - of that view. But the opposite problem is also true. Someone who is not close to the game is just as likely to make the wrong call as someone who plays and understands the format very well.
I think you succinctly described many of the essential tensions in these debates, about how they devolve into particular value judgments as to what people consider to be "fun" and how one persons fun-ness leads to the development of a different set (perhaps slightly different) of principles or where they would apply them or draw the line. However, I also think the notion of a consultant gets it backwards. Since the ultimate goal is fun-ness (in all magic formats, not just Vintage), that is a determination made inter-subjectively by the community itself. Consultants who speak to the community rather than on behalf of it, would not reflect the communities preferences as a whole.
