[Free article] So Many Insane Plays -- Decoding the DCI

[Smmenen]

The B/R list explanation yesterday struck many people as strange, even incoherent at points.   I try to plug in the missing pieces, in hopes of making sense of the decisions yesterday, decisions whose underlying logic impact Vintage as much as Legacy.... 

http://www.eternal-central.com/?p=1327

Editor's Blurb:

The DCI is a body composed of some of the smartest people in Magic. Unfortunately, intelligence does not entail the ability to communicate ideas or thoughts clearly or effectively. Tom LaPille was a notable addition to the staff of Wizards of the Coast, not simply because of his accomplishments in Magic, but because of his ability to communicate the groupthink of a nest of brainiacs to the outside world. With notable speed Tom became the voice of Wizards R&D as he took over the reins of the column titled Latest Developments. This is not to say that Erik Lauer, the individual responsible for explaining the most recent changes to the Banned and Restricted List, has not explained the changes clearly or effectively. However, further elaboration or insight would be helpful. The implications of the most recent B/R list announcement reach Vintage as well as Legacy. Permit me to attempt to decode the DCI…

Enjoy!!

[Delha]

Interesting that you chose the term "groupthink". I'm used to the word carrying negative connotations.

[CorwinB]

Interesting article providing much food for thought, as always.

The DCI would really benefit from a clear explanation of what each format is supposed to be according to their vision (because if SotF was considered so dominant in Legacy after a couple SCG Open stellar performance, they better do something about Mr. Wallet Sculptor who has been crushing Standard under his weight for the better part of a year now...  ) For example, they may want to explain the difference between the "ad hoc" management of Legacy Banned List (I use quote because some bannings appear based on ideology, including this one) and the pillars foundation of the modern Vintage B/R list, where the 4 pillars will probably never be touched.

[zeromancer]

I really don't know anymore, if there is any method behind the DCI's madness at all. Somehow it seems like this:

1. A big part of the Legacy Community cried for Survivals restriction.

2. Pat Chapin, a prolific, respected and therefore influential Magic-writer, made himself the mouthpiece of those people.

-> Survial is Banned. Justification: Format diversity; contributes to dominance. (why not Vengevine? In print, standard legal Mythic Rare.)

3. 500 and some people voted in a poll.

-> Timespiral is unbanned. Justification: Adding a new deck (format diversity). (Translated: Giving people a probably broken combo-card to appease them for axing survival.)

It seems that the DCI is simply watching the peoples mouths, and those of some people are watched more closely than those of others. Then the DCI makes a decision they afterwards justify using terms like "dominance" and "diversity", failing to use these terms in a consistant manner.

Maybe I'm just confused, but this is the impression I'm left with by these recent developments.

[Delha]

I really don't know anymore, if there is any method behind the DCI's madness at all.

...

It seems that the DCI is simply watching the peoples mouths, and those of some people are watched more closely than those of others. Then the DCI makes a decision they afterwards justify using terms like "dominance" and "diversity", failing to use these terms in a consistant manner.

Maybe I'm just confused, but this is the impression I'm left with by these recent developments.

Did you actually read the article?

Disagreeing with their methodology is one thing. Reading an article written expressly for the sake of explaining it, then declaring its nonexistence is just ridiculous. It's as if you just turned off your brain and started repeating "BUT WHY IS THE RUM GONE???"

[zeromancer]

I really don't know anymore, if there is any method behind the DCI's madness at all.

...

It seems that the DCI is simply watching the peoples mouths, and those of some people are watched more closely than those of others. Then the DCI makes a decision they afterwards justify using terms like "dominance" and "diversity", failing to use these terms in a consistant manner.

Maybe I'm just confused, but this is the impression I'm left with by these recent developments.

Did you actually read the article?

Disagreeing with their methodology is one thing. Reading an article written expressly for the sake of explaining it, then declaring its nonexistence is just ridiculous. It's as if you just turned off your brain and started repeating "BUT WHY IS THE RUM GONE???"

Why, if I disagree?

See, the point is, I don't think there is a method involved and that it's noble but eventually futile to try and find one. I come to this conclusion after having read Stevens article as well as his work on that subject in the past, in conjunction with the DCI's actions. Steven tried hard to find the logic behind DCI actions, only to be contradicted time and time again.

The truth is the DCI never formulated a specific policy they want to enforce, because this is not what they do, and not what they are interested in. The DCI is obviously not concerned about evaluations of their actions according to precepts. They do whatever they think is best, and then try to come up with a justification the players are likely to buy.

By the way, there's no need for your aggressive language.

[honestabe]

Steve, I liked the entire article, and it was a great read, but I'm pretty sure they banned survival for the sole purpose of shutting Chapin up.  The DCI has a history of hands off approach to legacy, and i would have been shocked to see survival gone so quickly if not for Magic's posterboy bitching about it so much.

[Shock Wave]

The problem with instituting criteria or rules for restriction/banning is that having said criteria/rules carry the potential to cut into Habro's (or whomever the governing entity is these days) profits. The governing entity of this game does not want to create rules that will potentially impact margins down the line. They would rather just take the diplomatic route and drum up an arbitrary reason for banning or restriction when people start complaining.

Think about it: Survival was perfectly fair before Vengevine was printed, but that card sent it over the top. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that it was the right call to ban Vengevine in 1.5 . The reason it would have never gotten banned is for the same reason Jace will not get banned in the near future: These cards are new and they sell boosters. Banning Survival doesn't hurt profits in any way, kind of like how banning Mystical Tutor doesn't either.

I think we try to intellectualize these decisions too much, when what it really comes down to is the fact that money makes the world go round.

[Killane]

The problem with instituting criteria or rules for restriction/banning is that having said criteria/rules carry the potential to cut into Habro's (or whomever the governing entity is these days) profits. The governing entity of this game does not want to create rules that will potentially impact margins down the line. They would rather just take the diplomatic route and drum up an arbitrary reason for banning or restriction when people start complaining.

Think about it: Survival was perfectly fair before Vengevine was printed, but that card sent it over the top. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that it was the right call to ban Vengevine in 1.5 . The reason it would have never gotten banned is for the same reason Jace will not get banned in the near future: These cards are new and they sell boosters. Banning Survival doesn't hurt profits in any way, kind of like how banning Mystical Tutor doesn't either.

I think we try to intellectualize these decisions too much, when what it really comes down to is the fact that money makes the world go round.

Here's the thing -  while your economic perspective is appealing to anti-corporate sensibilities, it's also the better banning decision. LEt's pretend for a moment that both Survival and Vengevine are from the same set (maybe no one noticed Vengevine before, whatever take a leap of faith on this one). What is the better banning?

Survival is the engine, Vengevine the enabler. If you take away the enabler, the engine still exists. What happens when they print another creature that breaks the engine in half? If you take away the engine, this becomes a non-issue.

When it comes right down to it they made the right call in this case. Mystical Tutor was not the right call because the tournament data was not there to support it, but Survival was hideously dominanant.

[Shock Wave]

The problem with instituting criteria or rules for restriction/banning is that having said criteria/rules carry the potential to cut into Habro's (or whomever the governing entity is these days) profits. The governing entity of this game does not want to create rules that will potentially impact margins down the line. They would rather just take the diplomatic route and drum up an arbitrary reason for banning or restriction when people start complaining.

Think about it: Survival was perfectly fair before Vengevine was printed, but that card sent it over the top. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that it was the right call to ban Vengevine in 1.5 . The reason it would have never gotten banned is for the same reason Jace will not get banned in the near future: These cards are new and they sell boosters. Banning Survival doesn't hurt profits in any way, kind of like how banning Mystical Tutor doesn't either.

I think we try to intellectualize these decisions too much, when what it really comes down to is the fact that money makes the world go round.

Here's the thing -  while your economic perspective is appealing to anti-corporate sensibilities, it's also the better banning decision. LEt's pretend for a moment that both Survival and Vengevine are from the same set (maybe no one noticed Vengevine before, whatever take a leap of faith on this one). What is the better banning?

Survival is the engine, Vengevine the enabler. If you take away the enabler, the engine still exists. What happens when they print another creature that breaks the engine in half? If you take away the engine, this becomes a non-issue.

When it comes right down to it they made the right call in this case. Mystical Tutor was not the right call because the tournament data was not there to support it, but Survival was hideously dominanant.

I think you misunderstood the point of my post. I was not arguing that banning Survival was the wrong decision. I was arguing that if it would have been the correct decision to ban Vengevine, they would have still banned Survival. I was arguing that they will never ban new cards because new cards are what make money. This is why we will not see JTMS banned for a long time. The only format it will ever be neutered in is Vintage, since we already know that Vintage is not a cash cow for WotC.

[Delha]

Why, if I disagree?

Actually, I specifically said that disagreeing is fine. Reread what you quoted. Now, you may have been simply expressing yourself poorly, but the argument you put forth made no sense.

See, the point is, I don't think there is a method involved and that it's noble but eventually futile to try and find one. I come to this conclusion after having read Stevens article as well as his work on that subject in the past, in conjunction with the DCI's actions. Steven tried hard to find the logic behind DCI actions, only to be contradicted time and time again.

There is clearly a method involved, it is easily visible and understood by a good number of people on this board. The recent B/R changes have been in line with that policy. Bear in mind also the policies are not a static thing. There is no single unifying rule (or set of rules) that has governed their actions since day one, it has been in flux for quite some time. I am of the impression that they've finally settled on an approach, and that it's a solid one. That said, I'm not so brash as to claim that their views will never change again.

The truth is the DCI never formulated a specific policy they want to enforce, because this is not what they do, and not what they are interested in. The DCI is obviously not concerned about evaluations of their actions according to precepts. They do whatever they think is best, and then try to come up with a justification the players are likely to buy.

By the way, there's no need for your aggressive language.

This sort of ignorant claim is exactly why I used "aggressive language". What evidence do you have to back up your position? You claim that they are "obviously not concerned about evaluations of their actions", but that is a shallow and foolhardy statement. At the most basic level, members of the DCI are concerned about the wellbeing of the game, if for no reason other than the fact that injury to the game is injury to their job security.

On another level, consider this. Smmenen is well informed. He has actually sat down/met/talked with the people involved in the decisions here. I'd bet money that his understanding of their motivations and thought processes are far superior to yours or mine. I'm not saying his word is gospel, and I'm not saying he has perfect insight regarding their internal logic. What I will say however, is that if he is willing to take the time to write up four or five pages of explanation on their methodology, I think it's a pretty safe bet that said methodology at least exists.

The human element means that even with a static policy, there will be minor variances in implementation. You are mistaking that variance for absolute randomness, which is simply wrong.

The only format it will ever be neutered in is Vintage, since we already know that Vintage is not a cash cow for WotC.

And Legacy is? I was under the impression that Eternal players in general do not crack packs, and therefore contribute only through the secondary market. I don't dispute for as second that there's value in that support, but I wouldn't exactly consider it to qualify as a cash cow either.

Also, I'd argue that they are fully willing to make unpopular decisions, even ones with negative financial consequences, if only for the fact that they need to maintain the appearance of having the player's interests at heart.

[Sextiger]

Even if they banned Vengevine, wouldn't the Necrotic Ooze variants be still pretty ridiculous??

[Shock Wave]

The only format it will ever be neutered in is Vintage, since we already know that Vintage is not a cash cow for WotC.

And Legacy is? I was under the impression that Eternal players in general do not crack packs, and therefore contribute only through the secondary market. I don't dispute for as second that there's value in that support, but I wouldn't exactly consider it to qualify as a cash cow either.

No, but Standard is definitely a cash cow for them. My point was that the new cards make money for WotC, which is why they will not be neutered in the more "important" formats. Sure, Legacy isn't exactly a cash cow, but it still generates revenue, so there is an incentive to keep the newer cards played in that format.

[zeromancer]

Why, if I disagree?

Actually, I specifically said that disagreeing is fine. Reread what you quoted. Now, you may have been simply expressing yourself poorly, but the argument you put forth made no sense.

Oh, it makes a lot of sense. You just don't like it and you obviously disagree. That's fine with me, but it still does make a lot of sense.

See, the point is, I don't think there is a method involved and that it's noble but eventually futile to try and find one. I come to this conclusion after having read Stevens article as well as his work on that subject in the past, in conjunction with the DCI's actions. Steven tried hard to find the logic behind DCI actions, only to be contradicted time and time again.

There is clearly a method involved, it is easily visible and understood by a good number of people on this board. The recent B/R changes have been in line with that policy. Bear in mind also the policies are not a static thing. There is no single unifying rule (or set of rules) that has governed their actions since day one, it has been in flux for quite some time. I am of the impression that they've finally settled on an approach, and that it's a solid one. That said, I'm not so brash as to claim that their views will never change again.

Yes policies can change, but there never was a policy declared, and therefore never have been any announced changes. I agree with Shockwave. Why should they ever stick to a policy? It is not in their economic and not in their general interest, as it would limit their options.

The truth is the DCI never formulated a specific policy they want to enforce, because this is not what they do, and not what they are interested in. The DCI is obviously not concerned about evaluations of their actions according to precepts. They do whatever they think is best, and then try to come up with a justification the players are likely to buy.

By the way, there's no need for your aggressive language.

This sort of ignorant claim is exactly why I used "aggressive language". What evidence do you have to back up your position? You claim that they are "obviously not concerned about evaluations of their actions", but that is a shallow and foolhardy statement. At the most basic level, members of the DCI are concerned about the wellbeing of the game, if for no reason other than the fact that injury to the game is injury to their job security.

This claim isn't ignorant. It's simply the truth. What's the evidence, you ask? First, there simply is no statement by the DCI where they define a policy for the management of the banned and restricted lists. Second, that they used the justifying terms in different ways/with different meanings to back up different decisions shows that they don't care if anybody evaluates their actions by comparing them to their previous decisions (If you didn't notice that's what Steven is doing in his article and has done in the past). So my statement is neither foolhardy nor shallow but simply true.

On another level, consider this. Smmenen is well informed. He has actually sat down/met/talked with the people involved in the decisions here. I'd bet money that his understanding of their motivations and thought processes are far superior to yours or mine. I'm not saying his word is gospel, and I'm not saying he has perfect insight regarding their internal logic. What I will say however, is that if he is willing to take the time to write up four or five pages of explanation on their methodology, I think it's a pretty safe bet that said methodology at least exists.

The human element means that even with a static policy, there will be minor variances in implementation. You are mistaking that variance for absolute randomness, which is simply wrong.

Yes it is very likely that Smmenen is better informed than we are, but he is not a member of R&D or the DCI. I think you don't see what's going on here. Smmenen's voice was considered by the DCI in the past and he had influence on their decisions. Now he drove a pretty tough and convincing argument on the SCG forums vs. Chapin and if I'm not mistaken also Kibler. It seems that he was then banned from SCG’s forums. Chapin used all channels (his column, the podcast and the video blog on SCG.com) to repeat his take on the matter over and over again. The DCI went with him and the crowd he spoke out for and not with Smmenen. This article here is as much directed at the DCI as it is at the community. Part of what Smmenen is trying to do is to win back credit with the DCI he probably lost with his weekly column on SCG.com.

Even though you concede that Smmenen has no perfect insight regarding the DCI’s internal logic, all in all your rants against me and what I said come down to “what you say is ridiculous, shallow, foolhardy and stupid because Smmenen obviously thinks otherwise and has written an article”. That’s not enough to convince me.

[scipio]

Now he drove a pretty tough and convincing argument on the SCG forums vs. Chapin and if I'm not mistaken also Kibler. It seems that he was then banned from SCG’s forums.

Do you have a link to this conversation.  It seems like he's in agreement with the DCI decision here, and it would be interesting to see a prior opinion, if different.  Thanks.

[zeromancer]

Now he drove a pretty tough and convincing argument on the SCG forums vs. Chapin and if I'm not mistaken also Kibler. It seems that he was then banned from SCG’s forums.

Do you have a link to this conversation.  It seems like he's in agreement with the DCI decision here, and it would be interesting to see a prior opinion, if different.  Thanks.

Sure: http://forums.starcitygames.com/showthread.php?43826-Discuss-Innovations-ManaLeaks-Banning-Survival-and-Saito

[Ravager Sam]

Not sure if you found this yet or not, but here's a winning survival list without Vengevine.

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/worlds10/1209legacy

1st Place