Article -- Trinisphere, and Does Fun Mean Interactivity in T

[rakso]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=9174

This wasn't actually the original article since my editor suggested that I try to conform to the existing Magic theory terminology instead of taking the law school and law journal tack of critically analyzing each concept to see if it made sense.

The original idea I wanted to float was that, in my opinion with a specific focus on Type I, interactivity is largely about tempo.

In my examples from Type I, I question whether counters are in fact interactive cards, and whether Mike's exception about Force of Will in a combo deck is really an exception.

I felt that "interactivity" may just be another word for an opponent's ability to disrupt the tempo of a deck that is set to go off before it can. This is generally seen as "playing control," since it would be pointless for a deck in this position to invest resources towards winning.

If you look at it this way and see counters as a category of cards used to maintain control whether in the early game to counter threats or in the late game to protect a win condition, the large exception doesn't look like a problematic hole in the theory anymore.

I felt that this characterization of tempo interactions captures all of Mike's Extended examples as well, such as Wasteland being foiled by Windswept Heath (also very relevant in Type I).

Finally, I felt this comes out very sharp in Type I, where everything has to win so quickly that everything seems non-interactive anyway and the concept seems to degenerate into a superfluous categorization of shades of non-interactive.

Again, this is just some thinking to float, and I e-mailed the original draft to Darren, JP, Steve M and a few other people.[/url]

[TrixR4Kidz]

I fully agree with everything you said, especially the interactivity sections, however the yoda part was very strange.

Very good read.

[Smmenen]

Kevin Cron said it best on our team boards and I posted it several times in the vintage forum:

The goal of all decks in T1 right now is to force strategic non-interation through varying degrees of tactical interaction.

I think he is totally correct - when speaking through the terminology that Flores uses.

[Machinus]

The goal of all decks in T1 right now is to force strategic non-interation through varying degrees of tactical interaction.

I won't say this is obvious, but it is very intuitive due to the power of the cards commonly used in the format.

However, do you think this is a bad thing? What is wrong with decks trying to turn each other off? Is it even possible to be competitive without shutting down your opponent?

[onelovemachine]

I disagree on this point:

Trinisphere was NOT broken!
Honestly, perhaps the person most shocked about the Trinisphere restriction is Oscar Tan.

In the last few bannings we've seen, there was a clear twofold criteria: 1) brokenness, and 2) clear proof.

The brokenness is easy. We're talking about things from Tolarian Academy kills to unrestricted Fact or Fiction to Dark Ritual and Burning Wish (for Yawgmoth's Will).

I feel that the card in a vacuum (excuse the overused expression) is not broken.  In type two, where mana acceleration works on a much slower level, trinisphere does essentially nothing considering the fact that you and your opponent will probably have three lands in play by the time it comes down.  We play type one.  Trinisphere is played on the first turn with consistency in the decks it is featured in, even without mishra's workshop openings.  It is a one card lock which, when resolved, creates a three plus turn advantage in land and cards drawn and buys enough time for the decks using it to play out there strategies unmolested.

Why is burning wish broken?  It can be met with force of will just as easily as trinisphere.  Why is trinisphere not broken?  In my opinion the only difference between first turn rituals into burning wish for will and first turn shop-trinisphere is that trinisphere does not reduce your opponent's life total to zero.  It still ends the game much in the same way that a manadrain on your turn two spell does.  Everyone agrees that getting manadrained is not actually the end of the game; you can, after all, come back from such nonsense.  You can come back from shop-trinisphere.  The advantage gained from it though is usually so steep that it starts an uphill battle with no stablization in sight.  A resolved trinisphere is arguably worse than a resolved mana drain.

I do agree on this point:

The clear proof is similarly easy, and you just need to show a string of credible Top 8s that turn Type I into monotony, or a decklist that reliably goldfishes on Turn 1.

We've seen these and they were, well, unfun.

The thing is, this criteria clearly did not apply to Trinisphere.

In my humble opinion trinisphere would have been restricted at some point for the reasons stated above; however, it had not currently PROVEN itself as effective as I know it to be.  Its time had not yet come.  I think the rationale behind trinisphere's restriction is garbage.  " Not fun" is not a scientifically sound term.  It is a qualitative observation that cannot be backed up with numbers.  I find being mindslavered about the most annoying and not fun thing in the world.  Mindslaver is not fun, at least not for the person being slaved.  So then, when we all get fed up with mindslaver and whine to the dci about it, it should be restricted right?  NO.  

The more magic in general and type one in particular are played, players and observers are realizing it is a very mathematically sound, skill intensive game that rewards good players with sound decks.  The reason the magic community bans and restricts cards is so that we still have a balanced, skill intensive game each and every match.  Restriction based on the 'not fun' principle takes us a step back and discredits the merits of our game.  Chess is held with esteem as being entirely skill based, and while magic may never achieve this status, it has no hope of coming close so long as we restrict cards because they are unfun.....

Edit: I forgot to include this quote from Mr. Forsythe

There were some grumblings from players that Aether Vial was too powerful to remain legal, but it hasn't been showing up in enough winning decks to warrant action.

This is about extended, but I think it is pretty self explanatory and similarly relevant.

[dicemanx]

Its time had not yet come. I think the rationale behind trinisphere's restriction is garbage. " Not fun" is not a scientifically sound term.

This truly made me laugh.

God, poor Aaron and his choice of words. He used the word "unfun", and now people are all over it like white on rice. Way to take a very simple concept and over/mis-analyze it.

I'll restate what I said in an earlier thread on the matter:

"Fun" isn't and never was a discrete criterion used in restrictions/bannings. Instead, "fun" is a component of every restriction criteria used by the DCI to date.

Trinisphere was restricted for the following reasons:

1. It created an unacceptable unrecoverable early game swing.
2. It generated unacceptable massive distortion.

Both of these made the game "unfun". Notice the word "unacceptable" - this was a matter of degree, and Trinisphere simply exceeded acceptable limits.
 
Seriously, how hard is this to comprehend?

[Moxlotus]

Trinisphere was restricted for the following reasons:

1. It created an unacceptable unrecoverable early game swing.
2. It generated unacceptable massive distortion.

Both of these made the game "unfun". Notice the word "unacceptable" - this was a matter of degree, and Trinisphere simply exceeded acceptable limits.

Seriously, how hard is this to comprehend?

It is hard for those who didn't think trinisphere didn't violate those points and/or wished it would've been backed by tournament results to comprehend it.

[Cross]

This was a great article, and I enjoyed how you harkened back to older articles to prove your point. I think this issue has been beat to death but I think it is important that we speak out against such a ridiculous move.

1.   It created an unacceptable unrecoverable early game swing.

 “unrecoverable” ? hardly. So many cards can disrupt trinisphere.

2.   It generated unacceptable massive distortion.

What? What does this even mean? In terms of the metagame? Definitely not, there’s no statistical data to prove this. In terms of a single game? Maybe based on the decks, like if you were playing against belcher. There’s plenty of early distortion available, why are those cards not on the chopping block? More importantly, how do you define massively distorting? Duress can be pretty distorting if followed by lotus rit demonic yawgs…

[onelovemachine]

Trinisphere was restricted, according the people who restricted it, for the following reason:

Now that it has been floating around for a while, the Vintage crowd understands that the card does good things for the format, and bad things to the format. While it does serve a role of keeping combo decks in check, it also randomly destroys people on turn one, with little recourse other than Force of Will. And those games end up labeled with that heinous word—unfun. Not just “I lost” unfun, but “Why did I even come here to play?” unfun. The power level of the card is no jokes either, which is a big reason why I don't feel bad about its restriction.

Vintage, like the other formats with large card pools, always runs the risk of becoming non-interactive, meaning the games are little more than both players “goldfishing” to see who can win first. Trinisphere adds to that problem by literally preventing the opponent from playing spells.

I wanted to quote this part of Aaron Forsythes article in whole and then disect in parts.  

Now that it has been floating around for a while, the Vintage crowd understands that the card does good things for the format, and bad things to the format. While it does serve a role of keeping combo decks in check, it also randomly destroys people on turn one, with little recourse other than Force of Will

This is exactly what I wanted to read: well thought out explanation of a restriction based on understanding of our format.  This is where, had there been a good, solid, logical explanation, more elaboration would ensue and everything would be made clear.  Instead we receive:

And those games end up labeled with that heinous word—unfun. Not just “I lost” unfun, but “Why did I even come here to play?” unfun.

So this card is restricted for the following reasons, not according to dicemanx but according to the dci:

1)  This card created an 'unfun' effect on the game.  
2)  ...

Oh wait, that's just it.  Only one reason.  Not very good.  Now I'll give you this part; he did say:

The power level of the card is no jokes either, which is a big reason why I don't feel bad about its restriction

So here's how most of the magic community and myself feel about this statement, paraphrased he says, 'oh yeah, and the card is pretty powerful too, so in my mind I can justify my yielding to those who emailed the shit outta me until I just restricted the damn thing.  At least now they are out of my hair.  If so many people didn't like it than what's the problem?'

Honestly, if you re-read my post, you will see that I completely understand that at some point this card would have proved itself beyond a shadow of a doubt too powerful to be a 4 of.  That's just it:
1. at some point
2. proved

 Those are the two criteria I would insist upon.  Shockwave posted that dark ritual deserves the chance to prove that it is too good and it deserves restriction.  I agree and feel that he is correct.  However, the VERY SAME rationale deserves to be applied in this case concerning trinisphere.  I feel that trinisphere is stupid, but since when do we allow restriction based on anecdotes and opinions?  

This bottom part of my original post is very important.  It is small so you may have missed it.  I'll go over it in detail like I should have the first time.  

Forsythe speaking about extended wrote:

There were some grumblings from players that Aether Vial was too powerful to remain legal, but it hasn't been showing up in enough winning decks to warrant action.

So what he is saying is, usually we require actual tournament data to support our decisions, but on this occasion, with trinisphere, we will resort to relying on emails and our intuition to foresee that this card deserves restriction.  It is clear that the DCI prefers quantitative information to give base to its major decisions.  It is also clear that this is just a preference and not necessarily a policy.  Garbage...

I will retell my tale once more:  I think trinisphere was too good.  At some point this card may have been proven so good, that it would join the other cards deemed so good on the restricted list.  I just wish that my favorite format would receive enough respect to warrant the use of tournament data in fixing the card pool.

[Vegeta2711]

I'm not getting into the whole, 'omg they shouldn't of restricted 3sphere, wah wah, cry bitch moan about why it was restricted until I'm blue in the face'. Esp. since many of you absolutely cannot give Forsythe a fucking break. Have you ever considered you're lucky to even get information from the DCI? Or that they care in the least about this format? Nevermind, I already know the anwser to that.

My more pressing concern is the horribly deteriorated content coming from you nowadays Rakso. I appreciate what you did in the early going as being a constant writer for Vintage and having some help in popularizing it in the early going. I even respect the moderator work you did back on BD. Honestly though, you've seemed more and more out of touch with the current face of Vintage for a long time now. Unless you're willing to put in some actual time pretending to know what the hell is going on instead of  randomly throwing in your 2 cents, you're articles are worthless. This latest article has really just cemented that fact.

From you're latest article:

In the last few bannings we've seen, there was a clear twofold criteria: 1) brokenness, and 2) clear proof.

The brokenness is easy. We're talking about things from Tolarian Academy kills to unrestricted Fact or Fiction to Dark Ritual and Burning Wish (for Yawgmoth's Will). The clear proof is similarly easy, and you just need to show a string of credible Top 8s that turn Type I into monotony, or a decklist that reliably goldfishes on Turn 1.

Yet this is coming from someone who not only wanted Keeper on top for as long as possible, but was willing to suggest in an actual article that Blood Moon and Back to Basics should be restricted. The irony here, in saying identfiying resriction worthy cards is easy, is inescapable. The fact is that many cards which could be restricted have decent arguements for staying unrestricted as well.

The arguments were more theoretical than real. We have good arguments on why cards like Mishra's Workshop, Bazaar of Baghdad and Illusionary Mask are overpowered and can trace their influence on the metagame.

Clearly every week there's a new thread on why Bazaar of Baghdad and Illusionary Mask is broken. I mean, c'mon people, Illusionary Mask hasn't even been used competively for a number of months if not longer. And Bazaar of Baghdad is merely a useful engine for certain decks, I really have yet to see people go 'Damn that turn 1 Bazaar of Baghdad! WIthout Wasteland, I've already lost!' and hence call for it's restriction. Even Workshop, which has gotten a lot of restriction comments in the past, is realitively under-argued for restriction comapred to how much Dark Ritual or 3Sphere was lately.

At heart, an aggro-control deck just wants to disrupt and slow down the opponent until its slower clock carries the day. Sure, it has to pick what to counter, but the bottom line is it couldn't really care less what it's countering because it plans to just counter for several turns until the clock runs out.

This is because the opponent's deck is clearly beind forced to void his original strategy. The aggro-control deck is forcing the opponent to deal with him, instead of ignoring whatever threats/disruption he played and just slaving/tendrils for 20/whatever him to end the game. The entire concept of aggro-control is to force the opponent to alter his plan around you and deal with your deck and threats, this is the basic definition of interactive. Fish has been the Red Deck Wins of Vintage for a long time now. If you don't consider Fish interactive, I don't what else to tell you.

As for your older articles... summary - phoning it in for a while now. You're other recent articles have consisted of 'set reviews' which come out a while after people have analyzed the set already. Consistently you manage to miss cards that may actually be playable, despite only covering 10-20 cards per article usually! Hell, the little e-mail and random section on Shandalar was longer than the entire 'subject' of one of your BoK reviews (Which of course was split into two parts, because there was, oh so much to cover).

I think it's time for you to just consider bowing out with some grace and dignity left if you don't have the time to do these anymore. I liked reading you a few years ago, but now it just pains me.

[Imsomniac101]

At Vegeta :

Wow all this flaming about how Mr Tan's work is "out of touch" when you can't even write a decent article on vintage yourself.... but don't let me tell you that.

At Rakso :
This was a great article keep up the good work.

I think that this was the article that us combo players have been praying for; that the definition of "interactivity" is just a superflous term thrown around by bitching control players cuz their precious Keeper deck didnt dominate a major tournament (ie a t8 filled with mana drains).

[Klep]

At Vegeta :
Wow all this flaming about how Mr Tan's work is "out of touch" when you can't even write a decent article on vintage yourself.... but don't let me tell you that.

Actually Veggies wrote a pretty damn good article a while back you can find at http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=8824.

As I recall, he won $30 for it too.  Which is more than I can say for you.

Taste that?  It's crow you're eating.

[Imsomniac101]

He only posted two decks and one of them was Spoils Dragon. I mean, come on, since when was Spoils Dragon a competitive deck in Vintage?

As I recall, he won $30 for it too. Which is more than I can say for you.

Going by your argument, Vegeta shouldn't be flaming Rakso because Oscar is a regular contributor to Starcitygames. Where as Vegeta only did a one off article that I wouldn't even consider in the league of Mr Tan's most recent article.

Pointless, off-topic bickering. Stop it now (the both of you). Oscar is a big boy who can take a spot of criticism. Moreover, he does not need to have the merits of his writing defended by someone who can offer nothing more than that someone else is supposedly worse. Discuss the article, or leave. - Bram

[jazzykat]

A few questions to be answered before I talk out of my ass.

1. Is the DCI owned by WOTC?
1.a (If the answer to part 1 is no) Is the DCI in any way affiliated with WOTC?

2. Since WOTC is owned by Hasbro and Hasbro is a corporation would it be safe to assume that WOTC is also required to make money?

3. Were people leaving magic (and subsequently not buying any more cards/accessories) due to the "effect of trinisphere" ("perceived unfun"), in such numbers that WOTC or the stores that carry WOTC products were having sales affected in a way that was unacceptable to either one or both parties?

IMO IF the answer to all 3 questions is "yes", then it was a business decision and you guys can argue all you want about theory or whatever else, but the choice came down largely in part to money and not what anyone else said or did (although, I am sure it did factor slightly).

[continue opinion]
Furthermore, since I am voicing my opinion.  The choice to restrict/unrestrict any card is based on the underlying idea of money. If the meta-game (for who?) was so "grossly unbalanced" (whatever that is),  then it would show up not only in tournaments, and people's articles but eventually in decreased revenue generated by the "vintage community" (not sure what that is either when it comes down to it...my metagame, your metagame, all metagames, if I don't have access to all the articles am I part of the community, is little timmy with his t2 playing in the weekly proxy tourny part of the community...etc.) for WOTC.

Oh, and while we are at it. I think many tournament stats are partially deceptive with respect to power levels of a card, until you have an unlimited proxy metagame and not even for reasons like cost of cards but simple existence of cards. If there are 5 (now some are zero, some are 10, and some are unlimited but let's assume 5 for illustration) proxy tourneys everywhere there would not be enough cards printed (forget about the actual distribution of the cards) to support the current number of players to play any full powered deck. So while stats may be useful to figure out your "metagame" and even what to restrict, I don't believe they are a true representation of the power level of a card. However they are as close as we have at the present moment.

Lastly, as far as trinisphere goes. I played some Magic Work Station in December but haven't played otherwise for 8 months and from reading the boards I don't miss the game that much because the "balanced" metagame looked rather boring, and playing against trinisphere decks on MWS (which I usually crushed with CS due to superior playskill, and existence of welder) got repetitive. Let's see what this format will bring us and start "innovating" (don't you love that word JP?) and having "fun" (insert your definition of fun)
[end opinion]

edit: formatting

[dicemanx]

Trinisphere was restricted for the following reasons:

1. It created an unacceptable unrecoverable early game swing.
2. It generated unacceptable massive distortion.

Both of these made the game "unfun". Notice the word "unacceptable" - this was a matter of degree, and Trinisphere simply exceeded acceptable limits.

Seriously, how hard is this to comprehend?

It is hard for those who didn't think trinisphere didn't violate those points and/or wished it would've been backed by tournament results to comprehend it.

Whether Trinisphere "violated" these points isn't debatable. What *is* debatable is whether it exceeded some sort of arbitrary cut-off and passed into the realm of "unacceptable". I can accept that for some people Trini didn't meet these cut-offs. For many of us, however, it did.


 

So this card is restricted for the following reasons, not according to dicemanx but according to the dci:

1) This card created an 'unfun' effect on the game.
2) ...

Did you even bother to stop to think WHY the card created an "unfun" effect on the game? This was my original point. Does everything have to be spelled out for you before you'll comprehend?

I will retell my tale once more: I think trinisphere was too good. At some point this card may have been proven so good, that it would join the other cards deemed so good on the restricted list. I just wish that my favorite format would receive enough respect to warrant the use of tournament data in fixing the card pool.

We had a YEAR'S worth of "data". What exactly were you looking for? Dominance? 7/8 Workshops in the top 8 at every event? Was it not clear to you that Trinisphere led to far too many games that were decided on the first turn through dumb luck? Was it not clear to you that Trini was skewing the environment horribly to the point where you had to prepare for Trini or die outright, and that so many archetypes were rendered unplayable? Some of you people are so brainwashed into looking for some sort of mystical "proof" when all the evidence is right under your nose. Perhaps you fail to understand that when it comes to certain restriction criteria you cannot merely glance at the top-8's to find the damning evidence.

“unrecoverable” ? hardly. So many cards can disrupt trinisphere.

This really wasn't a tough concept to understand. Requiring specific cards/situations doesn't invalidate the fact that you had a solitary card with the ability to create unrecoverable early game swings. Trini's *capability* of such a swing is what got it restricted. No one is debating that there were no answers to such a turn 1 play, just that it was unacceptable to be *forced* to have the few possible answers in your opening seven or die. Similarly, no one would debate that there are plenty of answers to a deck packing 4 Yawgmoth's Wills. That doesn't make the card any less busted and worthy of restriction.

[Kasuras]

What? What does this even mean? In terms of the metagame? Definitely not, there’s no statistical data to prove this. In terms of a single game? Maybe based on the decks, like if you were playing against belcher. There’s plenty of early distortion available, why are those cards not on the chopping block? More importantly, how do you define massively distorting? Duress can be pretty distorting if followed by lotus rit demonic yawgs…

I wasn't planning on getting the discussion on Trinisphere once more but the argument you present should really but put into the abyss for the last time. To clarify, I mean the argument of "this is t1, broken things happen".

You do understand that you now compared the chance of having a turn 1 Workshop into Trinisphere (you run 4 of both) with some weird example of things Suicide is able to do. I hope you do understand that the chance of having the first turn Trinisphere is way more likely than this example? Hell, a turn 1 Trinisphere is more likely than having a turn 1 Negator! (obviously because of Workshop.dec running more than just Workshops to power out the Trinisphere)

Broken things happen in vintage. Yes, indeed they do. But the chances of them happening MUST be taken into account when comparing and speaking of those broken things. You clearly did not.

[Diakonov]

First of all, I'd like to say that jazzykat is absolutely correct (although he is definitely not the first to suggest these ideas).

I'm going to go out on a limb and decide that the DCI makes their decisions about restrictions based on two important initial categories:

1. Will this improve the quality of the game.
2. Will we make some moolah.

People have tried again and again to analyze and explain "interactivity" and how that made it necessary to restrict Trinisphere.  It is much simpler than that.  The DCI isn't dumb, and they know that people have been complaining about Trinisphere for quite some time.  The logical thought process that would follow is, "Hmm, well it can't hurt if we restrict Trinisphere, a lot of people will stop complaining, and heck, we will probably even make money!"

My bet is that Forsythe attempted to formulate an argument about interactivity, and quickly ran into a brick wall of complicated theoretical and ethical questions about "games" in general.  I'm not criticizing Forsythe on this as there were probably issues with time constraints, but seriously: unfun?  You can officially mark this as a groundbreaking moment in the book of "History of Restrictions."

It has been proven that Trinisphere can be played around.  As long as you build your deck accordingly, it is of little threat.  What we have started to see is a lot more artifact hate and a much higher use of basic lands, which distorts decks tremendously from what we would imagine a normal T1 deck would look like.  I think that this is much more at the core of the issue, because some people will say "Oh you just need to adjust," whereas others would be displeased with the idea of needing to run loads of artifact hate and/or basic lands in T1.  

Another factor to consider here is that decks which are more prepared to combat Trinisphere are generally less prepared to combat everything else; I think this is that concept of "distorting the game" that people have been referring to.  However, someone could also argue that the best decks are the ones which know how to adjust to the possibility of playing against Trinisphere while still being able to competitively beat out the decks which chose not to metagame.  It all becomes very complicated.

I've always been a fan of Trinisphere and initially I was annoyed by its restriction, but it is silly for anyone be anything more than annoyed (unless Trinisphere was worth $50).  Regardless of whether or not it was a fair card, it created such a stir ever since it was printed that hopefully its restriction will calm the masses.  People can cry and complain all they want, but their time is best spent doing the obvious.  Go and innovate for a new metagame.

[warble]

In response to the comment:

It has been proven that Trinisphere can be played around. As long as you build your deck accordingly, it is of little threat.

I would have to say that this isn't a true statement.  Although it is true that you can occasionally "deal" with trinisphere, the inherent control given to the deck playing Trinisphere over the deck not playing Trinisphere is so great (uncounterable spells, namely Titan, smokestack, Tangle Wire) to warrant every deck in an unrestricted Trinisphere environment that chooses to play Trinisphere an inherent advantage.

Although there is a great deal of commentary over whether or not we can deal with Trinisphere with hate, the fact remains that there are only 4 force of wills in a deck, and the only way that Trinisphere can be dealt with on Turn 1 if Trinisphere deck goes first is with a Force of Will.  The result of not forcing Trinisphere is a double time walk with way too much mana, and if Strip mine appears on Trinisphere's side it's game.  The inherent power shown by Trinisphere is enough to give said monkey with trinisphere deck the capability of beating, consistently, any deck in the format regardless of any amount of hate.  Although Interactivity is shown as one basis for Trinisphere's restriction, the inherent power of a card is the basis that the Vintage community feels is a more intelligent justification for it's restriction.

If any spell is powerful enough to warrant a "force this or lose" comment from the player of the spell, it should be restricted.  The comment that there is interactivity with the player who has force+blue card in hand is moot because it is NOT interactive to choose to force a first-turn Trinisphere.  In fact, it is that very interaction that I believe the restriction of Trinisphere hopes to eliminate.  When round 3 of finals is resolved by a player who mulligans down to 6 forcing a turn-1 trinisphere, only to be annihilated by a turn-2 trinisphere, there is a very valid justification for restricting the card.  Although it appears that there is some playability, the fact is that the player of the Trinispherex4 deck comes with an inherent advantage simply because the Trinisphere deck is built around spells that must be countered, and 4 of those spells are the same card, all playable on the first turn.  If Workshop did not exist or were restricted, obviously Trinisphere does not need to be dealt with, but the fact remains that Workshop is not going to be restricted, and the only way that interactivity can be ensured (not Trinisphere, Force on turn 1 every game) is to restrict the card that was most played in a stupid, stupid way.

I love interactivity and metagame shifts as much as the next guy, but for one card to be able to win a game on turn 1, and to allow 4 of that card in the same deck, is a bad call by any ruling.  The trinisphere -> force stupidity is now past us, and there is no longer a ruler of type 1.  The only time I personally had fun playing with Trinisphere was when it was in my deck.  It is not only non-interactive, but non-fun to play against a deck that can win with a single card and gets four of them.  What you basically hope is to "make it to turn 3" against a Trinisphere deck without them drawing anything but lands and more Trinispheres, and you don't want them drawing 5 of those lands either.

One of the inherent things that makes magic "fun" is that you aren't really counting on luck to win the game.  If you were, you would be playing Texas Holdem or Blackjack or any game where your skill is judging the luck outcome and gambling.  You want to be able to draw the goodies in your deck and to test it by going against the goodies in another deck.  Anything that makes this contest of deck construction into a contest of luck needs to be removed from the format.  Replace Trinisphere with dark ritual -> duress+duress+duress and you have goodies winning the game, not one must-be-forced card.  I would love to lose to ritual+triple duress because then I'm seeing something beautiful.  I don't see anything pretty, anything new, and especially anything I want to put in my deck when playing against a Trinisphere except those pretty looking workshops and the Trinisphere itself.

Forced interaction is the same as telling a Blackjack player, "You have to hit below 17."  Nobody would play Blackjack if they couldn't choose, and mulliganing into a force and using it against a trinisphere deck is forcing an interaction upon a deck.  You can't do that in magic, you can't make people playing constructed fit into a mold.  Even if the community has to see the proper reasoning behind Trinisphere's restriction, it still boils down to forced interaction and that can be said to be non-interactive simply because free will is the basis for our construction, and we don't have free will against a trinisphere deck if we hold a force against it on turn 1.  We can be stupid, yes, but who wants to lose?

[Freelancer]

The problem with trinisphere in my mind (not talking about the DCI) is;
I have no trouble loosing, as long as I have a even the slightest shot without force of will...Because even in that 1 turn window skill will make a difference, and mistakes will make me loose. The problem with trinisphere is that if I loose to it I always feel cheated, I didn't have a shot to win this game and there wasn't any skill involved.
(This relates to not being able to play your spells)

Everybody who said wizards is all about the money; I agree with you, there a company after all. And a company wants there customers to be happy and buy more cards, if that requires restriction so be it.
(wizards earns money on vintage at tournaments, and tournaments also keeps the shops happy, wich is more money to wizards. See everything relates to money -I am no economic so I 'might' be a bit off-)

[onelovemachine]

Did you even bother to stop to think WHY the card created an "unfun" effect on the game? This was my original point. Does everything have to be spelled out for you before you'll comprehend?

Perhaps that is what I would like, for your thoughts to be spelled out.  As I see it, I have presented an argument.  Much like your original post:

This truly made me laugh.

God, poor Aaron and his choice of words. He used the word "unfun", and now people are all over it like white on rice. Way to take a very simple concept and over/mis-analyze it.

I'll restate what I said in an earlier thread on the matter:

"Fun" isn't and never was a discrete criterion used in restrictions/bannings. Instead, "fun" is a component of every restriction criteria used by the DCI to date.

...your second post also failed to actually present any form of counter argument.  Instead, you sir, have decided to inform me that my sentiments make you laugh and proceed to describe to me how fun was never used as a criteria while at the same time later posting:

Did you even bother to stop to think WHY the card created an "unfun" effect on the game? This was my original point. Does everything have to be spelled out for you before you'll comprehend?

It seems to me that you are both not presenting me with any real information and also contradicting yourself.  Did the dci (as it said via aaron forsythe), or did it not, use 'fun' as a factor in its decision making process.  If your answer is yes, then I wish you would respond to my statements regarding how this is a poor criteria for restriction.  

What I want, spelled out for you, is a clear and point for point argument of why everything I posted this far is utterly laughable.....
What you have presented thus far is one and two-liners that yield no real information.

Seriously, how hard is this to comprehend?

[dicemanx]

This isn't rocket science. Since you need things spelled out for you, why don't I repeat what I said:

Trini often created an unrecoverable early game swing.

This wasn't fun for either the competitive player or the casual player.

Trini created massive distortion.

This wasn't fun for either the competitive player or the casual player.

Fun is not a discrete criterion here. Fun is instead a component of every criteria. Isn't this pretty obvious? We have criteria in the first place to ensure that the game is fun.

[Moxlotus]

Trini often created an unrecoverable early game swing.

This wasn't fun for either the competitive player or the casual player.

Trini created massive distortion.

This wasn't fun for either the competitive player or the casual player.

Using these criteria, can't the same be said for Mana Drain or Dark Ritual also?

I also read that the only answer to trinisphere is turn 1 FoW-not true.  A wasteland locks them down under it too, and many times a Workshop is one of 2 land in an opening hand.

[Kowal]

For Dark Ritual, yes.  But people don't dislike it as much as trinisphere.

For Mana Drain, no.  Type one players love to play with mana drain.

[Moxlotus]

For Dark Ritual, yes.  But people don't dislike it as much as trinisphere.

For Mana Drain, no.  Type one players love to play with mana drain.

See-that is where it gets fuzzy.  I don't like playing with Mana Drain.  I know other Type 1 players who don't like playing with Mana Drain.  I also know people who like playing Trinisphere.

[Kowal]

You're outnumbered a hundred to one or more.

[dicemanx]

Using these criteria, can't the same be said for Mana Drain or Dark Ritual also?

Certainly. It still boils down to degree. Drain and Ritual apparently haven't exceeded acceptable threshholds, while Trini did.

I personally would have liked if they did away with all combo decks with appreciable turn 1 kills, which the DCI had a track record of nuking regardless of whether such decks dominated. I'm not bothered too much that they didn't because at least decks like Belcher and Meandeck SX are both very difficult to pilot correctly and are a relative rarity.

[Moxlotus]

You're outnumbered a hundred to one or more.

best.argument.evar

It also seems that there are more than 1 in 100 that are upset about Trinisphere's restriction.

I'm just saying that if those are the criteria used, then I don't see why Dark Ritual and Mana Drain don't fall under them also.  Now, I don't want either of them restricted-I would probably quit Type 1 if either one was, but I don't see how only Trinisphere falls under those criteria.  And if Dark Ritual did too, then why it didn't get restricted.

EDIT-was typing this at the same time as DicemanX.  Thank you, you have shown a good reason.  While I don't agree that trinisphere was too much of a degree, I now have a good answer.  Thank you.

[Kowal]

It's really freaking simple.

TMD has 3462 registered users at the time I write this post.

Of them, I can think of maybe four that are still whining like little girls with skinned knees because their trinisphere deck is no longer playable.

When you make ANY decision, SOMEBODY won't be happy with the outcome.

You presented your argument. Your argument failed.  The majority chose either to disagree with you or ignore you.

In pleasing the most possible people, the DCI has alienated you.

I'm crying a river for you.

If you couldn't infer all of these but the last one from my previous comments, you've got more difficulties than a restricted pet deck.

[onelovemachine]

Trini often created an unrecoverable early game swing.
This wasn't fun for either the competitive player or the casual player.

Ok so now that I have SOME information from you, I'll work with what I have.  A resolved trinisphere does create a nigh unrecoverable early game swing (nothing is, of course, impossible in magic).  I can see how this would create an effect too powerful for even the type one card pool.  
 

Trini created massive distortion.

If, by this, you mean that trinisphere changed the format than I agree.  Perhaps it was crucible's entry that changed the format though, wastes and crucible caused a rise in the number of basics and trinisphere added to that effect.  Combo had a you lose card floating around the swiss rounds to randomly kick its ass.  

If, by this, you mean that trinisphere was a dominating force in the metagame then we are obviously at an impass.  I cannot view relevant tournament data in which trinisphere does not create distortion as being witness to it being a problem card.  The majority of the type one community agrees with me that trinisphere had, to date, not dominated the tournament scene.  Actually control slaver was dominating and it will probably continue to do well.  What I had asked for, what I continue to feel necessary, is that the same rules that apply to fixing card pools in other formats, apply to ours.  In every format players whine about cards being too good.  How often has that resulted in an axed card without domination in tournaments?

When you make ANY decision, SOMEBODY won't be happy with the outcome.

I agree completely, a major reason why restriction is a touchy subject.

You presented your argument. Your argument failed.

I disagree completely, I feel that the argument remains.  I think those in the DCI only human and as such they are prone to errors.  It is possible that this restriction is one such error.  Not because of any impacts on the format currently, but because of the way in which it was justified.

[cssamerican]

In every format players whine about cards being too good.  How often has that resulted in an axed card without domination in tournaments?

The difference here is that this format has a track record of not requiring domination before restriction. Just look at the last three cards restricted prior to Trinisphere. Mind's Desire was restricted before it was even legal. Burning Wish and LED were restricted without Long dominating the format. Now granted you might not put Trinisphere on the same level of brokeness as those cards, but the fact remains that a precedent of restricting cards without tournament dominance has been in place for quite some time now. It just the first time they hit a card that the community wasn't 99.9% in agreement on.