[Article] Why Survival Shouldn't Be Banned, But Will Be Anyawy

[KindGrind]

Necropotence was broken from the get go, and was never, ever fair. Still, it was a blast to play.

Survival has always been fun, and now Vengevine made it unfair. Sad to see a fun card go because of r&d's "mistake", but hey. It seems this needs to happen at this point...

[Smmenen]

I have played fair decks that contained Necropotence for a period of about 6 years across several formats before it was eventually banned. I don't believe you at all.

That's fine: whether Necropotence was ever fair or not is not critical to my argument.

My point is that Survival has now had 6 years of fair use in its most recent applications. The most recent applications of Necropotence were increasingly degenerate. Therefore, Survival is not comparable to Necropotence, if your argument is that Survival will follow the Necropotence trajectory. All of the evidence is contrary to that view: Survival has followed anything BUT the trajectory of Necropotence.

Survival is more like Mishra's Workshop: a card that was busted back in the day, has been fair for a while, and now has as broken application, but once that application is gone, it will be fair again.

[Aggro_zombies]

Survival is more like Mishra's Workshop: a card that was busted back in the day, has been fair for a while, and now has as broken application, but once that application is gone, it will be fair again.

Isn't this necessarily conceding that Survival can become busted again at any time, as long as the appropriate partner card(s) is(are) printed? If that's the case, are you seriously suggesting that we should ban all the apps that get introduced into the Survival Store, simply because Survival isn't busted as long as you're only playing it with crappy cards?

Wouldn't it be better to just ban Survival and keep the number of bans to a minimum? Aren't you a proponent of the smallest B&R List possible?

[Smmenen]

Isn't this necessarily conceding that Survival can become busted again at any time, as long as the appropriate partner card(s) is(are) printed?

Of course I concede that Survival *can* become busted again. Almost any card can become busted if the right card is printed. Worldgorger Dragon made Animate Dead broken, and vice versa.

The question isn't whether a card *can* become busted again, but the probability or likelihood of it.

Both sides of this debate are making an assertion about the future, inductively, based upon the past. Necessarily, the pro-survival ban crowd believes that Survival will be a problem again, if not banned now. The VV crowd has faith that, given Survival's recent history, it has a very good chance to be a fair card for the foreseeable future. Or, at least, they believe that there isn't enough historical evidence to believe that it will necessarily or even very likely will produce another dominant deck.

With respect to Mishra's Workshop: my point is it's been 5 years since the restriction of Trinisphere and Workshop remains unrestricted despite the number of lock cards and spheres since Trinisphere's restriction. The fact that nothing has needed restriction demonstrates that Trinisphere was the right call, even though leaving Workshop unrestricted means that a possible application could be printed at some point.

If that's the case, are you seriously suggesting that we should ban all the apps that get introduced into the Survival Store, simply because Survival isn't busted as long as you're only playing it with crappy cards?

No. If Survival generates additional dominant decks, then we re-evaluate our belief regarding whether Survival will produce more dominant decks, and ban survival instead.

Wouldn't it be better to just ban Survival and keep the number of bans to a minimum? Aren't you a proponent of the smallest B&R List possible?

Absolutely. But I also don't believe that Survival will inevitably generate additional bannings.

[Aggro_zombies]

Of course I concede that Survival *can* become busted again. Almost any card can become busted if the right card is printed. Worldgorger Dragon made Animate Dead broken, and vice versa.

The question isn't whether a card *can* become busted again, but the probability or likelihood of it.

Both sides of this debate are making an assertion about the future, inductively, based upon the past. Necessarily, the pro-survival ban crowd believes that Survival will be a problem again, if not banned now. The VV crowd has faith that, given Survival's recent history, it has a very good chance to be a fair card for the foreseeable future. Or, at least, they believe that there isn't enough historical evidence to believe that it will necessarily or even very likely will produce another dominant deck.

R&D has stated before that they essentially don't test for the Eternal formats when designing and developing a new set; hell, they missed the interaction of Hexmage and Dark Depths in a format with a significantly smaller card pool (which, by extension, should have been easier to test for). Which of these sounds more unlikely to you: that R&D never prints another creature that is broken alone or in combination with other creatures, thus making it extremely powerful in a Survival shell, or that something accidentally gets through the cracks eventually?

Let's look at this from several different angles. You're basically arguing that guns don't kill people; bullets do. Therefore, we should ban the bullets, because the worst you can do with an unloaded gun is pistol-whip someone. However, implicit in this argument is the fact that finding an addition cache of the right bullets automatically turns your gun from a weak blunt weapon back into a lethal ranged one. Arguing that such bullets are hard to find does not change the fact that it is very easily possible for them to exist.

Now for another angle. Suppose we had a theoretical deck with twenty Tropical Islands, twenty Time Walks, and twenty Wood Elementals. Time Walk isn't broken in this deck, right? All it really does is allow you to very slowly build lands so you can eventually sacrifice most of them to a Wood Elemental. So does this mean that Time Walk is not inherently a broken card? Your premise - that cards are only broken contextually - means that you would have to say that Time Walk is not overpowered in and of itself, because in Wood Elemental.deck, it is actually usually just an Explore. But this is clearly a joke: Time Walk is head and shoulders above most other cards in Magic. Why is a repeatable and cheap tutor engine any different? Just because there didn't happen to be any particularly broken guys to stick in a Survival shell doesn't mean that Vengevine and Necrotic Ooze are "just" one-time accidents.

With respect to Mishra's Workshop: my point is it's been 5 years since the restriction of Trinisphere and Workshop remains unrestricted despite the number of lock cards and spheres since Trinisphere's restriction. The fact that nothing has needed restriction demonstrates that Trinisphere was the right call, even though leaving Workshop unrestricted means that a possible application could be printed at some point.

Here's another angle. Workshop isn't an engine per se; Survival is a repeatable tutor that provides card advantage by itself, whereas Workshop needs other cards to be good. Arguing that Survival is only as good as the creatures around it misses the point: the point is that Survival allows you to trade the worst card in your hand for a theoretically better card in your library, generating card advantage. In your Workshop scenario, Workshop never was the problem; Trinisphere was the lock piece that generated ridiculous card advantage by shutting off the opponent's hand. In that sense, it is more like Survival than Vengevine.

No. If Survival generates additional dominant decks, then we re-evaluate our belief regarding whether Survival will produce more dominant decks, and ban survival instead.

Because it won't be asinine at all to take a "wait and see" approach to card that is a known breakable commodity while banning a card that literally does nothing without its associated engine. Because when we get Vengevine 2.0 at some point in the future, everyone who argued for the banning of Survival now wouldn't be vindicated, and you wouldn't look like an idiot for suggesting that we ban an enabled card instead of the enabler because Wizards couldn't possibly print another Vvine or Necro Ooze-type card.

[Smmenen]

R&D has stated before that they essentially don't test for the Eternal formats when designing and developing a new set; hell, they missed the interaction of Hexmage and Dark Depths in a format with a significantly smaller card pool (which, by extension, should have been easier to test for). Which of these sounds more unlikely to you: that R&D never prints another creature that is broken alone or in combination with other creatures, thus making it extremely powerful in a Survival shell, or that something accidentally gets through the cracks eventually?

Let's look at this from several different angles. You're basically arguing that guns don't kill people; bullets do.

Actually, it's the interaction of guns and bullets that kill people. Not one or the other, but both together.

More importantly, you are assuming that Survival is the gun. Your "angle" is simply circular, assuming what it concludes: Guns are the problem, not bullets. Survival is the problem because it's the gun.

Your argument, and essentially everyone who argues for banning Survival, believes that Survival is the "real problem." Yet, that's completely unestablished.

My article goes to the heart of your assumptions, your essentially biased perception of Survival vis-a-vis Vengevine. I blast people who characterize cards like this in such broad and unhelpful terms as a way of driving home their point. Your claim that Survival is the "gun" is no different than Chapin saying that Survival is "degenerate": your simply claiming, without evidence and on the basis of a completely unfounded characterization/analogy, that Survival is the "real problem." Making the same point using a different analogy doesn't make it true.

Now for another angle. Suppose we had a theoretical deck with twenty Tropical Islands, twenty Time Walks, and twenty Wood Elementals. Time Walk isn't broken in this deck, right? All it really does is allow you to very slowly build lands so you can eventually sacrifice most of them to a Wood Elemental. So does this mean that Time Walk is not inherently a broken card? Your premise - that cards are only broken contextually - means that you would have to say that Time Walk is not overpowered in and of itself, because in Wood Elemental.deck, it is actually usually just an Explore. But this is clearly a joke: Time Walk is head and shoulders above most other cards in Magic. Why is a repeatable and cheap tutor engine any different?

We don't ban cards in magic because of theoretical notions about how powerful cards are. We ban them because they either dominant a metagame or are otherwise unfun or bad for the format. It doesn't matter whether a card is "inherently broken or not" for B/R List policy. I don't think there is such a thing, but even if there were, it's completely irrelevant!

And because its irrelevant, it's a dangerous talking point since it only has the potential to confuse and mislead. It blinds people to what's really going on and suggests not only the wrong analytic framework for understanding these issues and magic more generally, but suggests the wrong conclusions.

Just because there didn't happen to be any particularly broken guys to stick in a Survival shell doesn't mean that Vengevine and Necrotic Ooze are "just" one-time accidents.

Doesn't mean that they aren't, either.

Our disagreement comes down to an assessment (an inductive assessment) of all of the available evidence. I think it's unlikely, or at a minimum, not sufficiently likely, that Survival would need to be banned or prompt another banning, if VV were banned. I have 6 years of fair use in Legacy to support that conclusion.

Here's another angle. Workshop isn't an engine per se;

Certainly it is. It's a mana engine.

Survival is a repeatable tutor that provides card advantage by itself, whereas Workshop needs other cards to be good.

So false its hilarious. Survival, and in fact ALL magic cards, are only good with other cards. Without other cards, Survival can't tutor up anything. Just as without other cards, Workshop mana does nothing.

Magic cards actually do nothing by themselves. Absolutely nothing. The only exception, perhaps, is Dryad Arbor, but even that card requires a context, which involves other cards.

More importantly, there you go again trying to justify making Survival the "real problem" by using terms like a "tutor," etc. Did I already warn agianst that:

Similarly, being labeled a “tutor” ... is not helpful criteria. Mystical Tutor is banned, but Enlightened Tutor and Grim Tutor are not. Unfortunately, the DCI often uses analogies like that to justify its decision making, but those frameworks are simply terrible heuristics for decision making. Each tutor is unique both in its application and contextual power. It’s only in the context of a metagame, not because of some principle regarding a card’s characteristic, that a card deserves to be banned. These labels are labels that hyperbolic and imprecise columnists use in internet debates or the DCI uses to justify decisions based on flimsy evidence. There is no such thing, in the context of B/R list policy, as “inherently broken.” And, even if there were, cards aren’t banned because they are “inherently broken,” but because they are contextually broken, and dominate a metagame. It’s time for us to get away from such poor linguistic forms.

Arguing that Survival is only as good as the creatures around it misses the point:

I never argued that. I would argue that the creatures around it are a part of its context, but the relationship you just asserted is inaccurate. Survival is only as good as its interactions with the creatures around it, and the interactions between the creatures around it.

That's because card power is defined by synergy, and synergy is the interaction of cards. A card's power is nothing more or nothing less than the sum of the interactions with other cards, either directly or indirectly.

the point is that Survival allows you to trade the worst card in your hand for a theoretically better card in your library, generating card advantage. In your Workshop scenario, Workshop never was the problem; Trinisphere was the lock piece that generated ridiculous card advantage by shutting off the opponent's hand. In that sense, it is more like Survival than Vengevine.

Lots of Vintage players argue that Workshop is the problem by allowing people to play cards like Smokestack, Lodestone Golem, etc on turn one. The problem with Trinisphere was never card advantage. It was tempo. It was unfun. People said that it wasn't Trinisphere that made this the problem, but Workshop.

They were wrong: it was the interaction of Workshop and Trinisphere, and that's not reducible to either card.

Because it won't be asinine at all to take a "wait and see" approach to card that is a known breakable commodity while banning a card that literally does nothing without its associated engine. [/quote]

Literally does nothing? That's provably false.

Because when we get Vengevine 2.0 at some point in the future, everyone who argued for the banning of Survival now wouldn't be vindicated, and you wouldn't look like an idiot for suggesting that we ban an enabled card instead of the enabler because Wizards couldn't possibly print another Vvine or Necro Ooze-type card.

Because "when"? How do you know Vengevine isn't the anomaly? Your reasoning is circular: Because Vengevine 2.0 will be printed, Survival should be banned. But what if Vengevine 2.0 isn't printed? You assume what you conclude.

SUMMARY:

All people who want Survival Banned believe that Survival is the "real problem." Most people who think that think that it's the real problem because either 1) Survival will prompt another banning in the future OR 2) Survival is the degenerate card. Both reasons are terrible. Again, being degenerate isn't grounds for banning. There are lots of degenerate cards in Legacy, and there is only one principled way for distinguishing between those degenerate cards that should be banned and those that shouldn't: performance. As for (1), that's completely speculative, and unlike Necropotence, we have 6 years of fair use to suggest that it's untrue.

[Aggro_zombies]

Actually, it's the interaction of guns and bullets that kill people. Not one or the other, but both together.

More importantly, you are assuming that Survival is the gun. Your "angle" is simply circular, assuming what it concludes: Guns are the problem, not bullets. Survival is the problem because it's the gun.

Your argument, and essentially everyone who argues for banning Survival, believes that Survival is the "real problem." Yet, that's completely unestablished.

My article goes to the heart of your assumptions, your essentially biased perception of Survival vis-a-vis Vengevine. I blast people who characterize cards like this in such broad and unhelpful terms as a way of driving home their point. Your claim that Survival is the "gun" is no different than Chapin saying that Survival is "degenerate": your simply claiming, without evidence and on the basis of a completely unfounded characterization/analogy, that Survival is the "real problem." Making the same point using a different analogy doesn't make it true.

So, what, your article goes to the heart of my assumptions by assuming Vengevine is the problem and then begging the question?

So, tell me, which of these statements is true?

"Survival is broken because it can find Vengevine."

or,

"Vengevine is broken because it can found by Survival."

Or are you going to be hypocritical and argue that Vengevine is powerful all by itself, and thus banworthy?

Literally does nothing? That's provably false.

You omitted the important part of that sentence: "without its associated engine." What other decks is Vengevine breaking right now, besides ones alredy containing Survival? You have all the tournament data, so make a chart of how many decks use Vengevines but not Survivals, and then compare that number to the number of decks that use both.

Doesn't mean that they aren't, either.

Our disagreement comes down to an assessment (an inductive assessment) of all of the available evidence. I think it's unlikely, or at a minimum, not sufficiently likely, that Survival would need to be banned or prompt another banning, if VV were banned. I have 6 years of fair use in Legacy to support that conclusion.

And I have two different creatures printed in almost back-to-back sets to support mine. What's stopping Wizards from screwing up, or just not even realizing what they're printing? Or are you one of those glass-is-half-full people that believes nothing could ever possibly go wrong? I mean, many of the best creatures in the various Survival decks have been printed within the last few years: Goyf, Knight, Iona, Emrakul, Vvine, Ooze. Furthermore, the "six years of fair use" included formats where Mystical Tutor was legal, a card which enabled powerful combo decks - and which is now gone. Perhaps combo kept Survival in check? Perhaps new printings didn't give as much to Survival decks as they gave to other decks? Formats evolve over time: a card that wasn't broken six years ago is suddenly dominant, and got that way because of a single card...

Because "when"? How do you know Vengevine isn't the anomaly? Your reasoning is circular: Because Vengevine 2.0 will be printed, Survival should be banned. But what if Vengevine 2.0 isn't printed? You assume what you conclude.

You're assuming that Wizards is infallible. Do you think they tested Legacy, discovered the Ooze + Triskelion + Devourer combo, decided it wasn't dominating in a Survival shell, and are now patiently waiting for us to replicate their FFL results? Did they know about Survival Madness while Rise was still in development, but concluded it was beatable in a way we haven't discovered yet? Or did they conclude that Ooze and Vvine weren't problems in Standard and that they didn't have the time or resources to test either card in Legacy?

Tarmogoyf was a mistake, as per Mark Rosewater's admission. So was Skullclamp. Hell, months after Tarmogoyf was released, Bitterblossom was released, a card that prompted a public apology from MaRo! Wizards is not infallible. Assuming that they won't screw up ever again is laughable: even if they do their absolute best to ensure Standard and Extended are fine, we know they don't have the ability to test for the Eternal formats. There is absolutely no reason to assume that a mistake won't be made, and plenty of prior evidence to suggest one will be. Or will you argue that something as seemingly innocuous as the removal of power-level errata on Flash was actually a deliberate and malevolent attempt to sink the format on the part of the Rules Manager, because Wizards knew about the Flash-Hulk interaction it would create?

I simply can't see how you can make this argument with a straight face.

I never argued that. I would argue that the creatures around it are a part of its context, but the relationship you just asserted is inaccurate. Survival is only as good as its interactions with the creatures around it, and the interactions between the creatures around it.

That's because card power is defined by synergy, and synergy is the interaction of cards. A card's power is nothing more or nothing less than the sum of the interactions with other cards, either directly or indirectly.

I'm not sure if you're deliberately missing the point, or just not thinking this one all the way through. This argument cuts both ways: that the creatures are the problem, and the creatures have made Survival good enough to be a problem, but are not themselves problematic. Prove to me that Vengevine is a problem outside the context of Survival and then we might have a good argument for banning Vengevine.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I won't argue should, but I will quibble with the idea that the ultimate goal of the B&R list is to make the format more diverse or even more interesting or fun. The ultimate point of every aspect of tournament Magic, as every organism, is to perpetuate its own existence. Magic exists ultimately to make people buy packs.

Whether or not it's the better move for format fun, in terms of Wizards' goal being to make money, it's not hard to see where they have a compelling interest to ban the card that's 12 years old rather than the one that's still in Standard.

[AriLax]

I'll reiterate what I said on SCG.

Survival prevents WotC from printing a large variety of graveyard interactive creatures. Outside of Survival, Vengevine has been amazing for other formats, giving decks an engine to grind out control or Jund. The same is true for similar creatures, and I'm sure Necrotic Ooze will have an interesting future as well.

Vengevine prevents WotC from printing ways to easily tutor from deck to graveyard. When was the last time WotC printed a card like this? They know this design space is not good for the game.

Vengevine existing closes doors that were already locked. Survival existing forces them to tone down or reevaluate cards that may or may no produce healthier formats.

And yes, Survival without Vengevine might not be as good. The point isn't that. Preserving Survival in the long term is not important as it has proven itself a repeat offender across many formats.

[median]

I won't argue should, but I will quibble with the idea that the ultimate goal of the B&R list is to make the format more diverse or even more interesting or fun. The ultimate point of every aspect of tournament Magic, as every organism, is to perpetuate its own existence. Magic exists ultimately to make people buy packs.

Whether or not it's the better move for format fun, in terms of Wizards' goal being to make money, it's not hard to see where they have a compelling interest to ban the card that's 12 years old rather than the one that's still in Standard.

That's actually might be irrelevant, we can't tell how viable the decks will be without survival. For all we know, vengevine could be a $2 mythic when it rotates out.

[Amon Amarth]

Looking back at the last 5 years of Magic there is a very noticeable trend of creatures becoming significantly stronger than they have been. R&D has been pushing the power of creatures because they realized that in the past creatures tend to have been much worse than spells. I think this is very important point; WOTC has made very powerful creatures in the last few years and will continue to do so. It seems more than likely that Survival would be able to be broken again if Vengevine were banned.

I liked the article though. Interesting analysis.

[hungryboi]

I play Magic The Gathering for Legacy. I play Legacy for Survival. This has been for the last 6 years. Once they ban Survival, I will most likely quit and just sell everything. It's pretty sad but I think I'll have to move on. Survival of the Fittest was my favorite card since Brian Seldon won in 90s. It was a good 12 years of MTG while it lasted.

[Waikiki]

I play Magic The Gathering for Legacy. I play Legacy for Survival. This has been for the last 6 years. Once they ban Survival, I will most likely quit and just sell everything. It's pretty sad but I think I'll have to move on. Survival of the Fittest was my favorite card since Brian Seldon won in 90s. It was a good 12 years of MTG while it lasted.

I feel the same way ;) Won't quit but I can sell like 75% of my cards since they all I need is some blue spells + blue dualls and a combo deck.

[Waikiki]

I play Magic The Gathering for Legacy. I play Legacy for Survival. This has been for the last 6 years. Once they ban Survival, I will most likely quit and just sell everything. It's pretty sad but I think I'll have to move on. Survival of the Fittest was my favorite card since Brian Seldon won in 90s. It was a good 12 years of MTG while it lasted.

I feel the same way ;) Won't quit but I can sell like 75% of my cards since they all I need is some blue spells + blue dualls and a combo deck.

[hungryboi]

I feel the same way ;) Won't quit but I can sell like 75% of my cards since they all I need is some blue spells + blue dualls and a combo deck.

Always a chance to come back but I think it would be at least a year or so. I've gone on and off MTG throughout the years before I started playing Survival. Wish Vengevine never got printed...

[Lemnear]

You omitted the important part of that sentence: "without its associated engine." What other decks is Vengevine breaking right now, besides ones alredy containing Survival? You have all the tournament data, so make a chart of how many decks use Vengevines but not Survivals, and then compare that number to the number of decks that use both.

This is hilarious. By this logic we should compare card couples like Brainstorm (Vengevine/threat) and Fetchlands (Survival/enabler) ... end up banning Fetchlands?

Oh my God! Think of all that good blue cards might be printed in the future! We have to ban islands NOW! *sarcasm*

[Gui]

When it come to either banning Survival or Vengevine, the problem we got is pretty hard. The fact that they are strong together is a far more simple problem than which to ban. I believe the first "tie-breaker" should be "which card is more probable to become broken again", and this leads to some arguments:

- Without Survival, Vengevine won't generate all that card advantage;
- Without Vengevine, Survival was never broken;
- Vengevine could be used on some sort of Intuition+Vengevine and end up being just as broken;
- Survival is a recurring tutor, and it means it can be broken someday.

Back on when Survival had no Vengevines, noone used it along with Basking Rootwalla. Basking Rootwalla is a "Minor Vengevine", which grants card advantage everytime you tutor it. I can see Basking Rootwalla keeping the GW version strong, maybe using some other Madness bullets, because damn, everyone could use a 1/1 creature for g that cantrips and can be 3/3 for , and fetch another bullet like Arrogant Wurm to be played for and cantrip. This is a interaction that was not used before, and *could* be broken either. Not to mention the endless amount of alternative kills that Sur got right now, and the fact that Fauna Shaman would work just as fine for an aggro deck.

While with Vengevines, an intuition could get you 2 Vengevines into play and one at hand, and although not as fast as the current version. Something that discards and draws would be required to make them really strong, but it's a tech that could be found by someone. Also, Fauna Shaman, which is wayyy worse than survival, could backup this plan. It is way slower than with Survival.

Being a recurring tutor that doesn't increase Card Advantage and fetches the least powerful "solution" at magic, which are the creatures, isn't that impressive. The problem is discarding and yet, getting those creatures online.

IMO, the most banable card is still SotF, because it is more *probable* to become broken again, due to its ability to create CA for with the right cards, while the Intuition plan would be a lot slower. But if it is so, it's for a small bit.


I don't wanna say anyone is wrong, just put some points to ponder

[rleader]

hell, they missed the interaction of Hexmage and Dark Depths in a format with a significantly smaller card pool

Huh, is that something we actually know?

[xXxBretWeedxXx]

This is hilarious. By this logic we should compare card couples like Brainstorm (Vengevine/threat) and Fetchlands (Survival/enabler) ... end up banning Fetchlands?

Oh my God! Think of all that good blue cards might be printed in the future! We have to ban islands NOW! *sarcasm*

You seem to have associated the wrong cards to each other. Brainstorm is far more like Survival in the SV/VV - BS/FL analogy. BS creates the card advantage and provides the engine where the FL finishes the job. The main difference here is that Survival is a better engine because the GY is as good as the hand and is repeatable.

It's honestly been one of the most surprising things to me that Survival hasn't been broken backwards before now.

Also as an aside to Steve, Survival has found 3 different deck types since Rise of Eldrazi, an expansion that came out this year. How can you possibly say with a straight face that the potential for it to be broken post VV ban is a logical fallacy? The direction of WotC has been clear for a while now.

[Cthuloo]

Although the decision has already been made, as Stephen correctly states in the article, I enjoyed the reading. It was at least written from a different perspective.

Partially unrelated to his: please, stop arguing by analogy, this isn't going anywhere. Survival isn't necro or brainstorm, vengevine isn't illusion or fetchlands. Guess what: survival is survival, and venegvine is vengevine. Both are rather unique cards, and drawing conclusions based on comparison with other completely different cards (or weapons) isn't a good idea.