Banlist Discussions

[Blake]

How about we change the rules to say that, if you want to post a topic about a list position of a certain card, it goes in Banlists and Theory. 

 

The amount of errata and banlist topics we get are dumb as hell, and they don't add anything but annoyance and disagreements. Nothing changes.

 

This would change things so that posting a topic on a card is about Banlist Theory (which it is anyways), and frees up TCG to be discussions about the card and its impact, not "let's ban it" or "to 3 pls".

 

It could even just be a subsection, like... "Banlist Singles Discussion" or something.

[Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin]

Topics that discuss a card in relation to theoretical banlist changes should already be going in there by logic so a rule to make it required would be fine.

[ihop]

I was seriously considering making this exact suggestion.

 

Honestly, I feel like all this banlist discussion is pretty pointless. It's nothing we can influence and there's not much to learn from discussing it so all it is is people flexing their theoretical prowess to varying degrees of success and spitting out the same old arguments and philosophies on the game to people who simply do not and will not ever agree with them. We've had 2 topics on Future Fusion, 2 on Time Seal, 2 on Cold Wave and 1 on basically every other banned card and all it's done is created ill feeling and arguments without anyone being closer to agreeing with the other and without any actually properly productive discussion. 

 

I'm cool with a banlist prediction every format or discussion of a couple of borderline cards coming back but seriously, we're the players and we should concentrate on playing. Konami are the people who are going to make the decision, so leave that to them and focus on what you can change.

 

Also can we put errata topics in CC? That's basically where they belong.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Erratas are awful topics to make. They should just be outlawed. And yeh IK. Pot Kettle Black, but I'm starting to agree with people. There no way to predict them and the topics are just saltfests

 

What if I wanted to make a theory discussion on say DMoC and its uses in Dolls or CED in Kozmo? Would that be allowed under the new rules? As long as I didn't say move x to y spot on list?

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

What if I wanted to make a theory discussion on say DMoC and its uses in Dolls or CED in Kozmo? Would that be allowed under the new rules? As long as I didn't say move x to y spot on list?

Considering this is past and future OCG discussion, it would be fine.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Also can we put errata topics in CC? That's basically where they belong.

 

Well, doing your own erratas does count as a Custom Card as far as standards go, so yeah you can put them there if you want.

I know there have been a few members who've made their own erratas to cards as of late (especially the really old stuff that no one really bothers with anymore).

 

Should clarify that point in the section rules, so you all understand.

 

However, you actually have to POST the card with the suggested errata; not just discuss it like you would in TCG.

I'll make a decision on this at a later time; reminder that it's really only me keeping tabs on the whole of CC nowadays.

 

As for the suggestion, it would make realistic sense to put banlist position threads along with theoretical/official banlists, so support on it.

You can wish for a card to be at a certain list position, but overall Konami decides it [even if some of us disagree with their decisions at times].

 

Regarding the side section, it can probably be done, but leaving that to evilfusion's discretion if he wishes to add it or just throw things in along with the banlist discussions that already go there.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Does the Black clause become effective immediate?

[evilfusion]

Here's a question - How does moving card discussion topics involving list position into the side section make them less problematic and prone to causing disagreements? At best, it sounds akin to sweeping something under the rug. It's still there, just people don't notice it right away.

 

List position is almost invariably going to be brought up involving almost any card on the banlist, even if the topic was not made explicitly to discuss that aspect of the card.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Here's a question - How does moving card discussion topics involving list position into the side section make them less problematic and prone to causing disagreements? At best, it sounds akin to sweeping something under the rug. It's still there, just people don't notice it right away.

 

List position is almost invariably going to be brought up involving almost any card on the banlist, even if the topic was not made explicitly to discuss that aspect of the card.

Cause we have little to no control over positions.

 

Like does Goyo Guardian have ANY reason to be banned in OCG?

 

Hell funking no, yet it is. Will jabroniing about it create any change? Nope. It's like the errata discussion, we have no control over it and discussing it it pointless and likely to irritate people due to seeing the same old sheet over and over

[Blake]

Here's a question - How does moving card discussion topics involving list position into the side section make them less problematic and prone to causing disagreements? At best, it sounds akin to sweeping something under the rug. It's still there, just people don't notice it right away.

 

List position is almost invariably going to be brought up involving almost any card on the banlist, even if the topic was not made explicitly to discuss that aspect of the card.

Because they're not in a place where you're looking to have a discussion about the game. It's not sweeping it under the rug, it's sorting it so that you don't walk into a war over list position, and makes it easier to avoid seeing, and thus less responded to, as you don't have it mixed in with other cards.

 

Like why CC has Singles and Multiples seperate. Multiples DID make people post less when they were intermingled, and the seperate sections increased the traffic in both, if only a small bit.

[Maeriberii Haan]

Technically something similar does get implemented in Pojo, and while it doesn't make things that much better there, it does keep the card discussions mostly only limited to its usage, which is usually what people expect to see of a thread in TCG.

 

It does might seem like sweeping problem under the rug, but it makes at least one section be used for what it supposed to do - tidying it up, as Black said.

Technically something similar does get implemented in Pojo, and while it doesn't make things that much better there, it does keep the card discussions mostly only limited to its usage, which is usually what people expect to see of a thread in TCG.

 

It does might seem like sweeping problem under the rug, but it makes at least one section be used for what it supposed to do - tidying it up, as Black said.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I mean, the talk just permeates regardless of intention.

 

Take my shockmaster thread, it was more so intended to discuss it's decline in pepe/m&m's but it did turn into a TCG unban discussion eventually 

 

Banning the erratas is what needs to be done, and maybe a little more mod activity on fire fighting the flame from potential topics such as Lavaval or Exciton that may get heated

[Maeriberii Haan]

If there's no further debates on this, perhaps the suggestion should be implemented soon. I'll ask for a change in the TCG section rulebook to evilfusion.

[Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin]

Winter advocated for this yet himself has made threads that would violate it if it were in place, I've done the same. I at the time thought this was a good idea but after looking at the threads that have come after I'm not so sure, list position is an unavoidable topic for any card that is either currently on it or making enough waves to merit proper discussion.

 

It'd just end up moving/locking half the threads in TCG and all that'd be left in there are the ones about random cards while banlist and theory becomes the main hub of activity. I now don't think it'd work well or make any difference at all apart from taking the activity and pushing it somewhere else.

[Maeriberii Haan]

I honestly would've just removed any singular banlist talk threads.

 

It's like how people pushed against design talks. People have a very varying views on design and list positions on some cards, regardless of impact, that it would just end in a mess.

 

Most of the time there aren't even really debates going on. Just two sides repeating the same exact things over and over again and not listening to the other side's point. It's as predictable as what Winter has in his current Royal Tribute thread.

 

Site could do with actual discussions rather than pointless debates.

 

But since it'd be unfair to just kill the chance to talk banlist, moving them to the other section should be nice enough.

[Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin]

Wouldn't do any harm to implement it, I just don't foresee it ultimately making a difference. Could be wrong.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Can we just outlaw Errata discussions everywhere. Like holy sheet. 

[Maeriberii Haan]

That also would be a good step to take, to be honest. Though I'm somewhat hesitant on it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That also would be a good step to take, to be honest. Though I'm somewhat hesitant on it.

1) They're so hard to predict. Like Temple and EoS were easy, but nobody saw Ring

 

2) People either love them or hate them, which leads to people jabroniing about the concept of errata's rather than the changes itself

[Maeriberii Haan]

It's less that and more...honestly theory-oh with some erratas is fun if you take the errata at face-value.

 

It does have more negatives than benefits, yeah.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's less that and more...honestly theory-oh with some erratas is fun if you take the errata at face-value.

 

It does have more negatives than benefits, yeah.

I think the primary problem is the ONLY reason some people have motive to talk about card that are banned in one or more format at is about unbanning them. 

 

This is largely due to the lack of popularity in Traditional, like you can't get a multi-page discussion about the combinations of Brio and Premature here.

 

Basically, throwing the hot word "unban" tends to spur activity. Theory is hard to do with regards to errata cause the idea of balance is so varied on this site

[Maeriberii Haan]

Yeah, i guess in the end it'll fall down on the same position as the banlist talks, but with even more speculations.