Share ideas how to use community more in new card design

So you agree that a community-designed set might not necessarily be bad. The problem you find is that it would be popular, which is apparently dangerous.

Aaron wrote:

So you agree that a community-designed set might not necessarily be bad.

Creating cards by ouija board wouldn't necessarily be bad. Creating cards by having monkeys hit typewriters wouldn't necessarily be bad.

You seem to be trying to heavily load your question in order to get the answer you want, rather than actually getting someone's opinion.

Aaron wrote:

The problem you find is that it would be popular, which is apparently dangerous.

Err, no, that's not what I said.

I said that the areas that the community would probably generate cards for would be those areas that are already popular. That is not the same as saying that a community-designed set would itself be popular.

Consider, for example, that reality TV shows vote for things the viewing public like. However, the end results - the future pop-stars, for example - very often flop once the kerfuffle of the weekly voting hysteria has gone away, and people are actually wanting to listen to some good music.

Look James! For once, we agree!!

jamesatzephyr wrote:

A significant problem with a design process that is driven heavily by voting (or a similar 'community approval' mechanism) is that will almost inevitably favour areas that are already popular.

I reject your premise. It is disingenuous on its face in comparison to the initial topic paragraph Surreal provided:

Now that Vtes is community driven I feel there is lot of chances to make community more involved with game. It just requires more initiative. I feel also some cards in new PDF sets should be in secret and I don't believe in total public play testing. But there should be some public cards to make whole community more excited. Here are some my ideas:

More involvement does not equal design by popularity contest. Even within the first paragraph the request is for more involvement and not in favor of completely open public playtesting.

This is a deliberate strawman. No one is advocating for design by committee popular vote. I and Ashur and Surreal are talking about being included in the process, but not advocating for supplanting small group's executive decisions.

One can have leaders within an organized body without having them cloistered in secrecy. One can solicit community involvement while using veteran guidance to pare down and shape the offerings. This is not a binary proposition, and to misrepresent the discussion is not helping.