Having Your Voice Heard

[ElectricTuba]

I think the crux of the issue is that there are lots of players out there who love crushing casual games with high/max power decks, and if you put one of those people in a game with three casual decks at a LGS, they can and will ruin the game for everyone else. As Sheldon himself has said, the cEDH decks can tyrannize lower power-level games if they leak, but the lower power-level decks can't do the reverse, which creates a power imbalance with a magnetic pull towards the cEDH end of the spectrum in order to survive.

Frankly, I do think splitting the format and codifying cEDH as its own entity makes a lot of sense.

These people will exist no matter how many format splits there are. cEDH players look down on pubstompers just as much as casual players, they make us all look bad even if they vast majority of people abhor that kind of game. Pubstomping is a people problem, not a deck problem. Split the format, and jerks will just pubstomp with the new best "regular" edh deck.

[Spleenface]

I think the crux of the issue is that there are lots of players out there who love crushing casual games with high/max power decks, and if you put one of those people in a game with three casual decks at a LGS, they can and will ruin the game for everyone else. As Sheldon himself has said, the cEDH decks can tyrannize lower power-level games if they leak, but the lower power-level decks can't do the reverse, which creates a power imbalance with a magnetic pull towards the cEDH end of the spectrum in order to survive.

Frankly, I do think splitting the format and codifying cEDH as its own entity makes a lot of sense.

Do you think that splitting would alleviate this? I have yet to see any game with where pubstomping is possible that has 0 pubstompers. The idea that splitting would solve this essentially rests on the following absurd proposition:

The people deliberately crushing casual games with competitive decks are doing so because they genuinely don't know not to, and not because they like winning and it's easy.

[Jim Wolfie]

I'm going to ignore the idea of a bad faith actor here because I don't think that conversation leads anywhere productive.

That Reddit post is basically saying that if you draw a line in the Sand, they're on the side of the RC. The context here is that theyre assuming the RC isn't making a format split. It doesn't matter if anyone random does it because public venues aren't going to respect their authority. Before you go championing a format split, what do you think it says if the RC codifies cedh and casual edh in explicit no uncertain terms?

In my opinion it would be confirmation and reiteration of every single complaint levied in this thread.

[Styrofoam]

I think this conversation would be seen very differently if instead of thinking of cEDH as its own format, it is simply seen as Commander at a very high power level.

I believe the vast majority of cEDH players play cEDH for the same reasons people play Commander - a casual, multiplayer game type. The only difference is that one group wants to play with very powerful cards they can't play in other formats, or love trying to find optimal lines in extremely complex and interactive games.

This version of fun is no more or less fun than 80 turn games of battlecruiser magic, but cEDH players are constantly told that our way to play is wrong, worse, or degenerate. People loving max power decks doesn't mean we want to invade low power groups... Where's the fun in beating Ladies Looking Left with shuffle hulk?

I think the crux of the issue is that there are lots of players out there who love crushing casual games with high/max power decks, and if you put one of those people in a game with three casual decks at a LGS, they can and will ruin the game for everyone else. As Sheldon himself has said, the cEDH decks can tyrannize lower power-level games if they leak, but the lower power-level decks can't do the reverse, which creates a power imbalance with a magnetic pull towards the cEDH end of the spectrum in order to survive.

Frankly, I do think splitting the format and codifying cEDH as its own entity makes a lot of sense.

The cEDH people I play with prefer playing together against other cEDH decks. The fun isn't just winning, but having healthy competition and playing a good game win or lose. There is no joy in rolling over a bunch of gisath decks that spend 3 turns setting up for big dinosaurs. We can do that by gold fishing in front of our computers watching netflix from home.

Those people do exist, but they are the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. Most cEDH players also believe the social contract is sacred. They just find their fun from being tuned to maximum efficiency. Why is it then, that the people who prefer to be efficient and build and play their decks incredibly optimally get left out in the wind? The answer: It's not okay.

[TheTuna]

I think the crux of the issue is that there are lots of players out there who love crushing casual games with high/max power decks, and if you put one of those people in a game with three casual decks at a LGS, they can and will ruin the game for everyone else. As Sheldon himself has said, the cEDH decks can tyrannize lower power-level games if they leak, but the lower power-level decks can't do the reverse, which creates a power imbalance with a magnetic pull towards the cEDH end of the spectrum in order to survive.

Frankly, I do think splitting the format and codifying cEDH as its own entity makes a lot of sense.

Do you think that splitting would alleviate this? I have yet to see any game with where pubstomping is possible that has 0 pubstompers. The idea that splitting would solve this essentially rests on the following absurd proposition:

The people deliberately crushing casual games with competitive decks are doing so because they genuinely don't know not to, and not because they like winning and it's easy.

There will always be people who want to pubstomp, but I think it would be much easier to police them from an LGS perspective if a formal competitive format existed to push them towards.

[mention]Styrofoam[/mention]
To play devil's advocate on the point of people being left out, if cEDH players are a very small minority of the overall playerbase (I'd be shocked if it's more than 10%, and the 3-6% figure tossed out by Command Zone sounds pretty plausible), is it reasonable to expect the format to consciously cater to them? Nobody would expect Standard to structure its banlist in part around what's ruining the fun of Johnnies bringing jank brews to FNMs.

[rifter2001]

I just want to be able to play noble hierarch in my mono green deck. Or Archangel avacyn in my mono white deck. Whatever comes of this thread, I hope color identity rules get more refined along with the banned list. Maybe a “tournament banned list” is all we need to help guide this ship. Casual EDH can just work off of the gentlemen’s agreement like all other forms of kitchen table magic. It would sure help side events at GPs define what you’re about to play in.

[SkyL]

So, as the guy who made the survey (and in case anyone was wondering, I had zero input from anyone on the RC or CAG in making it, the idea and questions were all my own), I'd like to clarify that question which everyone responded with a 1.

The intent of the question tries to get to the heart of what Sheldon is asking, and would have been better worded like "how much do you feel your voice is heard by the rules Committee?" Unfortunately, as written I think there is a nonzero chance that taken literally, the correct answer IS to score a 1, unless your are one of the 10 RC/CAG members, or quite possibly in WotC R&D.

My suspicion is that the low score was definitely at least in part to players feeling like many of you have vocalized, but there should be at least some level of skepticism as to the validity of that answer.

I think it's more fair to give credit to the comprehension skills of the people answering that question. I personally took that question in the way you wanted me to take it, because interpreting it as a question that is along the lines of "Do you feel the RC takes your opinion into account?" is far and away more sensible than a question like "From 1 to 10, how much do you feel like you're literally a sitting member of the rules committee?" in a serious survey.

If you're that concerned about the authenticity of the data, I suggest a follow-up survey.

[hewhohascake]

@Styrofoam
To play devil's advocate on the point of people being left out, if cEDH players are a very small minority of the overall playerbase (I'd be shocked if it's more than 10%, and the 3-6% figure tossed out by Command Zone sounds pretty plausible), is it reasonable to expect the format to consciously cater to them? Nobody would expect Standard to structure its banlist in part around what's ruining the fun of Johnnies bringing jank brews to FNMs.

Wizards DOES cater to Johnnies, just not through the banlist. Cards like Mirror March, Smothering Tithe, Omniscience, etc, are all very Johnnyish, non-tournament-viable cards, and all of them are in standard - and having them in standard doesn't have an impact on the health of the format! Also, if Wizards were to ban all the meta decks out of existence to allow Johnny playstyles to flourish, those playstyles would shape the new meta decks, causing them to lose the uniqueness that Johnnies are drawn to. If a "jank brew" is the meta, it's no longer jank.

[Styrofoam]

I think the crux of the issue is that there are lots of players out there who love crushing casual games with high/max power decks, and if you put one of those people in a game with three casual decks at a LGS, they can and will ruin the game for everyone else. As Sheldon himself has said, the cEDH decks can tyrannize lower power-level games if they leak, but the lower power-level decks can't do the reverse, which creates a power imbalance with a magnetic pull towards the cEDH end of the spectrum in order to survive.

Frankly, I do think splitting the format and codifying cEDH as its own entity makes a lot of sense.

Do you think that splitting would alleviate this? I have yet to see any game with where pubstomping is possible that has 0 pubstompers. The idea that splitting would solve this essentially rests on the following absurd proposition:

The people deliberately crushing casual games with competitive decks are doing so because they genuinely don't know not to, and not because they like winning and it's easy.

There will always be people who want to pubstomp, but I think it would be much easier to police them from an LGS perspective if a formal competitive format existed to push them towards.

@Styrofoam
To play devil's advocate on the point of people being left out, if cEDH players are a very small minority of the overall playerbase (I'd be shocked if it's more than 10%, and the 3-6% figure tossed out by Command Zone sounds pretty plausible), is it reasonable to expect the format to consciously cater to them? Nobody would expect Standard to structure its banlist in part around what's ruining the fun of Johnnies bringing jank brews to FNMs.

let me put it to you this way: if the cEDH player is playing against 3 other relatively equally powerful decks, and one strategy is constantly the best strategy over and over again... what is to stop that from eventually finding its way to lesser-powered decks in public?

For example, lets say you go to the next magic fest with 2 friends, and have an open spot in your pod and I sit down, where, I flash hulk you on turn 1. Are you gonna be mad? Will you be mad if after I do that, 3 more people sit down and do it to you? The thing is, if things are powerful enough, and game warping enough to get cEDH players to ask for a card to be banned, it's probably better for commander in general ... while that might not always be the case, there are resources to check what style of decks are playing the cards that tend to be problematic.

Like @tstorm pointed out earlier a VERY VERY large portion of decks playing flash, are also hulking. (i'd imagine you can add flashing academy rector to flash/hulk to get to damn near 90% of flash's play) and shows up very rarely in any non-cEDH deck. Conversely, Protean Hulk is seeing a very healthy amount of play without flash. It's clear that a ban of Flash isn't going to hurt the format on either end.

Let me also say, that cEDH players don't want them to bend over backwards to cater to our every request... magic players complain. Modern players, Vintage players, commander players, we all complain about something. The difference is, in Modern, Standard, legacy, at least we feel like we are listened to, or that our experiences matter. With the RC, we are constantly told that we don't matter... but given lip service that all play styles are valid, but they turn right around and tell us how what we are doing goes against what commander is supposed to be. We want the RC to understand that we love this format. And we are trying to enjoy ourselves playing it the way we want to play, but we can't because of ubiquitous problematic cards/strategies...specifically the card FLASH and how it interacts with protean hulk, and we want to be heard, and we want to be included.

The line "We know that flash + hulk is bad. We will not ban it" says "we hear your complaint. We. Don't. Care." and that's not okay.

[FoodChainJack]

I honestly believe that the RC has stuck to its guns. Yes, the bans/unbans feel chaotic, and Sheldon sometimes contradicts himself or his explanations seem to be unreasonable (Iona in reanimator and the Flash/Hulk discussion). I still feel they are coming from the right place. The neat thing about this is how reflective our ban league has been of the RC results the past few years. We had banned Leovold and PE the week prior to each of their respective announcements, but I am not here to discuss that. I am here to be heard!

There has been a lot of good advice come down this thread. I am come from the spectrum of cEDH. My idea of fun is just the same as the RC, I want a game that has power-shifts, come from behinds, a giant battle of spell slinging, and just a great play experience all in all. We just have it in a more streamlined version, where one mistake can cost you the whole game. I absolutely love this dynamic. Though there are a few issues I would like to bring up that personally feel should be looked at.

First is life totals. I feel 40 is too high. As mentioned by Cameron (Lab Maniacs) in the Commander Summit video by the Command Zone. As a spell heavy format, you can easily abuse the life exchange for resources at 40, and I feel constraining that resource(life total) would bring a new dynamic to the format as a whole. It just feels too easy for a greedy Ad Nasueam (it does require to be built around) or 5 color deck choked with pain-lands and fetches, Mana Vaults and Crypts to have perfect mana. The reduction from 40-30 would help constrain greediness as well help give aggro a better chance at closing out a game. Even in heavier("battlecruiser") metas combat is usually closed with some type of Overrun effect to help close out the 120 life-points they have to chew through the course of the game.

Secondly, I would to see some change to how partners. I believe that they are causing some dilution of the deck-building aspect of the game. Having a life linking Phyrexian Arena(tymna) and an Infinite mana sink (Thrasios) as your 8/9th card "in hand" is quite powerful. I am not calling for a ban of either, as I think that feels too easy/lazy. I just think we could find away to handle. The Into the North podcast, suggest that we could add Partner commanders have a combined commander tax or that if you have the keyword Partner you draw one less card in your opening hand. I do like these suggestions, but the issue is over-complicating the game at its core with additional rules. While acknowledging this problem, is do feel changing the tax rule is the easiest remedy to this.

Last issue on the docket for me is the feel that the cEDH community gets the shaft compared to the larger dynamic of EDH players. I understand that we are playing at a level not intended from your original idea, and we don't fit in the scope of the core philosophy. As mentioned earlier it feels there is a crossroad coming and should be addressed. There is so much knowledge already created and compiled from the few tournaments, theory-crafting, play testing done by the likes of the LabManiacs, Spikefeeders, Playing with Power, and the rest of the guys over in the discord. I feel with the combination of the CAG, the RC, and the plethora of information there is a way to work towards a format we all can enjoy.

[tstorm823]

Please stop writing comments like this one:

I'm not demonizing combos here. What's of concern is that when they're the primary win condition, the format devolves. Games need to end at some point, so having a backup plan isn't all that bad. When the nuclear option becomes the first choice, then we get into trouble.

All my Commander decks are combo decks because Commander is the only format where those infinite combos are viable. It's a facet of Magic that can only be experienced by playing Commander. I cannot take the RC seriously when someone on the RC says they're not demonizing combos and then accuses combos - and by extension, me as a combo player - of devolving the format in the very next sentence. You cannot repeatedly present a hostile attitude towards playstyles that don't match your personal preference and expect people to believe you when you say you think people should be allowed to play however they want. It's just not credible.

As someone who uses commander to play infinite combos that aren't even viable in commander, I feel you. And I hope that when you say your combo deck isn't viable in other formats, it's because you're like me, and you're genuinely playing interesting things that are too slow or inconsistent to accomplish in more competitive formats.

But if you're someone playing Flash/Protean Hulk, that's not nonviable, that's just super banned everywhere else. From what you've said, I don't think that's the sort of thing that you're upset about having demonized. I'm sure the Rules Committee is capable of recognizing that combos can exist at different power levels as well.

It's difficult to communicate that distinction when many of the most hated things in the format are infinite combos. It's not hard to understand why they're hated. It's exactly the same reason you can't play your combos in other formats: the strong decks invalidate the weak. You're here so your strategies can be viable, because the rules structures of other formats benefit different styles of decks than what you want to play. Just like in other formats, the rules structure of Commander benefit some styles of play over others. It just so happens that dedicated infinite combo is one of the strategies that gains the most from 40 life multiplayer 100 card singleton.

It's true that you can play a weaker combo deck in Commander, just like you can play a weaker mono-R deck in standard or a weaker graveyard deck in Modern. Every strategy can be played with restraint. But if you were to pick a strategy in Commander to consider "the nuclear option", the "destroy my opponents no matter the cost" option, it would likely be combo or stax. If you are a combo player, it's important for you to recognize that your preferred style of play has that advantage. Commander is not just the last refuge for combo players to play goofy combos. It's also the last refuge for timmy leviathan players, or vorthos theme deck players, etc.

I understand that comment by Sheldon can sound like it's saying "if your favorite win condition is combo, you're not welcome", but I don't think it was meant that way and I don't think you're obligated to read it that way. The truth is that if you're playing a powerful strategy in Commander, especially if you're a dedicated combo player, the responsibility is yours to recognize if what you're doing has become degenerate in a way that makes other people's decks nonviable and then restrain yourself. "I'm not demonizing combos but don't build your deck to go straight for the nuclear option" is not terribly far off that message.

[ClydeBankston]

I think people have to think about cards like the Mike/Trike scale. Against precons Mike;/Trike is op. Against mid power decks it's kinda meh. Against 80%+ you'll be asked to sit in the kiddie pool. If something is op at all three levels then there is kind of a problem.

[NotMyOwlbear]

If there is an action that can have a major positive impact on competitive metas, without any significant effect on other metas, why not consider it?

Not expecting it to be frequent, but every once in a while could be a huge boon if handled carefully.

If cEDH players really wanted another format they could attempt one, but that is far, far from what many if not most want.

Personally, I want fun, interactive games at at a variety of power levels. I want to be able to play my old jank cards sometimes, but I also want to play my old broken or even downright ugly cards against like minded people, without having to feel bad (very important to communicate first!)

For the most part, the format has allowed me to do that, but it could be better if some bridges are built.

EDH and cEDH, when done right, are two sides of the same coin. It will never be a perfect fit, but it has worked, and it can be made better, slowly and carefully.

[papa_funk]

So, and this is solely my opinion, I think it's time to recognize the growing cEDH community and create a separate cEDH type Commander format.

The RC is not the barrier to this. We are, as a group, big proponents of people creating other ways to play. French/Dual commander sprung directly out of a former RC member who wanted a different format. Tiny Leaders was great for the people who enjoyed it. We wish Oathbreaker the best. I think more highly invested players should check out Canlander, which looks like a great design for what it's trying to be.

We're not interested in doing this ourselves (and, honestly, you don't want us doing this; my first instinct to try to get to a balanced format would probably be to go to the Modern cardpool), but you won't see anyone on the RC denigrate someone willing to put the time and effort into making a format they want to play.

[Jim Wolfie]

I mean I play edh because it ticks off a lot of design boxes for good game design and doesn't need an exhaustive banlist to regulate a large card pool because the color limitations and Singleton restrictions are very very good as restrictions. Asking me to go do my own thing and call myself cedh or to go play canlander isn't exactly inspiring.

[Sheldon]

tstorm823 has it right. I'm going to start using the term "fast combo" as opposed to combo and maybe folks will take it as intended. Flash/Hulk is fast combo. Mike/Trike might be if you're tutor/tutor/ramp/ramp/Tooth and Nail. Winning Turn 4 or earlier is fast combo. Assembling a Rube Goldberg device of some kind that five different pieces is by the strictest definition a combo, but isn't what I see as a threat to anything. Combos (tstorm's "goofy combo") are part of Magic. There are combos in my decks (although probably very few infinite ones).

When I say that we're not demonizing combo, what I'm talking about we don't have any problem with combos as a normal part of mid- to late-game progression. What creates an unhealthy format is the devolution into everyone racing to it because some people are doing it and they just want to keep up. I'm struggling to find a better way to articulate the fact that we find it within reasonable bounds of health for the format that combos, even infinite ones, are in decks. Games have to end. What's troubling on a format level--without this being a judgment on anyone who is playing it--is the trend toward choosing the nuclear option as the default. The reason fast combo is troubling on a format level is that it pushes out everything else, because no one has the time to do anything. If that's the way you and your group play, great. If that way of playing were privileged over all others, the format would not be where it is today in terms of global popularity. It would have died long ago.

We can't ignore, however, that there is a contingent of players who do like to play that way. The question is how do we best serve them (or at the very least not alienate them) while not undercutting the kind of player who has carried the format to where it is.

[Sheldon]

And I suppose I should add at the end there "without also creating a 100-card banned list"

[BaronCappuccino]

Commander is a format that works. I wouldn't change the course you've set for running it. If anyone could create the next Commander, they would. People made Tiny Leaders - Tiny Playerbase. WotC made, I can't even remember the name, but it was pretty much Standard Commander, and look how that took off. You've got Duel Commander running out of bullets in its efforts to kill itself by bad decisions. What about Leviathan? Who plays that? Do things your way. Ignore the folks who disagree. It's gotten you this far. If you try to be everything to everyone, you'll be nothing at all.

If I were on the RC, I would suggest moving away from house rules as the grease that keeps a flexible format running smoothly, because players never need anyone's permission to have house rules. I think the default, generic player should be assumed to share your mindset, but shouldn't be assumed the luxury of house rules.

[Jim Wolfie]

I want to point out by the nature of surveys that not everyone who voted 1-3 for you is necessarily outside your vision . I'm sort of assuming that your core demographic cast the majority of your votes.

I don't think the format is going to fall apart just because you don't like something. just stay the course I guess.

[Kemev]

And I suppose I should add at the end there "without also creating a 100-card banned list"

No one reasonably expects this to happen. Someone put it best earlier, "Could we put a ceiling on the format so the people who want to play cEDH can enjoy it?"

It was a mistake to unban hulk. And there is probably a reasonable discussion to have on some of the life-for-card-draw effects, but no one who plays at a low power level is gonna shed tears if Necropotence gets banned.

We're talking about a significant shake-up with just a couple cards getting axed, and again, they're not cards that the bear tribal level player cares about.

[NotMyOwlbear]

The RC has managed to preserve a format that, against all odds, does a decent job of being “all things to all people,” at least to the extent that such a thing is possible.

Listening to differing voices can be a way of preserving that, rather than changing it.

[Rx-18-67]

As someone who uses commander to play infinite combos that aren't even viable in commander, I feel you. And I hope that when you say your combo deck isn't viable in other formats, it's because you're like me, and you're genuinely playing interesting things that are too slow or inconsistent to accomplish in more competitive formats.

But if you're someone playing Flash/Protean Hulk, that's not nonviable, that's just super banned everywhere else. From what you've said, I don't think that's the sort of thing that you're upset about having demonized. I'm sure the Rules Committee is capable of recognizing that combos can exist at different power levels as well.

Nah. I got Flash and Protean Hulk just in case I ever decided to play it, but I didn't get any of the real Hulk pile cards. I mostly wanted it for stuff like Academy Rector + Viscera Seer or Trophy Mage + Trinket Mage in Yarok. I'm currently experimenting with Tasigur Echo of Eons/Beast Within/Reality Shift loops as a finisher for a graveyard toolbox deck, Aminatou with Corpse Knight and Felidar Guardian (pings everyone to death) or with Spark Double, Ashiok and Oath of Teferi (mills everyone and exiles their graveyard), and the ultimate Holy Grail for me right now, Vilis + Blood Celebrant + Horizon Chimera. Probably the least efficient way to draw your whole deck, but I got a promo Vilis, so I have to make it happen.

The most competitive combo I have is Kiki-Jiki/Splinter Twin/Deceiver Exarch/Pestermite. Technically viable in Modern (aside from Splinter Twin, for obvious reasons) in some shells, but definitely not a mainstream strategy, and I powered that particular deck down by taking out the Laboratory Maniac lines.

[Strix]

tstorm823 has it right. I'm going to start using the term "fast combo" as opposed to combo and maybe folks will take it as intended. Flash/Hulk is fast combo. Mike/Trike might be if you're tutor/tutor/ramp/ramp/Tooth and Nail. Winning Turn 4 or earlier is fast combo. Assembling a Rube Goldberg device of some kind that five different pieces is by the strictest definition a combo, but isn't what I see as a threat to anything. Combos (tstorm's "goofy combo") are part of Magic. There are combos in my decks (although probably very few infinite ones).

When I say that we're not demonizing combo, what I'm talking about we don't have any problem with combos as a normal part of mid- to late-game progression. What creates an unhealthy format is the devolution into everyone racing to it because some people are doing it and they just want to keep up. I'm struggling to find a better way to articulate the fact that we find it within reasonable bounds of health for the format that combos, even infinite ones, are in decks. Games have to end. What's troubling on a format level--without this being a judgment on anyone who is playing it--is the trend toward choosing the nuclear option as the default. The reason fast combo is troubling on a format level is that it pushes out everything else, because no one has the time to do anything. If that's the way you and your group play, great. If that way of playing were privileged over all others, the format would not be where it is today in terms of global popularity. It would have died long ago.

We can't ignore, however, that there is a contingent of players who do like to play that way. The question is how do we best serve them (or at the very least not alienate them) while not undercutting the kind of player who has carried the format to where it is.

The only "quick fix" I can think of without banning a single card would be to reduce the starting life total to 30. I absolutely love long games of EDH, but it just does so many positive things for the format that at this point its become either "ban roughly 15 or so fast Combo cards or reduce the starting life total to 30". Heres some of the benefits straight off the top of my head:

-Feelsbad cards like Serra Ascendant and Sorin Markov instantly become tolerable
-Instantly makes lifetotals matter. People will think twice about running off-colour fetches, ad nauseam, necropotence, etc etc
-Most importantly, Aggro will be much more viable in comparison to combo

When aggro is viable and life totals actually matter, all of a sudden a very very large portion of EDH is fixed and it takes a big leap back to the amazing format that went global in the first place.

On a side note: Sheldon, pay no mind to hate. Theres gonna be a lot of flak no matter what you do as people spend literally thousands of dollars on a single EDH deck so theres no escaping that. Just do the best you can and whats right for the format you created, whatever you believe that is.

[darrenhabib]

Hi Sheldon.

You created a way to build decks for yourself and friends to have fun in the way that you wanted, and this subsequently created a whole new format for the wider masses. For this I am most appreciative. I bet you never imagined in your wildest dreams that WoTC would be creating annual sets specifically around this idea?

Who is commander for?
People play commander for many many different reasons. These reasons have changed and expanded over the years, simply due to the number of people trying the format, and the range of ways that people enjoy building their decks and playing the game.

What started out as your baby (EDH), has now all grown up and started dating many different people. Do you remain the protective father and shelter the child from the outside world, or do you let it go and let it discover it's own path?
This might be a cheesy analogy, but I feel it summarizes the situation up pretty well.
Commander has simply outgrown it's original design, and branched off in different directions. You have to understand that even attempting to steer people on a "how to think and play" is not something that is going to work.

Commander is for fun. It's a socially interactive, multiplayer Magic: the Gathering format full of wild interactions and epic plays, specifically designed as an alternative to tournament Magic.

Everybody plays Magic for fun. Even in a tournament setting. I think a problem lies in the fact that you're trying to push a narrative, where it actually already exists in the game itself and not in a philosophy.
Causal doesn't equate to more fun, just as competitive doesn't equate to more fun. You just have to accept that people get fun from how they and their friends like to play the game.

Who is right?

You are always going to get individuals and groups pushing their narrative for "what commander is or should be".
The person who thinks commander should be a super casual format, will swear by the "The Philosophy of Commander" and get angry at people who push the format with card interactions.
The person who plays the format for it's extended card reach, singleton with 100 cards with an additional card that you can cast at most times to boot, is simply going to play the game as allowed, and get confused at the person trying to tell them they are playing the game wrong.
There is not a right or wrong answer to "what commander is or should be" and this is where the format needs to evolve to accommodate.

Having Our Voices Heard
What's your true impact on the format going forward? It's the ban-list. People don't feel like they are being heard because it takes so long for anything to be done.
Prophet of Kruphix was an example of this. Literally masses were screaming that it was a problematic card from the outset, but because of the stance of "let's play it out (for years) first policy", caused major problems within the game. This mean't years worth of unnecessary play and subsequent misery for those games that were ruined by the unbalanced nature of it.
How many billions of posts will have to be discussed on Sol Ring and Mana Crypt as problematic cards?
So of course people do not feel like they are being heard, when it's made so abundantly clear in discussions.

Why is this ban-list so important?
I get the feeling that you want the game to be self moderating. If your play group doesn't think fast mana is appropriate, then just make some house rules, or better still just "don't play them" and the problem is solved.
However the game is played world-wide, even across the internet. We can move with our decks both physically and potentially digitally, and we are bound by the rules of the game and what cards we can play due to this.
It's too hard for people to change based on who they are playing with, so this ban-list really is set in stone and steers the game.
I'm sure there have been pushes by groups over the years to setup specific ban-lists for the way they play the game. But it's these logistics that make it so hard, when we are quite literally bound by them.

Solutions to the growing concerns of the format?
You can't take any of the concerns personally. Be proud of what you've done, but accept that it's too much information for an individual to process from this point in time onward. It's not a failure on you, but simply a logistical matter due to time allocation and resources available to you.
Despite what you might think about "frequenting forums" and listening to a Commander Advisory Group, it's simply not enough on the grandest of scales.
Even reading all the posts in this one thread is probably too much information for you.

Passing on the mantle
I feel like the right decision is to accept this as a fact. The longer you resist or ignore this as a truth, the more harmful it is for players in the long run. Again please do not take this as a personal slight, but just as a demand to accommodate the needs of a greater player base.
Talk to Wizards of the Coast about officially taking over the ban-list and specifically the commander brand in it's entirety. After all "commander" is WotC brand.
You can continue with EDH or Elder Dragon Highlander, and carry with it your philosophy, etc, intact, to promote as you want and for players to carry on with it if so desired. Celebrate in this, and it really might help better define what you have in mind this whole time. In this regard you get to take back what is yours as far as how you want people to play with your intended format.
But it's important to publicly announce this separation for the greater good of the game.
If you fall back on statements like "WotC have stated that they do not want to take over the ban-list", it's because they definitely do not want to rock the boat as far as being seen as an entity enforcing rules over what is perceived as a player created format. You can understand they would be reluctant to do this for fear as being seen as "Big Brother".
So this is where you have to be the bigger person, let your ego go, and simply accept that if you publicly hand it over, then WotC will have to take up the position and then they can use the tools at their disposal to create a more proactive approach to the format.
They have a dedicated design and player testing team and this will mean that in the coming years, commander will be more integrated into this system.
I'm not saying that WotC are perfect, and that they will have all the solutions and right decisions off the bat. It will be a struggle and a disgruntled reaction from a number of people for a reasonable time as well. But for the company that design cards around the format, having to actually dedicate more resources into the format because they are responsible for a ban-list, set of rules, etc, is the best path forward for players of Magic.

[Oghara]

Sheldon let me preface what I say with, I love edh and cedh very much and appreciate the work you and your colleagues have done a ton.

Personally, I am somewhat alienated by the decisions around the banlist as they, to me, very half-backed.
With Paradox-Engine for example.
When I first saw the ban, I was under the impression that it was banned because it is non-deterministic and can lead to a solitare-playstyle to see if the player fizzles or not, but there are a lot of other cards that lead to people sitting around without much to do, Stasis just to name one.
But after reading the explanation, I cannot help to be puzzled since there a lot of ways to-3 is detrimental to this formant then all the ways to achieve this would need to get banned, if the goal is to ban the means if they only require X amount of cards all those would need to get banned, yet they are not. (Which I really do not want)

After having read this read it seems that the issue you have is that you have two desires that clash
1. have a slender banlist
2. only allow decks to consistently win at turn 5ish

I doubt that it is achievable with the current cardpool and it seems a bad idea to just allow the modern cardpool going forward.
I personally think that there are a lot of cards which get policed by the playgroup/pod but that shouldn't be outright banned and the relatively slender banlist seems to suggest that you agree.

I think the cry out mostly stems from people who draw the line at a different place and see other cards to do a similar or same thing.

To answer your original question: What to do to communicate more clearly?
As mentioned above there are usually many ways to achieve similar effects. If the RC decides to ban/unban a card the decision should be explained and it should be compared to similar effects.

While my own opinion differs, I would have liked an explanation like this.
Paradox-Engine
We have found that the effect that Paradox-Engine has on a game is too oppressive. It allows players to easily produce a game-ending amount of mana early in the game with the additional upside of allowing to benefit from other tab abilities.
While other cards exist that have similar effects, we found Paradox-Engine especially problematic since it is a single colorless card.
While Isochron Scepter with Dramatic Reversal achieves the same effect it, it also has more limitations of color identity, points of interaction and specific cards required.