To Bring to Everyone's Attention...

[ket_the_jet]

Most of you know that I am not very fond of playing the game outside of the formats that Decipher has left for us as a group, but I'm not here to talk about what I think.

A lot of people are supportive of the House Rules section, which I am acknowledging as a nice way to keep the community active. But a lot of people who are not supportive of these changes are not really being heard. I guess because of my "outspokenness," people who are against making some/extreme changes to the game have decided to PM me about their thoughts. I'm not going to use any names, but I did want to make everyone (especially the new Rules Committee) aware that if they take things too quickly they will ostracize some of the player base that they are trying to unite. Some of these players are old, respected community members, and some are new to the site or GCCG. We've already seen Smeagollum leave in a huff (which was unfortunate and unnecessary) and I'm not trying to make him a martyr for keeping the game the same way. I would just suggest slowing down and bringing new changes in slowly.

So Galadriel, Lady Redeemed is X-ed. Let's give the community a little while to get used to that before we start errata'ing cards or x-ing other cards. I think in the long run, it may help players (like myself) to warm up to the idea.
-wtk

[Kralik]

Why not focus on more positive/less controversial changes first such as fun new ways to play, versus errata and X-/R-lists?

[TheJord]

A lot of people are supportive of the House Rules section, which I am acknowledging as a nice way to keep the community active. But a lot of people who are not supportive of these changes are not really being heard. I guess because of my "outspokenness," people who are against making some/extreme changes to the game have decided to PM me about their thoughts.

If they don't post their opposition to something, how do they expect to be heard?

[Kenddrick]

Why not focus on more positive/less controversial changes first such as fun new ways to play, versus errata and X-/R-lists?

I wish there was a single player mode for LotR: TCG.

Also I agree with Ket in a way. The changes are coming way too quickly. How about say..2 weeks between each official vote?

[Kralik]

There actually has been that much time between the two votes conducted so far. But in any case, I think it's best to slow down, test the waters and see what people want. Are we all sure that banned cards need to be errata'd? Maybe a vote there would be best because I know there is a strong difference in opinion regarding banning vs. errata of broken/OP cards. Many people thinking X-ing is easier to handle and remember.

[hrcho]

Why not focus on more positive/less controversial changes first such as fun new ways to play, versus errata and X-/R-lists?

I agree with this. It will give people time to adjust to new things and also the time to put any changes made to the ultimate test. We could agree to make 1 errata every 2-3 weeks and create or popularize formats (such as Poorman's) in the meantime.

Are we all sure that banned cards need to be errata'd? Maybe a vote there would be best because I know there is a strong difference in opinion regarding banning vs. errata of broken/OP cards. Many people thinking X-ing is easier to handle and remember.

But isn't this why there are OFFICIAL Rules Tables and House Rules Tables? Those who don't want errata are free to play at the former and those who are for errata will take their chances at the latter.

I guess we could go with a vote on it, but that vote would only encompass The House Rules and those playing by them. If the vote came out as negative for errataing cards (meaning X-ed cards stay X-ed) it would only affect The House Rules and only people who actually plan on playing by the House Rules should vote. I don't think you can limit the vote in that manner.

[Kralik]

The House Rules are there for the times when the community decides that changes should be made. But why are we assuming that the community wants to see all X-ed cards back in play with errata? That is my main point. Even though I support House Rules, I think that adding errata to 10-20 X-/R-cards is unnecessary and potentially confusing. Maybe some of them can come back into play, but doing it as a matter of course...?

[Tbiesty]

We could agree to make 1 errata every 2-3 weeks and create or popularize formats (such as Poorman's) in the meantime.

Absolutely!  This can and should be a nice slow-and-steady process.  In fact, I was thinking about 4 weeks between addressing each card.  That will allow this process to be well thought out, with enough time for thorough discussions, and not so overwhelming.  Dumping a whole bunch of changes all at one time would be confusing.  Plus, starting with some of the "less controversial" cards (e.g. Gondorian Captain / Base of Mindolluin) would allow players to see the process in action and see just how it works. At that point, players will be able to make a more informed decision as to whether they find it good or bad.  
Thanks!

[Ringbearer]

I strongly prefer as less errata as possible, simply to not confuse the general player. Its hard enough with people not remembering Decipher errata, let alone new errata issued. An X-list is much more easier to keep track of.

Also I agree change should happen in time, not spam the group with new things. The LR ban was a nice start, the cancelling poll is mere a trifle as it is played like this at GCCG already, but first discuss the pro's en cans of errata much more before pushing this trough.

[ket_the_jet]

In fact, I was thinking about 4 weeks between addressing each card.

I feel like that is something to take at face value as most of your posts are like Stalin's Five-Year Plan with a list of cards, proposed errata, dream card deadlines, and putting thoughts to poll before ample discussion.

Again, I hardly care as I will continue playing official rules; however, as long as people keep PMing me about this stuff, I might as well appease some folks.
-wtk

[ket_the_jet]

If they don't post their opposition to something, how do they expect to be heard?

Apparently TLHH is a republic. But I didn't run for office?!

How many people voted against the LR ban? How many people actually posted why?
-wtk

[hrcho]

How many people voted against the LR ban? How many people actually posted why?
-wtk

This is an issue. It would've been much better if people added some constructive arguments, no matter what the outcome of the poll is. I am imploring anyone who reads this and plans on voting on any future polls to argument their opinion. It will not only benefit the discussion, but it may also lead some undecided people to that conclusion.

Kudos to ket for standing up for those people, but I really don't see a reason why they shouldn't speak their own mind. It's not like we're gonna ban them or something.

[FM]

Not to mention, a lot of people who voted PRO banning actually posted stuff like: "I haven't faced LR a lot/at all, but I know she's broken"! People, please, MtG is the largeest, longest-standing TCG in the World for a reason, take a lesson from the folks at WotC:

General Guidelines for banning/restricting/errata'ing:

Errata:
-Card does not function as intended due to a hole in the rules;
-A mistake (generally in wording) renders the card completely useless (or close enough);
-The rules have been updated and the card's text does not work as written anymore.

Banning:
-A card is uncounterable (strategy-wise, they keep printing andwers and the card simply won't acknowledge them in a given format);
-The card is way too abusable and easy to be played;
-The card warps the format SO MUCH that all decks either play it, or play against it (there's no room for archetypes to be brewed, you either play X or anti-X);
-The card warps a format so much that, even though not everyone plays it, it demands an arbitrarily elarge number of answer cards that it cripples deckbuilding.

Restricting:
-Restricting is a little trickier, but basically, MtG has two Eternal (every card ever made) formats: Legacy and Vintage. Legacy is the "healthy" version, with a lot of banned cards, and close-to-none restricted (since the format is kept in check with the other bannings), while in Vintage, most banned cards will instead be restricted (and some cards that are not banned NOR restricted also will, to prevent über-brokeness).

As a first measure for the PC, I'd advise working on this aspect (making it easier to move around banning/errata'ing cards): two Eternal Formats. Open and, I don´t know, New Open? Slightly Ajar? SOmething like this. It wouldn't change the game AT ALL, but it could help the PC gain some perspective on what is broken and what is not. I know you might say that "House Rules" means exactly this, but it doesn't. You banned LR in MOVIE, not created a new format where she's banned, and there's a difference. For instance, if ALL your changes would only affect Movie Block, THEN it'd be the same. But you're changing everything, at once, and too quickly. Think about this.

[legolas3333]

I for one, though not against the legalizing of Mr. Underhill nor the banning of Lady Redeemed, feel like the process is going extremely quickly. To me it felt as if those two... moves? were very rushed and perhaps not all sides were heard, especially for the Lady Redeemed issue.

[TheJord]

Again, if you don't post about your concern, then you will get no discussion.