It was more that the distinction isn't a normal part of the use of the word, so it's a potential subject for confusion. It reminds me of the apocryphal story of two characters arguing over whether a tree falling in the forest when no one is around to hear it (ignoring animals and such for the sake of the argument) will make a sound. One party defines "sound" as the movement of pressure waves and so he says that the tree does produce a sound. The other party defines "sound" as the sensation of hearing and so he says that the tree does not produce a sound. They don't actually disagree about what's happening to the tree. They're thinking differently about what constitutes the word "sound" simply because the word did not evolve with the distinction in mind. It seems that I am defining "broken" to mean generally overpowered, while you are defining it to mean overpowered in a specific format, including the effects of bans and restrictions. So I would call Channel broken, but you apparently would not. I would call Contract from Below broken, but you apparently would not. However, I'm willing to acknowledge that the real problem is that we're thinking of "broken" differently. You seem to want to insist that your definition is the only "right" one. Firstly, Time Vault doesn't take an extra turn by itself. It doesn't do anything by itself. It needs mana from other cards to come into play, and those count as interactions. That's why I asserted that Dryad Arbor is the only card that does anything by itself. But saying that no card is broken is pushing the concept to an absurd level where all of the countless times I've heard players call cards broken, they had to be wrong because they weren't specifying interactions. Secondly, taking an extra turn is pretty powerful and not necessarily "fine" if it's undercosted. I don't doubt that you have. But it's certainly not what I've always said. And it's not what I've usually encountered. I've seen cards described as broken far more often than combos. What? You mean as a consequence of banning or restricting individual cards? Who died and made you the arbiter of slang? But that doesn't mean that my take on the distinction is wrong and that yours is right. Sure, they're mutually exclusive, but I maintain that the problem is in the evolution of the word itself.