Hall of Shame Nominations: Tempest

Discussion in 'General CPA Stuff' started by BigBlue, Mar 24, 2009.

  1. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Well yeah, I think we both want more people here. I think anything we do like this, though, be it hall of shame, hall of fame, CPA notables, or whatever pretty much comes with the caveat that there's never really a big community here.

    Well, that's certainly different from having a differing vision for how a hall of shame is supposed to work. I thought you wanted it to be more like a small group consisting of the very worst cards in the game, regardless of set. But if you're unsure of the concept entirely, well, how do you determine whether a card definitely doesn't belong?

    Then again, I suppose it's the same as anyone else determining whether a card doesn't belong, but other people are using more explicit criteria, which isn't necessarily good or bad either way.

    You put it in quotation marks, but I didn't say it, so who are you quoting? :confused:

    Maybe I'm being unclear, though. Maybe not. I don't know. I don't think I misinterpreted that part. I was sardonic about it, but when I made the "bouncer" quip I didn't mean that you wanted to be the arbiter of the whole thing. I was talking about what you made it seem like your vision for a hall of shame would be. Cards have to run a gauntlet to get in. There's a minimum standard of badness or something like that. Only cards that pass (or fail, rather) the Spiderman test would be eligible for you to want them in. That's not to say you want to mind-control everyone else. Perhaps, I should contrast it from how I'd describe my own vision...

    My vision for how a hall of shame would work is one in which we nominate cards and people present cases for why the cards they've nominated (or other cards if they change their minds) are worse than other cards in the set. Based on how they think the arguments stack up, the members cast their votes and choose the inductee for the set. Pretty similar to what we have now. Of course, in my vision, the card I choose is usually the one that wins because I usually think I'm right about which card is worst. But that's more because this is Oversoul's conceptual ideal for how the hall of shame functions. I don't mean that I should have special power just because I'm me. I did leave out the "none of the above option" because it's not in my vision, but other than that, I guess I'm satisfied with the current setup. Actually, I suppose I'd prefer an instant runoff system to the one we have now, but I didn't even think about it until this minute and it's probably cumbersome because we couldn't use the vBulletin poll feature (or at least I don't think so).

    But you've nominated cards in the past. I forget which ones, but I definitely remember that you nominated something at some point. Have you revised your opinion since then or what?
  2. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    True dat. Although cynically, if I was a new person coming here and saw that a handful of people were trying to set up a "Hall of Fame/Shame" thing, I'd laugh. Maybe look a bit closer to the reasons and stuff, but laugh because how can "five" (picked a number at random) know what should go into a Hall of Fame/Shame?

    Sorry, I meant unsure of the concept that a handful of people cabn decide what goes into a Hall of Shame. I don't "want" it to be a small group of cards, I'm just pretty sure that it ends up being a small group of cards.

    Sorry, the quotation marks were more for paraphrasing.

    <shrug> I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I guess I'm looking at it from the "Magic players universe" where the majority of Magic players, if they voted, might agree on what cards belong to a Hall of Shame. So certainly out of the thousands of Magic players, I'm thinking some are going to agree with what I think: that a card has to be *really* bad, as in unworkable except in the one or two decks specifically built around it yet *still* loses, to go into the Hall of Shame. To me, that's whole concept of a "Hall" - to showcase the baddest of the bad. You don't include the "semi-bad" or "bad because I hate it personally" or "bad because it's blue", etc.

    yeah, but most were with the caveat that the ones I thought were really bad from that particular expansion were already nominated and/or I was just giving more options, because only one or two cards were nominated, which means one of them will win by default because of how the voting works (the "None of the Above" option was just started). With Tempest, I'll reiterate once again that I don't think any are truly bad enough to be nominated.
  3. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Yeah, I could see that. If someone were to consider the tiny group we have here doing a hall of fame/shame rather silly, I make no argument against that. It's all in good fun anyway, though. I mean, no one's losing sleep over this or anything.

    Well, that's all in where the standard is set. It could be set so high (low) that nothing gets in at all. Or it could be set to where the majority of the cards ever printed go in. I think most people here would want it to be somewhere in between, but there's no way to even properly quantify the power level of a card, let alone do more advanced stuff like set a meaningful numerical standard. It's bound to be a subjective process and that's that.

    Well yeah, that goes back to the issue of sample size. I fully agree that a larger sample size would be desirable. It also seems pretty unlikely given the fact that this is something of a niche site and not even everyone who participates in other things on these boards is going to participate in a hall of shame.

    Sure. But firstly, it's only going to be some. With a large enough group, it's very likely that some will think that cards you think are bad aren't that bad and that some will think cards you think aren't that bad are abysmal. I'm sure there would be consensus about a lot of things, but there'd also be variation. Even with this small group, there's been stuff like that. I don't remember all of the details, but I think both Su-Chi and the Urza's lands were discussed as candidates back when we did Antiquities. But I consider those to be very good cards. I nominated City in a Bottle for Arabian Nights, but someone pointed out its potential in Arabian Nights draft or something, which I wasn't really "counting" in my analysis. I have no doubt that things like this would only happen more with a larger, more diverse group. And maybe that's a good thing. I don't know.

    Secondly, the notion of a card having to be so bad that even decks built around it lose is still pretty poorly defined and open to interpretation. Not to Malignant Growth up yet again, but I thought that any deck using Malignant Growth well was purely a fantasy scenario and would be crap in real life. Others (or BigBlue at least) disagreed. No one bothered to actually test it and testing would be cumbersome and probably wrought with its own problems anyway.

    Even without testing anything, one problem I see is that decks can be built that let you take control of the game in order to utilize your bad card. Mogg Squad was meant to be a two-drop and fails miserably at least most of the time (and, I'd contend, a lot more than that even). But clear the board and get four Pandemoniums and four Copy Enchantments into play, then drop Mogg Squad and it deals 24 damage directly to your opponent. Or you can lock your opponent down with Mishra's Helix and whatever, then beat your opponent to death with Mogg Squad the old-fashioned way. It doesn't need to be that extreme, but when do we move out of the realm of the absurd and into legitimate uses for cards? Use enough good cards strategically to support it, and there's no card in the game I can think of that doesn't work. But some otherwise bad (or at least mediocre) cards have been used very successfully because of synergy (like Illusions of Grandeur). I certainly don't have a systematic approach to saying whether a given card falls into the "useful because of synergies" category or the "bad and you're just using good cards to make it work" category.

    We may already have seen this. Some have noted the artwork as at least part of the reason they chose a card. I also remember someone pointing out how annoying it was to find Rakalite in Chronicles booster packs. I suspect these things aren't being given much weight, but that's just things people are putting on the board in writing. We all have biases and we're bound to be oblivious to some of them.

    I suspect as far as the two of us are concerned, our methods for determining whether a card is bad are more similar than they are dissimilar, but there might still be plenty of cases where one man's trash is another man's treasure. Or not. I don't know.

    I guess I really just think the whole "none of the above" thing is at odds with the rest of the structure for this process. It doesn't fit. There were lots of bad cards in Legends, easily several that were worse than every card in Alliances, but we only chose one from each in the end. That indicates that the idea is to have the worst card from each set. We don't choose ten cards from Legends and only one from Alliances. Would we potentially choose zero from Tempest? It seems bizarre and if we go so far as to say that the bar should be set somewhere in the region that no card from Tempest can make it in because none of them are bad enough (which, by the way, is completely arbitrary), there are some past "winners" that I would cut, as they don't seem any worse than Mogg Squad.
  4. Shabbaman insert avatar here

    Indeed. I think the points I made when I proposed the card are valid. You may think they're not, but stressing that I'm right is annoying at best and won't persuade you anyway. Read what I wrote. I am right.

    And yes, with a decent imagination you could come up with a deck that could run it. That doesn't make it good.

    As for the "no cards worth nominating" thing', we've had that discussion before. I was under the impression that the idea of this series was to get a list of the worst card from each set. There's a card the worst card of a set by definition (of "worst"). I agree that some cards on such a list
    are out of flavor compared to the crap we've seen in some of the older sets. But we're not making a "worst cards of all time" list, that'd have required a different approach as there are sets with multiple cards that would be on that list.
  5. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Oversoul: What I'm getting from your last post is that this whole process is indeed subjective and revolves around people's opinions

    Which is fine. I'm only one vote. I, by myself, do not determine what goes into the Hall. It's just my opinion.

    <shrug> Sorry. I just can't, in good conscience, agree that any of the Tempest cards are Hall of Shame. And I'll repeat, I'm just one vote. I don't think I'm going to derail the general process.

    This is actually a bit hazy for me, as I thought I remembered we'd go back to both the Hall of Fame/Shame and do each expansion again (for how many times? Beats me). It takes so long to do it though, that might have fell by the wayside, if it ever was the idea.

    Sure, of course you think they're right, it's your opinion. That's fine. I disagree, which is my opinion. That should be fine too.

    And once again, *I* never said it was good either. :)

    Sure. And you have a list. I just don't think any of them are truly bad enough to go in the Hall.
  6. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    You're quoting snippets from a comparatively large post. I'd like to think I said more than that. But I do believe I flat-out stated, at least once, in an earlier post that the process is subjective. I don't know about "revolving" around opinions. I'm not quite sure what that means. What I did disagree with was the notion that it's all opinion. Opinion is a big part of it. There are other things. For example, past experience, cost-benefit analysis, comparison to common deck archetypes (e.g. Emberwilde Caliph has a limitation that might make it suitable for a suicide deck, but has a blue requirement and a red requirement while suicide decks are generally black or black/white, so that doesn't work), emphasis on format, and appreciation of potential synergies could all matter. At least some of that might also overlap opinion.

    The weight of opinion, for pretty much anyone, is going to go up when the comparison is between two similar cards (comparing Mogg Fanatic to Mons's Goblin Raiders, we'll conclude that the former is strictly superior it can do everything the latter can do and more) and down when the cards are dissimilar (comparing Great Wall to Adventurer's Guildhouse, we have a card that wastes three mana and a card that wastes a land drop, so we're all going to have our own ideas about how much wasted mana it takes to be worse than a wasted land drop, just how bad bands-with-other is, and whether doing something to hose your opponent that will likely never pay off is worse than doing something to help your own cards that will likely never pay off).

    Sure, but as Shabbaman put it better than I did, there's the whole bit about a "worst cards of all time" list requiring a different approach. I'm really not seeing how going through this set by set lends itself to anything other than simply choosing the worst card from a set.

    Hm. I thought that was the idea for the hall of fame. It doesn't really appeal to me for a hall of shame, I guess because the hall of fame was a popularity contest rather than choosing the most powerful card from each set, whereas this is really about choosing the least powerful card from each set, and going through repeatedly just seems weird.
  7. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    And I only said it was all opinion due to the small sample size. If we had a larger one, then there'd be more agreement and consensus on what a Hall of Shame card is.
  8. BigBlue Magic Jones

    Spidey is correct that the small amount of input will skew the results...

    I don't mean to pour gas on this fire...

    Not every set necessarily had a "great" HoF card either and that didn't limit us from putting one in. I haven't pored over the list, but I'm certain one or two of those inductions weren't exactly HoF worthy...
  9. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Yeah, true, although now that Oversoul brings it up, it was more a popularity contest than anything. Still, it was supposed to showcase the best "casual card" from each expansion...

    Maybe we should have a rule like a card must receive the majority among the total number of voters to be in... both the Hall of Fame *and* Shame.
  10. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    And one of my points was that opinion doesn't vanish with increasing sample size. Increasing the sample size would solve problems associated with one or two oddballs skewing things. And I absolutely agree that it would give better results. But it wouldn't be lessening the effect of opinion at all. Each individual would still be using just as much opinion in making a decision. There'd just be a lot more of them. I also maintain, for reasons I explained in my previous post, that it isn't all opinion because other things come into play for each of us. Even if only one person were making a hall of shame, those other factors would still come into play. Maybe we essentially agree on this and what I'm supposed to get out of what you're saying is that we (because of our small sample size) have the standard problems associated with small sample size? I mean, I wouldn't phrase it as an opinion problem, but it seems like that's what you're trying to get across.
  11. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I guess. I just got a lot of "I'm right/this is a bad card regardless of what you think" in this discussion, which tells me that this process is NOT opinion but factual and apparently I'm not seeing it because I'm not agreeing. If this is all opinion with equal weight to everyone, then we shouldn't have even started this whole discussion about whether Tempest has Hall of Shame cards or not - I stated my opinion and that should have been that.
  12. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Uh, I'm not sure what you mean. Would you agree that it's possible for something to be all about opinion, not at all about opinion, or about opinion and some combination of other things?
  13. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Sure, depending on what that "something" is.

    For this particular example of the Hall of Shame, because there isn't a "standard" or some commonality that all people are using to nominate and consider potential inductees, this is all opinion.
  14. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    But what about those other things I mentioned in post #46? Surely you're not saying that cost-benefit analysis falls entirely under the umbrella of "opinion."
  15. Shabbaman insert avatar here

    So have you figured out yet what this Hall is about and are we (ever) moving on to the next set?
  16. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    <shrug> Apparently, the Hall is whatever you want it to be. People appear to have different criteria on what they think is supposed to belong in the Hall.

    I don't know if we're moving to the next set; I think BigBlue usually posted it, but he's been busy lately. If you want to grab the reins, so to speak, and get it moving, go for it :)

Share This Page