Should the Star City Game series be ten proxy?

[Hi-Val]

Because I don't think it's been posted yet, the words of St. Steve on proxies and tournaments:

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=7149

The other arguments are harder to dispense with, but they are generally less objectively compelling. The first is that people who own power have worked hard and spend good money to acquire them - why shouldn't everyone else? The second argument is that allowing proxies does away with the incentive to buy, retain, or even a desire to win power. The idea of the first argument is that it is unfair that one person has made a huge investment over time with no benefit of proxies. The operating assumption is that one should have the right to take advantage of their monetary advantage. This assumption is particularly odious in Type One because, unlike the person who owns a player set of random hot rare in Standard, the competitive advantage of owning power over someone who doesn't is simply enormous. In other words, the assumption, explicitly stated, is that you earned wins because you bought the cards, and the opponent's decision not to buy those cards means they deserved to lose.

People who have power and say that 5 proxies is enough just want to beat up on people who have smaller bank accounts, pure and simple. They don't love the game, they don't love T1, and they certainly don't like playing against opponents who have a chance. They want to drop their money and grab at a mox for as little work as they have to, by trying to economically force people out of the competitive game.

Even with ten proxies, you have to buy FOW ($20), Dual lands ($20-30) Mana Drain ($100), Mishra's Workshop ($150), etc. Ideally I'd like to see unlimited proxy with all players using decks because the theory behind them is sound, rather than their pricetag. Maybe when the revolution comes...

[Bdrake5150]

Because I don't think it's been posted yet, the words of St. Steve on proxies and tournaments:

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=7149

The other arguments are harder to dispense with, but they are generally less objectively compelling. The first is that people who own power have worked hard and spend good money to acquire them - why shouldn't everyone else? The second argument is that allowing proxies does away with the incentive to buy, retain, or even a desire to win power. The idea of the first argument is that it is unfair that one person has made a huge investment over time with no benefit of proxies. The operating assumption is that one should have the right to take advantage of their monetary advantage. This assumption is particularly odious in Type One because, unlike the person who owns a player set of random hot rare in Standard, the competitive advantage of owning power over someone who doesn't is simply enormous. In other words, the assumption, explicitly stated, is that you earned wins because you bought the cards, and the opponent's decision not to buy those cards means they deserved to lose.

People who have power and say that 5 proxies is enough just want to beat up on people who have smaller bank accounts, pure and simple. They don't love the game, they don't love T1, and they certainly don't like playing against opponents who have a chance. They want to drop their money and grab at a mox for as little work as they have to, by trying to economically force people out of the competitive game.

Even with ten proxies, you have to buy FOW ($20), Dual lands ($20-30) Mana Drain ($100), Mishra's Workshop ($150), etc. Ideally I'd like to see unlimited proxy with all players using decks because the theory behind them is sound, rather than their pricetag. Maybe when the revolution comes...

I must be in the minority then. I have almost a complete set of power, although no Workshops or Bazzars, and I love the game more now than I did at any time in the past. In addition I really dont salivate when I play against someone who does not own all of the power. I like to see the decks players come up with when looking past the power.

5 Proxies of course lends itself towards players who have the expensive cards. And I do sometimes wish there were more tournaments with 5 proxies...heck I saw Ray put up the sanctioned T1 tournament sign-up sheet at Waterbury and almost fainted. Due to time I could not play, but I loved to see that. I miss the days of no-proxies, but as we move further and further into the future and new players are introduced into the format we have to have proxy tournaments for the format to survive due to the finite pieces of power.

I will say this...playing with proxies is a 2-way street. The players with the cards should be understanding towards players who could not afford the power, and players without the power should respect the feelings of players who have been collecting for years, and were able to obtain the power cards.

I am happy to see a mix a 5-10 proxy tournaments, and I think that the two can co-exist.

On the other hand I went to 1 unlimited proxy tournament, and it was possuible the worst experience at a type 1 tournament that I can remember.

Jason

[Kasuras]

I am happy to see a mix a 5-10 proxy tournaments, and I think that the two can co-exist.

I cannot agree with this, although I of course understand this is your opinion. If there is a mix of 5 and 10 proxy tournaments; there is no global "feel". That would create 2 different formats with 2 types of people playing and that line would be a great one. At the moment: it's just that people sometimes host 5 and sometimes 10 proxy tournaments, but if we want vintage to grow: we need a standard. I'm not saying whether 10 or 5 should be this standard, since my opinion on that is already stated in this thread. It's just that I think there should be a general standard if vintage grows.

Let me take the contrast between SCG and Waterbury. I'm not going into data and facts about people attending them. But I do see that there is a certain amount of people that can play in Waterbury, but can't in the SCG ones. Doesn't that seem a bit.. strange? People working hard for their Workshops to use them in Waterbury, but still not being able to play in a SCS tournament?

You could argue of course that this people always want more, and at a certain point people would want unlimited proxies. I agree with Hi-Val that such a system could be a great point to end the proxy thing, but NOT AT ONCE. Tiny steps are enough, 5 by 5 for example. When the number of proxies slowly grows, I think the people actually being able to play their deck grows too.

[TrixR4Kidz]

5 Proxies of course lends itself towards players who have the expensive cards. And I do sometimes wish there were more tournaments with 5 proxies

So your saying you like the idea of winning based on the fact you have invested more money into your cards rather then the ability of a player.

I have been playing 5/3 for a while, and won the mana drain open with it, That was only possible with 10 proxies, I have played 5/3 for a long time now, and that is my deck of choice, I can comfortably play it with ten proxies, and I think it gives ME the best chance to win, which is completely not possible with only five proxies, I'm not going to go to a tournament with FCG and try to win it, if deep down inside thats not the deck I want to be playing, and isn't the deck that i've spent MONTHS of playtesting and tuning.

I will never be able to understand your opinions of five proxies, and I'm sure if you were in my position, along with several others, you would agree.

[Smmenen]

Because I don't think it's been posted yet, the words of St. Steve on proxies and tournaments:

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=7149

The other arguments are harder to dispense with, but they are generally less objectively compelling. The first is that people who own power have worked hard and spend good money to acquire them - why shouldn't everyone else? The second argument is that allowing proxies does away with the incentive to buy, retain, or even a desire to win power. The idea of the first argument is that it is unfair that one person has made a huge investment over time with no benefit of proxies. The operating assumption is that one should have the right to take advantage of their monetary advantage. This assumption is particularly odious in Type One because, unlike the person who owns a player set of random hot rare in Standard, the competitive advantage of owning power over someone who doesn't is simply enormous. In other words, the assumption, explicitly stated, is that you earned wins because you bought the cards, and the opponent's decision not to buy those cards means they deserved to lose.

People who have power and say that 5 proxies is enough just want to beat up on people who have smaller bank accounts, pure and simple. They don't love the game, they don't love T1, and they certainly don't like playing against opponents who have a chance. They want to drop their money and grab at a mox for as little work as they have to, by trying to economically force people out of the competitive game.

Even with ten proxies, you have to buy FOW ($20), Dual lands ($20-30) Mana Drain ($100), Mishra's Workshop ($150), etc. Ideally I'd like to see unlimited proxy with all players using decks because the theory behind them is sound, rather than their pricetag. Maybe when the revolution comes...

I must be in the minority then. I have almost a complete set of power, although no Workshops or Bazzars, and I love the game more now than I did at any time in the past. In addition I really dont salivate when I play against someone who does not own all of the power. I like to see the decks players come up with when looking past the power.

5 Proxies of course lends itself towards players who have the expensive cards. And I do sometimes wish there were more tournaments with 5 proxies...heck I saw Ray put up the sanctioned T1 tournament sign-up sheet at Waterbury and almost fainted. Due to time I could not play, but I loved to see that. I miss the days of no-proxies, but as we move further and further into the future and new players are introduced into the format we have to have proxy tournaments for the format to survive due to the finite pieces of power.

I will say this...playing with proxies is a 2-way street. The players with the cards should be understanding towards players who could not afford the power, and players without the power should respect the feelings of players who have been collecting for years, and were able to obtain the power cards.

I am happy to see a mix a 5-10 proxy tournaments, and I think that the two can co-exist.

On the other hand I went to 1 unlimited proxy tournament, and it was possuible the worst experience at a type 1 tournament that I can remember.

Jason

I'm curious - what made the unlim proxy tournament so bad?  Additionally, you haven't addressed the point that hi-val raised from the quoted text in my article.

[Bdrake5150]

5 Proxies of course lends itself towards players who have the expensive cards. And I do sometimes wish there were more tournaments with 5 proxies

So your saying you like the idea of winning based on the fact you have invested more money into your cards rather then the ability of a player.

I have been playing 5/3 for a while, and won the mana drain open with it, That was only possible with 10 proxies, I have played 5/3 for a long time now, and that is my deck of choice, I can comfortably play it with ten proxies, and I think it gives ME the best chance to win, which is completely not possible with only five proxies, I'm not going to go to a tournament with FCG and try to win it, if deep down inside thats not the deck I want to be playing, and isn't the deck that i've spent MONTHS of playtesting and tuning.

I will never be able to understand your opinions of five proxies, and I'm sure if you were in my position, along with several others, you would agree.

I think that you took my statement a bit harsher than it was intended. Even though I do not have a team to work with I enjoy the different metagame states that exist between 5 and 10 proxy enviornments. I am fully aware that 2 different proxy enviornments cannot exist if there is to be a stable and growing type 1 format. However I will enjoy it while it lasts. When we do have a consistent format and number of proxies, and I believe the right decision from a playing field aspect to be 10 proxies then I will embrace it, and not have to worry about a differing metagame based on the tournament.

I fully understand taking months to tune a deck and keeping up with the shifts of the format. Having played keeper since before it was called keeper I can relate having to consistently tune a deck, and learn all of the ins and outs of it. In fact it is the proxy enviornment that allowed me to explore other deck options, and that is a great thing.

I apologize if I did not put my thoughts and expressions out here in the right manner.

Jason

[Bdrake5150]

Because I don't think it's been posted yet, the words of St. Steve on proxies and tournaments:

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=7149

The other arguments are harder to dispense with, but they are generally less objectively compelling. The first is that people who own power have worked hard and spend good money to acquire them - why shouldn't everyone else? The second argument is that allowing proxies does away with the incentive to buy, retain, or even a desire to win power. The idea of the first argument is that it is unfair that one person has made a huge investment over time with no benefit of proxies. The operating assumption is that one should have the right to take advantage of their monetary advantage. This assumption is particularly odious in Type One because, unlike the person who owns a player set of random hot rare in Standard, the competitive advantage of owning power over someone who doesn't is simply enormous. In other words, the assumption, explicitly stated, is that you earned wins because you bought the cards, and the opponent's decision not to buy those cards means they deserved to lose.

People who have power and say that 5 proxies is enough just want to beat up on people who have smaller bank accounts, pure and simple. They don't love the game, they don't love T1, and they certainly don't like playing against opponents who have a chance. They want to drop their money and grab at a mox for as little work as they have to, by trying to economically force people out of the competitive game.

Even with ten proxies, you have to buy FOW ($20), Dual lands ($20-30) Mana Drain ($100), Mishra's Workshop ($150), etc. Ideally I'd like to see unlimited proxy with all players using decks because the theory behind them is sound, rather than their pricetag. Maybe when the revolution comes...

I must be in the minority then. I have almost a complete set of power, although no Workshops or Bazzars, and I love the game more now than I did at any time in the past. In addition I really dont salivate when I play against someone who does not own all of the power. I like to see the decks players come up with when looking past the power.

5 Proxies of course lends itself towards players who have the expensive cards. And I do sometimes wish there were more tournaments with 5 proxies...heck I saw Ray put up the sanctioned T1 tournament sign-up sheet at Waterbury and almost fainted. Due to time I could not play, but I loved to see that. I miss the days of no-proxies, but as we move further and further into the future and new players are introduced into the format we have to have proxy tournaments for the format to survive due to the finite pieces of power.

I will say this...playing with proxies is a 2-way street. The players with the cards should be understanding towards players who could not afford the power, and players without the power should respect the feelings of players who have been collecting for years, and were able to obtain the power cards.

I am happy to see a mix a 5-10 proxy tournaments, and I think that the two can co-exist.

On the other hand I went to 1 unlimited proxy tournament, and it was possuible the worst experience at a type 1 tournament that I can remember.

Jason

I'm curious - what made the unlim proxy tournament so bad?  Additionally, you haven't addressed the point that hi-val raised from the quoted text in my article.

   
      I would have to say that I do agree with your thoughts on the mindset of some players who own and have owned power over the years. I do take pride in the fact that I get to play with cards that I have won or traded for over the years. I do not mean to portray that as being arrogant and condesendign towards players without power. As I said before having a 10 proxy enviornment is an important step towards bringing newer players into the format. Even with the proxies you do have to make a considerable investment in order to play in this format. Hi-Val is 100% correct, and as I said above I think my words were taken differently than they were meant. I look at the tournaments now and smile because of how it has grown in the last few years. having 10 proxies overall is probably the right choice from a player perspective, and will lend to a much more stable and innovative format due to card pool access.

     As far as wanting to beat people up with smaller bank accounts that cannot be farther from the truth at least in my case. I simply enjoy the different thought processes that go into preparation for the different enviornments. As well I happily proxy the cards I do not have to make a deck I want to experiment with.

   In regards to the unlimited proxy tournament there were multiple reasons for the bad experience. For one we do play a Collectible Card Game hence meaning that you should have to acquire the cards to play. Allowing 10 proxies to level out the power is one thing, but letting people proxy seals of cleansing and counterspells is another. From a business perspective shops are in the business to make $$, and if players never have to buy the cards to play there would be a reduced secondary market, and less incentive for stores to support the format. I guess that is me playing devil's advocate from that standpoint. From a purely player standpoint I can see it being great to not have to worry about owning cards to play in a tournament, but something about that just does not sit right with me. Just my opinion.

I would like to say that I really enjoy the engaging conversation, and I am not looking to force my opinion here, and if I am coming off that way it is certainly not meant. I welcome any PM's if anyone wants to talk off the boards. Steve you and I had good conversation during round 7 of Waterbury, and I am enjoying it here as well.

Jason

[Royal Ass.]

This discussion is starting to turn into a previous discussion that took place in this thread:
http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20208

Two things are keeping type one from being as unified and universal as it could be.  One is that there are still many areas that play the format sanctioned with no proxies.  These metas will be inherantly differient than those with proxies.  (I just reciently just convinced my local TO to go to 5 proxy after player numbers started to drop off because people just couldnt compete in a zero proxy environment.  In fact i gave him a coppy of Smmenen's artilce to read)

The second, like what people have already mentioned here, and that there are incongruencies within the proxied metas.  Having a 5 proxy tournament one weekend and then a 10 proxy then next makes it hard to really judge what is happening in the meta, because many deck choices and outcomes could be due to the proxy rules and not the deck builders.

By getting all TOs to operate on the same rules regarding proxies, the type one format will really benifit.  Obviously getting wizards to comply with proxy rules for sanctioned events will be impossible.  However, it isnt impossible to get all the major non-sansctioned events using the same number.  If the type one players lobby enough it can happen.  (hopefully the folks at star city read these treads)

[Methuselahn]

10 proxies doesn't make a better meta, it just makes a different one. One could argue that more proxies makes the environment more 'fair.' Well, who cares about fair. Life has never been fair, why should magic be the exception.  

Ok first of all, plz don't compare magic the gathering to life, magic is a game, games are meant to be fair, so if your arguement is "life isn't fair" then it's a very bad one, and sounds like something a 12 year old would argue....

Some Standard players have more playskill than others.  This gives them an edge.  By your logic, this isn't fair either.  I don't know why people won't accept the reserved list and what that means.  You can't take COLLECTABLE out of collectable-card-game.  Just because a whole community wants something really bad, doesn't mean it's going to happen.  Especially if it costs a business money.  In this case, it is WOTC consumers who were promised the reserved list.

Why would you want 10 proxies? To see more Workshop Trinisphere decks? Maybe you like Coin Flip matches every single time. More combo decks show up with more proxies.

Secondly, Yes I would like to see more Workshop/Combo decks, it is what type one is all about, powerful decks, and besides, if someone can sucessfully run a workshop or combo deck with five proxies, they have the advantage over the rest of the compeitiion, it shouldn't be a game about who has more money, it should be about play ability, I can't understand how you don't agree on that.  Also have you looked at waterbury's recent top 16 standings, that happened to be a ten proxy tournament, by the way 202 people showed up, and how many decks were workshop/trini or combo decks in the top 16? not too many, another one of your points down the drain.

Yes, it should be about play ability.  However, please reread my above response.

If you have been following the Tournament forum you'd know that I have followed Waterbury/SCG results.  Oh, by the way, 2 tournaments is a very small sample, I fail to see how 1-2 tournies could possibly be a model for all tournaments for all time everywhere.

The more proxies you allow, the more people without power will show up and want to compete. This effect snowballs into increased costs for moxen due to obvious supply and demand interaction.

I'm not sure if you understand the topoic, the point is to GET more to show up, I have no idea why you would say something like this.

Actually, the topic is "Should the SCG series be 10 Proxy."   Additionally, why do we need to work on getting more people to show up?  Have numbers been on the decline? The prices of Vintage cards doesn't suggest this.   Isn't it the TO's responsibility to attract people anyway?

I'm not sure if you have noticed lately, but just about EVERY other type one tournament is having ten proxies.

EVERY other?  Really? Give me some hard numbers.

@Klep:  When I say "natural meta"  I'm referring to an environment where you can actually make (more) metagame decisions.  You think about how many people you expect at a given tournament, who will be there, and what cards they own.  

The more proxies there are, the more PTQ-esque the format becomes due to freedom of deck choices.  Whether this is good or bad is purely opinon.  In my opinon, it's a bad thing.  Again, I stand behind COLLECTABLE card game.   Collectability is just as important as actual tournaments.

It's true, proxies have made Vintage more popular overall.  Only with proxies though?  I don't see that.  I can use my own meta (up until recently) and many European metas that are sanctioned to say "Look, those metas are doing just fine, and have been for quite some time."  Take a look at Italy for example.

Right now, I'm estimating the over-under as to when this thread will be locked.

[Cross]

This thread will be locked if people, such as yourself, post stuff that has nothing to do with the number of proxies available, and posts that make no sense. Topics such as the reserved list, whether or not you look at the tournament forum, and how the game is collectible have nothing to do with proxy count, and the strength of the meta-game. We should always get more people to show up to large events because it is a better representation of the meta-game and the community at large. Numbers have not been on a decline, but it’s better for the community and better for SCG if more people show up. We should be trying to support both for the furthering of the meta-game and helping SCG as a business for their support of both the community and the game.

I’d like to thank Hi-val for finding that article, and Smmenen for writing it and supporting our opinions, I had looked for it in the TMD archives, unknowing that I was looking in the wrong place.

I also think that everyone who thinks 10 proxies is a good idea to bring their support to SCG here:

http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=270985

I think most of the TMD community is sympathetic to our cause, but the SCG forums, and SCG themselves are going to be much harder to convince.

[Hi-Val]

The more proxies there are, the more PTQ-esque the format becomes due to freedom of deck choices. Whether this is good or bad is purely opinon. In my opinon, it's a bad thing. Again, I stand behind COLLECTABLE card game. Collectability is just as important as actual tournaments.

Wait, even if we take that collectability is just as important as tournaments, why do tournaments have to be about who has the better collection? You don't whip out your binder and say "well, my lotus is EX beta, I guess I win." Similarly, you shouldn't be doing that in Tournament Magic.

I fail to buy at a fundamental level that collecting is part of playing in a tournament. Playing a proxy in a tournament doesn't mean that you cannot collect a Mox Pearl. It doesn't lower the value of the cards (as history has proven). All it means is that the playing field levels.

I think it'd be great if SCG allows 10 proxies. It's their business decision, but I doubt they would regret it.

[rozetta]

One thing to note is that the SCG series of tournaments has actually been getting some interest from WotC - they occasionally send some of their guys out for it. Perhaps one factor is that, with the 5 proxy rule, they're being as diplomatic as possible between the players and WotC. When the SCG Power 9 series gets interest from WotC, their store also gets publicity. Increasing the number of allowed proxies might be something SCG doesn't want to try yet, since it doesn't want to overstep those boundaries.

One suggestion for attaining an increase in number of proxies while keeping this diplomacy might be to, for example, charge $30 or $35 for people who want to proxy, allowing up to 10 proxies, but $10 or $15 for people who use absolutely 0 proxies. This binary system would be easier to enforce at the deck check level, would reward people who have put effort into collections and appease those who need some rarer cards to complete their decks.

Since it's apparent that the number of people who do not use proxies is quite low, SCG would not see a fall in profits, especially since attendance may increase on the back of the new 10 proxy system. For this reason, the entry fee difference between proxy and no proxy should be substantial enough as to be seen to encourage people to obtain real cards in the long run - the savings coming from not using proxies will add up to a more expensive card over a period of a few tournaments or even encourage those people who already have most of their deck to buy the few remaining cheaper cards so as to be proxy-free.

This system appeases WotC in that SCG is promoting the idea that people should obtain complete decks of real cards and it appeases those who can't possibly get their own power in that they have more decks to choose from. Perhaps everyone wins in this scenario?

[Methuselahn]

The more proxies there are, the more PTQ-esque the format becomes due to freedom of deck choices. Whether this is good or bad is purely opinon. In my opinon, it's a bad thing. Again, I stand behind COLLECTABLE card game. Collectability is just as important as actual tournaments.

Wait, even if we take that collectability is just as important as tournaments, why do tournaments have to be about who has the better collection? You don't whip out your binder and say "well, my lotus is EX beta, I guess I win." Similarly, you shouldn't be doing that in Tournament Magic.

I fail to buy at a fundamental level that collecting is part of playing in a tournament. Playing a proxy in a tournament doesn't mean that you cannot collect a Mox Pearl. It doesn't lower the value of the cards (as history has proven). All it means is that the playing field levels.

I think it'd be great if SCG allows 10 proxies. It's their business decision, but I doubt they would regret it.

First, I know that I'm not going to be changing any opinions here, as everyone that will post or has posted on this thread already seems to have a solid opinion one way or the other.  

Hi-Val:
I guess the Magic purist in me won't die.  Let me reiterate how I think collectability functions in the tournament scene;  "You think about how many people you expect at a given tournament, who will be there, and what cards they own."  This is how magic was created and intended.  I have seen both sides of proxy and sanction in Vintage.  Proxies kill metagaming.  Call me an old-school dinosaur, if you wish.  Allowing 10 proxies at SCG sets a standard that I don't want to see.  That is my opinion, as I have stated.

"Why do tournaments have to be about who has the better (looking) collection?"   I don't know.  I'm not one of those people who regularly pimp out their deck with foil/foreign/beta/alternate art.  Maybe I should ask you that seeing as I had you draw on my white-boardered Island that I use for tournies.   So, for me, it has nothing to do with pimpitude.

We don't even need 10 proxies.  If I could only remember who said "Doomsday WILL be re-restricted" after releasing a good deck that only requires 5 proxies.  

Sorry Cross,
Perhaps I didn't explain clearly enough.  I thought I was talking about proxies, etc.  I'm not sure where you misread my meaning.  Why should we be looking out for SCG as a business? I'm looking out for #1; which is *ME.*  That's the American way.  SCG and TO's get no donations from me.

[Jacob Orlove]

Let me reiterate how I think collectability functions in the tournament scene;  "You think about how many people you expect at a given tournament, who will be there, and what cards they own."  This is how magic was created and intended.  

So that's how magic is supposed to be? Why, then, isn't that the case for any other format? No one is going to use card access to predict the Standard or Extended metagame for any reasonably sized event. Predicting the limited metegame in such a way would be utterly inane. If this was really the way magic was "supposed to be", then wouldn't it be the case in all formats, or even in any other format?

You can still metagame for proxy events, you just have to take more than three people into account when building your deck and sideboard.

[wonkey_donkey]

You can still metagame for proxy events, you just have to take more than three people into account when building your deck and sideboard.

I feel that's hit the nail on the head regarding the problem with sanctioned or even, to a lesser extent, 5-proxy tournaments. So much of the time you need to be able to beat one or two decks (quite possibly decks that you know inside out due to the dinosaurs that can be playing it), and hence your metagaming decisions are straightforward. If you've got to take into account a few other decks like doomsday, fish and FCG (for example) then your metagaming is still relatively easy to do, although far less so than in the previous example. The more proxies available, the more complex a metagame can be and hence the more interesting, to be frank. This may be contestable to some - I don't really see their logic, though.

Tom

[TrixR4Kidz]

Why should we be looking out for SCG as a business?

Not necessarily looking out for them as a business, just stateing that from a business standpoint they will draw more people with ten proxies, which is what everybody wants, it makes for a better metagame and a more accurate metagame, and SCG making more money off ten proxies is just a reason why they should do it.

[Klep]

"You think about how many people you expect at a given tournament, who will be there, and what cards they own."  This is how magic was created and intended.

I feel I should point out here that very few pros actually own any cards.  Wizards, for some reason, doesn't seem to have a problem with this.

I have seen both sides of proxy and sanction in Vintage.  Proxies kill metagaming.

Proxies allow for a stable and well-established metagame to emerge, which makes it easier for players to make choices about what deck and what cards in that deck would be best for the environment.  This activity is also called metagaming.  So you see, you're completely wrong here.

Why should we be looking out for SCG as a business?

Because unless you've been hiding under a rock for the past 6 months, you should know that they're looking out for us. Or do you think the P9 series is part of some nefarious and convoluted plot to destroy Type 1 forever?  Even if their motives are purely selfish in having a Type 1 circuit, it's doing great things for the format and they are one of the very few entities that can actually pull something like this off.  It is therefore in our best interest to see that they keep doing well.

I'm looking out for #1; which is *ME.*  That's the American way.  SCG and TO's get no donations from me.

If you don't care about the format more than how well you perform in it personally, you have no business being in this thread.