And I agreed that it's fine that you have your opinion on the why. But I have justified my "You don't know" simply because you haven't shown that you do by putting forth any real facts, not opinions. When you show me those, then my position is unjustified.
So, for example, the part about how Wizards of the Coast has an article up referring to tests and to player feedback, but not to data collection of game details from tournaments, is not a fact, but merely my opinion? Really?
I'm not going to "cut it out" because you are not getting it.
Oh. Well, in that case, perhaps we should discuss your claim that guano tastes great or your claim that the moon is made of green cheese and that we should enslave the Canadians and force them to mine it for us. That sounds
way more entertaining than a hypothetical mulligan-recording arm of WotC.
Giving me a standard/general/accepted definition of "data collection" is great. Wonderful. Thanks very much. What you are NOT showing me is where it says that WOTC uses this standard to make their decision.
Probably because I have no indication that they've done so.
Is there a statement on WOTC's website that says "Before making any decision, we collect data using the "standard accepted practice" of data collection"? Did an employee post something to that effect in one of their articles? I don't think so, and until you give that "link" (web or proof), I'm saying you can't tie whatever the standard of data collection is to what WOTC just *absolutely has to do" before making policy decisions.
Like I said, I have no indication that Wizards of the Coast ever so much as hinted at data collection being a component of the scy mulligan thing. As far as I can tell, that's something you made up on your own. And the standard practices involved in data collection are standard for good reasons. They prevent various types of bias from skewing results. They're widely accepted across every field involving data collection. You have some goal in mind contriving a scenario in which this one company deliberately flaunts agreed-upon best practices? You have some evidence for the claim in the first place?
I had to revise it because as I said before, "information" does not necessarily mean " data", which is what we're specifically talking about in this point. Now that I explicitly know you didn't mean "data" in the first place, that whole bullet point means absolutely nothing to me, since you could have provided whatever "information" that would have probably had nothing to do with this whole data collection argument. Which I don't think you could have provided anyway and so all of that was an empty point anyway.
I'll reiterate the reason I mentioned transparency, since you still seem to think that it means "nothing" if it isn't about data-sharing.
- I made a list of circumstances that I think, taken together, support two propositions. The first proposition is that if Wizards of the Coast were to embark on an overt program of data collection of details from tournament matches, the community would be aware of it. The second proposition is that a covert program of such data collection would be implausibly difficult to hide, and that going to such lengths to hide it wouldn't yield any benefit I can think of.
- The company's track record could potentially support either proposition. When they engage with the community and reveal some details about the inner workings of the company, it makes the idea of such a covert program seem out of character. And for an overt program, I'd expect that they'd mention it at some point, which they haven't.
- Neither of these is foolproof, and I'll admit that right now. They could be self-promoting and sharing information as a smokescreen to cover up things that they want to hide. They could have reason to want to hide a data collection program of this sort, and perhaps I just can't think of it. But I find those things unlikely.
That does not contradict my statement that you quoted, so the fact that you responded to it means you don't understand what I said.
For reference...
"I am also claiming/saying that we don't know what the somehow, somewhere, somewhen is."
How: With Magic cards. That's how one tests for issues regarding Magic cards.
Where: Renton, Washington. That's where she works.
When: Well, it's got to be some time recent enough to be relevant.
Of course, I don't know whether the cards were physical or digital versions. I don't know what kind of sleeves they might have had or how many trials were performed. I don't know what decklists they used. But, if I take her at her word (which I have no reason not to), I'd posit that it's Magic cards being used in this testing. And while I can't say
exactly where or when, I don't see why it matters.
Well, tournaments are participated in by competitive players vying for glory and prizes. This results in its own environment that is not replicated in other Magic games. Tests are often performed with the some of the same decks that are used in tournaments, but because they are not performed under the same circumstances, tests are not a perfect simulation for an actual tournament. Data drawn from test matches may not show the same patterns of results as data drawn directly from tournament matches. To ascertain the extent to which test data might differ from tournament data, it is necessary to collect both kinds of data for comparison.
About this? Yes. Because you haven't shown me that you do.
About the thing you made up in your own head? Yeah, I'm afraid my knowledge is a little shaky on that one...
You do not know the method of the data collection that determined WOTC's decision to implement the mulligan rule change for Pro Tour Magic Origins.* And when I say method, I mean the number of matches, where the matches took place (including environment so by extension who played those matches), the period of time collecting the data about matches, and what is meant by noninteractive to make that a data point.
Hold on. One of the first things that I said in this thread was that interactivity had not actually been defined. I went on to, somewhat cynically although not unjustly so, expound on how interaction can take different forms in Magic games and that I think WotC is prioritizing some interaction and overlooking other interaction. But the crux of this was that it doesn't make sense to talk about the frequency of non-interactive matches without qualifying what the characteristics of an interactive match are. The conversation steered away from that topic, but it is a thing that I said. Now you want to use it against me? Like, you're proposing that WotC has a secret definition of interactivity, and that because I lack access to it, I can't make an assessment? Are we really going back to the conspiracy stuff here?
And since you do not know what data was collected or how, making the statement that it could not absolutely have occurred during tournaments where players were present is erroneous.
I don't have to know where and how data was collected to know where and how it
wasn't. For example, it couldn't have been on my bed while I was sleeping in it, as that would have woken me up. It couldn't have been on the surface of the sun, because it's too hot there. It couldn't have been throughout international Magic tournaments, because that would draw the attention of the community and they'd talk about it. They didn't, so it didn't happen that way.
I'm not saying that no data has ever been collected at any tournament. In fact, every feature match provides a record of data that WotC (or anyone) could use to generate statistics. But for reasons I've already mentioned, this could not yield a good data set. And I'm not even saying that if WotC implements the new rule that their reasoning will be bad or unjustified, but rather that they will not have taken a data-driven approach to the issue. It's entirely possible that they wouldn't need to! Here's a hypothetical scenario...
- Wizards of the Coast gets a lot of player feedback that mulligans often lead to non-interactive games.
- Wizards of the Coast observes that they think this is happening too. They examine the problem and someone gets the idea to implement a "scry 1" as part of the mulligan process.
- Wizards of the Coast employees play games against each other with the new rule and the games seem to be more interactive.
- Wizards of the Coast tests the new rule at PT Magic Origins. The new mulligan gets a lot of positive feedback and doesn't seem to cause any problems. Observation seems to reveal fewer non-interactive games.
- Wizards of the Coast implements the new version of the mulligan.
At no point does anything get measured here. WotC isn't using tables of results compiled from records of matches to make their decision in this scenario.