Which criteria should be fulfill by New Legacy Deck to be worth testing

[Fatal]

Posted this in some New thread in Development section, actually I think TheSource Community should discuss what criteria is needed to categorize between competitive deck which require tunning and brew kitchen table deck which souldn't left it.

"If your deck can't win turn 4 and interact with opponent you lose".

It's sad for aggro decks, since turn 4 is really early for creature base aggro, but if you can't win until this turn:
a) you will be dead by combo deck
b) you will lose all your creatures by Terminus and locked by counterbalance
c) you will lose advantage of cheap effective creature by 1UG 2/2 draw 3 or 1/1 Strix draw a card .. from shardless BUG
d) you will have similar life as your opponent but your resources will be devastated, and your next spells will be countered
e) you will lose all your lands, and your creatures will be sacrificed by The Tabernacle effect..
f) read a) but will anihilator 6 rampaging Emmy from Sneak Attack or Grisel
g) will will lose race with 6/6 lifelink, vigilance with trigger ability draw card + shock, with activated ability protection for chosen color.
h) You will overrun by similar number of Elves which will be 8/8 trample each thanks to Craterhoof..

Those aren't abstractive options those are real decks:

a) Is any storm deck like ANT, Belcher or even Dredge
b) Miracles
c) Shardless BUG
d) Any Tempo like RUG, BUG or Grixs
e) Any loam deck
f) Other non-storm Combo like Reanimator, TinFins or Sneak Attack
g) Death & Taxes
h) Elves

New deck should 4/8 cover points to be worth testing so if your deck can't compete against most of the field it's not worth playing as competitive deck.

After we agreed on some criteria it should be pinned in N&D sub-forum.

[Dice_Box]

I like this idea and will mull over what I would want in the list.

[Lemnear]

That's imo pretty easy: have a way to interact with combo and a clear-cut, realistic gameplan.

Most kitchen table are disqualified by 3+ card combos or requiring a shitton of mana to pull off some cool interaction.

[Slag]

New deck should 4/8 cover points to be worth testing so if your deck can't compete against most of the field it's not worth playing as competitive deck.

After we agreed on some criteria it should be pinned in N&D sub-forum.

I have a couple of problems with this:
-being competitive against half the deck types in legacy is a pretty significant feat. If the New and Developmental forum is really only for decks that are polished enough in that respect, it should probably be renamed "New and Upcoming," since there would be very little development going on.
-it excludes decks (or styles, themes, combos, or interactions) that might be able to get to an appropriate level of competitiveness with the right tweaking, rebuilding, or advice
-it's reasonable for a deck to be a "silver bullet" that beats one other deck consistently, assuming the player has a lot of it in their metagame
-it may be hard to remember now, but once upon a time, people playing legacy had pet decks that they would work towards getting as competitive as possible, even if they knew that there was a ceiling somewhere

I understand the urge to keep from cluttering up the board with "kitchen table casual" decks, but I think the subforum should still have a place as a building ground. To be really productive, your points should be a requirement for people commenting on a deck to consider, rather than people posting decks. So, the assumption is that if you are commenting on a N&D deck, you are providing ways for it to get to deal with one of your eight strategies. That way, the discussion is moving a deck toward competitive, even if it requires a lot of work. The kitchen table people who have had their deck deconstructed would then either have to put in the time, effort and cash to rebuild the deck or to retreat back to their more easygoing domain.

Take the warriors deck, for instance. There might be a lot of work to be done, but with the right support cards, a warriors deck could have enough disruption to win a few games in a local legacy tournament. However, it would require input from the community, which is input it could never get if it is deleted or moved to the veritable ghost town of the casual forum.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Fatal, I read your post in the Warriors! thread and I think you covered most of (if not all of) the aspects necessary for a Legacy eck.
I also think that what Slag wrote is true. N&D may be a place for tinkering with ideas and for feedback, no matter how weak the original idea is. After all, it's up to mods to move the decks to casual subforum. (One that's the most interesting and entertaining for me, btw...)

[Fatal]

I also understand the point of @Slag. Casual deck forum is a ghost town, where is very little real good advices, without N&D in form of concept or interaction between some cards, there is no place to polish conceptual decks in to competitive level.

On the other side there are a lot of "finished" decks in "N&D" for example Big Red, Oozing or Sylvan Plug, maybe with proper tags we could better categorize decks from scratch interaction between some cards or theme just like Warriors!, to competitive level decks which are around for a while and even have good results in tournaments.

Other solution would be just moved finished decks to Established Decks which would be more logical, question is that "When" deck is finished, does it need to topped on some tournament with proper rank, so measurement by effect ?

No matter which solution we take (or even nor of them), I think pinning aims for any Legacy construction will help constructors to fill all gaps in their developments, for sure Aims will be changing like all the format, that's why some constructions will fade away and other new will take their places. Changing isn't so fast like DTB, but some definitions like fundamental turn which are dependent to constructions in format doesn't change so fast. I tried to sum up necessary interaction from most Tier decks into easy goals to resolve. It's basic business requirement engineering - we take all NEEDS, then trace them into GOALS, which are validating each development, represented by SOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.

Definitions:
NEED - Each reported and accepted need by stakeholders (in this case - all players are stakeholders, so we defining what we want to achieve in sort of single granulating actions, like interaction vs combo deck)

GOALS - What we want to achieve by building construction. Simple sentence: Your deck have to to interact vs decks described by NEEDs or win faster then those constructions. Have two goals be as fast as decks in DTB, and second goal stop decks with interactions, those goals connected together with XOR relation.

SOLUTION REQUIREMENTS - Decklists, Strategies described by each thread. Solution must realizing goals, which are traced by needs.

This simple model show how analysis was made.

NEEDS:

a) you will be dead by combo deck
b) you will lose all your creatures by Terminus and locked by counterbalance
c) you will lose advantage of cheap effective creature by 1UG 2/2 draw 3 or 1/1 Strix draw a card .. from shardless BUG
d) you will have similar life as your opponent but your resources will be devastated, and your next spells will be countered
e) you will lose all your lands, and your creatures will be sacrificed by The Tabernacle effect..
f) read a) but will anihilator 6 rampaging Emmy from Sneak Attack or Grisel
g) will will lose race with 6/6 lifelink, vigilance with trigger ability draw card + shock, with activated ability protection for chosen color.
h) You will overrun by similar number of Elves which will be 8/8 trample each thanks to Craterhoof..

GOALS(in natural language, it's actual two goals):

"If your deck can't win turn 4 and interact with opponent you lose"

SOLUTION REQUIREMENTS (for example for Worriors!, rather abstractive so they should be more defined to real solution, like cards in list with described strategies):

a)Some really strong reach factor, to be as fast as Burn - Zoo used Price of Progress in heavy 3 color meta, you can use some heavy burn spells (2cmc - 4 dmg)
b)Some control elements like hatebears (actually Burn have 4 MD answers vs Storm combo, with Vortex can be named as any Blade Control)
c)Bullet tutored answers vs certain deck on opponent site (GSZ + bullets like Maverick, which can be to slow or current meta)
d) Raw card advantage like Goblins, which is still not enough for current metagame.

I hope my bad English won't be a barrier to understand quite simple concept how to understand my methodology.

[Raystar]

I also understand the point of @Slag. Casual deck forum is a ghost town, where is very little real good advices, without N&D in form of concept or interaction between some cards, there is no place to polish conceptual decks in to competitive level.

On the other side there are a lot of "finished" decks in "N&D" for example Big Red, Oozing or Sylvan Plug, maybe with proper tags we could better categorize decks from scratch interaction between some cards or theme just like Warriors!, to competitive level decks which are around for a while and even have good results in tournaments.

Other solution would be just moved finished decks to Established Decks which would be more logical, question is that "When" deck is finished, does it need to topped on some tournament with proper rank, so measurement by effect ?

No matter which solution we take (or even nor of them), I think pinning aims for any Legacy construction will help constructors to fill all gaps in their developments, for sure Aims will be changing like all the format, that's why some constructions will fade away and other new will take their places. Changing isn't so fast like DTB, but some definitions like fundamental turn which are dependent to constructions in format doesn't change so fast. I tried to sum up necessary interaction from most Tier decks into easy goals to resolve. It's basic business requirement engineering - we take all NEEDS, then trace them into GOALS, which are validating each development, represented by SOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.

Definitions:
NEED - Each reported and accepted need by stakeholders (in this case - all players are stakeholders, so we defining what we want to achieve in sort of single granulating actions, like interaction vs combo deck)

GOALS - What we want to achieve by building construction. Simple sentence: Your deck have to to interact vs decks described by NEEDs or win faster then those constructions. Have two goals be as fast as decks in DTB, and second goal stop decks with interactions, those goals connected together with XOR relation.

SOLUTION REQUIREMENTS - Decklists, Strategies described by each thread. Solution must realizing goals, which are traced by needs.

This simple model show how analysis was made.

NEEDS:


GOALS(in natural language, it's actual two goals):


SOLUTION REQUIREMENTS (for example for Worriors!, rather abstractive so they should be more defined to real solution, like cards in list with described strategies):


I hope my bad English won't be a barrier to understand quite simple concept how to understand my methodology.

All very good points Fatal.

Maybe the business analysis scenario can become a bit too cumbersome (I already have enough of that at work :wink:) but the principles behind it are sound.

Establishing what it would take for a deck to be past the "invention" stage and defining what is the threshold that makes a deck a "competitor" or just a "fun endeavour" could also provide additional benefits. For example, having an evaluation grid against "NEEDs" would help select a deck for a specific meta in a more "scientific" way.

I really like the topic, I strongly believe that there is a lot of values in analyzing the expected behaviour of our decks in a methodological way.

[Slag]

Establishing what it would take for a deck to be past the "invention" stage and defining what is the threshold that makes a deck a "competitor" or just a "fun endeavour" could also provide additional benefits. For example, having an evaluation grid against "NEEDs" would help select a deck for a specific meta in a more "scientific" way.

I really like the topic, I strongly believe that there is a lot of values in analyzing the expected behaviour of our decks in a methodological way.

Having a clear way for decks to "graduate" to the open forum might also help to encourage more invested work in the new and developmental forum. If a poster knows that they will be checked for [x criteria] with the possibility of moving on the the open forum, it may prompt them to test more, respond better to criticism, and try out the deck in live events. The review process itself could be as easy as a series of quality control checks for a mod or other tester to sign off on before the deck moves up.

[Dice_Box]

Having a clear way for decks to "graduate" to the open forum might also help to encourage more invested work in the new and developmental forum. If a poster knows that they will be checked for [x criteria] with the possibility of moving on the the open forum, it may prompt them to test more, respond better to criticism, and try out the deck in live events. The review process itself could be as easy as a series of quality control checks for a mod or other tester to sign off on before the deck moves up.
Yea, I am all over this. It seems at the moment the reason for movement is down to one of two things:
1) The deck does well and shifts.
2) Someone rights a decent enough primer for a deck that is semi known bit not getting a not of results.

A deck like Ooze I know has traction. Panda is a local player so I have had the... Joy... of being at the receiving end of it. But the deck is not really known. So I don't know when I would say it could shift. It's a decent deck, it's not a brew but it's not a "Established" deck.

I think for the time being I might pin some of the decks that see a lot of traffic in the Development section. It's a halfway measure between moving them over and letting them stay, but until we work out a way for them to shift over or what stick we will measure them by its the best I can think of.

Also I will have a look at the decks that should shift. Some decks have gone right from Developing to DTB before. Likely they should have been moved before that.

Ok.
Ooze I think is seeing enough traffic and enough real development to have its place at the top of the page. Plug is seeing online play and putting up results. Depths is placing high enough in paper that it shows up in Tcdecks Legacy meta every so often. Not enough that I will port it right over, but more than something like High Tide does. For those reasons I have stuck them and I will keep an eye on them. I may also look at pruning the "Established" section a little as well. Some decks that are in there likely should not be.

[apple713]

maybe its just me but this seems much more simple than appending criteria that has to be met.

Established means to have achieved permanent acceptance or recognition for. So, after a deck can show some sort of consistent tournament performance over the course of a 6 month period its probably "established." Even with decks like Aluren which have scattered success rates and such, it should be considered a Established deck. Lauren has been around for a LONG time. It doesn't receive as much credit as it's due partially because the deck is not easy to play nor is it accessible to a lot of people. The cards don't cross over to many other decks and it isn't played very much BUT it is a deck that has seen success, and is recognizable as "Aluren".

In the event that a deck is Developed and nothing new is being brought to it but the community / tournament scene has not accepted it such as the deck you mentioned dice, it's safe to leave it in New and Developmental because it clearly requires further development to come into fruition and receive more serious attention.

As someone who actively brews ALOT of decks, there are times I turn to the community in "new and Developmental" just to gather ideas and such for what I'm working on. When I go to N&D section I expect to see some developed decks that have not been successful and some decks that I've never heard of and I think thats exactly what the section is for.

[Dice_Box]

Fair, but there is also a level of deck that was "Established" but is no longer anything but a memory to most. If I went to an SCG event and played a Cephalid Illusionist how many people do you think are going to know what I am doing? Is Breakfast really an "Established" deck these days? I am not sure but it is also not a "Developing" deck any more either. But the only answer I can come up with for that is more subs and then that gets overly complex and silly so... Not doing that. I guess I have to admit in this case some things are not in need of a repair.

But what about Depths that sees more top finishes then Dead Guy? What the the line where we move that over? I would think that these days Depths is more recognisable then Breakfast is. That is the question to me. Where is that line?

[apple713]

Fair, but there is also a level of deck that was "Established" but is no longer anything but a memory to most. If I went to an SCG event and played a Cephalid Illusionist how many people do you think are going to know what I am doing? Is Breakfast really an "Established" deck these days? I am not sure but it is also not a "Developing" deck any more either. But the only answer I can come up with for that is more subs and then that gets overly complex and silly so... Not doing that. I guess I have to admit in this case some things are not in need of a repair.

But what about Depths that sees more top finishes then Dead Guy? What the the line where we move that over? I would think that these days Depths is more recognisable then Breakfast is. That is the question to me. Where is that line?

breakfast has been established but is no longer active. So you could simply archive the deck/thread or move it to "inactive" established. I don't have numbers on this but i doubt that breakfast has placed in the last 6 months at any major tournament.

I think that the Established decks section should be a "broader" gauntlet of decks than the DTB section. Maybe the baseline could be whether or not it is reasonable to expect that this deck made an appearance at any given tournament. Is it reasonable to have tested against the deck when preparing for a tournament? Breakfast would probably not be able to answer yes to either of those questions.

If a deck is not something that someone should have a reasonable expectation to see at any given tournament than it probably doesn't belong. DTB is pretty much guaranteed to see at any given tournament. N&D is probably something you would be surprised to see or couldn't have foreseen the deck because it's a brew.


So i guess in short, maybe just differentiate between active / inactive Established decks and decide if you want to "retire" / make inactive a deck that has previously been established or move it back to new and developmental until something changes and the deck is resurrected.

[ESG]

So i guess in short, maybe just differentiate between active / inactive Established decks and decide if you want to "retire" / make inactive a deck that has previously been established or move it back to new and developmental until something changes and the deck is resurrected.

Isn't the date of the last post indicative of whether a deck is active or inactive? I'm fine with retiring or archiving dusty decks in the Established section, but I wonder what the process would be if someone wanted to update Breakfast, for example. Would they need to PM a mod to reactivate the thread? Would they need to start out in New and Developmental again?

[Dice_Box]

I am not a fan of locking off decks so that people need to PM me to get access to them again. I guess the simplest answer is just to let them fade into the pages and if someone wants it, the go digging.

To me Modern on Salvation (do I lose my Mod status now?) does a really good job of sorting this out. You have 4 forums, each offering a different tier of deck. One (Our DTB) two (our established) developing competitive and deck creation. What we are missing is that gap in the last two options. We have 3 forums where four might be better.

The side effects of that is finding things can be a bitch. If you don't know where to look, things have been moved or whatever else may have happened you can spend a while looking for things. Flip side is when I went looking for the Stax thread on Wednesday, I found it easier to Google the thread then dig for it. So that still happens here I guess.

I am not willing to stick any decks in Established (The only ones I would think of doing would be last month's DTB's bit that can be solved by leaving links to them in the DTB folder.) so the only other option I can think of would be to stick prominent decks in Developing. But then too I would not want to lock up the page. There would have to be a limit to the amount that can get such an honour and we would need a way to decide who would get that over "x Mod picks". Does not feel very meritocratic to just have someone pick.

Edit:
Ok. Picking though my thoughts one at a time this is what I have come up with.

For a deck to move over from Developing to Established I would like to see something akin to a deck moving from Established to DTB. A consistent but not necessary high showing on TC or Goldfish. So something like Dark Depths makes a showing on TC but it's spotty. A showing here and there with sometimes a few months gap between. It's on the edge, but has not tipped yet. I would not put a percentage on this, just that it be consistent in its placings to move. Open to suggestions on this because it's a tough ask.

Another way would be if a deck was noticeable. If it was not placing consistently, but people know what it is. Something in regards to this would be Painter. (Granted already established but think just before it blew up) This is a deck that might not be in the spotlight, but if someone goes Plateau, Top, you should know what's going on.

Decks that would be Pinned in Developing.
To have a deck pinned I would seek the following milestones: (This is a rough draft, input sought)

1) Thread is active. Not seeking to put a defined number on this, over Christmas or Easter people have better things to do then post online so setting numbers is silly. But you know an active thread when you see it. You know a non active one when you see it too.

2) Thread must start with a primer. I know this might seem hash when other decks in Established don't have a primer but if your championing a deck no one knows, put yourself out there.

3) The deck has to be seeing play. Depths makes TC placings, Ooze has people writing reports, Plug is going 3-1 and 4-0 online. Each one has signs of life. Granted Ooze is seeing life in a small and dedicated group, but that's the very thing a developing deck needs to grow.

4) Actual change is occurring. It's fine that a deck might be seeing play and the thread active, but if nothing is changing and it's not placing then nothing will ever change. If no experimentation is happening then the deck in question would be left alone.

What do people think?

[Aggro_zombies]

Once upon a time, the point of New and Developmental was that it was a place for decks that were making a serious attempt at becoming Real, Optimized Legacy Decks. This meant that you generally met the following criteria:

1) You had a game plan that did not involve wishful thinking;

2) You had a list that had at least been carved down to 60ish main, with or without sideboard;

3) You were working on testing it against a representative sample of competitive Legacy decks.

Once you had completed number three you generally had enough information to write an informative primer, and that signaled that the deck was mature enough to get moved to Established. The expectation was that you'd put some thought and effort into the deck before it got to the Source, so any cutoff point in between "New" and "Ready to Move to Established" would basically be arbitrary and kind of a headache for mods and the users to track, and it also wouldn't really tell you much about where a deck was in development or whether it was actually a good deck or shaping up to be a dud.

These days it's really hard to make a completely new competitive Legacy deck from scratch because the format is pretty solved barring an influx of new cards or the dropping of the banhammer, so N&D in general is less relevant. Generally, if your deck isn't rigorously tested, it won't get promoted, and if it doesn't survive rigorous testing - that is, you aren't putting up positive results against a representative gauntlet - it probably shouldn't be promoted. Whether a deck is ready or not is up for users to decide. If you feel something is mature enough and good enough to get moved, message the mod staff and we'll look into it.

[death]

If anything I am for developing/brewing and believe that creation of N&D decks should be encouraged, instead of adding more restrictions to it.

OT:
I've noticed my post count is shrinking, is this because most of the primers I started (which eventually became DTBs) are now inactive?

[Fatal]

Ok, let summarize ideas how to clean up the mess, and write clean rules for processing deck developing:

1.

Problem: A lot of old, retired decks in Established Decks @ESG @apple713

Aim - to crystallize tier decks, it's unacceptable that we must use Google Search to find some decks which are Established and see play.

Solution -idea from @Dice_Box Subforum in Established Decks called "Inactive Decks", where decks goes after 6 month without new posts (can be scripted), deck will be automatic back to Established main forum after any new post.

2.

Problem: Many Finished Decks but not well-known, mixed with totally scratchy ideas for Decks in N&D it's hard to say which deck is finished, and which actually needs more testing (probably all decks need it, but some of them are really brilliant but are flooded by bad totally untested ideas.

Aim - to Separate Finished Decks which are just not well-known due to specify meta needed to success from real N&D

Solution: Clear rules when deck should be put to Established Decks (pointed by @Aggro_Zombie):
a) Thread must have Primer as first post which contains: List with SB, Strategy against most of the field,
b) Sanctioned success confirmed by any of third-part (SCG, TCDecks, etc),
c) Written PM to any MOD (to move Thread Deck to Established forum) (that's my idea - it will work as process, which update quality of threads in Established Decks)
d) MOD move thread to Established Decks or wrote what's missing

3.

Problem: Digging N&D, where are really a lot of abandoned, wrong created (duplicated for example), when we should more focused on real decks with potential to test

Aim: Separate Abandoned deck ideas, quite similar like in Established Decks

Solution: Subforum - Abandoned for N&D, where decks will be automatic moved from N&D after 6 months without new posts.



Those three solutions should little clean up both forums, and help to focus on new decks and real tier decks.

We also have now established developing process, with clean rules, without gaps:

1. Get Idea, Wrote new thread in N&D
2. Get feedback - go 3a if deck doesn't work well
3a. Abandon deck
4a. Deck move to Abandoned after 6 months
5a. Necro thread after some new cards - continue 3b
3b. Wrote good Primer and get sanctioned success with deck
4. PM to MOD for change deck status - to move deck to Established forum
5a. Deck still get successes and pages flow
5b. Deck fade away since it's not so popular after 6 months it's moved to Inactive.
6b. Deck back to active after some new cards printed or just a trends start for it - triggered to back to Established after first post go back to 5a.


This will also should speed up a little forum engine, specially if we archive some of really old threads 2-3 years inactive in Established Decks, same for Abandoned Decks in N&D.

@Death

Clean rules how to achieve well Developed and then Established Deck with long run should Encourage people. I know what you mean, good written primer where it has more then 300 pages really warm my heart :-).
Next thing should be restriction of creating threads in Established Decks, which should makes MOD's work easier. Reworking old threads (inactive) is rather pointless, but after we will see which decks are still active - we could easy point them, which require good Primers to write to have same quality for all decks in all Established Decks.

btw: I know Cephalid Breakfast from 2009. It was just not great Dredge, but could change gameplan after SB, and have 1 big advantage - had FoWs :-).

@Raystar also mention very good thing Grind of NEEDS, which would characteristic deck specification against meta, I think it's could be very useful, since It would answer which deck pick against proper meta, those information could be added in Active Established Decks by each Primer autor, only real work which would MODS do is just update grid rows and columns where:
Rows should be decks from crystalized Established Decks (it will take about 6 months to cut-off all inactive), Columns should be NEEDS defined by decks described in Rows (crossing for NEEDS for itself blanked), each Primer writer will fill each cell for their construction (only 1 Raw), tristate 0 - not resolved, 1 - can fight, 2 - doesn't matter (like Elves for Belcher).

Here would be example (deck taken from DTB and local meta):


Deck name \ Needs
Can beat CB lock
Can disrupt in first two-three turns Storm combo
Can answer with removal to Tempo
Have good sources of card advantage
Can answer to mana denial plan
Have life source before turn four
Can answer Glimpse-chain or NO turn three
Have a lot of basics
Can answer Marit Liege
Can answer to Blood Moon
Can answer to reanimating turn two


Miracles
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1


ANT
0
2
2
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
0


Grixs Tempo
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1


Shardless BUG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1


Death & Taxes
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
0


Burn
Done only for DTB, etc..












Elves













R/G Combo Lands













R/G Aggro Loam













Imperial Painter













Reanimator

[Aggro_zombies]

I don't think there's a great need to create new subforums. The "problem" of old N&D threads, for example, can be avoided by not clicking back more than a couple pages, so there isn't a ton of point to have dead decks rotting in a new graveyard subforum versus rotting on pages 3+ of the N&D subforum.

Decks ready for promotion generally look like it. They're at or near the top of N&D because they generate discussion, there's a lot of talk of results and how the decks work, whether slots X, Y, and Z are optimal, etc. The point of Established is to host "Finished but not necessarily Tier I decks", and the deck designer is generally the one with the best feel for whether a deck is there or not, so if that person thinks a deck is ready for promotion they can message the mod staff to discuss it.

As for cleaning out Established, eh. It's unlikely that all but a tiny minority of users were digging to pages 5+ in search of decks that likely haven't been good since 2013 or earlier, but it also doesn't cost us anything to just leave those decks there since noncompetitive / dead decks don't generate discussion or interest and some users may have legitimate reasons for wanting to go back that far. If the argument is that they screw with the Search function, moving those threads to any other visible part of the site will still leave them searchable, and archiving them somewhere regular users can't see them means that when someone specifically does want to look at an old thread, they're SOL.

Anyway, back to the original topic:

1) Site users are the biggest way to help keep N&D "clean," for whatever that means. Half-baked ideas should be (politely!) called such in the comments of those threads. Decks posted in N&D should be past the initial theory-crafting stage regardless to generate the most productive discussion.

2) Site users are the best judges of when a deck is finished and ready for Established. If you're unsure or want an official blessing to post a fresh primer in Established, message the mod staff.

3) Sustained thread activity is a good proxy for whether a deck in N&D is worthwhile. Decks that aren't panning out generally see a burst of discussion and then slide slowly into oblivion, whereas decks that are good and have potential see continued conversation.

4) Failed decks are still valuable decks. If you have an idea you're considering posting to N&D, check the forum to see if someone else did it first and what their results were. It could save you time and headaches.

[Echelon]

Looking at what Fatal's doing, it would seem one could take a systems engineering kind of approach.

This would start with the most accomplished deckbuilders working together to write a System Requirement Specification - a formal document which outlines the requirements a deck that could be perceived as competitive should be able to fulfill. This SRS then would get stickied in the new deck section as a guide for aspiring deckbuilders. The SRS could also contain a list of deliverables that need to be present in a new thread. This would also give deckbuilders the possibility of pointing out which card or combination of cards tends to what requirement and so on, which would make discussing a new deck a lot easier and smoother.

Great, Magic just turned into another day at the office. OMG, lol.

[Fatal]

@Echelon LOL You made my day :-)

Anyway with SRS Magic deckbuilding would be on next level, we already using statistic, so why not using Requirement Management to describe what we are looking for ? :-)

[Dice_Box]

As it has been explained to me what you need is:

A good primer.
Proof of testing, a write up of the testing and matches
The deck must have reached a point where you are sure that the decks development is complete and tweaking is all that is left to do.

Once this has been done you PM one of the Mod team and it gets moved if it's in a ready state.

[death]

Looking at what Fatal's doing, it would seem one could take a systems engineering kind of approach.

This would start with the most accomplished deckbuilders working together to write a System Requirement Specification - a formal document which outlines the requirements a deck that could be perceived as competitive should be able to fulfill. This SRS then would get stickied in the new deck section as a guide for aspiring deckbuilders. The SRS could also contain a list of deliverables that need to be present in a new thread. This would also give deckbuilders the possibility of pointing out which card or combination of cards tends to what requirement and so on, which would make discussing a new deck a lot easier and smoother.

Great, Magic just turned into another day at the office. OMG, lol.

Historically there have been numerous decks which became successful without undergoing this process. Tell me do guys like Gerry Thompson or Caleb Durward who design decks for a living even follow a certain SRS?

Give me a list of these 'most accomplished' deckbuilders that would give two shits about protocols. Aside from emidln, Hollywood, and Lejay who consistently put fresh ideas on the table, I can think of no one else.

When Dream Halls, Time Spiral, and Worldgorger Dragon were unbanned, and when Emrakul and Mizzix's Mastery were spoiled nobody here at TheSource had a fucjing clue what they were doing, and they call themselves deckbuilders.

[Echelon]

Give me a list of these 'most accomplished' deckbuilders that would give two shits about protocols. Aside from emidln, Hollywood, and Lejay who consistently put fresh ideas on the table, I can think of no one else.

They don't have to give a shit about protocols for protocols to have significance. Also, the fact that it isn't being done does not mean that it cannot or should not be done. With that kind of thinking there wouldn't be a DTB-section - someone had to be the first to combine SDT, CB & Terminus for instance. It's also not supposed to be some holy grail but rather another helpful tool for deckbuilding.

I guess SE & requirements management aren't for everyone.