Withholding Deck Lists

[TopSecret]

In today's vintage world, there are SO many large scale events.  ICBM for example had people at ALL THREE large events.   GWS had a large number in Richmond, and had one in Charlotte.   I knew about SS for months before Rochester, basically because (A) TK is one of my best friends, and (B) because I was on ICBM.  Adrienne even ran his deck to a 3rd place finish at one of the local Milwaukee Events.  What would he have gained by posting his list for everyone to see?   I personally see NOTHING wrong with teams like ICBM, Meandeck, Reflection, or GWS or anyone else for that matter, playing their successful list in local events, winning tons, and keeping their decklist private.  IF you recall January-March, anyone reading tournament forums would recall the "GWS Secret Deck" that myself, Eric Becker, and several others were running, leading up to Richmond.  Eric won an event with it, Rhyno won an  event with it, and I top8ed every tournament I played with the deck.  If the list was revealed before Star City, what would the point have been for GWS and ICBM to go, since all of GWS minus one person Played it, and 2 of 5 ICBMers (at the time) played it.  I do seem to recall that, uh.... 3 pieces of power were won in Virginia with the deck.  If people saw it coming, they would have realized that Intuition was really the set-up spell.  I loved when people would counter my intuitions, for fear of what I could get.   

     In my experience, Vintage has been more of a community oriented format than most others.
That is what has always kept me playing, and I'm sure that many other's feel the same way.
     This does not mean that Vintage cannot, or should not be competitive.
It does not mean that there should not be rivalries or fierce competition.

     However, Vintage tournaments are fuelled by a lot of newcomers to the community.
These are people who like a good competition, but are in a tournament more for fun than anything else.
These may even be players from Standard, who left because many players had overly competitive attitudes.
Some people may refer to these people as n00bs.

     If I were such a newcomer considering attending a competitive Vintage tournament,
I would be very perturbed by these "withheld decklists".
Suddenly, Vintage appears to be a very exclusive format that I would not want to attend.

     If information is not open, then new players cannot join the format.
Why would you continue to play, if you attended a Vintage tournament;
only to be pwnd by t3ch that tournament regulars were already aware of?
     
     Hypothetically, every other player who attended the past couple related events
has already seen the savage t3ch during play.
     Hypothetically, this list was withheld multiple times, over the past couple tournies.
Now, every other player on the floor has an unnecessary advantage over the n00b.
     
     Hypothetically, this list may never be posted, and the new player may never
be able to fully prepare for the competition like everyone else,
because he/she is not diehard enough to attend every single tourney,
and this n00b does not have the connections that insiders have developed.

     Why would this player continue to play Vintage?
Such n00bs are the lifeline of the Vintage Community,
and are the reason that large Vintage tournaments can exist.
Witholding decklists is certainly harmful to the flow of new players into Vintage.

     I know that many people are looking at this issue,
and assessing it by charting their personal success by witholding their decklists.
It is true that this gives one an advantage over the other players.

     However, what is stopping everyone else from witholding their decklists to gain the same advantage?
The metagame would be devastated, and the format would be even more unwelcoming to new players.

     Sure, withholding decklists works when only a very few people do it.
However, so does not voting, downloading music illegally, and being a jerk.

     Besides, why would someone care that much about keeping a competitive edge in Vintage?
The payout is not nearly enough to compensate the amount of work involved in developing new t3ch,
unless you add in the enjoyment to be had.

     I think most people play to have fun with other people, and if you discourage these players,
there will not be enough attendance to continue hosting large tournies.

[Moxlotus]

If you merely want to keep discussion quiet by not actively showing off your list, that's one thing. If no one asks for a list, you're under no obligation to give it out, but if the TO would like to collect T8 lists, it's incredibly rude to say "no dice chump!"

And obv the TO can disregard the request and post it anyways if he feels that strongly.

ICBM knew the exact deck contents of IT.  So did Meandeck.  Why?  We asked Meandeck for suggestions on how to improve since they were the leading combo innovators.  ICBM?  We gave them the list so they would want to play it too.  Practically everybody at the local tournaments (the "practice runs") knew the decklist or 70+ of the 75 cards.  That way everybody in the local scene knew it and wouldn't be at a disadvantage and could help improve it.  It's always nice to see someone from your area do nice in big tournaments, so nobody released it to the public boards.  It's no more than an extension of the team for one particular deck in preparation for one particular tournament.

[Matt]

If you merely want to keep discussion quiet by not actively showing off your list, that's one thing. If no one asks for a list, you're under no obligation to give it out, but if the TO would like to collect T8 lists, it's incredibly rude to say "no dice chump!"

And obv the TO can disregard the request and post it anyways if he feels that strongly.

Can they? I was under the impression that TOs at unsanctioned tournaments (i.e. proxy tournaments, Vintage's bread and butter) did not do deck registration. Is this not the case?

[Jacob Orlove]

If you merely want to keep discussion quiet by not actively showing off your list, that's one thing. If no one asks for a list, you're under no obligation to give it out, but if the TO would like to collect T8 lists, it's incredibly rude to say "no dice chump!"

And obv the TO can disregard the request and post it anyways if he feels that strongly.

Can they? I was under the impression that TOs at unsanctioned tournaments (i.e. proxy tournaments, Vintage's bread and butter) did not do deck registration. Is this not the case?

Most of the sizeable proxy events do deck reg, and the ones with several judges even do random deck checks (waterbury and SCG).

[Moxlotus]

If you merely want to keep discussion quiet by not actively showing off your list, that's one thing. If no one asks for a list, you're under no obligation to give it out, but if the TO would like to collect T8 lists, it's incredibly rude to say "no dice chump!"

And obv the TO can disregard the request and post it anyways if he feels that strongly.

Can they? I was under the impression that TOs at unsanctioned tournaments (i.e. proxy tournaments, Vintage's bread and butter) did not do deck registration. Is this not the case?

I've never been to a tournament where we didn't have to write out decklists before the tournament.

[Smmenen]

This thread is stupid.

Secrecy to a certain extent, is good for the format.  Taken too far, it is bad for the format.

Sorry to say, but this is not a "community" format.  There is no entitlement to technology. 

Without SOME level of secrecy, there is no incentive to develop and tune and test that technology on a smaller scale before taking it to larger tournaments.  However, unless decklists at the larger events are revealed on a consistent basis, then the metagame lacks important information to adjust.

[Dozer]

Know your Magic writing history:

Charles Manson wants to be free. Tech doesn't want anything. Tech is to be distilled in basements and stored in sun-proof bottles and traded for diamonds, missiles, and real estate. Tech is to be guarded for months, and then unleashed upon scores of hapless players in a scourge like a biochemical bomb. If tech was free, it wouldn't damn well be tech. And tournament Magic wouldn't be nearly as intense.

It (find the article here) doesn't exactly pertain to the debate about withheld decklists, but it's still the ultimate article about tournament tech. Personally, I think it's understandable to withhold a list if you have significant tech that you test two weeks at a local tournament and don't want it public -- yet. It's not ok to withhold on a general basis, or over any length of time. Smmenen has it right: Take it too far, and it becomes very stupid. If there's legitimate reason (a totally new, winning deck), withholding it shortly prior to an SCG or a Waterbury seems acceptable to me. But, and it's a very big but: I want to see the list soon, and I want to be able to immediately see why it has been withheld. Just another, techy take on IT or CS is not enough. A new deck like Ichorid would be, IMO.

Just keep it close, very close, to the actual time of the event you're preparing for. Don't withhold for any other reason, or better: Don't withhold it all. Then nobody has a problem. Playing a deck at a tournament is equal to the act of making it public, and if the TO asks for lists, I'm rather on the side of those who say that a refusal is most often unjustified and sometimes just being an ass.

[nataz]

what I find amazing is that some people are arrogant enough to consider Mox tourneys their own personal testing grounds.

And I call bullshit to the statement that Type I isn't a community format. I must have missed the part where Wizards is sponsoring our Major/Minor vintage events, handing out promotional cards, and providing prize support. And don't try to argue Gencon, thats not a permire event, its a joke. 

I have nothing against secrecy, nor am I against the development of decks -> rewards, but why is it so hard to understand that once you play a deck in public its not a secret anymore?

If you want to test your secret deck, don't play it in public tournament for a prize.

I'm not saying you can't be discrete. You don't have to write a primer, or even respond to any questions, but the deck builder isn't entitled to jack once he has used up community assets/played for a prize.

Thats the difference between testing and tournaments. Testing = secrecy, but no prize. Tournaments = public knowledge, but you get a chance to win something.   

[dicemanx]

the deck builder isn't entitled to jack once he has used up community assets/played for a prize.

The player has "used up" the TO's "assets", not those belonging to the community. If the TO agrees to withhold a decklist because he is requested to do so, and wants to respect the wishes of the local player(s), then unfortunately you and the rest of the community are "entitled to jack", to use your own words.

If you want to have access to the decklists, contact the TO that withheld them and plead your case. Don't take your wrath out on the player.

[Smmenen]

what I find amazing is that some people are arrogant enough to consider Mox tourneys their own personal testing grounds.

I find it amazing that you found someone in this thread who said and or thinks that.

And I call bullshit to the statement that Type I isn't a community format. I must have missed the part where Wizards is sponsoring our Major/Minor vintage events, handing out promotional cards, and providing prize support. And don't try to argue Gencon, thats not a permire event, its a joke. 

You are full of shit.

The prize at gencon is worth at least 10 grand.  That's freaking amazing, not a joke.

Type Four is a community format.  Vintage is a tournament format.  Learn the difference.  tks.

I have nothing against secrecy, nor am I against the development of decks -> rewards, but why is it so hard to understand that once you play a deck in public its not a secret anymore?  Tournaments = public knowledge, but you get a chance to win something.

It's not. 

TOs have No duty to post decklists.  They can do so if they are so inclined.  It's work to type up andc post decklists.  It doesn't just magically happen. 
   
You appear to be ill informed. 

None of your comments actually address anything that was stated since i've been reading this thread.  You appear to be way off base. 

[Jacob Orlove]

There are, I think, two different cases of deck withholding that people may be conflating. One is when the TO simply does not publish lists. I don't think there are many people who actively object to TOs choosing not to publish lists--it's great when they do, but they have no actual obligation to do so.

What people object to is when TOs publish, say, 7 of the 8 lists in the T8. If you want to publish the lists, why are you holding some back?

[nataz]

TOs have No duty to post decklists.  They can do so if they are so inclined.  It's work to type up andc post decklists.  It doesn't just magically happen.

You appear to be ill informed. 

None of your comments actually address anything that was stated since I've been reading this thread.  You appear to be way off base

Lets work though this nice and simple. Dan, the owner of Myriad (and a friend of mine) posts top 8 decklists for their events. Kyle requests his top 8 list not be published. I remark on how that sets a precedent of regression, i.e., going from regularly published lists to witholding lists.

Then, MY post is quoted to initially begin this thread.

I fail to see how this became an argument on TO's simply not publishing Top 8 lists, or where I say or imply they magically appear.

Dan goes though the hard work of typing them up, just as SCG pays someone in credit to do likewise. Both venues are already providing the service, not doing so b/c a player wants to withold a deck is what this thread is about.

not my fault you can't follow it.

oh and as for this

what I find amazing is that some people are arrogant enough to consider Mox tourneys their own personal testing grounds

I find it amazing that you found someone in this thread who said and or thinks that

I'll do it again real simple like.

Everyone knows that before taking a deck to a big event you should give it a trial run at a smaller tourney.

Making a new deck that wins tournaments is not easy. It requires a lot of work. I think it is totally acceptable for you to be allowed to keep your deck rogue for some time. If you put hours and hours of work into the deck, how is it fair to the deckbuilder if there "rogue" deck is suddenly not so rogue after 1 small event?

False. The whole point of a team is to mimic a tournament setting, but in secret. Team testing prepares a deck for a tournament, in which afterwards, the deck is public and should be treated as such. Is there such a thing as a "small mox tournament"?

False. Teams cannot mimic tournaments. I'm not sure if you realize this, but teams don't get together for a weekly pow wow.

Our team hardly gets to test together. Mostly we just use private forums to communicate ideas, metagame predictions, and stupid funny stuff.

Teams cannot mimic tournaments because a team cannot have the many decks that are possible to play against--especially in as many variations as they can come in.  You can test against a few, but you'll never test against every single deck that you might face.  Also you won't face different ideas, in deck construction and in play.  Look at the Gift starting hand or the Grim Long play situtation threads for examples of how different people feel about different hands and how they would play them.

Eric won an event with it, Rhyno won an  event with it, and I top8ed every tournament I played with the deck.  If the list was revealed before Star City, what would the point have been for GWS and ICBM to go, since all of GWS minus one person Played it, and 2 of 5 ICBMers (at the time) played it.  I do seem to recall that, uh.... 3 pieces of power were won in Virginia with the deck.  If people saw it coming, they would have realized that Intuition was really the set-up spell

I see deckliss being withheld as a positive thing.  Like 13Nova said if a new archtype is revealed before a bigger tournament it would lose its element of surprise.  Like IT and The SS, this give both decks huge advantages all day at the starcitygames they were released at.

IT was played sucessfully at multiple events that released top 8 lists, but witheld their lists for months. They seem to have been using the smaller events as testing grounds to help make up for the lack of testing they do as a team. The experience gained by testing the deck in locally run events combined with the surprsise factor of keeping the deck secret was a huge benifit to them at SCG. 

But that is what it sounds like to me when you look at the posts from the mid-west crew.  

[M.Solymossy]

Nataz Im personally Insulted by the fact that you think we were WRONG in holding the list.  I test a LOT, but sometimes, giving the deck a run in a tournament setting is the best way to test it.  The deck was ran a LOT leading up to richmond.  WHY would we reveal it so others could play the deck?   

Withholding decks at local events = great.


But now, I would find it RUDE if someone would withhold a deck after, say, SCG or waterbury.

Withholding decks at LARGE SCALE events = bad.

[nataz]

Nataz Im personally Insulted

Don't take it the wrong way, like Kyle, IT is just an example. I agree, playing under fire in a smaller event is an excellent tool to help determin how well your deck will preform.

I just think that the secrecy privileges implied when testing stop when you enter an event for a prize. A tournament is not the same as testing between team members or testing partners. A tournament is public, open to any who pay the fee, and if the TO is going to publish T8 decklists, then he should publish all of them.   

The other thing I should point out is that I don't think anyone is cheating or doing anything underhanded. I didn't think Kyle was doing something morally wrong when he asked for his list to be witheld, and its the same with you and GWS.

I think that witholding decklists that normally would be published is something currently within the bounds of some events, but almost unheard of elsewhere.

Just like written decklists, deck checks, the use of swiss rounds, tournament reports etc., I think that a general policy of not witholding individual decklists makes the format better.

Taking a step back, I think we can all agree that as a general policy people think that Top8 lists are good for the format. (except for Peter?) The breakdown comes from when should a player expect to lose the decklist witheld status.

-I suggest anytime that a top 8 is posted, none should be witheld

-Dozer suggests it may lie more with how much you change a deck, i.e., if you have

(a totally new, winning deck),

,

but also tacks on a temporal guideline.

withholding it shortly prior to an SCG or a Waterbury seems acceptable to me. But, and it's a very big but: I want to see the list soon

-GWS/ICBM suggests that locally its okay, but large events its not (definition of large?)

[Moxlotus]

GWS/ICBM suggests that locally its okay, but large events its not (definition of large?)
 

While anyone can arbitrarily set a limit, I think it would be easy see the difference in magnitude (people and prize) between a 22 person Pearl tournament and a 100 person SCG event.

I'll fully admit that GWS used the midwest tourneys as local testing grounds.  I don't think its arrogant at all to say that.  It'd be arrogant to say we went to a testing session for free power, but not to say we treated this tournament as a testing session.  We wanted to see if the deck could cut it in a real tournament, which is quite different from a testing session of playing against a few decks against a few people a bunch.  IT succeeded.  Last tournament Eric wanted to give another Tendrils deck a run through an actual tournament scene after having some success in testing--it didn't work out so well.  Ravenous Rats > Eric Becker

[nataz]

While anyone can arbitrarily set a limit, I think it would be easy see the difference in magnitude (people and prize) between a 22 person Pearl tournament and a 100 person SCG event.

fair, but how bout the initial example. 45 for a Jet at Myriad which had the initial witheld list (Kyle has since posted it).
Plus, it should be noticed that the last SCG had trouble breaking 50, yet they had all Top8 lists posted (which of course you know).

Whats more important, the venue or the # of players?

 

[Moxlotus]

Personally, I'd say the prize structure is most important.  I'm sure quite a few people disagree.

[Methuselahn]

There will never be a standard accepted rule as to how to handle this witholding decklists nonsense.  This is proxied, UNSANCTIONED Magic.  The only person entitled to jack is the TO.  If the TO wants to type up the lists, then he should feel free to do so.  If you can convince the TO not to release lists (in your favor), then you are a winnar.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall at every tournament everywhere.  Then, I could observe any decklist and post the contents and not give a shit about what Joe Deckmaker thinks because they have no rights to anything.  Seriously, the only thing stopping "The SS" from getting out was the ability of the respective teams to convice their entire local community to hush up.

This thread is stupid.

QFT.

[Matt]

There's a BIG difference between "withholding your decklist"  and "asking someone else (a TO) to withhold your decklist," especially when the TO wants to publish them (if the TO doesn't intend to publish them anyway the whole issue is moot, so I don't think anyone is discussing this case). I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that the first is fine. It's the second I'm not comfortable with.

If that became standard practice I don't think it's hard to imagine TOs that start charging for this service, and that's even more distasteful.

[Smmenen]

Also, although information is generally good for the format, it is equally arrogant to assume that one has a right to that information specifically for the reasons that nataz has overlooked in replying to my post.  If it is truly a community format, and not a tournament format, a notion I dispute, then such information isn't as critical for the health or vitality of the game.

The bottom line is that some secrecy is ok, but taken too far, it is a bad thing.  Complaining about missing decklists from some podunk mox tournament is snippy and a waste of time, however. 

[Pyromaniac]

And I call bullshit to the statement that Type I isn't a community format. I must have missed the part where Wizards is sponsoring our Major/Minor vintage events, handing out promotional cards, and providing prize support. And don't try to argue Gencon, thats not a permire event, its a joke. 

You are full of shit.

The prize at gencon is worth at least 10 grand.  That's freaking amazing, not a joke.

Stephen, you have to remember though that WOTC sponsoring the "Vintage Worlds" isn't the same is it being a premier, format defining event. The event sure is important for some people, but it's not like anyone outside of the US/Canada cares a whole lot about it, except the few people who travel there. I think this year there won't be a lot of outsiders going there cause I haven't heard anything about qualifiers/open championships in Europe, who's price support allows you to go there like winning a PTQ and like last year's French Open.

The general opinion of ISP, us guys from Eindhoven is that, although it was fun when we were there in 2004, the event itself doesn't have anything remotely interesting for us, be it prizes or whatnot. It's more like GP Gencon then anything else. The monetary value of the first price, while nice, also overshadows the rest of the price support by a large (insane) margin, so coming in at anything but first isnt that interesting if you're just playing for prizes. Who cares about boosters?

I'd much rather go to something like Waterbury and/or some SCG tourney, cause the Top 8 actually gets relevant prizes there. Also you meet pretty much the same people there as at Gencon anyways, which is a nice bonus.

On the topic of withholding decklists: as far as I'm concerned it doesn't really matter: the list will get out sooner or later anyways, if I have to wait 1-2 weeks extra for it I don't care. This changes when people are structurally withholding them though: if you're succesfull, I'd much rather be associated with a decklist and have people make modifications and generate discussions about it, then being known as "the jerk who's always withholding his lists from us"

[Harlequin]

It seems like the posters who are supporting the "All lists or None" argument are trying to speak out of both sides of the their mouth.  They're main idea is that "I think if you bring it to any public tourny then it should be public knowledge" but then they always seem to book end it with "Of course I have no problem with the inventor reaping their rewards."  When I read that it almost seems like their saying "I don't mind if they win tournaments with it, but I don't want them to beat ~Me~ with it."

I think Myraid games handled the deck lists perfectly.  They posted a general theme, but at the players request, not the entire deck list.  Suppose the top 8 results were:

1st- Teammember A - "Mono-Brown Control" - Deck list withheld
2nd- Some Dude - decklist...
3rd- Some Dude - decklist...
4th- Teammember B - "Mono-Brown Control" - Deck list withheld
5th- Some dude
6th- Teammember C - "Mono-Brown Control" - Deck list withheld
7th..
8th..

Now, That would definitely turn heads.  Would I be mad at their Team? No.  Would I be mad at the TO? No.  But what I would do is make sure my deck has some extra shop answers in it the next time I go to a tournament.

You could also spin that argument the other way.  Full deck disclosure HURTS the format.  If you always know every card in a deck list then there is no real need to "figure out" anything in a tournament setting.  It propagates ‘in the box’ thinking.  Not facing any surprises means we can all plan your side boarding and tutoring like clockwork.  Deck list disclosure means players will loose the ability to think on their feet.  It means we can all just crutch on always know what everyone will be playing.

My personal limit for deck list withholding: Any tournament that puts everyone’s deck list into the SSG Deck Database, should not withhold deck lists.  That’s it.  Any tournament that is not large enough to put ALL PLAYERS deck lists into that database should be able to withhold any amount of deck lists they choose.

Let’s assume for a moment that I discover some amazing deck that absolutely destroys all decks in the format.  And I win a mox tournament and have my decklist withheld.  Then I win a second mox tournament and have the deck list withheld. Deep down, why would you demand that release my deck list?  Either:
A) you want to copy it... and win more prizes
B) you want to make sure your deck can beat it... so you can beat me... so you can win more prizes.

Lets not hide behind the "Everyone, sit in a circle, hold hand, and sing camp songs" ideology of "The community will help you improve your deck."  That may be true, but at the same time you can tack on "oh and by the way, were also going to steal it, and make sure all our decks can beat you now."

[orgcandman]

The bottom line is that some secrecy is ok, but taken too far, it is a bad thing.  Complaining about missing decklists from some podunk mox tournament is snippy and a waste of time, however. 

I'm calling bullshit on your last statement, sir. The "Your metagame is crap" argument doesn't hold here. We're referencing the Myriad tournament in the abstract. It could be J. Random tournament that had every magic player in the world. It doesn't matter.

When you've played your deck in a public setting, you have forfeit your right to claim that deck as secret. It's the same thing with trade secrets in law.

The request to withold a decklist is basically a request to maintain secrecy, after public exposure. I'm fine with developing lists in secret, but I'm not OK with using the general public as a testing ground without some sacrifice, namely your secrecy. If the TO publishes Top8 decklists, then (s)he must publish them all. If (s)he doesn't publish decklists then it doesn't matter.

[Harlequin]

The request to withold a decklist is basically a request to maintain secrecy, after public exposure. I'm fine with developing lists in secret, but I'm not OK with using the general public as a testing ground without some sacrifice, namely your secrecy. If the TO publishes Top8 decklists, then (s)he must publish them all. If (s)he doesn't publish decklists then it doesn't matter.

Do you care about decks that FAIL horribly when "testing them in public"?   No, otherwise you would want all the decks in the entire tournement to be posted.  Or even better lets have the tournement organizer cherry pick the list and be like "Well this list was interesting...it didnt top 8, but there is some good tech in it."  No.  You want to see the winning results of the public and private testing of decks that are now tested and proven effective.  Your not upset that ppl are testing decks in public, your upset that you don't get to see the finished winning product.

[orgcandman]

Do you care about decks that FAIL horribly when "testing them in public"?

Not as much as I care about the top8 lists, but yes I do. In fact, I frequent many different boards that have more than just standard discussion trying to glean out tech.

No, otherwise you would want all the decks in the entire tournement to be posted.

Maybe YOU don't, but I certainly do. When I said all, I meant all.

Or even better lets have the tournement organizer cherry pick the list and be like "Well this list was interesting...it didnt top 8, but there is some good tech in it."  No.  You want to see the winning results of the public and private testing of decks that are now tested and proven effective.  Your not upset that ppl are testing decks in public, your upset that you don't get to see the finished winning product.

Thanks for letting me know what I'm upset over, and how I feel on the issue, because I clearly can't decide that for myself. Your argument that I don't care about little billy's recent SUI black tech and so therefore my opinion is somehow not relevant doesn't make any sense at all.

I am upset because people seem to think, especially here, that they somehow know everything about the format and what is good for it. People don't. People are not intelligent enough to know what is best for the format. Hell, I remember people questioning the use of fetchlands as a manabase stabalizer saying that they reduced the overall number of real lands you played with, and therefore were worse than actual lands. Lo and behold, no decklist begins without at least 4 fetchlands.

Further upsetting is the fact that many users, yourself included, seem to believe that you understand the opinions of others and therefore can speak for them, or "down to them" in an attempt to make your argument seem more intelligent.

Maybe everyone needs to chill out.

[Harlequin]

"If the TO publishes Top8 decklists, then (s)he must publish them all. If (s)he doesn't publish decklists then it doesn't matter."

If you ment All, as in, everyone's decklist... then thats a good way to ensure that we don't get any decklists.  It takes alot to post the decklists esp when most of the time they are hand written. 

All so for the record, simply sticking the words "seems like" in front of every time you dictate how I feel and think, doesn't make you appear less preachy.  If you'd like i can clutter up my arguement with a bunch of "seems likes" and "I would guess" in there.  The forum, and this thread, is about opinions.  My oppinion, your oppinion, his oppinion.  So unless people think I am some sort of mind reader, then I'm sure (it seems to me, like it would be a logical assumption that one could make) ppl don't think I am tring to speak for you.

I miss read your post.  I thought your main arguement was this: "I'm fine with developing lists in secret, but I'm not OK with using the general public as a testing ground without some sacrifice, namely your secrecy."

If you actually think that TO should post every single list from 1st for 51st.  Then we dissagree at that level, and I miss-interpreted your arguement.   As I stated before, if your at a tournement that doesn't post every decklist from first place to last place, then you should be able to withhold your list reguardless of where you placed.  At a big tournement like waterbury or SCG, you can't because they post every decklist to the database.  Thats when and where your tech is finally published.  Any time before than littereally my attitude is "more power to ya" (pun intedended).   

[Smmenen]

As I said at the outset, this thread is stupid.  TOs will continue to do what they please.  No one here has the power to change the current system because this is a decentralized issue, to the extent that it even is an issue. 

[nataz]

TOs will continue to do what they please.  No one here has the power to change the current system because this is a decentralized issue, to the extent that it even is an issue. 

TO's will do what they please, but perhaps they were not aware it was an issue before hand. From someone who wrote hundreds of pages on the Time Vault errata, I'd think that you would be a little more understanding of a "community issue" that we the players have no direct control over.

From a local stand point I've achieved what I was asking for because of this thread. It wouldn't have changed if I had never brought it up, and other local players hadn't commented.

I find it ironic that you post in the thread to say "this thread is stupid", after all the bitching when someone said that in any of the TV errata threads.

p.s.

The prize at gencon is worth at least 10 grand.  That's freaking amazing, not a joke.

*giggle*
It's good to laugh at something absurd every day, clears out the system. Divide your *minimum*  by 10, according to someone who actually bought the other prizes, and you'll find the real price.

[Smmenen]

The FIRST offer on the Ancestral ARt was 10 grand by "the man" in Sweden, I think.

The Lotus was half the size of the Ancestral Art and the twister art was shite.  The Mox Pearl art is the best art yet. 

Pressuring Wizards is an entirely different issue than yelling at random TOs.

Most importantly, this is the third time this issue was bitched about in the community forum.  Not the first. 

[VegasJake]

This thread is stupid.

Secrecy to a certain extent, is good for the format.  Taken too far, it is bad for the format.

Sorry to say, but this is not a "community" format.  There is no entitlement to technology. 

Without SOME level of secrecy, there is no incentive to develop and tune and test that technology on a smaller scale before taking it to larger tournaments.  However, unless decklists at the larger events are revealed on a consistent basis, then the metagame lacks important information to adjust.

This basically summarizes my first post above (and of course I agree with it).

It's the same reason that copyright laws both a) Exist and b) Are time-limited.

It's good for the "format"/society that way.