Talkin about rule 0

[Hermes_]

In Sheldon's article from last week Top Ten Tips For Navigating Rule 0 https://articles.starcitygames.com/prem ... ng-rule-0/

He discusses rule 0 and offers tips from members of the CAG.

As, I don't travel and have a fixed group,that rarely sees new people we don't really talk about rule 0.

[BaronCappuccino]

I like the "what non 7 power level is everyone playing?" question. 7 is the Goldilocks answer most appropriate, logically, for that 75% ethos that people fall into when their attempt at a 100 loses to a precon. It's the thought free answer.

[Treamayne]

I mostly play online, where WotC has made rule 0 obsolete in MTGO (chat used to open when the table was made, before the game was launched, now the game chat doesn't open until after the game has launched - too late to discuss anything or possibly switch decks)

*******

In paper, in addition to simply talking about the games I like (fun is more important than winning, interaction is more important than board state) and games I don't enjoy (race to combo, reset-every-10-permanents, or multi-player solitaire (through resource denial/stax/20 minute durdle turns)) I will usually print out a deck synopsis to take with me and let the players vote on which deck they want to see (verbally, or marking the paper as it goes around the table).

The synopsis isn't very detailed, just something simple like:

I have three decks with me tonight, please vote for which you would like to see this game:

Gahiji, Honored One - Beast tribal
- Mid-range stompy deck
- Token Sub-theme
- Notable cards: Fetches and shocklands, Mana echoes, Lurking Predators, Godsire, Grave Sifter, Beastmaster Ascension

Ghave, Guru of Spores Fungus tribal
- Saproling Token Swarm
- Minor sac-for-profit subtheme
- Notable Cards: Tainted and Temple lands, Vault of the Archangel, Skullclamp, Corpsejack Menace, Black Market, Reprocess
- Notable Absence: No proliferate, no doubling season

Garza Zol, Plague Queen Vampire Tribal
- Midrange Aggro-Control
- Proliferate Subtheme (Sengir themed Vampires)
- Notable Cards: Storage and Tainted Lands, Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx, Olivia Voldaren, Mephidross Vampire, Blood Tribute, Inexorable Tide, Astral Cornucopia
- Notable Absences: no counterspells, Sanguine Bond, or Captivating Vampire

I mention cornerstones of the mana base to give a reflection of the types of land the deck is running. I choose cards to "note" to give an idea of the kinds of cards I am running (not the strongest cards in the deck, just 4-5 that are representative). If I feel there may be concerns (e.g. Doubling Season in Ghave) I address their absence up front. Passing this around allows me to easily answer questions they may have and ask them to help me "grade" the decks on whatever power scale they are using.

[DirkGently]

It's not really the focus of the article, but I'd like to reiterate how much I dislike the emphasis Sheldon puts on modifying the rules at your convenience. Many people play in an open environment where it's not really possible to establish "house rules". It's great that some people play with their same friends over and over (although tbh that seems a bit boring after a while, most people I know don't build new decks very often), but that's definitely not an important part of the rules for, in my experience, the vast majority. If someone shows up with, say, an un-commander, I'm usually willing to let them play it. But that would also be true if we were playing an unsanctioned legacy game or whatever. It's not unique to the format. It's mostly just a byproduct of people being people, and people are usually ok with other people coloring outside the lines in a casual format.

IDK, he says a lot of stuff that makes me feel like he doesn't think LGS play is "normal" commander it always annoys me.

Anyhoo...

10) Sure, though I haven't really seen that be that big of a deal personally. At least not for me. I have had opponents who are clearly operating a different scale, where a commander precon is a 7 and a modified precon is a 10, and I usually try to figure that out and recalibrate my own deck appraisal accordingly. "I'm playing Atraxa." they say. "Ok, my deck is decent, it's like a 7. Are you playing...superfriends?" I ask. "What's that? I bought this yesterday and I put in my favorite card, mind funeral! Now it's very good, it's like a 7," they say. "Oh uh...yeah my deck is pretty strong," I say, correcting myself.
9) Can't say I like the "show your deck" approach. I have a hard time rating anyone else's deck without meticulously taking it apart, looking at the curve, synergies, reverse engineering their game plan, etc - way more time than is reasonable. And yeah, if there are notable cards to be aware of, I'm probably not going to forget them even from a glance. I'd assume the same is true from my opponents. I also have a tendency to include very powerful cards, being used non-optimally in my decks, which could easily give the impression that my deck is more powerful than it is (though he does bring this up later).
8) I've been guilty of this. I'm working on it.
7) I agree, but it also makes #9 all the more impossible.
6) Sure, I often switch decks between games. If I win I'll often pick something lower-powered for the next one.
5) I like what he says about a meta-goal, and I agree. As before, this is something I sometimes struggle with and am working on.
4) I can't say I have this luxury. I wish I did - plenty of games I sit down, look at the commanders, and think "ugh, this is not going to be fun". Even at my current LGS where there are often as many as 5 commander games going at once, though, if you decline to play with the open table, it could be an hour before you get another chance. I have no idea what the fix for this is, though. But it's probably lower starting life.
3) This feels pretty "no duh" to me. Does anyone think their deck is a 10 just because it can generate incredible power on turn 15? Generally the FIRST thing people talk about, when defining power, is how quickly a deck can win.
2) This one feels kinda repetitive at this point but sure.
1) I can't say I've generally had a problem with this personally. If someone is playing a powerful deck, usually they either tell me or I can sniff it out pretty quickly. For most potentially scary commanders I know some of the most powerful synergy cards and can gauge power levels off whether or not they're including them. "You're playing Zur, are you playing necro? contamination? vanishing?", "you're playing Niv, are you playing any curiosity variants?", "You're playing Anje, are you playing WGD?" etc.

[materpillar]

I disagree pretty hard with "7. Individual Cards Don't Imply Power Levels". It's kinda true. However is someone is running dual-lands they've probably either a) randomly really rich or b) have been playing magic for a very long time. It's almost always b. Even if they're running really janky jank deck, their deck probably has tons of really strong synergies, is generally constructed better and will be piloted better than someone who isn't running dual-lands. Obviously exceptions happen but the more money I see someone drop on the table turn 1-3 the more likely I am to murder them first.

This seems to become only more true year by year as many of the extremely powerful staples climb in price and are no longer easily acquired by newer players. I mean Cyclonic Rift is like $20. Some people just have better things to do with their money and that card basically improves any blue deck that isn't in a very competitive meta.

If someone goes Forest, windswept heath into Taiga → alpha Grizzly Bears. You better believe I'm going to be waaaaay more concerned about that player than someone who goes Rugged Highlands, Forest → Grizzly Bears.

[cryogen]

I disagree pretty hard with "7. Individual Cards Don't Imply Power Levels". It's kinda true. However is someone is running dual-lands they've probably either a) randomly really rich or b) have been playing magic for a very long time. It's almost always b. Even if they're running really janky jank deck, their deck probably has tons of really strong synergies, is generally constructed better and will be piloted better than someone who isn't running dual-lands. Obviously exceptions happen but the more money I see someone drop on the table turn 1-3 the more likely I am to murder them first.

This seems to become only more true year by year as many of the extremely powerful staples climb in price and are no longer easily acquired by newer players. I mean Cyclonic Rift is like $20. Some people just have better things to do with their money and that card basically improves any blue deck that isn't in a very competitive meta.

If someone goes Forest, windswept heath into Taiga → alpha Grizzly Bears. You better believe I'm going to be waaaaay more concerned about that player than someone who goes Rugged Highlands, Forest → Grizzly Bears.

If someone drops an Alpha Grizzly Bears period I'm not going to target them at all because I want to see whatever awesome jank brew they have.

[Sinis]

However is someone is running dual-lands they've probably either a) randomly really rich or b) have been playing magic for a very long time. It's almost always b.

I would say this is a threat assessment thing, rather than a power level thing, though. Part of how I assess player threat is their apparent technical ability, their political ability, as well as their card choices. You're describing a player that is probably technically adept, and that is a factor.

[pokken]

I always just have a general conversation and make sure we're not playing CEDH and try to pick a deck that looks like it'll go with what I know about the people I'm playing with. If I don't know them I usually start with Ephara and if that's too strong I downgrade.

If anyone self-identifies as playing complete jank or a precon or whatever I'll usually scale down to one of the weaker golos decks (red, black, white).

I don't find it all that difficult; the most common 'rule 0' question I get is "are you okay with proxies?" which I always am these days.

One thing I don't mind is having a bad game, and I think not minding having a bad game now and then is part of what makes me so easy going about the whole rule 0 thing. If someone tromps the table with winter orb or whatever I can scale up for next round or ask them to dial it back next round. I usually play a set of 2-3 games with the same people so having a bad one isn't the end of the world.

The one thing I was not a huge fan of in the article was that specifically discussing how it's better to not have a game than have a bad time -- it's true, but a lot of that is your attitude. I just have a fun time enjoying other people's decks and socializing if a game isn't going well for me and then do something different next game.

[MrMystery314]

I imagine most people have the basic decency to, during a game, understand if re-calibration is needed for the next round. Whether that means "when we said casual but decent decks, I assumed that Atraxa superfriends would be fine because its only win condition is getting a gajillion planeswalkers on the battlefield, but clearly that's OP for this pod, I'll take out my jank deck next time" or "when we said 'not competitive,' I assumed that to mean jank, not 'optimized but not competitive in the current metagame,' I need to pull out my Atraxa deck that I thought would be too good so I have a fighting chance," most people should be able to recognize when changes need to be made from initial assumptions. Speaking from my personal experience, most people's deck construction processes are "pick good cards I have and a commander I like and work from there," where if one person's deck ends up being the MVP of the table they get ganged up on while everyone soups up their present decks. Granted, these are generally quick pickup games between draft rounds, not intensive affairs, so there isn't the assumption that one game with a mismatched power level will sour the experience beyond merely having a bit of extra time before the next round. It's rare that people only have one chance to play a game together in a session outside of perhaps a tournament setting, and little prevents people mutually agreeing to restart if it's clear that one person is either too far ahead or too far behind after a few turns. There is no need to bottle that rage and suck it up if you are playing in an informal setting; you don't need to force yourself to play through a miserable three-hour long game because three different people decided to show up with group hug pillow fort and have a masochistic fantasy while you are left in the dust.

This process of re-calibration should happen quite quickly if everyone is in agreement; if one person isn't lording in their newfound victory so much that they can't recognize that people want to do something else, or if one person is insisting that everyone weakens their play so their newly-crafted jank deck has a chance to shine, then those too are issues easily recognized and solved. The latter, especially, is a pet peeve of mine, although this generally happens online where people are more willing to be assholes: a room labeled "cEDH" is created, three people show up with let's say Gitrog, Blood Pod, and Derevi, and the last person shows up with Golos good stuff and insists everyone else isn't playing fairly or in a fun way. Some of this may come from a lack of experience, not recognizing three commanders generally considered cEDH or close enough, and then seeing their starts and looking at an opening hand of three guild-gates, an Ash Barrens, and some other random value cards and not realizing they're outgunned. Sometimes many of these games still work out perfectly well—if a cEDH game isn't ending quickly, any deck with the mana to play threats is certainly in the game—but it is quite frustrating when people show up to Top Chef with a Caesar salad and pout when they don't feel like they're having a fun time. The same thing applies conversely too when people refuse to re-calibrate; it's quite frustrating to play in a "relaxed, casual" pod and have someone show up with Zur Doomsday and not think there's something strange with how they won 5 games in a row, although in these cases I personally don't mind too much; if they're being rude about it I certainly do care, but if they're friendly I ask for a game 2, switch to cEDH, and life goes on. Ultimately, a simple conversation and the understanding that there's always room for a game 2 does far more for creating good games than simply a "rule 0" or a philosophy document or series of articles 99% of players haven't read.

[if4ko]

We don't really talk much about Rule 0. Most of my playgroup is very conservative, and most Rule 0 stuff that's been proposed have been to police combos, hate out pet cards, or, in the case of one person, gain a competitive advantage in the group. In 99% of cases, we trust the RC's judgment with regard to the banlist and the hard rules.

The only thing I would propose is to treat "dies triggers" as if they go to the command zone for stuff like Elenda, but that's just the brewer in me taking. The rest really aren't pressing issues - while I'd like to see Flash go and think Oracle is boring, they aren't problems in our optimized meta.

[materpillar]

However is someone is running dual-lands they've probably either a) randomly really rich or b) have been playing magic for a very long time. It's almost always b.

I would say this is a threat assessment thing, rather than a power level thing, though. Part of how I assess player threat is their apparent technical ability, their political ability, as well as their card choices. You're describing a player that is probably technically adept, and that is a factor.

I'd say that threat assessment and power level are inseparable qualities. A huge portion of threat assessment is correctly gauging the powerlevel of the decks at the table in addition to some of the other factors you mentioned. There tends to be a strong correlation between a decks monetary value and its powerlevel. Obviously, monetary value doesn't directly cause a deck to be stronger. Someone could be playing 5 color golos, tireless pilgrim "Alpha Cards Only Tribal" against my Lasav "Quarterbin as few EDH staples as possible" but those decks tend to be more of the exception than the rule. The more pimp and deck, the more likely the deckbuilder has put in repetitions with that deck. Very few people pimp decks that they haven't played a lot and like a lot.

If someone goes Forest, windswept heath into Taiga → alpha Grizzly Bears. You better believe I'm going to be waaaaay more concerned about that player than someone who goes Rugged Highlands, Forest → Grizzly Bears.

If someone drops an Alpha Grizzly Bears period I'm not going to target them at all because I want to see whatever awesome jank brew they have.

This is exactly what I mean. You're assuming that because someone invested an extra $15 to pimp their grizzly bears that they're going to have a more synergistic and therefore powerful deck. This is making guesses about powerlevel based purely on monetary value of cards.

[cryogen]

If someone goes Forest, windswept heath into Taiga → alpha Grizzly Bears. You better believe I'm going to be waaaaay more concerned about that player than someone who goes Rugged Highlands, Forest → Grizzly Bears.

If someone drops an Alpha Grizzly Bears period I'm not going to target them at all because I want to see whatever awesome jank brew they have.

This is exactly what I mean. You're assuming that because someone invested an extra $15 to pimp their grizzly bears that they're going to have a more synergistic and therefore powerful deck. This is making guesses about powerlevel based purely on monetary value of cards.

Quite the opposite. If they pimp out a Grizzly Bears then I want them in the game as long as possible to see what ridiculous deck they have. Because let's get real, it's a Grizzly Bears. But the fact that they lovingly searched out an Alpha one makes it even cooler.

[Airi]

It's not really the focus of the article, but I'd like to reiterate how much I dislike the emphasis Sheldon puts on modifying the rules at your convenience. Many people play in an open environment where it's not really possible to establish "house rules". It's great that some people play with their same friends over and over (although tbh that seems a bit boring after a while, most people I know don't build new decks very often), but that's definitely not an important part of the rules for, in my experience, the vast majority. If someone shows up with, say, an un-commander, I'm usually willing to let them play it. But that would also be true if we were playing an unsanctioned legacy game or whatever. It's not unique to the format. It's mostly just a byproduct of people being people, and people are usually ok with other people coloring outside the lines in a casual format.

IDK, he says a lot of stuff that makes me feel like he doesn't think LGS play is "normal" commander it always annoys me.

I can't say I love the focus on it as a fix-all for how the rules apply, as it doesn't often work if you're not in a set group. I've gotta agree with Dirk on this one.

[schweinefett]

I'm wondering how often sheldon himself actually brings up the rule 0 talk (or other people to him) pregame?

To be honest, i'm all for the idea of being as flexible as possible. If anyone comes to me asking if they can have iona as their general, i wouldn't be the one to say no (at least if the description of the rest of the deck isn't simply "to crush"). It'd be interesting to see what brew they have! I think everyone/every deck should be given at least 1 chance to prove that it's not "that deck" even if it doesn't adhere to the "normal" rules of EDH.

But yea, like you say, airi, it's a bit of a cop-out to lean so heavily on the rule-0 as a fix-all.
It might be better to make unofficial "subformats" that legitimise some of the more popular house rules (like cmd zone as a death trigger, 30-life, and so on).

Also, my most budget-heavy deck i have also happens to be the least competitive. It even loses to my zedruu voltron deck. Just 'cuz ive been playing the game for a long time and happen to have a very good manabase in a deck really doesn't also mean that the deck is super strong. Though i can definitely see how a turn 1 play of misty rainforest into badlands into salvage drone can seem extremely scary (with lord of tresserhorn as boss).

[DirkGently]

Though i can definitely see how a turn 1 play of misty rainforest into badlands into salvage drone can seem extremely scary (with lord of tresserhorn as boss).

I do find it scary when my opponent fetches an impossible dual off his fetch, and then uses it to generate the wrong color of mana :laugh:

I highly doubt the death trigger thing could ever be anything except a house rule. As a house rule it's kind of workable, but trying to make it work in the comp rules seems borderline impossible without making big changes to how the CZ works.

[schweinefett]

Though i can definitely see how a turn 1 play of misty rainforest into badlands into salvage drone can seem extremely scary (with lord of tresserhorn as boss).

I do find it scary when my opponent fetches an impossible dual off his fetch, and then uses it to generate the wrong color of mana :laugh:

I highly doubt the death trigger thing could ever be anything except a house rule. As a house rule it's kind of workable, but trying to make it work in the comp rules seems borderline impossible without making big changes to how the CZ works.

haha whoops. I meant whatever that UB dual was. underground sea was the name! haha my bad. I'm getting old.

To be honest, like you say, 'fixing' the death trigger rule would be a pain, and the payoff wouldn't really be worth it. I think there's a much higher chance that there will be legendary creatures with the clause "when ::cardname:: dies or enters the command zone...." being printed in the near future.
That being said, if someone asks for it to be house-ruled for that game, i wouldn't be against it. It's a house-rule that, even if it's not easy to fix in the comp rules, everyone sorta gets how to fix it in practice.

If you were referring to the lord of tresserhorn deck, i the death trigger is on every other creature in the deck, but not on tresserhorn. The only synergy the deck has is that when i gotta sac stuff to tresserhorn, i get something positive from it. Like i say, it's a really really bad deck.

[materpillar]

If someone drops an Alpha Grizzly Bears period I'm not going to target them at all because I want to see whatever awesome jank brew they have.

. . .

Quite the opposite. If they pimp out a Grizzly Bears then I want them in the game as long as possible to see what ridiculous deck they have. Because let's get real, it's a Grizzly Bears. But the fact that they lovingly searched out an Alpha one makes it even cooler.

Forest, windswept heath into Taiga → alpha Grizzly Bears makes you respond with the assessment that you'll be playing against an "awesome jank brew" or a "ridiculous deck" and that they likely "lovingly searched out an Alpha one".

Rugged Highlands, Forest → Grizzly Bears merits no analysis of note.

Your threat assessment of these two hypothetical decks based on this opening play (in which the only difference is monetary value ignoring potential fetchland synergies) is noticeably different. You're assessing that, at the bare minimum (lul), the alpha Grizzly Bears deck has had more time and thought put into their deck than than the stock Grizzly Bears deck. Unless the deckbuilder is intentionally weakening his deck, more time and thought usually results in a more powerful deck.

[cryogen]

. . .

Quite the opposite. If they pimp out a Grizzly Bears then I want them in the game as long as possible to see what ridiculous deck they have. Because let's get real, it's a Grizzly Bears. But the fact that they lovingly searched out an Alpha one makes it even cooler.

Forest, windswept heath into Taiga → alpha Grizzly Bears makes you respond with the assessment that you'll be playing against an "awesome jank brew" or a "ridiculous deck" and that they likely "lovingly searched out an Alpha one".

Rugged Highlands, Forest → Grizzly Bears merits no analysis of note.

Your threat assessment of these two hypothetical decks based on this opening play (in which the only difference is monetary value ignoring potential fetchland synergies) is noticeably different. You're assessing that, at the bare minimum (lul), the alpha Grizzly Bears deck has had more time and thought put into their deck than than the stock Grizzly Bears deck. Unless the deckbuilder is intentionally weakening his deck, more time and thought usually results in a more powerful deck.

Actually, my threat assessment was more focused on "This player is a) using Grizzly Bears in a Commander deck, and b) loves the deck so much that they blinged it out with one from Alpha - ergo I want to see this deck in action" rather than the two potential lines of play which arrived are basically the same end result and the threat assessment of each line.

I see the confusion or disagreement here, you were more focused on expensive line to Grizzly Bears vs more expensive line to GB, whereas I was more focused on the end result of GB in general.

I also think part of the issue is the choice of card in general. Grizzly Bears are a vanilla 2/2 for 2 mana, of which there is an entire archetype built around that stat (hatebears). So you show me a GB in your deck and I already arrived at the conclusion that you're either playing bear tribal, intentionally weakening your deck for a theme, or are a new player with a limited collection.

[MrMystery314]

Back on topic, I do agree that relying on a rule which best applies to recurring playgroups (who easily have the means to house rule things without being told to) is somewhat of a cop-out, especially when many people play at all power levels in FNM settings or at higher levels of competition, or places like online where you come across as extremely salty if in the middle of a game you say "well, actually, that's too good". Some of the issue is that, as spoken about at great length before, people are extremely bad at judging not only their own power levels, but objective standards of what is "competitive". Decks I've played or seen played at various points that people on Untap have called "cEDH":
-Sen Triplets "steal everything"
-Atraxa superfriends
-Golos lands
-Yarok value
-Meme Grusilda Worldgorger (although to be frank, switch Grusilda as the commander for Kroxa and it would be close enough to the established list)
-Kaalia big creatures (not even any heavy Worldgorger or stax plan besides "oh look, there's Avacyn")
-Skyfire Kirin mono-red chaos control, with the classic win condition of "wait until everyone else concedes out of frustration"

Perhaps Untap is just a distillation of everything that is wrong with Commander as a whole, but what this is reflective of is that rule 0, or any other inherent regulation mechanisms, relies on some sort of shared understanding of power level. It's going to be quite hard to convince the one outlier in the group that counterspells and combos shouldn't be banned simply because they refuse to put them in their decks and they had one game where someone reanimated Sheoldred on turn 2 and that made them sad, or the converse, that "it's not cEDH means it's casual" may be technically correct, but not the popular opinion. Given these sorts of contradictions in mindset, it's altogether unreasonable to assume that people will be able to come to a common consensus of what to house-rule or what not to. Personally, if someone were to ask me if they could play some banned card or Un-whatever commander, I'm liable to say yes out of curiosity, but as DirkGently said earlier, that's not a triumph of Rule 0, that's just being courteous to someone who's clearly spent some time trying to do something unconventional.

The truth remains, even if "the spirit of the format" is being balanced around casual play with friends over chips and beer, that's an environment where casual changes to rules (or the strict lack thereof) is the norm; nowadays, plenty of people play in environments out of necessity where that isn't the case, and it seems short-sighted to force them to contort how they play to fit a perfect ideal. I guess an analogy could be playing pick-up basketball games, generally quite a casual activity; as much as people are free to come up with their own rules when playing solely with friends, outside of that bubble the vast majority of people align themselves with a common rules framework where a minority can't easily insist people not do maneuvers they don't like, or a majority who has adopted house rules to force random strangers to join in what they perceive to be fun.

I'm wondering how often sheldon himself actually brings up the rule 0 talk (or other people to him) pregame?

I imagine Sheldon plays with the same, relatively constant group of people, all of whom have self-selected to view the format and which plays are improper despite being legal by he book in a similar way. As I believe he's mentioned in some of the other firestorms of threads around here, if he's in an unfamiliar environment where people play in a way he's not OK with, he leaves. I would assume based on that there's little talk beyond a vague indication of "is your deck a 7 or higher?". Players are lazy; I can't imagine the majority want to play show and tell before the game starts to sniff out any hints of synergies or cards the other players don't like. If I were at a GP where I brought let's say my Blood Pod deck, which has the fun property where despite being "cEDH," due to being tuned against those sorts of decks it's not particularly dominant at "75%" or lower tables unless nobody is playing any relevant cards, I'd probably get up and leave if it were clear a pod wanted to spend more time haggling over numerical scales rather than playing at a high level. I see nothing wrong with the mindset of "get up and leave" if in a situation like a GP where you have practically infinite choice. I do have an issue with that mindset in smaller settings where you can't self-select and your version of fun is in the minority. Players don't like being told they can't play. Even if I brought a more casual deck by my definition, something like mono-red chaos/stax (clearly not matched with competitive play unless I play something like Confusion in the Ranks turn 1 and everyone's made even), and we started playing a bit under the assumption that everyone's playing decent but not OP decks, and someone left because of MLD or chaos, I'd be annoyed. When those discussions happen before games begin, it's annoying for some, but people can self-select. During the game, when it's brought to light that one person's definition of "casual" is "not cEDH" and the other person's definition is "no cards I don't like," it's an asshole move.

This is certainly an argument for more in-depth conversations before games, but that runs into the dilemma of what those conversations look like in practice. A theoretical example:
"Hey guys, anyone up for some EDH?"
"Sure!"
"What power level are we looking at playing today?"
"I guess casual?"
"Be more specific."
"Uh, not competitive?"
"So is that like 'don't play Flash Hulk,' or what did you mean?"
"Well, I guess, not cEDH?"
"So combos are OK?"
"If it's not like Flash Hulk or Doomsday or something like that, I guess why not?"
"But combos aren't fun."
"So I guess no combos of any kind? Or just directly game-winning combos? What else is fine?"
"Just don't play anything that ruins the game. We all came here to have fun."
"What does that mean?"
"Don't play anything that ruins other people's fun or is just mean."
"Who is supposed to judge that?"
"You know what I mean."
And so on and so forth.
Certainly that's exaggerated a bit, although it does ring a bit too close to home for me, but it's quite hard to come to a consensus if everyone involved doesn't agree to some degree beforehand, especially if one person believes far more strongly in their side than the others. In most situations people cannot simply convince others of their personal opinions being right if they're in the minority, and those against infinites and stax and MLD, or those staunchly for them, aren't going to change their minds just because everyone else in the store disagrees. In the eternal words of Professor Oak, "there is a time and place for everything, but not now".

[schweinefett]

Maybe it's worth (for those peeps who have a hard time defining their terms) making "for funsies" or "test" half-games to be a thing.

So if you're gonna argue about defining terms for more than an arbitrary amount of time, say 1-2 mins, just siddown, shuffle up, play like 2-4 turns or something. It'd probably give everyone around the table a good idea of what everyone's level is, no?

Or maybe you could even shuffle up, and draw the top 10 of your opponent's deck, and just gauge approximate 'competitiveness' from that. If there's a level difference that's massive, then it'd be pretty obvious. Even if the less experienced player is unable/less able to gauge it, the other players would be able to tell it i guess.
And yes, i get that you're gonna lose your top-secret tech in doing so. But hey... It's not a big price to pay for somewhat more fun games, right?

This reminds me of a game that my board game group plays... it's called "lets stare at the game shelf and debate what game to play". Usually goes a half hour before anything gets done.