[Poll] - Are you interested in the banned list?

[Machinus]

Several people have indicated that they feel the banned list is not an interesting topic.

Before you vote, let me ask that you vote in this poll not about what you want me to write about, but whether or not you think the topic itself is interesting. If you think it's interesting but not appropriate for an article, I'd really like you to vote yes but post and explain your reasons why. This poll is just a rough indicator of where your interests lie so don't take it too seriously.

[The Rack]

I say yes because it defines what our format is always about. There are always some cards on there that can be argued either way and I really hope wizards keeps the erratas and banns changing because it makes the game so much more interesting. Well for me at least.

[mikekelley]

Not now, no, because it seems you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone who is talking about why Land Tax deserves to come off, or how Dream Halls isn't that broken. So to me, and i'm sure a lot of other people, discussing the banned list is old and tired.

So, in short, no, I'm quite sick of it being discussed altogether.

[Silverdragon]

I strongly believe Wizards and the DCI try to read every article they can get on this topic so they don't have to do all the work by themselves. As the restriction of Trinisphere in Vintage shows they do listen to the players.
Aside from this I personally like to read articles like the one you wrote about Land Tax because I enjoy this theoretical stuff.

[Peter_Rotten]

discussing the banned list is old and tired...

[Slay]

Discussing the B&R list on a magic card forum is a lot like arguing politics on the internet: there's as few people every time that bring up some retarded bullshit that nobody but them believes, and they hijack the conversation talking about how they're right and no one listens to them. And to get it on topic, it requires a team of intelligent people coherently giving concrete reasons as to why the nutjobs are wrong. This is boring and stupid, but it always turns into that just because people are dumb. So, unless you write a spectacularly clear and articulate piece that definitively proves why people disagreeing with you are wrong and why your position is the correct one, your point's not going to get across and nobody will care.

Plus, how many people have written articles about the B&R list before you? Five thousand?
-Slay

[Cait_Sith]

I don't mind discussion on it, but it is always the SAME OLD THING. The same few cards over and over and the same crusty arguments over and over. I'd like to see someone write an article on why Yawg's Bargain is a ridiculous card, or why Mana Crypt would warp the format. I think it would be fun to see an article about the old Dragon lists that powered 1.5 (or the MUD decks). A little history would be nice.

[zulander]

I'm interested in the banned list, I'm not interested in an article regarding the banned list.

[Fred Bear]

I think it's an interesting topic for discussion, but articles are too easily clouded and/or swayed with personal beliefs, judgements, and opinions (just like they should since they are basically editorials). Any evaluation of cards coming off the banned list (or going on) should be done with as much actual data analysis as possible. There is no 'real-life' tournament data, so much of the data analysis is purely theoretical in nature making this even more difficult.

Articles further complicate the situation, as a reader, you then have to 'trust' the author to tell you everything - to present all the relevant data. This doesn't happen very regularly. I believe it is the norm that most decklists provided in articles are early (or at least earlier) versions of the deck being discussed. The lastest 'tech' and newest 'innovations' are only presented after tournaments where individuals/teams can benefit first. I think this makes it difficult to assume you would get a completely unbiased article about a controversial topic like the banned list. (I still find it hard to believe that so many top deckbuilders care if a card is banned when it can't be abused - it really is counterintuitive if you think about it.)

All these difficulties piling onto one another make an article a poor place to try and showcase a card for potential unbanning. I think enough Wizards folks recieve email from the community that if an important discussion point is raised or a true community concesus is reached - they will know where to look.

Fred Bear...

[moonmoon]

I'm not interested in banned list

[MattH]

I'm surprised at the way the vote is polling thus far!

[Giles]

I am tired of reading articals about the Banned list. They really should be done when a B/R list is approhing and not when people want to bitch about it.

[Illissius]

I'm surprised at the way the vote is polling thus far!

Likewise. For a while Yes was behind by roughly as much as it's ahead now; can't say why it switched.

[Anusien]

I'm interested in the banned list, I'm not interested in an article regarding the banned list.

It's prohibitively difficult to prove something is NOT broken but easy to prove it is broken. For example, I'm sure I could have come up with initial drafts of Long.dec that weren't good enough to get LED restricted. It really takes a lot of effort to break most cards. A lot of decks are successful only with a lot of tuning. Back in the days of Goblin Sligh, would you have said that Lackey was banworthy? Certainly not. Now in the days of Vial Goblins would you? It's more debatable.

Plus, it's not a good topic for an article. Most people have an opinion one way or another and are unlikely to change. These sorts of articles are more intended to convince WotC R&D, so why not just summarize your points saliently and e-mail them?

[Tacosnape]

Not now, no, because it seems you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone who is talking about why Land Tax deserves to come off, or how Dream Halls isn't that broken. So to me, and i'm sure a lot of other people, discussing the banned list is old and tired.

So, in short, no, I'm quite sick of it being discussed altogether.

Mikekelley d. Thread, 2-0.

[Whit3 Ghost]

On occasion, it is an important thing to look at and analyze why things are banned.

It unfortunately gets done to death around the time the list gets changed, although the threads can sometimes get interesting.

[outsideangel]

I can come up with a dozen things more relevant and interesting than discussing the B&R list AGAIN.

[clavio]

Things added to the banned list is usually ok. Beating it to death isn't.

People spent a long time bitching to get Mind Over Matter unbanned so they could go and not play it. Why are so many people bent on getting land tax unbanned? The only way it will get unbanned is if wizards proves it sucks. If it sucks, it won't get played.

[Cait_Sith]

Land Tax will never really suck, simply because it costs one. That meas it doesn't take an act of God to bring it into play.

However, by far the best way to abuse Land Tax is to flood the internet with articles designed solely to length one's e-penis.

[Rastadon]

I agree with slay. People just don't know how to state their case without a, getting offended, or b, doing it well. One example. I've heard a thousand cases for how Card X does not deserve to be on the banned list because it's such an unwieldly and hard to use card. If that's the case, why should we care if it's banned or not? If it was unbanned, who would use it? It's SO hard to use. Stupid cases like that just make me want to not care.