Hall of Shame

Shall we create a MtG Casual Hall of Shame?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 4 100.0%
  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .
B

BigBlue

Guest
Should we do one, I propose set by set like the Hall of Fame... Except I don't think we do the reprint sets.

It'd be something to pass the summer...

I'm not suggesting we use a nominating committee... That was a fiasco with trying to find willing victims (oops, members)...

We'd nominate for a week, then vote on the nominations the next, majority wins. In cases of a tie, we would allow changes/debate until there was a winner...
 
Oversoul

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
I'm up for it. I think I actually managed to nominate a card every time with the old hall of fame. I'll try to do so with this version...
 
S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
I think Ransac will use the goat and paddle on you then...

I voted no, mainly because I think it's a lot harder trying to think of cards that *aren't* useful, which I usually know of only through playing them, which isn't a lot. But yeah, I'll still go with it.
 
R

Ransac

CPA Trash Man
I agree with Spidey. And you COULD nominate the Pony, but there's no way if would make it past deliberation.... it probably wouldn't even get a "Second."


Ransac, cpa trash man
 
M

Melkor

Well-known member
Although, I really wonder about the criterion on this, I'm willing to try it out. I have a feeling the criterion will actually change from set to set and that is fine with me.
 
B

BigBlue

Guest
Do people like the idea of nominated cards - without a committee?

If we find that too many cards are being nominated, I guess we could require a second... Or should we require a second from the start.

Should we allow a Cycle? Like Laces? (though I personally don't think laces belong on the list per se... they have a use, albeit a limited one... and there are worse cards in Beta imho)

Certainly there are cards which were bad at one point - but have subsequently gotten better due to new interactions. While other cards have gotten worse - either due to restriction, rewording, rulings, or they've simply been replaced by fundamentally better cards - like Web - OK (not great) when it was printed, but now it's dumb with vastly better cards having been created.

My opinion is we should base the card on it's place within it's own expansion. The reason I think this works best is because we are voting by expansion.

Melkor - What do you mean by changing criteria?
 
D

DarthFerret

Guest
I say that with each nomination that the nominating poster explains why his/her (like there are any hers that post here) card belongs in the hall of shame and we vote on it. I do not think there need to be any type of circumstances to nominating a card.
 
Oversoul

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
BigBlue said:
Certainly there are cards which were bad at one point - but have subsequently gotten better due to new interactions. While other cards have gotten worse - either due to restriction, rewording, rulings, or they've simply been replaced by fundamentally better cards - like Web - OK (not great) when it was printed, but now it's dumb with vastly better cards having been created.

My opinion is we should base the card on it's place within it's own expansion. The reason I think this works best is because we are voting by expansion.
Click to expand...
I disagree...

Illusions of Grandeur wasn't really any good back in 1995. There were a lot of worse cards in Ice Age, so I doubt anyone would have nominated it as one of the worst even then, but it plainly wasn't very good. Now the card is infamous. Istanbul even got all fussy about me using it in a forum game, even though the deck I was using was actually pretty suboptimal (it was on principle, I guess). But cards that got printed several sets later ended up mattering. In my eyes, Illusions couldn't be considered the worst card in the set, even if everything that was crappier than back in 1995 (a large chunk of Ice Age, probably) was ignored.

Realistically, it's probably not going to matter much. The cards that were completely terrible when these sets were printed are still completely terrible. But it's awkward to pretend that cards don't get to interact with cards from other sets. In the instances where it would matter (like the hypothetical one with Illusions as the worst card in the set at the time), it seems like we'd be giving a better representation of mediocrity by allowing for interactions with future sets. In most cases it wouldn't matter, though. It's not like (for example) Glyph of Delusion and Great Wall are so close to each other in crappiness if only Legends is considered, but one is clearly better with other sets taken into account. They still suck either way.
 
Mooseman

Mooseman

Isengar Tussle
Why not just have every nomination (should imit it 1 per person) for like a week and then vote on them or rate each one 1-10..... it should be a fast process..... but there should be lots of fighting over the picks to keep us amused..... I mean... er.... meaningful debate..... yeah, that's the ticket.....
 
M

Melkor

Well-known member
Changing Criteria: I mean that each person will have different criteria and since each election is a new one, there will be plenty of opportunities to convince people to follow yours, at least for one pick.

For instance, for me, it is not enough that the card simply be bad, there has to be a little something extra that makes it Hall of Shame worthy. Additionally, I think that the card basically has to be a rare because I think about this like I was opening a pack, and I don't care if I get a bad common but if I get a crap rare, it ruins the whole experience.
 
Mooseman

Mooseman

Isengar Tussle
I don't think rarity is that important. Also, everyone will have their own criteria, as usual. But, I don't think the cards should be looked at only within the set they are out of....hmmmm I agree with Oversoul?
What's next... do I start to believe in Creationism and Ralph Nadar as a politician? :D
 
M

Melkor

Well-known member
But if a common is no good, then who cares? They are supposed to not be that strong. Not to mention that bad commons just sort of go into a box where you never see them again. Bad rares go in your binder to constantly remind you of that wasted 4 bucks.
 
Mooseman

Mooseman

Isengar Tussle
All my cards go in binders.... (The ones that are sorted do)

I don't "buy" cards so price is a non-issue....
 
B

Budget Player Cadet

Guest
I like the idea. GREAT WALL GREAT WALL GREAT WALL GREAT WALL
 
M

Melkor

Well-known member
I don't buy cards either anymore, but I'd say there is still a certain cachet to rares. I remember what it was like opening a "bad pack." Besides that, rares are a lot more likely to have that extra something that makes the card truly worthy of the Hall of Shame because you know that the set designers were trying to make the card useful and powerful, and when they fail it is that much more spectacular. Bad commons are generally just too bland to be worthy in my opinion.
 
Oversoul

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
Mooseman said:
hmmmm I agree with Oversoul?
What's next... do I start to believe in Creationism and Ralph Nadar as a politician? :D
Click to expand...
Um, I'm reading The Blind Watchmaker and I think nuclear power is awesome. I'm a different brand of crazy than either of those. :p
 
Mooseman

Mooseman

Isengar Tussle
Oversoul said:
Um, I'm reading The Blind Watchmaker and I think nuclear power is awesome. I'm a different brand of crazy than either of those. :p
Click to expand...
Nuclear power???? I think I missed the reference in that one......
The Blind Watchmaker..... hmmm... isn't someone on this board a watch repair guy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top