Parity Shift poll and discussion

KevinM wrote:

Joscha wrote:

Parity Shift is a very discussed card indeed. But there already was a poll about Parity Shift in December. One point of making that poll was to make it needless to discuss the same card over and over again. Please take a look at that thread for any arguments so nobody has to reiterate everything said.

Until you are in charge, please stop dictating to this community how they should and should not be using their sole means of communication.

LET MY PEOPLE SPAM!!!

Seriously though, reviewing the existing material to avoid needless repetition is a perfectly reasonable suggestion and totally not an encroachment on anyone's civil rights.

Suoli wrote:

KevinM wrote:

Joscha wrote:

Parity Shift is a very discussed card indeed. But there already was a poll about Parity Shift in December. One point of making that poll was to make it needless to discuss the same card over and over again. Please take a look at that thread for any arguments so nobody has to reiterate everything said.

Until you are in charge, please stop dictating to this community how they should and should not be using their sole means of communication.

LET MY PEOPLE SPAM!!!

Seriously though, reviewing the existing material to avoid needless repetition is a perfectly reasonable suggestion and totally not an encroachment on anyone's civil rights.

This isn't the first time Joscha's done this. It's in the way he speaks. I think a link to the other poll with a friendly message like "check out the discussion of the same topic in this thread for some more background" would have been well-received. Contrast that with the arrogant tone in the quoted post.

Dorrinal wrote:

Suoli wrote:

KevinM wrote:

Joscha wrote:

Parity Shift is a very discussed card indeed. But there already was a poll about Parity Shift in December. One point of making that poll was to make it needless to discuss the same card over and over again. Please take a look at that thread for any arguments so nobody has to reiterate everything said.

Until you are in charge, please stop dictating to this community how they should and should not be using their sole means of communication.

LET MY PEOPLE SPAM!!!

Seriously though, reviewing the existing material to avoid needless repetition is a perfectly reasonable suggestion and totally not an encroachment on anyone's civil rights.

This isn't the first time Joscha's done this. It's in the way he speaks. I think a link to the other poll with a friendly message like "check out the discussion of the same topic in this thread for some more background" would have been well-received. Contrast that with the arrogant tone in the quoted post.

Oops, never wanted to sound arrogant. That's good to hear, thanks. People who know me would never charge me of arrogant behaviour or being restrictive or Mr. know-it-all. I just wonder how some cards are discussed repeatedly every month or so. Have to work on my netiquette though it seems. I'll keep that in mind but I think it is more a language-issue.

Dorrinal wrote:

I just don't believe you, Peter. Would all those tournament winning decks mentioned on the first page have been conventional KRC-spammers?

Here is the problem with this angle of the discussion--on the one hand, arguing that non Parity Shift enabled vote decks are viable (which they are, but considerably less good than Parity Shift based vote decks) supports that voting would still be good with a hamstrung Parity Shift, as it would. On the other hand, it tends to shoot in the foot the idea that vote decks without Parity Shift are considerably less worth playing than Parity Shift related decks. Which is an unfortunate catch 22, argument wise.

Vote decks without Parity Shift are in all ways less good than vote decks with Parity Shift. Such that most of the time one is building a vote deck, one is likely to inevitably end up at the design point of "Huh. Why am I doing this particular thing when I could just be using Parity Shift instead?" Because Parity Shift is that stupidly powerful.

That being said, and that being a undercurrent of the rest of this discussion, vote decks without Parity Shift (or vote decks in a world where Parity Shift has been downpowered to "1 per Game" or "1 per Meth per Game") should be solid enough anyway. KRC, as a staple action, is as powerful an action as you need to make a viable deck--inherent stealth, 3 damage for 1 action, any minion can call it, it is easy to make work by virtue of titled minions or Presence. The various analogues to KRC (ConAg, Reckless Ag, Neonate Breach) are also strong. The various pool gain votes (Con Boon, Ancient Influence, Political Stranglehold) are also strong enough to make a deck go. Especially given that most vote strategies come with Presence and Voter Captivation. Decks without Parity Shift or a hamstrung Parity Shift should be perfectly viable. And generally are. Except that when you look at any of them and say "Huh. This could have Party Shift instead", you generally fall back on Parity Shift. As it is that stupidly powerful.

I don't think Parity Shift needs banning if errata is a viable possibility. Make it once per game (like various other significantly less powerful votes) or once per player per game. It'll still show up. It'll still make Camarilla vote decks incredibly powerful relative to non Camarilla vote decks. It just won't be one of the most (if not the most) overpowered cards still in the game.

Keep in mind that I am in favor of nerfing Parity Shift. I simply disagree with the assertion that that will somehow make non-Parity Shift decks competitive with other tier 1 decks.

Non-Parity Shift vote decks *should* already be competitive with other tier one decks. They just aren't viewed as such 'cause they don't have Parity Shift in them.

Joscha wrote:

Oops, never wanted to sound arrogant. That's good to hear, thanks. People who know me would never charge me of arrogant behaviour or being restrictive or Mr. know-it-all. I just wonder how some cards are discussed repeatedly every month or so. Have to work on my netiquette though it seems. I'll keep that in mind but I think it is more a language-issue.

Apology accepted. You do sound like a good person, and I thank you for saying something.

Here's how such things happen:
- people don't necessarily read every post on every forum
- people don't necessarily read every post on any particular forum
- people don't necessarily remember reading a post that they DID read

So, if you want to say, "Hey guys, this sounds like a discussion that we had over here {URL}, check it out" then that is awesome, thanks for contributing. Feel free to say that all day long!

But to imply that any discussion that is on-topic is "needless" and that posters should instead read what was written before to get themselves up-to-date is an inappropriate statement.

KevinM wrote:

But to imply that any discussion that is on-topic is "needless" and that posters should instead read what was written before to get themselves up-to-date is an inappropriate statement.

Yup, okay, needless was inappropriate. On the other hand making a poll right after a poll could give the impression the initiator wasn't too happy with the results of the first, you know?