Having Your Voice Heard

[Azerim]

[mention]Sheldon[/mention]
Please, post links to your articles and important updates/questions on /r/EDH. If you want better communication, you have to at least try to get your voice heard and /r/EDH is the easiest way to do so. If you don't want to listen to feedback that is generated there - don't. Just post it so many more people can actually hear what you have to say.

[jaishivajai]

I'm quite happy with commander as a format. With the creation of the Advisory group, I think the rules committee is already on the right path. Seeing you post here Sheldon does show a great willingness to take feedback.

I've played commander for about 4 years now. I only play with my friends in casual groups, not at stores. EDH is a very self-correcting format. My friend has been playing "unfun" cards like Mana Short and back to basics. My new EDH friends have been complaining about his play style, as it's very prison based. However, the meta is shifting to target him first to get him out of the game early. The meta self-corrects.

I really haven't had any trouble with cEDH ruining our casual game. If someone busts out a cEDH deck and stomps everyone, they generally have the kindness to switch to a less powerful deck next game. Despite playing with over 40 different people in casual settings, I have yet to encounter a cEDH bully who wants to ruin everyone else's fun.

This may all be different for people who play at stores/official tournaments. All I can say is, if you are playing in a competitive setting, expect competitive play.

I LOVE the command zone's 1-10 power rating scale. I think it can alleviate a lot of the confusion/frustration over people playing "too powerful" or "unfun decks."

In my experience, EDH players want to have fun and want everyone else to have fun too. Let people play their powerful decks and win with them. Then you have fun notifying your playgroup of the power level and turning everyone against the "too strong" player right out of the gate.

I have no complaints, except for the website which you just mentioned is being addressed!

[Sheldon]

@Sheldon
Please, post links to your articles and important updates/questions on /r/EDH. If you want better communication, you have to at least try to get your voice heard and /r/EDH is the easiest way to do so. If you don't want to listen to feedback that is generated there - don't. Just post it so many more people can actually hear what you have to say.

Fair. We don't need to dive in in order to keep people informed.

[Kajarak32]

[mention]Sheldon[/mention]: I have already stated this here before, but I just want to thank you and the RC for everything that you have done, and especially, for everything you are doing right now to better this game for everyone. Seeing you express your views, show that you have read others with responses, and that you plan to continue to cultivate and expand this information to others in better ways has made me more hopeful, understanding, and accepting of you and the RC.

The things you have done for EDH and its community can never be understated, but I think that right now may be some of the best things you've done/are doing thus far.

The creation of the CAG, the improved and continuing improvement of involvement in the community, and continual inward-looking criticisms of what EDH was, is, and will be to you, the RC, and the community as a whole and all its pieces is kind of inspiring. So thank you.

P.S. I (and many others, I'm sure) very much look forward to an updated look of the website and hopefully being able to make it a better home for more of the community. This will go a long way to bettering this game we all love in a lot of ways.

[TheTuna]

Posting news to /r/EDH is a fine idea, but beyond that, I doubt if there's much to be gained by directly engaging the community there. Even by Reddit (and, what's more, by MtG Reddit) standards it's thoroughly toxic and very, very Spikey. Casual players' voices get drowned out very consistently on that board.

[RxPhantom]

Posting news to /r/EDH is a fine idea, but beyond that, I doubt if there's much to be gained by directly engaging the community there. Even by Reddit (and, what's more, by MtG Reddit) standards it's thoroughly toxic and very, very Spikey. Casual players' voices get drowned out very consistently on that board.

Amen. Until Nexus, I felt that Salvation was the last bastion of cordial MtG discussion left on the internet. To say Reddit is toxic is an understatement. It's the sensationalist, inflammatory, mean-spirited stuff that gets all the attention there. It's exhausting to sort through, and nearly impossible to have a coherent discussion.

[lyonhaert]

Well, there's also a big difference in what each platform affords due to the presence of voting features: Reddit is more social media than forum, so performing to an audience is a factor for upvotes. Forums tend to lack such incentivising devices.

[Sheldon]

Before I begin, thanks for making the effort to post this, Sheldon/RC/CAG. It does help quite a bit.

Background on who I am: I'm Kai Sawler (Prooobably better known as Skye, Queen of Dragons online), a level 1 Judge out of Nova Scotia, Canada. I play Casually, at the Mid Power Level, and have a deep interest in both judging, spectating and playing at the cEDH/Competitive level of EDH. I have a foot in both worlds so to speak, so I've seen a lot of discussion coming around since the recent banning and unbanning. I've been playing MTG since January of 2016, and EDH a few months after that. My First deck was the Marath Pre-Con, which eventually turned into Rosheen Meanderer Hydra/Beasts, and eventually I went on to start a Dragon/Draconian collection that now spans about 1000 cards. My cEDH deck of choice is Chain Veil Teferi. Shivan Dragon is my favourite card, and definitely needs to be watched for power level.

EDH, at it's core, is less about a philosophy, or deck-building restriction, and more about the social aspects to me in the casual sense. When I sit down to play a game, I'm not looking for a game, but instead a conversation, to hear about my friends and their days, to hear about the latest MTG news, or who top 8's with what jank recently, etc. EDH for me is a way to talk to my friends, family and community in a /format/ that allows me to be creative. I don't mean to say that EDH itself isn't important, or that I never look for a game for it's own sake. Of course I do, and of course it is! But far and gone my biggest enjoyment of the format is that it is a social one. Even at the competitive level, the passion and interest I can hear from the voices of those playing it makes me happy.

Since the banning, that conversation has turned sour. Whenever a ban or unban happens, the majority of the conversation for a few weeks is always going to revolve around that. "Why would they ban this?" "Finally!" "Ugh, I just got a foil one!!" etc. gets thrown around. But this time seems different. It's the first real time since I started playing that an important card to the competitive community has been banned (Paradox Engine). For me personally, the ban was fine. I don't believe the card is terribly broken at the more casual levels, I've seen it a few times, and normally it either gets removed, or it's more used as a value engine, rather than combo, allowing the user to get a few extra spells from some dorks, or janky combos with tapping artifacts with charge counters. It's never once been an issue. However, at the more competitive levels, the card is a seriously powerful contender. While I do believe the card is safe (albeit potentially dangerous in the wrong hands) on the casual side of the format, it can lead to a lot of degeneracy that I believe the RC doesn't want to allow.

Nearly every conversation has been about the Engine. A lot of people complaining that it makes the cEDH meta even less diverse, a lot of people complaining about losing their entire deck's identity, or a decent about of money due to the bannings. I've even heard more casual players start to become nervous, "I got into EDH so I could avoid bannings in Modern/Legacy effectively killing my investment of a deck.. but it seems like it's here too.". The biggest fear right now is that the EDH player base may divide, which would hurt both sides a lot. But if you're reading this, and you're a player who was unhappy for any reason with the banning, I agree with the RC's decision, and verdict. The Engine was an issue in some circles, and while it may or may not have been in your circle, the bigger picture is important. But that leads to another issue: Every meta/group is different.. so what constitutes the bigger picture?

I believe the RC branching out with the CAG was an awesome step. Not only bringing in more competitive level players, but just getting their tendrils of agony out into the world more, to gather more data. Data is one of the most important things to any format, and especially to those who decide it's bans. Sheldon, you need more data. And with cEDH becoming more popular, even as a primarily casual player myself, cEDH really does matter to the format as a whole. From my understanding, I know you aren't a huge fan of looking into it for data, but the biggest issue that I've seen, is so many players feeling forced to push their power up and up by the community. I don't believe there's a fundamental way to fix that, as competitive players who are spikey (not all, of course) exist, and will consciously or subconsciously do that, with their actions, words, and recommendations. It is my opinion that the RC's best bet is to get ahead of this, and start accepting data, or having large communities with different power levels submit data to them to review.

Personally, I've begun a side project of collecting cEDH data, to better understand the format. Simple data like mulligans, deck lists, win conditions, speed, etc. are all great for any budding or experienced brewer in 60-card constructed formats. And while a multiplayer format such as EDH adds a lot more difficulty to reviewing the data and making informed decisions, I adore the challenge, and spreadsheeting too. If the RC has any interest, I have absolutely no issue at all (and would love to, by the way!) offer the data to them as well as give insight into cEDH's meta, and community's feelings on various cards as they are released. I don't believe the RC should make decisions soly based on cEDH, as that's not the majority of the format, but having that information can be good as more and more groups unfortunately feel the need to push up the power.

I have a lot of respect for you in particular, Sheldon. From Judge Circles, I've heard awesome stories about you. From EDH circles, I've heard interesting deck lists you've piloted. But it is in my opinion that you guys should broaden your information gathering. Even if you ultimately don't use the data, having the data is never a bad thing. While some cEDH players may growl at me for it, as it may put certain cards in the spotlight they would rather not, I believe with the proper amount of data, the RC can make better decisions, and ultimately cause a more wholesome community, without divides or squabbling (or at least, not as much!).

Thanks for reading,
Skye, Queen of Dragons.

Skye, thanks for the well thought-out post. If you don't mind, I'm going to ask for a little more as it regards to data. Data isn't an end to itself, it's a tool. The old axiom "knowledge is power" isn't accurate. The application of knowledge is power. So what I'm wondering here is how you see us applying that data. By your own admission, it's from a limited portion of the entire data pool, so what other data do we include alongside it? Why are we privileging this particular data? When you analyze data to answer a question, you want quantifiable success vectors. I'd like to hear both what questions we should be asking of this data and what the measures we should use to gauge whether or not we've applied it well.

[HoffOccultist]

Skye, thanks for the well thought-out post. If you don't mind, I'm going to ask for a little more as it regards to data. Data isn't an end to itself, it's a tool. The old axiom "knowledge is power" isn't accurate. The application of knowledge is power. So what I'm wondering here is how you see us applying that data. By your own admission, it's from a limited portion of the entire data pool, so what other data do we include alongside it? Why are we privileging this particular data? When you analyze data to answer a question, you want quantifiable success vectors. I'd like to hear both what questions we should be asking of this data and what the measures we should use to gauge whether or not we've applied it well.

Although I'm not Skye, I might hazard a guess that looking at some additional quantitative data from groups outside the RC/CAG, alongside the qualitative and quantitative data the RC/CAG collect, would help provide some potential context to whatever qualitative data and discussions are had with regard to various cards. Obviously, with such a large playerbase as EDH it's going to be hard to have a relevant sample size with any quantitative data, and that becomes an even bigger hurdle when we consider that the best means of gathering that data will either focus on individual groups/experiences or be gathered in ways that introduce additional problems (such as internet-based surveys). That's not to say I don't think the qualitative data isn't important or useful, but I think that importance exists in framing a snapshot of what the format might look like. And this isn't to disparage Skye's work at all--data collection and collation is difficult, time-consuming, and important. But with a format as large and nebulous as EDH, it's a question of whether that data is a wide-enough look at what is going on.

Which is all a roundabout way of saying: I think the RC/CAG should at least look at any data available (whether it comes from MTGO games, or cEDH statistics from games played via webcam on Discord, or surveys done quarterly, or whatever else) as way to check whatever information arises from discussions. But, that said, I'm sure that Skye probably has a much much better idea of what to do with it.

[pokken]

I could definitely see some value in a "game reporting" tool so that anyone could report a game with some data, and just collect a huge pool of games. Number of players, each commander, turn the game ended, who ended it, what level of power did you guys agree about, was it accurate, etc.

The self-reported numbers for modern GP results were exceptionally interesting as I recall.

Might be a worthwhile mtgn project actually, pretty simple form based thing.

[bobthefunny]

I could definitely see some value in a "game reporting" tool so that anyone could report a game with some data, and just collect a huge pool of games. Number of players, each commander, turn the game ended, who ended it, what level of power did you guys agree about, was it accurate, etc.

How do you keep this unbiased though? Self reporting tends to have a large amount of bias from the side of the reporter, since it's a single viewpoint.

That said, I agree we have to start somewhere, otherwise if we just question and shut down every idea, we'll never start with anything.

[SkyeDragonQueen]

Skye, thanks for the well thought-out post. If you don't mind, I'm going to ask for a little more as it regards to data. Data isn't an end to itself, it's a tool. The old axiom "knowledge is power" isn't accurate. The application of knowledge is power. So what I'm wondering here is how you see us applying that data. By your own admission, it's from a limited portion of the entire data pool, so what other data do we include alongside it? Why are we privileging this particular data? When you analyze data to answer a question, you want quantifiable success vectors. I'd like to hear both what questions we should be asking of this data and what the measures we should use to gauge whether or not we've applied it well.

You're very welcome!

I completely agree that the axiom isn't accurate in and of itself, the idea was to acquire data from not only cEDH/High level play, but also data from mid and casual level pods as well. I frequent a lot of discords where EDH games are played via webcam over the internet, and it's sort of a large, global meta. While it, as any meta, doesn't accurate represent the whole world of Commander, it would help to see factors that a smaller subset wouldn't.

Ideally, I'm going to start collecting data including: decklists, alternate commanders (if applicable), mulligan data, turn order, pod winner, victory condition (be it combat, Mechanized production, etc.), as well as any notes the pilots themselves want to give (such as cards that felt out of place in their list, or felt strong in that particular turn/game). The idea behind gathering this data is not only to help provide information to groups such as the RC, but also to the community themselves, so they can more accurately see variables they could be curious about.

The questions I would ask this data in regards to you all, would be along the lines of: "Does X seem to see more play than we would like, given its power in a particular level of play?"; "What would change about this group of decks if X was banned/unbanned?"; "Is this deck/archetype that is being complained about by a vocal audience of EDH see a lot of play, or is it a very uncommonly played deck?". My idea is that it would allow you to gauge audience reaction to certain cards with more information. As an example, with enough varied data through the world, you could've easily seen if Paradox Engine was being abused constantly, or if perhaps it was so underplayed it may not have needed the ban (assuming it was degenerate-based, I mean. This isn't a commentary on that particular card, just a hypothetical).

Data is one of my great joys in life, and while it isn't remotely infallible, when used properly it can provide a lot of great insight for a lot of people, yourselves included (as an aside, I apologize for not directly mentioning anyone but Sheldon. While I seriously appreciate all of you who put in time and effort to strengthen EDH as a whole, I don't know many of you personally, or have heard much about you guys. This is my own fault, not anything to do with you all, but as Sheldon is sort of the public face of the format, that's who I directed this commentary too). Even if you looked at the data itself, and found it unhelpful to making decisions, that itself is helpful, as it means the data gathering can be improved, and expanded/reduced accordingly to better suit both the RC/CAG, as well as the global community.

For the Casual players, they could see if certain commanders are popular, or unpopular, allowing them to make decisions accordingly. I know a remark I hear a lot from the more casual side of play is "I don't want to play a commander who everyone else plays!", and while that's basically impossible (everyone sees a little play, even if it is "STANGG VOLTR0N!"), it can make them feel a bit better in their decisions. In the middle of the pack, where I believe your local meta sits, Sheldon, you could all see if certain cards are being played a bit more for when you expand outside of your direct meta, silver bullets become a little better if you know there's a lot of graveyard-synergy running around. While it's not necessarily for powering up a deck, it can be a comfort to some to know that the Scavenging Ooze they may be hesitant to play won't often be just a bear. All players can benefit from seeing the data, and taking away what they want from it, assuming it's broad enough to encompass that.

I'd also love to know what you all think about this concept. Is there data you believe would truly benefit the RC/CAG, either just personally, or from a decision making standpoint? What sorts of capture points do you think are most important when it comes to this data? While I know some people may use it to try and power themselves up, I believe ultimately it can be used better to simply see the format as a whole. I'm looking at getting this setup with a form submission system (as right now I'm manually adding data into a localized spreadsheet), so it can handle greater amounts of input. The idea is to run similarly to self-reporting from events like GPs, etc. down the road! While Bias can absolutely occur (great point [mention]bobthefunny[/mention]), parsing the data, and allowing it to be more broad, in that it simply reports information on the pod, rather than opinions directly in most cases should help keep that to a minimum.

[Hermes_]

I don't want to be debbie downer but that seems like a path that leads towards EDH becoming an actual DCI sanctioned in the rule book format...and it's going to be biaist against those that don't do anything other than check the site for the new updated ban list,and in my case, that honestly sounds like a lot of extra work, that my play group won't be doing. AFAIK, I'm the only one other than Travor (who Sheldon agreed with on Facebook during the discussion about combos) who takes part in the online forums.

If you're going to go all the way,why not just ask the folks in charge of the DCI reporter software to make changes to accommodate the data gathering you want?

[SkyeDragonQueen]

I don't want to be debbie downer but that seems like a path that leads towards EDH becoming an actual DCI sanctioned in the rule book format...and it's going to be biaist against those that don't do anything other than check the site for the new updated ban list,and in my case, that honestly sounds like a lot of extra work, that my play group won't be doing. AFAIK, I'm the only one other than Travor (who Sheldon agreed with on Facebook during the discussion about combos) who takes part in the online forums.

If you're going to go all the way,why not just ask the folks in charge of the DCI reporter software to make changes to accommodate the data gathering you want?

One of the big reasons I'd rather do this personally, and have it community-driven, over DCI-Sanctioned, is because I don't want the data gathered to be influenced by those that play predominantly at game stores, and not those who play predominantly at home. While those at home are going to have a little extra work to find out about this data gathering, I want as many avenues as possible pulling datastreams in. As it stands, if the DCI were to do this, we'd see a lot more higher level play, and a lot less casual play, simply because the casual players who may not go to the game store wouldn't be submitting information.

I do NOT want this primarily to be a resource to power up decks. I know that a resource like this will cause some amount of that to happen, but I want this to be somewhere anyone, from cEDH to casual to the RC/CAG and perhaps even WotC themselves to be able to look, and learn. Discovery is important in magic, and that's my ultimate goal with this system. At the moment I'm working on, and getting feedback for, a google-form submission to allow players to spend less then five minutes to easily submit a lot of data (thanks Scryfall's API export!). I don't want this to feel like extra work players feel the need to do, but rather something they can do if they'd like, with the "reward" being a broader view into the format, if you want to view it as such.

[FireStorm4056]

From a banlist/rules perspective, I highly disagree with a heavy data-driven approach. Investing in this approach would be a big mistake given the lack of any reliable/accurate dataset or means of data collection. It would require a vast investment of effort just to gather data that is flawed from the start. Then, the analysis likely wouldn't provide any tangible benefits over alternative approaches (or worse, could waste time chasing down false-positives). Note: What I say below specifically applies to EDH only, which is by nature a very social, "pick-up" format with no precedent for logging or reporting decklists, match results, etc. Sanctioned events are completely different, and data is extremely useful there for obvious reasons.

The biggest issue with data collection is that I don't see how this provides any significant insights (relevant to the RC's responsibilities) that cannot already be gathered simply by talking with players / community figures and by keeping an ear-to-the-ground. The philosophy of the RC is to only ban cards when absolutely necessary... in other words, ban particularly egregious cards that are so problematic they are self-evident (no data analysis required). Again, this can be fully achieved simply by maintaining dialogue with a wide variety of people playing at all power levels.

Second, there is no feasible way to collect accurate data in the first place. Huge portions of the community don't even know about the Commander website, much less seek out self-reporting tools such as TappedOut and EDHRec. In theory, these tools (along with the Ranked CEDH match log and the proposed Google Form) could provide a birds-eye view of some unknown subset of the format, but how accurate that view would be is highly questionable (too many sources of bias, as bobthefunny pointed out). Even if EDH were sanctioned it'd still be played "casually and undocumented" all over the place. I'd be seriously surprised if even 25% of EDH players have ever even heard of resources like /r/EDH, Scryfall, etc. much less bother with self-reporting. Remember that we are the "extreme fans" and the great majority of Magic players approach this game far more casually than anyone here.

Third, aggregate data such as winrates, decklists, game duration, etc. doesn't give any feedback as to how players feel. Were the games fun and exciting? Competitive and satisfying? Imbalanced and oppressive? Was there a problem player at the table? It seems to me that most of the format issues and bans/rules concerns relate to factors that don't have anything to do with stats and raw data. So even if you COULD accurately record the stats on every player and every game, you'd still miss out on the most important insights.

Personally I believe focusing on more communication (and better communication) would be a far more fruitful investment of time.

EDIT: To clarify, incomplete data CAN be useful as an anecdotal indicator that grants legitimacy to certain community concerns (e.g. Flash being problematic at competitive levels). But, I don't predict it will "uncover" any major insights that aren't already known.

[SkyeDragonQueen]

From a banlist/rules perspective, I highly disagree with a heavy data-driven approach. Investing in this approach would be a big mistake given the lack of any reliable/accurate dataset or means of data collection. It would require a vast investment of effort just to gather data that is flawed from the start. Then, the analysis likely wouldn't provide any tangible benefits over alternative approaches (or worse, could waste time chasing down false-positives). Note: What I say below specifically applies to EDH only, which is by nature a very social, "pick-up" format with no precedent for logging or reporting decklists, match results, etc. Sanctioned events are completely different, and data is extremely useful there for obvious reasons.

The biggest issue with data collection is that I don't see how this provides any significant insights (relevant to the RC's responsibilities) that cannot already be gathered simply by talking with players / community figures and by keeping an ear-to-the-ground. The philosophy of the RC is to only ban cards when absolutely necessary... in other words, ban particularly egregious cards that are so problematic they are self-evident (no data analysis required). Again, this can be fully achieved simply by maintaining dialogue with a wide variety of people playing at all power levels.

Second, there is no feasible way to collect accurate data in the first place. Huge portions of the community don't even know about the Commander website, much less seek out self-reporting tools such as TappedOut and EDHRec. In theory, these tools (along with the Ranked CEDH match log and the proposed Google Form) could provide a birds-eye view of some unknown subset of the format, but how accurate that view would be is highly questionable (too many sources of bias, as bobthefunny pointed out). Even if EDH were sanctioned it'd still be played "casually and undocumented" all over the place. I'd be seriously surprised if even 25% of EDH players have ever even heard of resources like /r/EDH, Scryfall, etc. much less bother with self-reporting. Remember that we are the "extreme fans" and the great majority of Magic players approach this game far more casually than anyone here.

Third, aggregate data such as winrates, decklists, game duration, etc. doesn't give any feedback as to how players feel. Were the games fun and exciting? Competitive and satisfying? Imbalanced and oppressive? Was there a problem player at the table? It seems to me that most of the format issues and bans/rules concerns relate to factors that don't have anything to do with stats and raw data. So even if you COULD accurately record the stats on every player and every game, you'd still miss out on the most important insights.

Personally I believe focusing on more communication (and better communication) would be a far more fruitful investment of time.

EDIT: To clarify, incomplete data CAN be useful as an anecdotal indicator that grants legitimacy to certain community concerns (e.g. Flash being problematic at competitive levels). But, I don't predict it will "uncover" any major insights that aren't already known.

Absolutely! There's a very good chance this won't help the RC much at all, however I'm still going ahead and gathering it. Even if it ends up being dusty and only glanced at by myself once in awhile, it's something I enjoy and don't mind spending the time doing. However, you bring up some awesome points and considerations for me to include.

I'd been focused on the data points, that I hadn't considered the more social ones in the actual acquisitions! I'll be sure to include social-based questions and gather that insight too, while it'd absolutely be more difficult to catalog and display appropriately, It shouldn't be too bad to gather. Thanks Firestorm! I love feedback, and this is a huge help, seriously!

[cryogen]

I'm going to see if we can automate something like a mini EDHREC for the decklists on this forum. Hopefully that can provide some additional data since not everyone uses that site.

[DirkGently]

Slightly off-topic, but I think in the next commander precon they should print a spell like so:

Well, this got boring
Tribal Sorcery - Eldrazi
Split Second
If you're searching your library, if you're playing a game of commander, you may cast Well, this got boring from your library.
If you're playing a game of commander, you win the game.

Put it in every precon. Make a billion copies. Everyone will be forced to either intentionally self-limit their power level and exclude the card, or enjoy a tedious format of rock paper scissors until they quit out of boredom.

Format saved!

[pokken]

I could definitely see some value in a "game reporting" tool so that anyone could report a game with some data, and just collect a huge pool of games. Number of players, each commander, turn the game ended, who ended it, what level of power did you guys agree about, was it accurate, etc.

How do you keep this unbiased though? Self reporting tends to have a large amount of bias from the side of the reporter, since it's a single viewpoint.

That said, I agree we have to start somewhere, otherwise if we just question and shut down every idea, we'll never start with anything.

I am not sure but I suspect that if it were to get popular enough (>100 regular users) it would be mostly self-correcting. There are so many different potential biases at play (forum users are older, forum users are more casual, people likely to report are different) that I think you'll wind up with a decent cross spectrum of the population.

The real problem is getting people to use it with the volume necessary to be meaningful

[SkyeDragonQueen]

I could definitely see some value in a "game reporting" tool so that anyone could report a game with some data, and just collect a huge pool of games. Number of players, each commander, turn the game ended, who ended it, what level of power did you guys agree about, was it accurate, etc.

How do you keep this unbiased though? Self reporting tends to have a large amount of bias from the side of the reporter, since it's a single viewpoint.

That said, I agree we have to start somewhere, otherwise if we just question and shut down every idea, we'll never start with anything.

I am not sure but I suspect that if it were to get popular enough (>100 regular users) it would be mostly self-correcting. There are so many different potential biases at play (forum users are older, forum users are more casual, people likely to report are different) that I think you'll wind up with a decent cross spectrum of the population.

The real problem is getting people to use it with the volume necessary to be meaningful

I can tell you that I've got a largish group (Both the PlayEDH and a personal server on Discord) who are excited to use a form-submission system to submit data. I'm just slowly fleshing out a proper form that covers as many basis as possible, and having people provide feedback in the meantime. I should be ready to show you awesome people it in the next week!

[ev3rywhen]

One of the big reasons I'd rather do this personally, and have it community-driven, over DCI-Sanctioned, is because I don't want the data gathered to be influenced by those that play predominantly at game stores, and not those who play predominantly at home. While those at home are going to have a little extra work to find out about this data gathering, I want as many avenues as possible pulling datastreams in. As it stands, if the DCI were to do this, we'd see a lot more higher level play, and a lot less casual play, simply because the casual players who may not go to the game store wouldn't be submitting information.

Your point here is just to collect as much data on as many games as possible to be representative. This is a fair statement.

I do NOT want this primarily to be a resource to power up decks. I know that a resource like this will cause some amount of that to happen, but I want this to be somewhere anyone, from cEDH to casual to the RC/CAG and perhaps even WotC themselves to be able to look, and learn. Discovery is important in magic, and that's my ultimate goal with this system.

This is not a fair statement, simply because you cannot control what people do with information once you release it. I think judging from your stance, you're assuming that a resource like this will not cause enough of a 'global arms race' (to use Sheldon's analogy) enough to overcome the benefits, but this is still an assumption. In fact, if we look at what MTGO did for the game - and why WotC suddenly began to restrict the amount of information that is reported from that platform - we may actually hypothesize that the primary effect is an 'arms race.' This is especially true for people who perhaps want to begin their EDH / Commander journey, because they are looking first for guidance on 'what's good' and what's not.

I think that your idea of a more data driven approach is reasonable. My recommendation is think worst-case scenarios when you start trying to plan implementation. Say you get this off the ground and 100% of people use this to power up their decks; what does that mean? Is that good or bad? Would something like this ideally be paired with other created content to be the most effective in achieving your aim of 'discovery'? This will help you craft your solution.

At the moment I'm working on, and getting feedback for, a google-form submission to allow players to spend less then five minutes to easily submit a lot of data (thanks Scryfall's API export!). I don't want this to feel like extra work players feel the need to do, but rather something they can do if they'd like, with the "reward" being a broader view into the format, if you want to view it as such.

Without seeing your solution, I can definitively state uptake will depend on ease of use. We can treat the development of your solution like any other design problem, which generally means you're going to have a few segments of users ranging from the highly self-motivated users who will report every game to the apathetic ones. Ease of use is 100% relevant but without seeing your solution or how you're whiteboarding all of this out, I can't comment in specificity.

I will say that the use of a carrot to drive adoption - basically, offering the data as incentive to opt-in - is probably not a good idea for at least two reasons. One, it goes against your core idea of discovery, especially for new players. Two, you'll need to govern rules on how many periodic submissions are required to 'opt in'; otherwise, many people will just submit once and stop (which limits your data pool, which limits the power of your solution).

Hope this helps.

[SkyeDragonQueen]

...
Your point here is just to collect as much data on as many games as possible to be representative. This is a fair statement.

...
This is not a fair statement, simply because you cannot control what people do with information once you release it. I think judging from your stance, you're assuming that a resource like this will not cause enough of a 'global arms race' (to use Sheldon's analogy) enough to overcome the benefits, but this is still an assumption. In fact, if we look at what MTGO did for the game - and why WotC suddenly began to restrict the amount of information that is reported from that platform - we may actually hypothesize that the primary effect is an 'arms race.' This is especially true for people who perhaps want to begin their EDH / Commander journey, because they are looking first for guidance on 'what's good' and what's not.

I think that your idea of a more data driven approach is reasonable. My recommendation is think worst-case scenarios when you start trying to plan implementation. Say you get this off the ground and 100% of people use this to power up their decks; what does that mean? Is that good or bad? Would something like this ideally be paired with other created content to be the most effective in achieving your aim of 'discovery'? This will help you craft your solution.

...
Without seeing your solution, I can definitively state uptake will depend on ease of use. We can treat the development of your solution like any other design problem, which generally means you're going to have a few segments of users ranging from the highly self-motivated users who will report every game to the apathetic ones. Ease of use is 100% relevant but without seeing your solution or how you're whiteboarding all of this out, I can't comment in specificity.

I will say that the use of a carrot to drive adoption - basically, offering the data as incentive to opt-in - is probably not a good idea for at least two reasons. One, it goes against your core idea of discovery, especially for new players. Two, you'll need to govern rules on how many periodic submissions are required to 'opt in'; otherwise, many people will just submit once and stop (which limits your data pool, which limits the power of your solution).

Hope this helps.

It does, thanks!

While I agree that I can't control what the players, or other entities do with the information, I'd prefer it not be used primarily as that resource. Ultimately, without only allowing certain information through, which I won't do as it would result in a lot of bias on my part, it's going to be used by people each in their own way, and that may have to be exactly what I aim for.

At the moment, the form is a multi-section google form with simple drop down menus. It'd take 3-5 minutes, assuming any additional notes or information is fairly minimum, to get through. While it'd be difficult to drive any real interest in the use of it beyond those who want to view the information, I completely agree with your assessment. My main focus right now is to ensure as much information as possible can be submitted easily, and is parsable after the fact to allow for quick transfer into a Spreadsheet, or other easily viewable medium. Once that, and feedback shows that it's working, is complete, my focus is going to shift entirely on adoption by the masses where possible.

[Rumpy5897]

It would be nice if the data harvester also accepted deck lists hosted online as part of the input of game info... if I'm even understanding this thing correctly. As optional input, obviously, but still.

[ev3rywhen]

At the moment, the form is a multi-section google form with simple drop down menus. It'd take 3-5 minutes, assuming any additional notes or information is fairly minimum, to get through. While it'd be difficult to drive any real interest in the use of it beyond those who want to view the information, I completely agree with your assessment. My main focus right now is to ensure as much information as possible can be submitted easily, and is parsable after the fact to allow for quick transfer into a Spreadsheet, or other easily viewable medium. Once that, and feedback shows that it's working, is complete, my focus is going to shift entirely on adoption by the masses where possible.

I look forward to seeing the sheet and being able to provide more thoughts.

One idea that came to mind is that you may not need to be as comprehensive as possible regarding what data collect. We already know that EDHREC exists, for instance, and while there are problems with its scale vis-a-vis all players, reinventing the wheel is probably not optimal as well. Instead, it may be good to use this sort of form to collect a different kind of data.

For instance, what if instead of exploring a 3-5 minute survey, you focus on a 30s-1min survey that collects the following key data - 1) number of players, 2) winning commander, 3) win condition (i.e. combat damage, common 2-card combos or interactions, etc.), and 4) most impactful cards in that game (i.e. the 'cards that the players remember the most'). This sort of short-form survey may be more a better solution as it collects data that literally no one else is collecting (i.e. 'how players are winning') and synergizes very well with established resources like EDHREC. As an aside, pair it with a well-designed app (and what, Command Knight's life tracker?) and you have the makings of an interesting platform.

Just a thought.

[SkyeDragonQueen]

It would be nice if the data harvester also accepted deck lists hosted online as part of the input of game info... if I'm even understanding this thing correctly. As optional input, obviously, but still.

Already included! So far the data includes:

Date, Banlist (while the proper banlist is of course the one we're most interested in, I included this option in case we did get a few others sneaking in), power level, venue, turn order, each players commander, mulligan, commander tax, decklist submission (optional), winner, win condition, sections to allow both the victor(s) and those who were defeated to submit thoughts on the game as a whole (as well as an optional email they can send these responses to, if they feel uncomfortable revealing said thoughts to the entire pod), as well as general feedback. It currently supports 2-6 players (with a simple paragraph input if more players were in the game). I'll include the link here (I hope that's okay, if not let me know!) for anyone who wants to see it, and possibly use it. I won't officially unveil it to the entire public (it is available on a few discords as a testing barrage) until the majority of feedback is positive however.

https://forms.gle/TRQWchymN97LxEdDA - Link to the Google Form page

I definitely agree that having it as an additional information bubble to compare and compliment other resources (like the aforementioned EDHRec in @[mention]ev3rywhen[/mention]'s comment) would be fantastic. I'm hoping the form isn't too long already, but I'd love to have as much information collected as possible.