Rules Team Rulings - 22-APR-2013

echiang wrote:

It just happened to be extra irony that it was you (Hugh), Mike, and Johannes who were asking those questions back then. If anything, I would hope that you three would be especially tolerant and understanding of those with such concerns, since you have been in the same position before.

Eric this is coincidence not irony - no where have I seen me, Mike or Johannes say that Pascal should definitely not post his reasons to explain his bannings. Infact if you read my post and don't just quote the bits you want you'll see I say he should have a page specifically covering the banned cards.

I still don't understand the full workings of the bans - i'm sure I made it clear that I would have gutted anthelios, ToGP, Giant's blood (and maybe my old friend Ashur) - i'm not sure where I indicated that I did - i'm sure I said I was lucky enough to see some - perhaps I should have added a percentage maybe 5% of Pascal's workings

I really don't see the relevance of anything you've posted regarding Stefan/Derek Ray or Johannes from 2005- please can you stop using any random post here as a personal attack on anybody as it's not an appropriate forum.

Although you now have secret knowledge and influence on how the rulings are made, for most people it is still an opaque black box. So I think it is understandable for people to pose questions and ask for more clarification and transparency.

did you even read what I wrote?

"I don't disagree with you Eric that it would be useful to have a page covering the banned cards with reasons."
Or do you deliberately cut pertinent text out to have random arguments with people?

Pascal is the rules team guy - if you want to influence or make points on cards then make it to him - it's ultimately his decision on how cards change text or even if they are banned. I would encourage him, as I said to produce a page with perhaps a paragraph on each card (any more is a waste of time as whatever he writes some people would try and nitpick apart and get to a black and white answer when it's all pretty grey).

I don't see why Villein should get a free pass just because it's an "enabler." Many people still strongly feel that it is overpowered. Wouldn't it be better to just ban Villein and then come up with a more balanced version (in the POD printing) that still allows big fat decks to be competitive but isn't so abusive with MMPA's, Voter Cap, and Renewed Vigor?

villein might be marginally overpowered but that irrelevant to the issue with the first version - the issue was that it stopped another card that wasn't overpowered being used and that villein was unavailable in sufficient quantities to large portions of the playerbase (LSJ and others had a concept that tap-vote-vote cap was a problem and that tap was the problem as I see you're aware by your VC/Renewed vigor ref.) so it wasn't a requirement to re-design but to snip the impact on the other cards
Villein is also a card that is far more prevalent in decks than lilith's (partly because of numbers per deck) or than Tap ever was - so banning it would have had a much larger impact on the community so why would you ban it?
LB was a free card (at least for most players) so far easier to remove as little monetary impact and yes that is important.

I'm not sure why you think enablers shouldn't get free passes as these are cards that grow the game by their very nature. If you don't produce enablers we may as well stick with the cards we currently have as we won't generate anything new - villein provided sustenance to decks that were previously flawed

Then for consistency, why not ban Infamous Insurgent as well?

works for me - so I don't see what your point is? I gave you my reasons for killing LB not the reasons for it being killed - they may or may not overlap with Pascal's - you'll have to ask him

The point I have tried to make is that Lilith's Blessing was playtested (and playtested with the Heirs to the Blood set). It was.

I have not taken a position on *how well* Lilith's Blessing was playtested.

and as I keep telling you it wasn't playtested. Just because a card is in the playtest file doesn't mean it was actually playtested and this case it clearly wasn't buy a large number of groups. I don't know who you've talked to who 'playtested LB' but I can point you at the version files and the notes I have from myself and other groups that indicated precisely how much was done with the card.

I hadn't realised that sharing a beer with a guy in Hungary counted as secret knowledge - you do make this all seem very cloak and dagger Eric - essentially if you want to see what is influencing Pascal look at the TWDa, look at the forum here and finally email him with your thoughts- that's exactly what is going on plus the addition of some people that he can bounce ideas of and get perspective (t's hard to get perceptive if you play only in one meta).

DeathInABottle wrote:

Reyda wrote:

did I mention anything about being not polite, ffs ?)

Not directly, no, but you used the word "rant," which connotes impoliteness, among other things. It often involves swearing. "Ffs."

no no no, wait : i don't buy this.
You told me I used the word ranting, implying I said that Echiang was not polite.

since english is not my first language, I doubted for a second. But let's thank "the internets", here is the definition according to the merriam webster online.

1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner
2 : to scold vehemently

Where is politeness involved in this definition ?
Can you tell me what made you jump on that post because politeness has no relation whatsoever with what you wrote.

DeathInABottle wrote:

Reyda wrote:

you can not deny the fact that there is suddenly an avalanche of posts from echiang. That's the only thing I am pointing here.

First of all, he has over 1500 posts.
It's not like he's brand new to the community. Secondly, he's probably posting because he cares about the issue in question and people continue to make points that he feels need to be addressed. Third, that's not at all the "only thing" you're pointing out here: you're insinuating that his reasons for posting ("ranting") involve ulterior motives ("foul play").

I know he has 1500 posts. It's written somewhere under his name.
But what difference does it make, really ? You are under the 300 posts milestone, should i take what you write lightly ?
No, it's not working this way. I know echiang is a good player, I know he's part of PCK and he made quite a cool expansion set. But I am not judging him based on his reputation or number of posts. Same thing for you, I am not assuming you are a novice just because you post less.

DeathInABottle wrote:

Reyda wrote:

It's hard to say anything in this forum without being labelled a troll, really.

Try saying things politely.

I said it politely. I used the infamous "ffs" in another post, but of course you jumped right on it, as planned.

Well, he wants explanation about bans, then that's cool. One or two post would have been ok. No need to be all over the place. He even answered to tell me that discussion and objections from other players have sparkled the need for more posts (which you can agree or not). So no need to continue your crusade here. No need for more noise in this conversation, don't you agree ?

echiang wrote:

Maybe I was being too subtle. This was indirectly referring to the issue of transparency on how the VEKN works and the process with which rulings/bans are decided (bottom up? top down? independent committee? etc.)

Why not just wait and see what is produced by these processes?

If the processes work, the cards will be good, the tournaments will be good, the deck diversity will increase and the metagame will not be overly dominated by any specific decktype.

Why focus on changing processes that might already happen to work?

Squidalot wrote:

echiang wrote:

It just happened to be extra irony that it was you (Hugh), Mike, and Johannes who were asking those questions back then. If anything, I would hope that you three would be especially tolerant and understanding of those with such concerns, since you have been in the same position before.

Eric this is coincidence not irony - no where have I seen me, Mike or Johannes say that Pascal should definitely not post his reasons to explain his bannings. Infact if you read my post and don't just quote the bits you want you'll see I say he should have a page specifically covering the banned cards.

I read your post and saw what you said in that section. I didn't have any issues with it, so I didn't feel the need to quote and respond to that portion.

Sorry to get nitpicky but no, in your previous post you did *not* say that "he should have a page specifically covering the banned cards." Though I thank you for saying that now and I agree with you. For reference:

Squidalot wrote:

I don't disagree with you Eric that it would be useful to have a page covering the banned cards with reasons.

1. Not disagreeing with someone is slightly different from agreeing with someone.

2. Saying that it would be useful to have X is different than seeing that we should have X.

So no, it was not about "quot[ing] the bits want[ed]." It was more likely that I actually read what you wrote more carefully than you did!

I still don't understand the full workings of the bans - i'm sure I made it clear that I would have gutted anthelios, ToGP, Giant's blood (and maybe my old friend Ashur) - i'm not sure where I indicated that I did - i'm sure I said I was lucky enough to see some - perhaps I should have added a percentage maybe 5% of Pascal's workings

Sorry for inferring that you understood more than you do. Based on your post:

Squidalot wrote:

I was lucky enough to be party to some of Pascal's thinking and I do know that he involved a fair number of experienced players from around the globe (who no doubt all came up with different views to keep him busy).

I was certainly part of the lilith's blessing ban lobby (I also had Anthelios and to a lesser extent Ashur in my head as bads and was convinced by other to add ToGP and Giant's blood for different reasons to the list - not a fan of OPG game design)

I also know that these discussions have been going on some time (since villein was 'corrected') and it's because Pascal wants to make as balanced a decision as he can that he really thinks it through.

it sounded like you knew a lot more about what was happening behind-the-scenes. Furthermore, you are both a National Coordinator and the Playtest Coordinator, so you are also privy to a lot more information and influence than most people. And while you might not be as informed as the actual IC members, you would probably still rank in the 99th percentile when it comes to having such information. Apologies for misunderstanding just how much you were a "party to some of Pascal's thinking."

I really don't see the relevance of anything you've posted regarding Stefan/Derek Ray or Johannes from 2005- please can you stop using any random post here as a personal attack on anybody as it's not an appropriate forum.

And some people, such as DeathInaBottle, do see potential relevance:

DeathInABottle wrote:

From my reading, Eric is asking for the same thing - an explanation of the decision rather than a reversal of it - which makes his reference to older posts perfectly legitimate.

did you even read what I wrote?

Yes I did.

"I don't disagree with you Eric that it would be useful to have a page covering the banned cards with reasons."
Or do you deliberately cut pertinent text out to have random arguments with people?

As answered above: No, I do not deliberately cut out pertinent text.

1. Not disgreeing is not necessarily equivalent to agreeing.

2. Would be nice is different than should.

Pascal is the rules team guy - if you want to influence or make points on cards then make it to him - it's ultimately his decision on how cards change text or even if they are banned. I would encourage him, as I said to produce a page with perhaps a paragraph on each card (any more is a waste of time as whatever he writes some people would try and nitpick apart and get to a black and white answer when it's all pretty grey).

Yes, Pascal is the rules team guy, but the question I'm trying to get at is that because how VEKN functions is still not transparent, it is not clear how the process works. If you recall from those old rulings posts, when Johannes asked LSJ who decides on the bans, LSJ's response was simply "the VEKN". Not "me [LSJ]" or even the "Inner Circle" it was a very vague "the VEKN".

Pascal is the rules team guy, but it's unknown whether these decisions were *his* decision. For example, relevant questions that could shed light on the relationship between Rules Director / IC / Chairperson:

1. In theory, can Pascal enact a rules change that the rest of the IC opposes?

2. Can the rest of the IC force through a rules change that Pascal does not agree with?

3. In theory, can Pascal enact a rules change that the chairman opposes?

4. Can the chairman force through a rules change that Pascal does not agree with?

Of course there is likely to be a canned response "X would never make such a decision without the consensus of Y." But what I'm trying to understand is the actual underlying relationship between Rules Coordinator, IC, and Chairperson, because that would help shed light whether this was Pascal's decision, the IC's decision, the chairperson's decision, or some combination of the above (and there might also be "approval" instead of "decision" in some cases).

Villein is also a card that is far more prevalent in decks than lilith's (partly because of numbers per deck) or than Tap ever was - so banning it would have had a much larger impact on the community so why would you ban it?

Simple really. If the purpose of a ban is to change a distorted environment, then you may *want* a larger impact. When it comes to MtG bans, they actually keep an eye out on how prevalent the card is, and as a card becomes more and more prevalent, they are more likely to ban it.

LB was a free card (at least for most players) so far easier to remove as little monetary impact and yes that is important.

::shrugs:: I've seen plenty of Lilith's Blessing sell on eBay for a fair amount (I've never sold on eBay) so I wouldn't consider it "free" for those people. There have also been plenty of people who have traded for Lilith's Blessing as well. In the past (over a year ago), I traded away a lot of my Lilith's Blessing and I actually now feel bad for those I traded them to.

I'm not sure why you think enablers shouldn't get free passes as these are cards that grow the game by their very nature. If you don't produce enablers we may as well stick with the cards we currently have as we won't generate anything new - villein provided sustenance to decks that were previously flawed

Enablers are a good thing, but I don't think it necessarily outweighs other issues (how overpowered Villein is). Broadly speakly, I see it as akin to an issue of "selective enforcement" or "looking the other way."

Then for consistency, why not ban Infamous Insurgent as well?

works for me - so I don't see what your point is? I gave you my reasons for killing LB not the reasons for it being killed - they may or may not overlap with Pascal's - you'll have to ask him

My point was that eliminating Lilith's Blessing still doesn't purge the game of the Bahari keyword. So I don't think it's a particularly strong or convincing reason.

The point I have tried to make is that Lilith's Blessing was playtested (and playtested with the Heirs to the Blood set). It was.

I have not taken a position on *how well* Lilith's Blessing was playtested.

and as I keep telling you it wasn't playtested. Just because a card is in the playtest file doesn't mean it was actually playtested and this case it clearly wasn't buy a large number of groups. I don't know who you've talked to who 'playtested LB' but I can point you at the version files and the notes I have from myself and other groups that indicated precisely how much was done with the card.

I guess we have differing definitions of "playtested." If absolutely no playtester playtested the card, then I would agree that "it was in the playtest file but was not actually playtested." But if at least some of the playtesters did playtest it, then it was playtested. But it's still possible it was not playtested thoroughly or playtested well.

And for the record Hugh, *I* playtested Lilith's Blessing and complained to LSJ about how overpowered it was every single round of HttB playtest.

I hadn't realised that sharing a beer with a guy in Hungary counted as secret knowledge - you do make this all seem very cloak and dagger Eric

The main reason for the "cloak and dagger" atmosphere is the issue of transparency. Which is what Jeff, I, and numerous others have repeatedly asked for. (And what I've been asking for in this thread as well).

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

echiang wrote:

Maybe I was being too subtle. This was indirectly referring to the issue of transparency on how the VEKN works and the process with which rulings/bans are decided (bottom up? top down? independent committee? etc.)

Why not just wait and see what is produced by these processes?

If the processes work, the cards will be good, the tournaments will be good, the deck diversity will increase and the metagame will not be overly dominated by any specific decktype.

Why focus on changing processes that might already happen to work?

You seem to be misunderstanding.

As DeathInaBottle eloquently explained, it's more about trying to understand how the process works, rather than trying to change it or get a reversal.

I understand that some forumites only care about the end product (i.e. "ends justify the means").

On the other hand, even if a process works spectacularly, there are still some of us who are interested in how it works.

If the process involves divining new VTES cards by reading chicken entrails whilst consulting the I-Ching... and makes VTES a good game...

I DON'T CARE

If the process involves Ozzy Osbourne levels of cocaine before making banning decisions... and makes VTES a good game...

I DON'T CARE

If the process is to get a bunch of trusted and experienced players to give commentary on what they see happening in tournaments... and makes VTES a good game...

I DON'T CARE


Why do you care what method is used if it gets the results we want Eric? Don't we all want a good strong game that is fun to play?