TeaLobster wrote:
If it's "supposed" to be social, then maybe they should get a bigger banlist. I, personally, prefer following the rules to the letter instead of subjecting myself to vague, unspoken, flowery-ass "social contracts". If they don't like what their creation is becoming, then they should adjust it accordingly.
There's a couple of assumptions here - that aren't necessarily a given.
1) That a bigger ban list encourages more social play.
I really don't see that. Is Vintage or Legacy more social than Standard? I mean those formats have bigger banned(/restricted) lists.
2) That the RC dislikes what the format is becoming
Since the original quote was from a random forum member and not a RC member, I don't see how that idea follows from someone saying the format is "supposed to be social."
If you don't like the concept of the "Social Contract" for the format - that's fine. There are many people who agree with you. But don't be surprised or offended if other people find your manner of playing to be unsocial and decide not to play with you. "I can play it because it's not banned" is not an attitude around here that gets you much sympathy.
TeaLobster wrote:
Whether or not the RC says this format is casual doesn't make the word any less subjective, and lord knows it is in this clusterfuck we call EDH.
And you missed the big part of the phrase that was used. Commander is "
supposed to be social." How social will vary from group to group, but that doesn't alter the original intent. You can state that you don't find it a social format. You can state that you think it is morphing from the original intent .. that's all fine, and not something that can be really argued about (that's all personal taste/experience). But when the intent of the format is written down (with the Social Contract), trying to argue that the format isn't supposed to be that way seems ridiculous.