I don't think you should take lists submitted last year into account here. That seems like it's counterproductive, isn't a big point of this to see how people currently value cards and/or how card evaluations have changed?
I know what you mean and I also thought about that. But I thought a problem would be that some of you would just re-submit the last list as they don't want to compile a new one. I just looked up and already received many submissions, so maybe it's just better to not take the last lists into account, but if anybody wants to re-submit, he can just tell me.
I don't think you should allow a month for this. Honestly, June 30 is on the late side if you ask me, even. Who here is going to look at this and be like "yeah I'm not doing it this week, but in 25 days I'll feel super up for it"?
As I wrote, my intention was to shorten the time frame. But then I realised that many of you guys only have time at the weekend, so I wanted to give at least the chance to submit in the following two weekends. You know, time passes quickly for hard working employees. I thought it would better for all. But as many of you complained I will change it back to the originally intended time frame. Sorry for any inconvenience.
I hope the results are published much much quicker this time around. I just feel like the list itself and subsequent discussion is what's interesting about this, not the little 3 sentence explanation "Chapel is good because it helps a lot of strategies; Saboteur is bad becuase it doesn't help a lot of strategies" type things. Isn't that what we have Articles for, after all? The mean/variance type stuff is kinda cool, but I'm guessing that's 5% of the work at most once you've compiled the lists?
The publication will get quicker this time and I'm still sorry for the delay of the Potion cards. And I feel sorry that you don't like my summing-ups. I know I'm no native speaker, so my English isn't that good, but I think there a few reasons to keep these.
1.) These are intended for newer players to get a quick view about the power and the intended use of a specific card without having to read a big article.
2.) There isn't an article for every card yet.
3.) While articles give strategic advices and try to explain how you can really play with that card better, my "short articles" try to explain why I think a card is on the specific rank and compare its power to its contenders and also give a little statistical insight for those who can't understand the statistical data.
I don't think I wrote such meaningless 3-sentence explanations and many - especially newer players - were very thankful for this. So I will keep that, but this time it won't take that long, as I will only update the summing-ups and don't have to write new one from the scratch. No worries here.
Also interested in whatever rrenaud comes up with and would think it was cool if you gave him the names of those ranking too. If we're comfortable sharing it with you I bet we're comfortable sharing it with him.
AFAIK data privacy protection is a little more restrictive in Germany than in the US for example, maybe that's the reason I'm a little hesistant to give out the rankings with names. Not that I'm afraid to get sued, but I already experienced many times anger because of something like that. I will definitely not making the results public for everyone. But I think it's safe to share the lists with rrenaud, if anybody has a problem with that, please tell me.
tl;dr:
I will not take last year's submissions into account. If you want to re-submit, please tell me.
Change of deadline: 30th of June 11:59pm UTC.
If anybody has a problem sharing the lists with rrenaud, please tell me.