But the thing is, not everyone agrees that this is what pro mode is about.
Well, if you care what pro mode means, speak up, say what it should mean. In the end it will be whatever it is, whether people agreed on the way there or not. Be the change you want to see in pro mode.
You presume I want change at all.
Ok, I do, but not so much as you think. I want there to be separate pools for different numbers of players, not because it's harder to win or whatever (I mean, that is something your rating system has to adjust for, for sure, but this also requires some determination of is 2nd better than 3rd or are you just trying to win, and all that stuff), but precisely because you play differently. You play a lot differently, really. Well, and then the king-making which exists, despite the intention of making things apolitical (and hey, it could be a LOT worse, don't get me wrong; generally you can't prevent kingmaking without the thing just being solitaire).
Okay, there's more, but it has to come after the next thing.
And moreover, there's REALLY no agreement on what's considered 'gaming' of the system. I basically see no qualitative difference between the suggestions are getting floated about, veto mode, and selective set buying/promo earning, at least in terms of system-gaming.
Gaming the system is getting an advantage outside of playing better, that other people don't like. If not buying Black Market gives you an advantage, that's fine because so far no-one cares. If playing endless games of King's Court / Masquerade gives you an advantage, that's an issue because people care.
This is just not true. People do care. I certainly care, and I'm not the only one. This came up a couple years ago, when some of the top players were having huge percentages of games with Colonies on them. It's a skew. It's definitely a skew that's available right now, too - buy only prosperity, you can get 50% of games you host to have colonies on them. That makes a big difference to the game. I mean, you can play all-base and get much different kinds of games. I definitely care.
I mean, there are a few cards I wouldn't play with, but I'm never for mandating that, or giving people the ability for that. This banned list business is the same veto-mode gaming of the system to me. It's not just about people setting up KC-Masq pins all the time - yeah, that's gaming, but people don't really do that, either. Oh yeah, there's the one guy who does it for a little while, then people learn to ignore him pretty fast. But the gaming is more about maneuvering some kind of meta-game to skew how often you play with whatever cards. I'm for full random here, more or less like it is now. Any kind of targeted banning allows for meta-game manipulation to happen, so I stick with full random - it is the most testing of the full range of skills, forces you to be well-rounded, etc. And it gives the diversity of games. And having mixed standards pollutes your ability to rank people accurately - they can only rank you on the games you play, so if Bob and Tim play under different conditions because of these banning shenanigans, it really limits our ability to know their relative strengths, because we aren't measuring their strengths at the same thing.
On the other hand, I think the main reason that people settled on this as the standard way of doing things is, well partly for reasons I get into a little here, but more for "You have to draw a line somewhere, where is good?" and the only real place that doesn't seem entirely arbitrary or tied-to-a-specific-person is this.
And as authoritative as his tone is, I don't see why Donald's opinion would be the one that gets all the clout here. It matters, for sure. But I don't see why it should more than Stef's or Theory's or the OP here, or really anyone else. And I don't see why theirs counts more than his or each other's either.
Well my opinion counts in that I can say "Making Fun guys, this is what to do, really," and have a decent chance of seeing that happen. You try it, see how it works for you. So I mean, if you can't convince me that "thing Donald X. doesn't like" is the way to go, I won't be pushing for it; I am human.
I mean this is precisely the issue I have though. Not that I expect you particularly to advocate for things you don't like (though really, you playing a lot online? Why does it matter to you? But this isn't important - if you feel like it matters to you, then it matters to you). But they listen to you (or maybe the won't, but this is working premise). Way disproportionately to anyone else. This boils down to a "You made the game" argument (not that this is what's going through your mind, but it has to be true - THE reason they're listening to you is you made the game). And I'm thoroughly unconvinced that this makes you a good person to shape the landscape of these kinds of organizational details. I mean, I dunno, maybe you're great at it. But like, the Magic Pro Tour isn't organized by Richard Garfield, and great as he is at a lot of things, I think it's probably better that it isn't. And so it dismays me that you can just say "that isn't happening for sure" to some idea like iso-veto mode, because you just shouldn't have that authority. I mean, I don't like veto mode either, so it's really not a content issue there, it's a process one. If a big majority of the community wanted exactly that, I think that should be listened to, despite you not liking it, despite me not liking it, whatever. The game is for the players. And of course they want to make money.
I fully understand they're not listening to me - they haven't really shown any signs of listening to almost anyone, really, and they haven't responded in about 4 weeks to me asking them about making videos of playing the game - yeah, I've given up on that happening. So I don't really see much point in trying - there's really no point in spending however much time on this if the response will be nothing. Not acceptance. Not denial. Not even a vague, "Oh that's interesting, we'll look at it/think about it," and who knows when or even if they actually will. Just nothing. So I'm not sure what your point with that was, other than "See, I have power and you don't," which was already pretty obvious. If you'll notice, my question wasn't about that - it was what SHOULD be happening. I'm very interested in shoulds.
But I am here trying to hear what people want, talking to get stuff talked about. The system doesn't need to be maximally fun for me personally. Of course the most competitive players aren't the be-all end-all either.
The game isn't a be-all and end-all. But if you're talking about the segment of their interface specifically marked as PRO, I don't understand why the voice you want to be heard isn't the Competitive Players' voice. I mean, you have other sections for people who aren't so competitive. Or I guess you can say you don't have any section for competitive players. If they want to do that, I guess that's their prerogative. I don't know what you expect people to do with that. "You guys aren't everything" - I mean, sure, nobody said we were. But if you're asking for our opinions, that's what you should expect.