Casual Card Hall of Fame Discussion

[Oversoul]

I loved the Hall of Fame and I hated it, all depending on how I reacted to the cards chosen...

Takklemaggot: "Well, that's not what I expected, but I guess it could be a pretty interesting card..."
Phelddagriff: "Yeah, that's the obvious choice. Foregone conclusion here."
Sliver Queen: "Yay, my card won!"
Biorhythm: "That's dumb. You're dumb. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done."

Anyway, I like the Hall even more as time has passed, because when I see the nominations I instantly think either that the cards are cool and that I should have them in a deck (if I don't already) or I think, "Well, I definitely wouldn't use that card." And even when I react in the latter manner, it makes me wonder what card should be chosen instead for the set.

Not sure if we have enough people anymore, but I'd be for bringing this back...

 

[Spiderman]

Actually, now that I think about it, I think another reason why we stopped is because we started getting to sets and cards that people haven't played with; at the time, there were more people who had more or less "retired" from Magic than not. Maybe it's different now...

 

[Shabbaman]

Conflux is pretty old stuff by now, by now it might even have trickled down to people who play occasionally. Maybe we should just try it for fun and giggles. I don't even recall what the set is about...

 

[Spiderman]

I don't even recall what the set is about...

Well, that kind of demonstrates what this is about. I don't think the people here have changed their playing, from what I can tell... and we don't really have any "new" people here (Terentius?) to take their place.

Nominating and voting on cards in sets that no one has (hardly) played with is really an empty exercise.

 

[Oversoul]

Conflux is pretty old stuff by now, by now it might even have trickled down to people who play occasionally. Maybe we should just try it for fun and giggles. I don't even recall what the set is about...

It was the small set printed following Shards of Alara. It basically just continued the heavy multicolored theme of the shards (Bant, Esper, Grixis, Jund, Naya), but it also added some five-color stuff and brought back the "domain" mechanic (which didn't have a name before).

Well, that kind of demonstrates what this is about. I don't think the people here have changed their playing, from what I can tell... and we don't really have any "new" people here (Terentius?) to take their place.

Nominating and voting on cards in sets that no one has (hardly) played with is really an empty exercise.

Well, I've played with cards from Conflux a lot by now. My favorite is probably Esperzoa, the best jellyfish in the game and a card that really steals the spotlight from Tezzeret in the Elspeth vs. Tezzeret duel decks. "I'll activate my Contagion Clasp, bounce it, replay it in my main phase, then activate it again. Weird how your creatures keep dying and mine keep getting bigger..."

 

[Spiderman]

Perhaps my statement should read "I don't think most people here have changed..."

 

[Oversoul]

I realize that you're making a general statement about the lack of activity in this little community, and on that point I concur. But to be fair, wouldn't most people have played more with cards from Conflux since it came out than they had with Shards of Alara back when we voted on it? Granted, that's probably just an indication that is was a pretty pointless endeavor back then too...

 

[Spiderman]

Yes indeed, and that's why we stopped at Conflux because we realized how hollow? useless? not sure of the word- the vote was for Shards (and maybe some other sets that preceded Conflux).

 

[Oversoul]

I don't know that we stopped because of any realization. Maybe you realized it seemed hollow. The only discussion on the subject at the time was that we were going to wait. When it never happened, I just assumed that getting committees together for this was too much of a bother...

 

[Melkor]

I don't know if it was expressed, but I certainly had that feeling, insofar as I didn't play with those sets, so I was just looking at the set list to come up with something. I'm buying cards again, but I'm still fairly ignorant of cards from Onslaught until Return to Ravnica (a scant ten year hiatus). What might be fun is to go back and come up with another card for the older sets. Obviously, we don't have enough people around to do the nominations and committee system, but maybe just a general thread that is voted on by whoever participates.

 

[Oversoul]

I don't know if it was expressed, but I certainly had that feeling, insofar as I didn't play with those sets, so I was just looking at the set list to come up with something. I'm buying cards again, but I'm still fairly ignorant of cards from Onslaught until Return to Ravnica (a scant ten year hiatus).

You missed out on some good stuff!

What might be fun is to go back and come up with another card for the older sets. Obviously, we don't have enough people around to do the nominations and committee system, but maybe just a general thread that is voted on by whoever participates.

Well, I'm up for it.

 

[Spiderman]

I don't know that we stopped because of any realization. Maybe you realized it seemed hollow. The only discussion on the subject at the time was that we were going to wait. When it never happened, I just assumed that getting committees together for this was too much of a bother...

I think you're right in that we didn't stop for any particular realization but rather, lack of interest and apathy. Clearly, no one brought up the Conflux nominations when it was "time" back in January of whatever year.

But looking back on the discussion leading up to that point, it's clear there seemed to be lagging interest. rokapoke and TomB said they don't play with the sets, turgy22 I think alluded to it, and *I* didn't play with them. Adding to that was the requirement that committee members couldn't nominate, which left out three people, and it seemed we were hard-pressed to get nominations from others. Plus, it no longer seems Ransac, theorgg, or train are around. Shabbaman said he didn't plan to nominate in the next set.

So what to do now? If people want to bring this back and continue on, that's fine. Or vote on older sets again. Or do whatever. My personal opinion is that re-voting on older sets is counter-productive and I'm not interested in participating myself for the qualified sets from back then until now because I haven't played with them to any extent to make an informed opinion and just "looking at" the cards and text doesn't seem right to me. So I'm out. But if others want to carry on, go for it, I'm certainly not stopping you....

 

[turgy22]

First of all, I'd just like to say that I'm not playing with the newer stuff. The latest set I actually own cardboard for was Time Spiral, I think. I have online cards up to Innistrad, maybe, but my feel for the game between Time Spiral and Innistrad drops pretty steeply. So, I would be in favor of going back to the beginning and inducting new members from each set into the Hall of Fame. I also have a different idea about how to go about doing it.

Here's what I'm thinking. Instead of how we did it before, where we all vote on committee members, then nominate cards, and then the committee members decide the inductees, why don't we reverse things a bit? We have a committee of people familiar with the sets who sift through all the cards, come up with 3 to 5 worthy candidates and then the collective rest of us (including committee members) all get to vote for just one to be inducted. This could work when we get back up to the newer sets, too. People who know the sets put out the cards that they think are worth it, maybe provide a short argument for the induction of each, and everyone can decide if it seems like a worthy entrant based on the output from the committee. I'd be up for this. Also, no more "closed door" committee discussions. Let's keep everything public so anyone who wants to chime in can chime in whenever they want.

 

[Oversoul]

Here's what I'm thinking. Instead of how we did it before, where we all vote on committee members, then nominate cards, and then the committee members decide the inductees, why don't we reverse things a bit? We have a committee of people familiar with the sets who sift through all the cards, come up with 3 to 5 worthy candidates and then the collective rest of us (including committee members) all get to vote for just one to be inducted.

This does make sense if we want a new committee system. I don't know how much of a committee we'd have. I think just about everyone here is pretty familiar with certain sets, and less so with others. In my case, I've played with cards from all sets to some extent. I'm a bit weak on Innistrad and Return to Ravnica blocks, as I was swamped with school at the time. I also don't have a lot of experience with the expansion sets that predate Fallen Empires, just because those cards were generally scarcer by the time I started playing and I didn't run into them much (whereas stuff after Fallen Empires was still floating around a lot and I acquired lots of cards from those sets and played with them extensively).

This could work when we get back up to the newer sets, too. People who know the sets put out the cards that they think are worth it, maybe provide a short argument for the induction of each, and everyone can decide if it seems like a worthy entrant based on the output from the committee. I'd be up for this. Also, no more "closed door" committee discussions. Let's keep everything public so anyone who wants to chime in can chime in whenever they want.

Yeah, the closed door committee thing was pretty awkward. There were times when the committee whined about the other members not nominating what they felt were the right cards and there were times when the the other members whined about the committee making what they felt was the wrong decision. You can even go back and see much of that in this very thread. I suspect that if we'd gone with your idea, it would have made the process more interesting.

 

[Spiderman]

We have a committee of people familiar with the sets who sift through all the cards, come up with 3 to 5 worthy candidates and then the collective rest of us (including committee members) all get to vote for just one to be inducted.

As I see it, the same problem still comes up though with the newer sets - if only the people who are familiar with such sets are on the committee, it's going to be a static committee. And even if you throw the votes open to everyone, those unfamiliar with the sets are just going to go by the card text and what seems "cool" and is that really what should go into a "Hall of Fame" type thing? That's like asking us fantasy players who belongs in a sports Hall of Fame or something and we just look at stats.

And I still don't see the purpose in going back to old sets that we already covered, aside from different people might be voting differently. But if more than one card can go into a Hall of Fame (and I'm sure more than one is "worthy"), what's the point in nominating and voting? You might as well make a list of all cards that should go into the Hall and add them all in.

But that's my opinion I just don't think there's enough people to revisit this *and* I don't feel I've played with sets logn enough to make an informed opinion so again, I will stay out but if you guys want to revisit/revive this, it's all you.

 

[turgy22]

As I see it, the same problem still comes up though with the newer sets - if only the people who are familiar with such sets are on the committee, it's going to be a static committee. And even if you throw the votes open to everyone, those unfamiliar with the sets are just going to go by the card text and what seems "cool" and is that really what should go into a "Hall of Fame" type thing? That's like asking us fantasy players who belongs in a sports Hall of Fame or something and we just look at stats.

I have no problem with a static committee (maybe you can explain why this is undesirable), though I don't think it's going to be completely static. I also have no problem with people voting based on the text and what seems cool. I guarantee you that happened on more than one occasion during our first HoF run though. I also think if you voted on NFL HoFers purely from a fantasy perspective, it wouldn't end up too far from the actual hall inductees (except maybe on defense.)

And I still don't see the purpose in going back to old sets that we already covered, aside from different people might be voting differently. But if more than one card can go into a Hall of Fame (and I'm sure more than one is "worthy"), what's the point in nominating and voting? You might as well make a list of all cards that should go into the Hall and add them all in.

There are many reasons to go back to old sets. The main reason being that some cards that deserve to be in the hall didn't make it. (Honestly, doing this all over again just to induct Shahrazad would be worth it, IMO). I don't think we'd want to start the whole thing over, but the idea moreso would be to scrub all the old sets for deserving entrants. I also don't think that we needed to have one card from every set in and some that made it might have been the best from their sets, but still not "hall of fame" worthy. Maybe we could do more of a thing like actual Hall of Fame voting where we examine each card on its own merits, and set a certain threshold on voting for induction (like, say, 75% of voters are in favor of its entry.)

 

[Spiderman]

I have no problem with a static committee (maybe you can explain why this is undesirable)

Think Congress without any re-elections.

In other words, the nominations are "skewed" towards what the committee thinks should be in there. So it then depends on the qualifications of the members. You just said you'd like to see Shahrazad in the Hall, others may have their own view of what they'd like to see in there. That was the whole point (I believe) of having the nomination process open to everyone. And on the flip side, I believe it was intended for committee members NOT to nominate because of the chance that they'd vote for their own and ignore others - because if they're nominating a card, they'd obviously like to see it in the Hall. It's the whole checks and balances thing.

I guarantee you that happened on more than one occasion during our first HoF run though.

I agree, which is why I personally became less than enamored of the whole process.

Your whole response to the second quote just pretty much reiterates my statements that of course there are more than one card which may belong in a "Hall of Fame" (depending on the viewpoint) and it'll never be objective because people have their views on what should go in. To which I say the same thing, it no longer becomes a "Hall of Fame" but rather a "Top X Casual Cards from Each Set" list. And maybe that's what you're driving at. But until there's more substantial numbers here to actually be representative of what a Hall might look like, having literally a handful of people deciding seems like futile? hollow? gesture.

 

[Mooseman]

Or we could call it the Totally Arbitrary, Reservedly Meaningless, Ostentatious Garderobe Of Yokel Fame

 

[turgy22]

Think Congress without any re-elections.

How dare you insult this fine group of people by comparing us to Congress!

I think you missed the point of my suggestion. No one on the committee would make any nominations. Their job is to sift legitimately viable CCHoF cards from the dreck that makes up 90% to 99% of any given set. They just present a list of cards that everyone else takes under consideration. Then the cards get voted on individually, not against each other. So there's no risk of committee members only voting for "their" card. Any given set might have a dozen cards that we vote for. Of those dozen, maybe only 2 would get the 75% of votes needed to be inducted.

EDIT: Come to think of it, you're right. With this method, we don't really need a committee. Anyone could nominate any card at any time and start a debate immediately. I thought it would be nice to have a "search committee" of sorts, just to be sure that no worthy cards get overlooked. Also, to keep the flow of nominations in a semi-chronological order.

The downside is that this process would be incredibly slow as we sift through all the cards from every set. The upside is that the process would be incredibly slow and (hopefully) generate some spirited and sustained discussion about a great many cards while we argue back and forth about what makes a card "casual" and whether or not any given card is "Hall-worthy".

But until there's more substantial numbers here to actually be representative of what a Hall might look like, having literally a handful of people deciding seems like futile? hollow? gesture.

Welcome to the Internet. In case you hadn't noticed before, our first run-though of the CCHoF was futile, hollow and meaningless. Outside of the people here, who really cares about our list? We didn't have that many more people here than we do now. It's just a fun exercise to start some debates and make this a more exciting place to visit and with more things to discuss. And maybe it would actually encourage some outsiders / lurkers to post their own responses.

 

[Spiderman]

Welcome to the Internet. In case you hadn't noticed before, our first run-though of the CCHoF was futile, hollow and meaningless. Outside of the people here, who really cares about our list? We didn't have that many more people here than we do now. It's just a fun exercise to start some debates and make this a more exciting place to visit and with more thing to discuss. And maybe it would actually encourage some outsiders / lurkers to post their own responses.

Yeah, but this seems *more* futile, hollow, and meaningless We're missing at least three people who participated and last time and judging from the number of new members over the years, with the exception of Terentius, I don't think there's any outsiders or lurkers

Look, like I keep saying, just because *I* don't think it's worth it doesn't mean it isn't. Go ahead and start/organize it.