Rules Team Rulings - 22-APR-2013

Ohlmann wrote:

Yes, it is. Just propose a wording, I need a laugh.

I realize you're just baiting me, but:

Blood on a Bahari vampire may not be moved to your pool.

Ohlmann wrote:

There were more than 100 totals pages of discussion on the topic of lillith, Villein, and other blood and pool creation cards.

I don't remember the hundred pages of unanimously agreement that LB was hopelessly broken and needed banned. Could you link me to that?

brm130 wrote:

Implying they were no discussion period seem curious in this regard.

Well, it don't seem curious if we suppose you're just hurt with the decision (which is debatable, and have been debated lengthy) and try to find any reason to negate it. But lack of consultation wasn't here ; it's just that the public consultation and the final decision didn't go the way you wanted.

There was a discussion, and many MANY reasonable alternatives to outright banning were proffered. It's a decision that hurts decks that don't exploit Villein. Hermanas and Discipline fetch both get gimped with this ban. Was fetching a discipline card too unbalancing? Were Mexico City Circle decks sweeping tabels? We don't know what was going on in the black box that dispensed the ban. If you want to pretend that discussion was framed as a legitimate conversation about the future of the card, that's on you.

e: clarity

There were alot of various discussions and polls on liliths blessing, and from what i recall, about half of the forum users contributing to the conversation said it needed changed, maybe 2-5 people said ban in, and an equal amount said it was fine as is. The restcof who answered seemed to have an opinion of some kind, but implied they could care less either way.
Of the people who wanted it changed, very few agreed on how it should be changed. This is a trend that carried over into debates on changing Ashur Tablets as well.

It probably is well over 100 pages of discussing and bickering, cumulatively, across all the threads and polls on LB, tablets, anthelios, villein, and pentex. Thats counting all the debates, on threads for it, and threads that were um... threadjacked, not unlike this thread was threadjacked by things unrelated to the rules or the ban.

But thats the nature of good cards anymore. You win a table or even dont get ousted at a few tables and everyone hates at leazt one card responsible for it.

As long as we dont ban any vamps, i think we are ok.

If we do ban vamps, may i request Van Buren? Ian Lee just won with Augustus, so that makes Josef Van Buren the worst 11 cap in the game statistically......

Liliths is gone for a few months, and while brm130 has the same issue i do with liliths being banned, the fact that people who dont play cheese decks justclost our discipline fetcher, there is at least the sentiment that Pascal and probably the DT is awarexof that issue, and plan on filling that niche with a replacement or an updated LB in the near future.

Thats more than any other banned card has gotten, even if banning it doesnt sit well with people(like myself) when the idea is to introduce a replacement effect in X amount of months.

So for now waiting is the only way to get the effect again.

Or adding anothef almost 100 pages about ow not problematic LB is to counger the 100 ish saying otherwise

brm130 wrote:

Blood on a Bahari vampire may not be moved to your pool.

Which don't work, since people actually use villein first, then Lillith Blessing.

brm130 wrote:

I don't remember the hundred pages of unanimously agreement that LB was hopelessly broken and needed banned. Could you link me to that?

Certainly because they don't exist and haven't been hinted to exist anywhere. What do exist is hundred of page on the subject, which have been used by Pascal for his decision. Maybe the discussion can be restarted, but it's not like there actually exist any new arguments, and the very existence of this debate for something like two year make any argument of autocratic behavior quite moot.

brm130 wrote:

Blood on a Bahari vampire may not be moved to your pool.

Ohlmann wrote:

Which don't work, since people actually use villein first, then Lillith Blessing.

The above suggestion could work, just now how *you* want it to work.

Ohlmann wrote:

...make any argument of autocratic behavior quite moot.

That has never been a point of contention here. I think many people who are rushing to Pascal's defense are missing the point.

Though now that you mention it, FZD/PB *is* the Rules Team. He said so above--at least he has final decision making authority. Technically, that gives him autocratic power, though it is more in line with the proverbial "benevolent dictator" who keeps everyone's best interests in mind. I don't think that's a bad analogy here, since that is more or less what LSJ was for many years. And again, that's *not* the point of contention at all.

I commented...

Jeff wrote:

...some context for why this card is to be banned would be helpful.

And then the discussion devolved from there with those *not even involved in the decision-making process* commenting frequently and vehemently. That's just how things go on a public forum with a poor signal to noise ratio.

Jeff wrote:

*first quote*

Jeff wrote:

...some context for why this card is to be banned would be helpful.

*end first quote*

And then the discussion devolved from there with those *not even involved in the decision-making process* commenting frequently and vehemently. That's just how things go on a public forum with a poor signal to noise ratio.

A two year long debate on the Forum doesn't constitute a potentially great context for why a card would potentially be banned with the publicly state objective of editing or replacing where possible?

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

*first quote*

Jeff wrote:

...some context for why this card is to be banned would be helpful.

*end first quote*

And then the discussion devolved from there with those *not even involved in the decision-making process* commenting frequently and vehemently. That's just how things go on a public forum with a poor signal to noise ratio.

A two year long debate on the Forum doesn't constitute a potentially great context for why a card would potentially be banned with the publicly state objective of editing or replacing where possible?

I'm sure that Jeff meant "context" to signal "official explanation." He's not obtuse.