Recruitment Exercise - Good for the Black Hand?

Well, if you asume Puasson statistics, you get a square root of a number of your samples as your error. Strictly speaking, statistics are not reliable here and is hardly anything but a hint what is meaningful and what is not. Even if you had 10 TWDs out of 100, this would be still consistent with 0 TWDs out of 100.

My point is, less showing off with fancy degrees, more common sense (finding what is common is a part of it).

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Since you brought up your qualifications and experience. Based on the observable details (i.e. PCKs card publications), your analytical methods and expertise are flawed. This is not ad hominem, purely because you brought this premise into the debate.

References:
#1 Taxonomy of Fallacies
www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

Correct. When someone points out the superiority of their own process, pointing out its obvious failures is not ad hominem - it's squarely addressing the point they raised.

Ad homimen is attacking the person to discredit the argument, when the argument is completely separate from that. When the argument they are making is that their process is better, showing that the allegedly better process is actually incredibly shoddy is entirely appropriate.

Jeff wrote:

One piece of Unique Equipment (e.g. Guarded Rubrics) and the reliance on untap

You just described how a good BH deck works...

(there are other ways too, probably)

Jeff wrote:

"DM had to have some impact on the game, otherwise it would have been a complete waste of time."

If Johannes had his way, every single card from DM would be showing up in TWDs in very short order. He basically stated the goal "Make cards that will immediately have an impact on tournaments." I thought this strategy was very reckless from my time on the Design Team. Such a goal is contrary to "Make cards that are good for V:tES" and will have long term deleterious effects.

Johannes' above stated design goal for this set was really just a good marketing ploy. Make some power cards and please people immediately, at whatever long term cost.

I don't get this.
Are you complaining that actual good cards have been made?
When it was pointed out that the PCK seat switcher is a crappy card, the counter argument was that 'it was not such a good card anyway'.
People telling that you cards are crap are not attacking ad hominem, they are doing you a favor by provding hones - albeit sometimes harsh- feedback. You are just taking a dump on anyone that doesn't like your cards. Instead, you might consider taking the feedback and make actual better cards (note that this does not necessarily mean game breaking cards, just good is good enough - see Spoils of War).

D-dennis wrote:

Instead, you might consider taking the feedback and make actual better cards (note that this does not necessarily mean game breaking cards, just good is good enough - see Spoils of War).

Indeed, some of the cards that LSJ created early on that were best received were quite bread-and-butter cards, but filling in holes that existed. For example, there is a fair amount of theme-relevant dreck newly introduced in Sabbat War, but also a number of really solid cards that players really liked, some of which still see play today - Chiropteran Marauder, Telepathic Tracking, several "Path of..." cards, and a clutch of vampires that turned out to be pretty decent. Some are less popular these days, or have better alternatives now, or are less relevant generally due to gaming shifts.

Solid gap fillers to enhance dull group pairs, underused mechanics, floundering strategies, or to help counter dominant strategies (in a non-silver-bullet way) are generally the things that actually change the game long term. One flashy problem card (say, RtoI) is one flashy problem card (and still needs to be addressed), but actually a lot of people like playing other decks, even if they're not the Tier 1 Must Win the NAC strategy that other gamers would use in order to win bragging rights.