The Rules: Absolute and Unabridged Version

67 posts / 0 new
Last post
It's been too long since we've had clear cut rules. So here they are

1: You need proof of several high level victories. The following proof will be accepted:

Magic Online:

Daily Event Top 8
Premiere Event Top 8

Paper Magic:

Pro Tour Qualifier Top 8
Nationals
SCG #K Top 8

The following are so not acceptable:

Friday Night Magic



2: You need a thread that explains items in detail. You may not cut corners or assume the person has any knowledge about the deck. You must have the following in the thread in a presentable manner.

A "What is this deck" Section: Explain what the deck is, how it works, and any history of the deck at high level tournaments.

A "Card Choices" or "Deck Staples" section. You don't have to list every card that can go into the deck. You do have to list however, the cards that make the deck tick. They cards that are ABSOLUTELY needed for the deck to run at the desired efficiency.

A "Decklists" section. This is VITAL. Without this, you lack proof of it's value and you lack examples of how the deck is built. I will see to it that every thread in the TC will be kicked out unless they have decklists that have placed well in high level tournaments.

A "Performance" Section. Here is where strategies against other decks go. THIS SHOULD BE EXPLANATIONS, NO PERCENTAGES OR NUMBERS OF ANY KIND! They are merely a lazy way out of writing a detailed explanation and/or a way to make your deck seem better than it is.

The following aren't required:

Banners
Borders


3: You must maintain the thread! People who I feel are reliable will check your thread at random. If they say it needs to go, I'll wait 72 hours tops before removing and replacing it.

4: If a deck is borderline on making it into the TC, I will gather a panel of trustworthy and skilled players to make the decision. There will be no arguing.

5: If you complain about an action, don't blame me, blame the people who wanted a set of hard rules.

the_rooster;18668745 wrote:
The irony here is funny.

@ Deck help not having good lists...Cascade Control popped up there and is thriving...as did Dark Bant/Zigg Zoo. If your entire argument against posting new decks into Deck Help is because of the forum's description, then you're even acknowledging that your argument is weak and only by being a literalist can you have even a mild argument.

@ "I don't want to dig through piles of trash to find the thread I like in Deck Help." Try using your browser's bookmark function like the rest of the world. We don't want to spend hours a day volunteering just to organize the forums to your specifications.

@ "These rules are too strict!" We tried far more flexible rules for the TC and all we got were complaints about how arbitrary it was. I was "forum attacked" (rawr) multiple times because people disagreed with my (infamous?) posts about bringing decks up to those standards because they were too vague etc. Well...now they're not so vague.

@ "FNMs are competitive" Perhaps yorus are...I have a guy who regularly plays goats, a guy who plays monogreen every week...and someone showed up last week and tried to Demonfire me FNMs are too all over the place to be trustworthy when judging a good deck that belongs here. I understand if you can't make it to PTQs and Regionals...but then, if you never make those, why do you care if your deck is in the thread designed to prepare for those formats?

@ Rawr Elitism! Hitler! How is wanting a deck to perform well at a competitive tournament before considering it good for high level tournaments elitist? This isn't going to be a forum for up and coming innovations. It will be to discuss, tweak and make metagame changes for established decks, and allow others to prepare to defeat them with their innovative deck. If that works, their innovation becomes a good deck.


Also, anyone who thinks Atma doesn't deserve some respect based on his job either hasn't been here long or isn't paying attention (or is being a baby because their pet deck won't be in the TC). Atma does a ton of work here, and usually bends over backwards to help people out. He is also realistic about his knowledge and skill--and even tried to quit being VCL because he thought his Standard knowledge was lacking (which is why he will have a committee to determine borderline deck acceptance, I would guess). He's not elitist, full of himself or unfair. YOU may not agree, but the overwhelming majority on these forums would agree with me, and that's how democracy works (supposedly).

2:25 PM sneakattackkid: my basics are worth more... 5:21 PM Nighthavk_: I was splitting more 8-4s than a hooker splits her legs. 11:42 PM Nighthavk_: because honestly, your opponent may be caw, but he'll probably be a drooling idiot who just found out porn exists.
Thankyou, Atmapalazzo.

Unacceptable: Forum tournaments.
NO LOTUS MUTHA ****IN' SHOPS BURN'T DOWN THE MUTHA ****IN' GENCON
S'about time. This is much more like the DTB section, which is nice.

I don't know if you should have to pilot these decks into a high placing finish, though, because isn't that what tuning is for? I like the idea of a panel of people who decide if it's TC worthy or not, though, how are you going to set that up?
Photobucket Team GFG - Glux's Fine Gents
Or...bring back our DtB section. How about that? It was pretty arbitrary, at times, what stayed in there but it's better than THIS.

Your "acceptable" paper magic standards are ridiculous. Those events are too few and far between for any new threads to make it to the TC on a regular basis.

I don't think I'm the only one who thinks Magic Online is a joke. I can playtest on the forbidden program for free as much as I want, but would have to duplicate my collection of cards - worth thousands of dollars - to do the same thing on Magic Online? But DAILY tournaments in that format are preferable to FNM results??? That's insane.

Take your list of "absolute" rules and cram 'em, especially the "no numbers or percentages of any kind" rule. Number-crunching is an established method of comparison. If you said that the comparison shouldn't be limited to JUST number-crunching, fine...but you didn't. So cram this whole self-important, officious thread.
Unacceptable: Events in Alaska.

;)
Umm, so I don't really frequent these forums any more, but I do blog for my website Greatplay.net.
Or...bring back our DtB section. How about that? It was pretty arbitrary, at times, what stayed in there but it's better than THIS.

Your "acceptable" paper magic standards are ridiculous. Those events are too few and far between for any new threads to make it to the TC on a regular basis.

I don't think I'm the only one who thinks Magic Online is a joke. I can playtest on the forbidden program for free as much as I want, but would have to duplicate my collection of cards - worth thousands of dollars - to do the same thing on Magic Online? But DAILY tournaments in that format are preferable to FNM results??? That's insane.

Take your list of "absolute" rules and cram 'em, especially the "no numbers or percentages of any kind" rule. Number-crunching is an established method of comparison. If you said that the comparison shouldn't be limited to JUST number-crunching, fine...but you didn't. So cram this whole self-important, officious thread.

As I understand it, the meta rarely changes before those events occur. It can be argued that the meta changes up till those events and then they are lionized. The meta only changes when a new deck pops up at a tourney and either destroys everything, or at least T8 several times.

Your argument about Magic Online is almost irrelevant. I think I get what you were trying to say. "Why pay MO when I can test for free over the FP and still basically get the same results." The difference is that you have a bigger pool of players on MO and there is hard data that comes along with it. MO and FP also have different reputations. MO would be a much more reliable source than the commonly known bug filled FP.

Also, I believe it is disrespectful to your volunteer forum mod to talk to him in such a way. If you have a problem with the rules, telling one to "cram 'em" is the wrong way to go. Attempt to speak somewhat eloquently, or send him a PM with your grievances.

Also while you seem to almost grudingly understand what Atma was trying to say. For those who don't understand: I believe Atma is trying to say is that most established tourney threads just say, "50-60 match up in our favor" and never an explanation on WHY or HOW this happens. There is just this very ambiguous numbers and percentages with no analysis. A perfect example of what he WOULD want would be the WW thread, which I will say shamelessly is the most well written Archetype Thread I on any of these boards.

This thread is not self-important, nor officious.
Show
1. objectionably aggressive in offering one's unrequested and unwanted services, help, or advice; meddlesome: an officious person.
2. marked by or proceeding from such forwardness: officious interference.
3. Obsolete. ready to serve; obliging.


It is not 1 because someone did ask for official clear cut rules about what is acceptable. 2 might be it because he did states, "this is how it is going to be." 3 is wrong because it is not obsolete, and Atma does not appear to be ready to submit to anything except the rules he stated.

I think that the rules or fine for the most part, but before being written in stone see if there is anything else that should be added or redacted from the original list.

Atma, if this is acceptable, please let me hear a response, if I went over a line, please let me hear a response.

Red
I am Blue/White
I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
Unacceptable: Events in Alaska.

;)

But...But....But singelton.dec!
Or...bring back our DtB section. How about that? It was pretty arbitrary, at times, what stayed in there but it's better than THIS.

Your "acceptable" paper magic standards are ridiculous. Those events are too few and far between for any new threads to make it to the TC on a regular basis.

I don't think I'm the only one who thinks Magic Online is a joke. I can playtest on the forbidden program for free as much as I want, but would have to duplicate my collection of cards - worth thousands of dollars - to do the same thing on Magic Online? But DAILY tournaments in that format are preferable to FNM results??? That's insane.

Take your list of "absolute" rules and cram 'em, especially the "no numbers or percentages of any kind" rule. Number-crunching is an established method of comparison. If you said that the comparison shouldn't be limited to JUST number-crunching, fine...but you didn't. So cram this whole self-important, officious thread.

And I should listen to you because?

Before you ask why you should listen to me, realize I can start threads here. You can't.
2:25 PM sneakattackkid: my basics are worth more... 5:21 PM Nighthavk_: I was splitting more 8-4s than a hooker splits her legs. 11:42 PM Nighthavk_: because honestly, your opponent may be caw, but he'll probably be a drooling idiot who just found out porn exists.
And I should listen to you because?

Before you ask why you should listen to me, realize I can start threads here. You can't.

Don't be so modest atma. You do the majority of the work here in standard, and as red already said, you're a volunteer. In addition, you're approval rating as a VCL is amazing. When you said you were gonna quit you got two pages of people, all with different and legitimate reasons, begging you to stay. In addition, there are clearly many people (including myself) who will help you with this project and believe wholeheartedly with it.
I'm glad there are actually qualifications for threads to be in the TC now. No more having to look at decks to beat that aren't actually decks to beat.
Don't be so modest atma. You do the majority of the work here in standard, and as red already said, you're a volunteer. In addition, you're approval rating as a VCL is amazing. When you said you were gonna quit you got two pages of people, all with different and legitimate reasons, begging you to stay. In addition, there are clearly many people (including myself) who will help you with this project and believe wholeheartedly with it.

Atma. If you feel that you can't do it just believe in the me that believes in you.

My drill is one which will reach the heavens!
Atma. If you feel that you can't do it just believe in the me that believes in you.

My drill is one which will reach the heavens!

Atma. My father, bless him, once told me, "There is only one man who can keep the Standard Tournament Center in proper order; that man is not you because you are nothing. That man is Atma because he is everything. Learn from him and from your nothing hopefully something may rise, like a phoenix from the ashes of his fallen flame or a june bug from some animal's feces or something."

I have taken these words to heart and have relied on you for everything ever since. Whenever I take a test, after I write my name I write yours so that your spirit is with me. Whenever I have to explain to my professor that I didn't cheat on a test, I tell him/her the arguments you would make if you were there and credit you with them. Whenever I have to argue for my sanity to psychiatrists, I explain to them how you've helped me through everything. You are my peace of mind, my whole, my center while I just try to hold on one more day.
I personally support the the change,otherwise there will be a bunch of junk in the TC that doesn't really need to be seen. After all its the Tournament Center and should only be for Top Tier Decks or decks you will incounter in numbers at a large event
I would say the rules sound about right. I figured this was suppose to be like the old DTB thread. So the other threads where people are just asking random questions and whatnot seem out of place in the tournament center.
Sounds good, what brought this on though? The Centre doesn't seem out of shape at the moment (apart from the 5cc empty thread).

I have taken these words to heart and have relied on you for everything ever since. Whenever I take a test, after I write my name I write yours so that your spirit is with me. Whenever I have to explain to my professor that I didn't cheat on a test, I tell him/her the arguments you would make if you were there and credit you with them. Whenever I have to argue for my sanity to psychiatrists, I explain to them how you've helped me through everything. You are my peace of mind, my whole, my center while I just try to hold on one more day.

Eat his heart and take his courage.
so do M-L tournaments count as proof? Also you can encounter any deck at a tournament even if it is jank and can beat you, because you will be unprepared for it. Also i support the rules, but it sounds like if the 6 or so people don't like you for whatever reason or think your deck is jank even if u did prove it can compete in a top lvl event they could just vote to kick the thread out of the TC and it will be gone so there's a fine line between the guidelines and people's own personal vendetta's.. Also the rules sound a little elitist, back in the day when i started magic right after the first piece of kamigawa was released there were many decks that i would call tournament worthy that people didn't like and they called them jank even tho the deck could beat theirs
As I understand it, the meta rarely changes before those events occur. It can be argued that the meta changes up till those events and then they are lionized. The meta only changes when a new deck pops up at a tourney and either destroys everything, or at least T8 several times.

Your argument about Magic Online is almost irrelevant. I think I get what you were trying to say. "Why pay MO when I can test for free over the FP and still basically get the same results." The difference is that you have a bigger pool of players on MO and there is hard data that comes along with it. MO and FP also have different reputations. MO would be a much more reliable source than the commonly known bug filled FP.

Also, I believe it is disrespectful to your volunteer forum mod to talk to him in such a way. If you have a problem with the rules, telling one to "cram 'em" is the wrong way to go. Attempt to speak somewhat eloquently, or send him a PM with your grievances.

Also while you seem to almost grudingly understand what Atma was trying to say. For those who don't understand: I believe Atma is trying to say is that most established tourney threads just say, "50-60 match up in our favor" and never an explanation on WHY or HOW this happens. There is just this very ambiguous numbers and percentages with no analysis. A perfect example of what he WOULD want would be the WW thread, which I will say shamelessly is the most well written Archetype Thread I on any of these boards.

This thread is not self-important, nor officious.

Between major events, people come up with deck ideas, test them, take them to FNM and do well. If they win a couple of FNMs against the DtB, they deserve to be in TC. Their deck is a viable option for the next major event, and people should get to see that without reading about every jank deck in the other forums.

You misunderstand me about MO. I was saying that it's ridiculous how much weight Atma is placing on winning a daily online event. People who play paper Magic have spent a lot of money on it and shouldn't have to invest that same money AGAIN for a bunch of 1s and 0s in a database for their competitive decks to be taken as seriously as one that comes from someone who probably doesn't play as much (if any) paper magic.

Disrespectful? I suppose so. I didn't see anything in the original post that deserved respect, though. You may not think I was elegant in my objections, but I raised valid points. I posted my objections publicly to a PUBLIC policy decision. I don't care that he's a volunteer. Paid or not, he took the job.

I DID say that if the rule against statistics had said that statistics shouldn't be the only method of comparison he'd get no argument from me. Saying that there shouldn't be ANY numbers or statistics is just wrong, though.

Not officious and self-important????
And I should listen to you because?

Before you ask why you should listen to me, realize I can start threads here. You can't.

You want to rethink that? How self-important and officious can you get??? I can't post threads here? And why is that...because as soon as I do, it would get moved or deleted on your whim, Atma?
Have you tried posting a thread in the TC? You literally can't. Go ahead and try.

And if a new archetype manages to place well in a major tournament, let alone win, a new thread will be made for it; we aren't biased by who makes the thread. That's a ridiculous claim, although now I will watch out for threads you make

FNMs are not major tournaments; they're mostly casual events that allow people who can't compete at a tournament level the chance to play in a tournament setting. A lot of the better players would take an untested deck to an FNM to see how it works, but few would take one to a PTQ.

There's a reason why this change needed to come about. We're tired of seeing crap decks showing up in the TC simply because a lot of people like playing them. Sure, they may be somewhat popular but if they can't do well in a tournament I'd rather not waste my time looking through them or having to mentally censor them out when I visit the TC.
Have you tried posting a thread in the TC? You literally can't. Go ahead and try.

And if a new archetype manages to place well in a major tournament, let alone win, a new thread will be made for it; we aren't biased by who makes the thread. That's a ridiculous claim, although now I will watch out for threads you make

FNMs are not major tournaments; they're mostly casual events that allow people who can't compete at a tournament level the chance to play in a tournament setting. A lot of the better players would take an untested deck to an FNM to see how it works, but few would take one to a PTQ.

There's a reason why this change needed to come about. We're tired of seeing crap decks showing up in the TC simply because a lot of people like playing them. Sure, they may be somewhat popular but if they can't do well in a tournament I'd rather not waste my time looking through them or having to mentally censor them out when I visit the TC.

Lol, at our FNM's around 90% of people play top tier decks.
Alot of people around here take it seriously because its counts on the DCI ranking. Not alot of tornaments happen here, so they take to FNM.
No, I haven't tried to post in TC. I build my decks primarily for fun, but to be competitive as a secondary priority...so no, I've never felt that TC is where my original decks belong.

But you're not making sense in your post, iforgot. If not just anyone can post to TC, how are there crap decks in it? If a deck is popular, it's because it's effective in at least some metas. If your meta is primarily aggro then an anti-control deck doesn't help you...but that doesn't mean it's "crap".

I agree that most FNMs are not truly competitive. Some, however, are. I've been to many that had an average player rating of 1800+. They're for the sharks and the minnows go to other stores to play FNM. Me? I'm a red snapper...I eat minnows, but sharks eat me. So I go to get eaten by sharks so I'll become better and hopefully grow up to be a shark, myself, some day. LOL...the analogy just fell apart, huh?
forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=1862...

Does this meet your requirement's Atma? ;)

I believe ML should count as proof that a deck works. There are pros there(mostly European and South American). But I think MOL counts more than ML. MWS is rather buggy sometimes and ML trials(their equilivant to MOL's Daily Event) sometimes are lacking in participants(80 person trial>40 person trial).
I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
No, I haven't tried to post in TC. I build my decks primarily for fun, but to be competitive as a secondary priority...so no, I've never felt that TC is where my original decks belong.

But you're not making sense in your post, iforgot. If not just anyone can post to TC, how are there crap decks in it? If a deck is popular, it's because it's effective in at least some metas. If your meta is primarily aggro then an anti-control deck doesn't help you...but that doesn't mean it's "crap"

Try posting in the TC right now; you won't be able to. Before these stricter rules, Atma moved threads that seemed to be popular to the TC even if it didn't have any tournament wins or placings.

I agree that most FNMs are not truly competitive. Some, however, are.

The point is that FNMs, even if everyone plays DtBs, tend to be not as competitive because what you're playing for isn't as big. Also, there's no guarantee that the people piloting those DtBs are any good. At bigger tournaments you're bond to mostly play people who know what they're doing because people prepare extensively for larger tournaments; that holds true for any competitive interactions.
Try posting in the TC right now; you won't be able to. Before these stricter rules, Atma moved threads that seemed to be popular to the TC even if it didn't have any tournament wins or placings.


The point is that FNMs, even if everyone plays DtBs, tend to be not as competitive because what you're playing for isn't as big. Also, there's no guarantee that the people piloting those DtBs are any good. At bigger tournaments you're bond to mostly play people who know what they're doing because people prepare extensively for larger tournaments; that holds true for any competitive interactions.

You're just going to keep going until you feel you've won an argument, huh? Nit-picking the smallest part of one of my objections isn't going to accomplish anything. My original objections have still not been answered. Under these new rules, too much emphasis is being placed on MO and the no numbers thing is absurd.

Btw, I never claimed that I could post in TC and still have not tried. I explained why not. Maybe you were just confused by Atma's "neener neener! I can post and you can't". That's EXACTLY the kind of attitude we need in a moderator, right?

I'm done. Argue amongst yourselves if you like. Feel free to claim victory, iforgot. I won't see it, and your opinion is now almost as worthless as Atma's.
I dislike the idea of FNM being 'unacceptable'. Repeated success at an FNM doesn't 'prove' a deck to be good, but neither does a random Top 8 at a PTQ or MTGO event.

What should really be important is consistancy. If a deck regularly 3-0,4-0,or 3-1's at FNMs(regularly could mean 4-5 weeks in a row), I think it should be worth consideration, particularly if playtesting is put in at a tournament quality level.

This is the 'STANDARD TOURNAMENT CENTER'. It should not be turned into some elitist club for those that run the PTQ circuit to post while those that keep a mainstay of MNM and FNMs are 'forbidden' to post decklists, especially when those deck ideas are just as thought out and playtested as any other deck.

The best thing is to allow threads to be made, if they fit the requirements of thought out playtesting, card choice explanation, and matchups then they should be allowed to stay. If not they should be removed. Those deck ideas that forum members think are worth time will keep themselves alive, other threads will naturally die.
finally we can get rid of 21 trumps, maralock and every other terrible thread that no one loves. thank you so much, and i do believe that MO is more reliable then FMN. maybe what we could do is after we clean it up a bit you could simply only allow decks that made it in regions, i have the list:

Red-deck wins-splashing black
Boat brew
Black/white tokens
5cc
Fog
Kithkin
Esper lark
Elementals
Jund ramp
Finest hour
Overrun G/W tokens
B/G elves and G/R elves
Doran
Faries
Twinsanity
Jund deck wins
Merfolk with meddling mage
zoo


really, any deck other then theses is not a deck to beat. those decks are a deck standard deck help sections which sadly is flooded with "casual happens to be t2" decks. not "those decks that still need tweaking" which i honestly believe it should be.

Have a Hilarious magic related story that you want shared? Send me a PM, and your story might be posted at


myblog

I dislike the idea of FNM being 'unacceptable'. Repeated success at an FNM doesn't 'prove' a deck to be good, but neither does a random Top 8 at a PTQ or MTGO event.

What should really be important is consistancy. If a deck regularly 3-0,4-0,or 3-1's at FNMs(regularly could mean 4-5 weeks in a row), I think it should be worth consideration, particularly if playtesting is put in at a tournament quality level.

This is the 'STANDARD TOURNAMENT CENTER'. It should not be turned into some elitist club for those that run the PTQ circuit to post while those that keep a mainstay of MNM and FNMs are 'forbidden' to post decklists, especially when those deck ideas are just as thought out and playtested as any other deck.

The best thing is to allow threads to be made, if they fit the requirements of thought out playtesting, card choice explanation, and matchups then they should be allowed to stay. If not they should be removed. Those deck ideas that forum members think are worth time will keep themselves alive, other threads will naturally die.

This man speaks truth.
As for Fog in this section, sounds good to me.
The Archetype is increasing in populairty, and has won a majour event.
finally we can get rid of 21 trumps, maralock and every other terrible thread that no one loves. thank you so much, and i do believe that MO is more reliable then FMN. maybe what we could do is after we clean it up a bit you could simply only allow decks that made it in regions, i have the list:

Red-deck wins-splashing black
Boat brew
Black/white tokens
5cc
Fog
Kithkin
Esper lark
Elementals
Jund ramp
Finest hour
Overrun G/W tokens
B/G elves and G/R elves
Doran
Faries
Twinsanity
Jund deck wins
Merfolk with meddling mage
zoo


really, any deck other then theses is not a deck to beat. those decks are a deck standard deck help sections which sadly is flooded with "casual happens to be t2" decks. not "those decks that still need tweaking" which i honestly believe it should be.

also finishing T8 regionals were

swans
5 color bloodbraid
G/W aggro (not doran, not tokens, not bant)
really, any deck other then theses is not a deck to beat. those decks are a deck standard deck help sections which sadly is flooded with "casual happens to be t2" decks. not "those decks that still need tweaking" which i honestly believe it should be.

The point of the TC, according to it's own description, is 'discussion of serious tournament decks'. This is NOT limited to DtB, which have already proven themselves in the format, but should be open for people to post and discuss decks that they feel could be a successful competitive deck, as long as they have testing and reasons to back up that resolve they are well within the purpose of the TC.

"Post here for help building your casual, budget, or noncompetetive Standard decks." Is the description for Deck Help. However, just because a deck isn't a DtB does not mean it cannot be competitive. This is what I always saw the TC for, not only discussion of DtB, but discussion of deck ideas that have a legitamite shot at being competitive in the current format.

If this is the direction TC is going, please change the name to 'Decks to Beat Forum', because that is what you are changing it to.
Most of us kind of want this to be the DtB section.

@SanctoRogue: I answered your original complaint, or at least what I thought it was:

The point is that FNMs, even if everyone plays DtBs, tend to be not as competitive because what you're playing for isn't as big. Also, there's no guarantee that the people piloting those DtBs are any good. At bigger tournaments you're bond to mostly play people who know what they're doing because people prepare extensively for larger tournaments; that holds true for any competitive interactions.

In regards to MTGO: sanctioned tournaments on there are well publicized compared to FNMs and the stakes are higher so people practice for them more. They're the online equivalent of PTQs and whatnot.

The point of the Tournament Center is to highlight the decks that frequent major tournaments; they are, in essence, the better decks because people tweak them to win. The decks in Deck Help belong there because they need help. If a deck that started in Deck Help suddenly finds a way to become competitive in large-scale tournaments, Atma will move it to the TC as he's done before. It's simple.

There's nothing elitist about it. Decks that need improvement before becoming viable in tournaments belong in Deck Help while decks that have proven their worth in tournaments belong in the Tournament Center. Simply bringing your "Jund Control Splashing Blue for Cruel!" to a PTQ isn't going to cut it if it doesn't place.

Also, if a deck wins a single PTQ it's probably not random. You can win one game, maybe even a match, out of luck but winning a whole tournament simply because you topdecked nicely isn't going to happen. Looking at Extended, LSV's Swans Combo was piloted by 3 or 4 people in one PTQ and all had good showings; it was pretty much never piloted again. The same thing happened with KikiMite combo decks. Both are very good decks and if you brought a carbon copy to an Extended tournament you'd have a good chance at doing well; both would thus belong in an Extended TC if there was one (Swans Combo is actually in the TC; there hasn't been a thread made for KikiMite yet).
The point of the TC, according to it's own description, is 'discussion of serious tournament decks'. This is NOT limited to DtB, which have already proven themselves in the format, but should be open for people to post and discuss decks that they feel could be a successful competitive deck, as long as they have testing and reasons to back up that resolve they are well within the purpose of the TC.

"Post here for help building your casual, budget, or noncompetetive Standard decks." Is the description for Deck Help. However, just because a deck isn't a DtB does not mean it cannot be competitive. This is what I always saw the TC for, not only discussion of DtB, but discussion of deck ideas that have a legitamite shot at being competitive in the current format.

If this is the direction TC is going, please change the name to 'Decks to Beat Forum', because that is what you are changing it to.

I don't want to wade through pages and pages of crap thread to find a thread on a top deck, which is exactly what would happen if anyone could post. Have you seen standard general? "number of pain lands in bant" or "tezzofog". It clearly says where either a) information on a deck can be found (esspecially an established archetype) and b)where decklist should be posted. Not to mention the dozens of threads on varients of the same deck, where people thought they weren't getting enough attention when posting the list in the right thread so decided to muck up the forum in general with a pointless thread.
also finishing T8 regionals were

swans
5 color bloodbraid
G/W aggro (not doran, not tokens, not bant)

Don't forget the random Countryside Crusher deck that won Atlanta.
I don't want to wade through pages and pages of crap thread to find a thread on a top deck, which is exactly what would happen if anyone could post. Have you seen standard general? "number of pain lands in bant" or "tezzofog". It clearly says where either a) information on a deck can be found (esspecially an established archetype) and b)where decklist should be posted. Not to mention the dozens of threads on varients of the same deck, where people thought they weren't getting enough attention when posting the list in the right thread so decided to muck up the forum in general with a pointless thread.

If I'm not mistaken, these forums have a search function. Makes for less 'wading through pages and pages of crap thread'.

@iforgot: "Decks that need improvement before becoming viable in tournaments belong in Deck Help"

Then someone should change the description on the Deck Help, because needing help building a competitive deck is not in the description, which I quoted before as perftaining to 'casual, budget, or noncompetetive Standard decks'.

I'm not against establishing some rules for posting here, I'm just saying that if you are going to change the TC into a place to discuss Decks to Beat, a name change would be best. Otherwise, the point of the TC is to discuss 'serious tournament decks', which as I stated earlier, is not limited to DtB.
The current system for the TC is great. Decks shouldn't have to be PTQ proven to get in here, but once decks fail to prove themselves, they should get kicked out.

Basically kick out all the threads that were posted back in the days when this was an open forum, and then continue the system as normal.

Remember that there was a reason DTB was closed but the TC was kept.
Umm, so I don't really frequent these forums any more, but I do blog for my website Greatplay.net.
But yeah, the Title "tournament center" needs to be changed to "The Elitist Room" because with these guidelines that do nothing but help out the elitist's (like atma) inovation won't come quickly through the magic forums like they did 3 or so years ago. Also then greg would have to wait for some1 to take his list to a ptq or something and get in the top 8 in order for it to get put into here (most of his lists are great and off the wall, but they work), and then that would be denying you elitists of great decks and a great deckbuilder.
But yeah, the Title "tournament center" needs to be changed to "The Elitist Room" because with these guidelines that do nothing but help out the elitist's (like atma) inovation won't come quickly through the magic forums like they did 3 or so years ago. Also then greg would have to wait for some1 to take his list to a ptq or something and get in the top 8 in order for it to get put into here (most of his lists are great and off the wall, but they work), and then that would be denying you elitists of great decks and a great deckbuilder.

what?
what?

He is saying the new rules kill the creativity of the TC by only allowing DtB to be discussed.
5: If you complain about an action, don't blame me, blame the people who wanted a set of hard rules.

If you thought that people would be content with your "soft rules", there's only yourself (yourselves?) to blame.

If your hard rules are draconian and elitist... well, the same is true.

You're hardly going to get away with blaming those of us who want to know the rules we're expected to play by!
Attitude reflects leadership. Vindicated! * HawkBlade is aggro/control! * Post-ban HawkBlade! * Jace, the Mind Sculptor is good! * End-of-Lorwyn TurboFog! ‘Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again.’ – André Gide '...but if you're repeating yourself in an online forum, chances are you're just feeding a troll.' - Rat Bastardsen
i like the hard rules, because they are more organized.

efficiency is more important than feelings in a venue like this.
efficiency is more important than feelings in a venue like this.

How is allowing people to post lists that may be competitive but havn't gotten played in a PTQ or high event yet inefficient? It's MORE efficient to allow these new decks to be considered for competitive play. If everyone just played what had proven itself, Fae would still be as popular as it once was. Without allowing discussion of potentially competitive decks, you are only giving those players that peruse these forums a disadvantage against newer deck ideas.
Without allowing discussion of potentially competitive decks, you are only giving those players that peruse these forums a disadvantage against newer deck ideas.

There is another forum for "potentially competitive decks." The TC should be a quick reference for the proven top tier decks only. Any deck meeting its criteria is included. Simple and objective.
There is another forum for "potentially competitive decks." The TC should be a quick reference for the proven top tier decks only. Any deck meeting its criteria is included. Simple and objective.

There is no such forum. If that is the purpose of Standard General, it should be included in the description. Specifically, General's description points to deck help and TC for deckbuilding discussion.
Deck Help is for 'casual, budget, or NONCOMPETITIVE decks'.
TC is for 'serious tournament decks'. Specifically, TC is not a DtB forum. There used to be a DtB section, and it was eliminated for a reason.
Sign In to post comments