I think you misunderstood the reference. It's part of a larger quote: "guns don't kill people, people kill people." It has nothing to do with murder or other criminal punishments, it's a pro-gun argument. The implication here is that gun control is mostly meaningless because a bad actor will simply find another way to commit their crime while responsible gun owners are unfairly punished by having their guns taken away.
Laying aside the real world politics (in which this is a flawed and terrible idea) it translates pretty well to EDH. We all know that the ban list is kind of a joke from a competitive point of view. The RC has admitted as much and said they don't particularly care about that aspect. But if you're already letting people run around with Stasis and Doomsday, is there really any reason to keep something like Balance on the list? If people want to ruin games, they're going to ruin games. I guess the EDH corollary would be "cards don't ruin games, people ruin games". There is some merit in the idea of just straight up removing the ban list and trusting people to play in a social way. Isn't that the entire point of the format in the first place?
I'm quite familiar with the saying, and it's a ridiculous argument that tries to take a complicated debate and package it into a simple catchphrase. But I'm also for stricter gun control, so there's that.
Since we don't need to have a debate on gun control I'll skip a lousy analogy that would get nitpicked. Instead, I'll just say that the idea of the ban list is to remove the cards which go against the RC's philosophy document, as well as the cards which run afoul of the target demographic (which isn't to say that people not of that demographic are being excluded, simply that the ban list is not being maintained with them in mind). So no, I xont think there is merit to the notion that since people are already ruining games by not engaging in social behaviour which will enable better games, removing the ban list will somehow encourage that social behaviour. I think it will just exaggerate the problem even more and cause people to quit the format or retreat from public games altogether.
I think people leaving the format is actually a positive thing. Too many people belong to the group that never discusses anything and at best they say they want "a casual edh game" (which means nothing). The less we have those the better.
Guns don't kill people because we set a penalty for killing people. My hunch is that if we said, " you know, we have this law that says you can't kill people and people STILL kill each other. Let's just get rid of all the laws.", then I'm pretty sure murders would go up. Sure, within closed communities you would find people adhering to their own set of laws, but there would be a lot more people who didn't and good luck interacting with other communities.
Have you actually every played without a ban list? Like, not for one or two games, but just within your group thrown it out the window and played long enough to see what sort of meta developed as people acted and reacted? I haven't personally, but from anecdotal posts from a few people who have, it did not make the games brtter.
I haven't played without a banlist but I have talked to people before playing and it often led to a better experience for everyone. When I don't it doesn't.
Anecdotally, one of my local shops did a no-banlist EDH night with prizes. In all honesty, not a lot changed. The same three players who consistently combo kill the board on turn 5 or 6 with a banlist did so on Turn 4 or 5 (proxies of Power Nine cards were permitted). Saw one Turn 1 kill off a Black Lotus and Mana Crypt (Swamp, Crypt, Lotus, Buried Alive (Mike and Trike), Reanimate, Exhume). But I've seen that player do that Turn 2 with a banlist.
Removing the banlist wouldn't make things better for anyone. But for the most competitive groups, they would barely notice.
EDH is a very meta depended format so many cards vary in power level based on meta. Having a ban list only works for some fictional meta. Dumping the ban list might make people think what is fine and what isn't fine to bring to certain game.
I doubt that removing the ban list would create more problems. Guns don't kill people you know.
Because there are cards which are problematic for the format, same as banlists for any other format.
Sure but there are also a lot of cards outside of the banlist that are problematic and some cards are only problematic in certain decks, metas, people, etc.
You can't police everything so why not let anarchy rein?
I think you should try them tho. Extra turns are kinda obnoxious when you just try to chain them together but otherwise I think they are fine. I run beacon coupled with some token producers like murmuring mystic.
I've played on XMage for a bit and it's just awful. The rules enforcement is spotty and the program itself is buggy and ugly. My experiences with it are largely negative. As for Cockatrice, it's basically the same beast but untap.in doesn't require a download. I suppose I could expand the group to include basically all free ways to play Magic online but I think it would be better for the group overall to focus on a single one so as to not splinter the community.
I've been using xmage almost a year and my experience has been mostly positive. I think xmage has much better rules enforcement than your average paper edh game. Most of bugs are caused by people with bad internet connection. Xmage really doesn't like when people disconnect mid game. I very rarely find actual rules bugs. I guess it looks kinda ugly but it's not like untap.is is much better. Color scheme is just light blue/white instead of grey.
When I want to play mtg online I'm looking for convenience. With rules automation I can play really fast. I've played best of three matches under 5 mins and not long time ago I finished a 10 person edh game roughly in 1 hour (host also asked people to bring stax decks). If every person has to do everything games are going to last much longer and rules mistakes are bound to happen.
What happens?
I think people leaving the format is actually a positive thing. Too many people belong to the group that never discusses anything and at best they say they want "a casual edh game" (which means nothing). The less we have those the better.
I just don't see much point in trying to abuse adapt when you could just put counters normally.
Sanguine Sacrament is the win con.
I haven't played without a banlist but I have talked to people before playing and it often led to a better experience for everyone. When I don't it doesn't.
I doubt that removing the ban list would create more problems. Guns don't kill people you know.
Sure but there are also a lot of cards outside of the banlist that are problematic and some cards are only problematic in certain decks, metas, people, etc.
You can't police everything so why not let anarchy rein?
Oops you said no extra turns.
I think you should try them tho. Extra turns are kinda obnoxious when you just try to chain them together but otherwise I think they are fine. I run beacon coupled with some token producers like murmuring mystic.
-Rc: "we see nothing wrong here"
9 mana red sorcery
-Rc: "This is sick filth needs to stay banned!"
I've been using xmage almost a year and my experience has been mostly positive. I think xmage has much better rules enforcement than your average paper edh game. Most of bugs are caused by people with bad internet connection. Xmage really doesn't like when people disconnect mid game. I very rarely find actual rules bugs. I guess it looks kinda ugly but it's not like untap.is is much better. Color scheme is just light blue/white instead of grey.
When I want to play mtg online I'm looking for convenience. With rules automation I can play really fast. I've played best of three matches under 5 mins and not long time ago I finished a 10 person edh game roughly in 1 hour (host also asked people to bring stax decks). If every person has to do everything games are going to last much longer and rules mistakes are bound to happen.