The fact that you said "made up" furthers my point.
The one you made up?
Because apparently, the specific words "data collection" in that order means absolutely one thing in your head,
It seems like you're trying to get some sort of rise out of me by referring to the contents of my head. This is silly.
From your wording, perhaps it's worth noting that data collection is a thing. Stringing the two words together creates a reference to a concept that is distinct from either of them separately. So yeah, having those two specific words, in that order, does matter. This has nothing to do with me or my head.
while I just happened to use those two words to describe that WOTC gathered information ("collected data") to make their decision/announcement.
Huh, it seems like this whole argument could have been avoided if I'd qualified what I'd said about data collection earlier...
me said:
To be clear, the concept of data collection with respect to a popular card game is different from "multiple tests" if that's what you're thinking. Data collection requires observation and recording of real games with real players.
Oh, come on. That line hardly counts...
me said:
To acquire good data out of such a field, a large, unbiased, preferably randomized sample would be necessary.
Well, maybe twice still isn't enough...
me said:
Well, you could call just walking into the Grand Prix and shouting, "Hey guys, would you say that mulligans make for one-sided games too much?" and checking off about how many yeas you think you got compared to nays some sort of data collection. I'd call it the useless sort. I draw a distinction between some sort of data collection and good data collection.
Three times? Oh well, who reads all these posts anyway?
So let's make it four, just for the sake of extra super-duper clarity...
The data that I am claiming has not yet been collected is gameplay detail data on a representative sample of tournament games. This doesn't mean that people don't have any data at all in the universe. I was only talking about that one kind of data, which is why I said as much from the outset, and then said it again three more times. If you want to challenge my emphasis on utility of this kind of data, that's fine (although I'm not sure where you'd go from there now that I've already admitted that even an entirely data-free approach could hypothetically work here). But I think I've been abundantly clear on what kind of data I was talking about.
And you continue to bluster and not understandw with the rest.
Like I said, I'm done.
I didn't even know that someone could bluster through a keyboard!