Quote from wtwlf123 »Look, my point is that you can't accurately build a prompt that will ask a universally meaningful question that can be answered in a way to provide meaningful compiled data in such a small sample size. There are too many variables in cube design and subjective opinions regarding what makes something the "most powerful" card to be able to get a list that will be true for any given cube, even of all of those cubes share a similar philosophy. For example, even "power maxing" a cube is still contingent on the limitations of the format. Is it vintage legal or legacy legal? Is it focussed on combo play or interactive combat? You can have "power maxed" cubes that fit into any of those combinations, and the Top X Card lists will have tremendous variation from one of those lists to the next. So with a sample size as small as we're running (less than 25 voters per section), how do you suggest we design a prompt that irons out those inconsistencies? I haven't seen a single suggestion to date that addresses those shortfalls.
My argument is that my Top X list is more valuable to someone drafting my cube than the compiled data list will be for someone drafting a random cube. If I was going to draft your cube, I would want to adhere to your list. Because the data is absolutely contingent on the specific environment that the opinions are derived from. "All other things being equal" sounds great on paper, but doesn't work in practice.
But it doesn't matter. The guy running the project agrees with you, so my issues with the data being mined are irrelevant.
Quote from wtwlf123 » If he argues that it is more powerful in cube in general, he would be wrong.
Except you can't make this argument, because "cube in general" isn't a thing.
For example, a card like Glimpse the Unthinkable isn't a good cube card in general. But in a cube that supports a mill theme, it can be a 1st pick. Objectively, it's one of the most powerful cards in its environment, if you elect to support it. So if you exclude it from your list of the most powerful cards, you're now the one that's objectively wrong.
Everything is context. And since we can't possibly create a prompt that incorporates every variable, or poll enough people to eliminate outlying data, objectively useful data cannot be extracted by asking the "best cards" question.
However, a list of favorite cards could provide new (and veteran!) cube managers with great information. If they want to learn about which 20 white cards other cube players/managers love, and which potentially fun and exciting cards might enrich their cubing experience, they can get that from the list. Even though the prompt is subjective, the data provides information that encourages people using the data to explore the reasons why folks love those cards. Whereas with the "best card" voting, all you get is flawed data that doesn't really matter.
You already said that "I will never sit down with team Shard". If that's the case, why is anyone else's voting relevant to you? The only Top X list that matters for your cube is yours.
For example, if someone wanted to sit down and draft my cube, they should use my voting rankings, since those are the only ones that will be accurate to my specific list and playgroup. A list of compiled data between like 20-25 different cube managers is not helpful to anyone, if the goal is to determine objective powerlevels for pick orders and stuff (if we could get 100,000 votes in each section and have it all be contextualized around a single cube list, it would actually be informative). However, if the goal is to find out what other cube players and managers enjoy cubing with in an attempt to identify cards you might want to test out for yourself, asking about "favorite cube cards" perfectly fits the bill.
Basically, I'd rather ask a subjective question that provides people with useful information than an attempt to create an objective prompt ...that winds up generating useless data.
If he argues that it is more powerful in cube in general, he would be wrong.
This would be exactly true for a cube that supports a blink/bounce/ETB trigger abuse deck and has no support to make Tinker powerful. Those kinds of cubes exist. Now, you're telling voters that they're objectively wrong because their notion of "best" isn't the same as yours ...when in fact they're 100% accurate and the only thing that changed was context.
The bigger problem is assuming that an amalgamation of the data is useful, when in fact, the opposite is true. If you combine the data from the Team Tinker's votes and the votes from team Shard into one dataset, and team Tinker has 20x the voting members ...what happens when you sit down to draft a cube with team Shard? The data is useless to you. And that's the problem. Cube powerlevel is too context-based to provide meaningful data with a small dataset. 25 people voting or whatever isn't anywhere near statistically significant enough to provide meaningful data. But if you ask a question that everyone can honestly answer using the same metrics, your dataset can be smaller and still produce worthwhile data.
tl;dr - If you ask the question "what are your 20 favorite white cube cards" people can look at that combined data and get a feel of what kinds of cards they could include in their cubes to make people happy. If you ask the question "what are the 20 best white cube cards" you would have to qualify that information with about 60 disclaimers before everybody's even voting with the same metrics.