Transperancy

[Maggot]

Hello,

I´m wondering if it´s possible to make the council banning discussion thread public so that everybody who is interrested can read it?

I believe it would be good for the community. Also it would make your rulings more comprehensible.

Thank you for your attention.

Cheers
Maggot

[Vazdru]

Sorry Maggot.
We will make our decisions as reasonable and transparent as possible but not the process which lead to those decisions. Eventually we will change this policy in the future but for now the discussions in the council will remain covert.

[Maggot]

Maybe you can make the threads readable after the bannings are out.

[Vazdru]

I'm sorry.


HL Council Board:

The content of this board is to be kept private at all times. No c&p to anywhere else. Access only for current members of the council.

[Maggot]

Is this one of these "We are doing the way it´s done, because this is the way it has always been done!" reasonings?
Honestly what are you guys afraid of?
Being stalked by some fanboi ´cause his fav card was banned?
I think it´s a legitimete request to learn sth about the decision making process of the council.
Please discuss this in your private thread  and think about if it is really necessary to hide this from your comunity. For my part I value the secrecy of votes very high so I think that individual votes should not be published but results would be nice 

Cheers
Maggot

[Orkpopper]

I think a public banning discussion (like the one about lftl) would be helpful for the council and interesting for the community.
It would help the council to find a decision and take the community's opinion into account. Also it would make the bannings more comprehensible.
So why are the bannings not discussed in public? The final vote could still be secret...

[pyyhttu]

@Maggot: Excellent question. I actually requested this too few years ago, but have since changed my mind. And while good governance is not my forte, I'll try to explain what I learned thus why only the partial transparency.

Transparency of the council discussions currently is operating in such a way that it is easy for others to see that:

1. we're actually taking actions and performing, but in order for each of us to do so most efficiently,
2. the contents of the individual council member's opinions are masked (partially to secure the coherent decision making).

With the layer of privacy for discussion, this reduces all kinds of "lobbying", or more specifically, attempts to affect an individual in the decision making policy (not that the group would not notice this), while giving the needed information and talk privacy.

Edit @Orkpopper: You posted while I wrote all that above, but I guess it should answer your questions too.

[DarkLight]

I agree with Orkpopper, but maybe there should be public discussions for every single card on the ban and unban watchlist.
I am happy with the transperancy at the moment, the council doing a great job.

[pyyhttu]

I agree with Orkpopper, but maybe there should be public discussions for every single card on the ban and unban watchlist.

I believe you mean threads like these: http://www.magicplayer.org/forum/index.php?topic=783.0

There's a lot of well thought arguments in that thread and they make council's job a lot easier. And as they are, everyone's welcome to start one if feels that there's a lack of discussion on some card. We actually link and quote some of the arguments from threads like those.

[Nastaboi]

One more thing is that people change their minds. For example somebody might have a strong opinion on a card, but revert that opinion after a long discussion. Afterwards he would feel pretty silly seeing his opinions he no longer stands for analyzed in public.

[Maggot]

I don´t think that a change of opinion after a discussion is a sign of weakness or s.th. that anybody should be ashamed of. Discussions are not about winning or loosing imo.
Lobbying will happen anyway, if it is in your local gaming group, on this board or via Facebook.
Local metas are very different and people will feel differently about cards and give different feedback.
I´m sure that Tabris will evaluate cards differently than Vazdru because of how people talk about them.

Cheers
Maggot

[MMD]

 

I can fully understand why there is a closed forum for council discussions which also includes the discussion about bannings. Nothing unusual here.

If I would be curious about an discussion in this forum, I would start an open topic by myself here.

[Nastaboi]

I don´t think that a change of opinion after a discussion is a sign of weakness or s.th. that anybody should be ashamed of. Discussions are not about winning or loosing imo.

I was more in lines "oh I was so dumb then". Changing one's opinion in face of new evidence is what smart people should always do.

[Maqi]

Council discussion should stay private.

Discussing difficult problems (i. e. bannings/unbannings) in an appropriate manner is already a demanding task.

Council members shouldn't furthermore be concerned with how their words might be conceived or interpreted by observers.

This could lead to "political-correctness"-issues and social bias, which obviously is not a good thing to have...

[ChristophO]

Regarding Transperancy I really like the explaining texts regarding Banlist and Watchlist changes.

I would like to see a "header text" for the Highlander format. While most format "veterans" know the vague standpoint of the council this would be a great benefit for newer players, so that those players can read the text and attain the basic concept of the format and the boundaries the council has set for the format. This header should provide an answer to a couple of format concerns:

- Reason for the exitance of the spoils mulligan
- How big should the role of "pure" combo be in the format?
Is combo allowed only as a fringe archetype or would it be okay as a deck to beat?
- How fast (on which turn?) are decks allowed to kill?
T1 kills okay? T2? T3?   
- What is the stance on unfun cards?
- Are there Banning principles regarding old and powerful cards?
Possible examples: draw 7 spells; 1cc tutors; fast artifact mana

I would also very much like to see the Banlist and Watchlist texts expanded to all cards on the banlist and the watchlist. This would obviously be a lot of work but I strongly believe that well reasoned explanations would further bolster trust in the decisions of the council and the support of the format both. Those texts would also allow an easy entrance into discussion regarding an unbanning at a later time. Right now I have the feeling the council is only concerned about playstrength of cards on the banlist but the influence of a frustration factor, format coherence, and metagame shaping should also be strongly considered. Formulating a strict aim for the format (a header text) and written explanation for all problematic cards explaining the concerns of the specific card would be my dream for the future of the format.