Lee Shi Tian & Seth Manfield are getting my Vote

Topics: Magic Pro Tour Hall of Fame 2018 Voting, accusations of cheating, impact of implicit (and overt) bias

The Hall of Fame chatter this cycle has been equal parts amusing and exhausting.  And I'm sure the candidates themselves are feeling that the balance is not so equal - they must be extremely exhausted and frustrated.

What might have been whisper campaigns about shady conduct in past years were shouting campaigns this year.

Very early in the cycle, we saw Onrej Strasky raise concerns about Seth Manfield:

My side of the @SethManfield story up on my blog. Click here to read ----> https://t.co/x3x3bP22IL

— Ondřej Stráský (@OndrejStrasky) August 17, 2018

and CalebD raised concerns about Lee Shi Tian:

Not voting for Lee Shi Tian in this HoF ballet. I believe he's an opportunistic cheater, and as such I don't know how many of his finishes can be trusted. (continued)

— Calebdmtg (@CalebDMTG) August 16, 2018

I had initial reactions to all this, but I want to write more today about where I ended up after a lot of deliberation and consultation with other voters (not all of whom agree with me, but all of whom have insights I can learn from nonetheless)

Lee Shi Tian:

The "8 minutes to sideboard" thing seems to have been debunked as not actually 8 minutes of match clock used.  Look at the reply tweets and I've heard from others that the judge was keeping a separate clock and this wasn't Lee Shi Tian extending an unreasonable amount to try and draw.  [EDIT: there is some disagreement I'm receiving from players close to the action about game clock vs. not game clock, as there was not a feature match hold, but the max it could have been can be determined from the video and comes in under 6 minutes, not the 8 that Caleb tweeted out.]  

Aside from that though, I feel the need to comment on implicit racial and cultural bias.  In corporate training sessions, in casual discussions, in activist workshops, whatever the context, you often hear a plea for people to be "aware of their biases."  I have learned in doing this type of work that you never really want to stop the analysis or action plan at mere "awareness."  What we do with that awareness might make all the difference. 

When I train and/or collaborate with people on reducing bias, I emphasize that knowing when to go slow and when to go fast is a huge part of what to do about bias.  Moving fast often means being anchored to your first impression, refusing to dig deeper, and refusing to zoom out and look not just at this case but also similar cases (such as accusations against friends or even plays you have made yourself that looked shady but were not).  

So, in order to practice what I preach I had no choice but to slow down and think about implicit bias and how Lee Shi Tian was being treated regarding some player accusations that shady things were happening, even though judges and cameras didn't uncover all that much (he plays an extra land here, a summoning sick creature is tapped there - things to be concerned about certainly but not exactly pocket Flings and Hornet Queens).  When you slow down and reflect, you also notice and consider the mistakes that you yourself have made.  This last weekend playing my UW Delver deck in Legacy I tried to Snapcaster + Surgical someone despite my own Grafdigger's Cage in play.  I just forgot.  Now, if that's Lee Shi Tian on camera next week people are going to say "It's his Cage, of course he knows what it does!" etc. and there's nothing he can do to rebut this.  Same goes for playing two lands.  We have to track this stuff and see how it adds up, and I have not seen a mountain of evidence against Lee Shi Tian, especially for a player who has played a ton on and off camera at the highest levels.

And there is absolutely a snap-judgment willingness on the part of Americans and others to assume a player who isn't from the U.S. or Canada is cheating when mistakes do happen.  An important footnote is that I don't think this in any way absolves people who do cheat and happen to be from another region (anti-bias mindset does not mean putting a blindfold on), but when there isn't much to go on, we should resolve uncertainly about players for whom there is some evidence (but not a mountain) in favor of those players' reputations, and we should do so whether they are American or not.  

Lee Shi Tian also has accomplished more than I would have accomplished if I was in the same region he is in, and had the skills he has (I don't).  What I mean by that is that he has sacrificed a lot to travel and form community from the APAC region (non-Japan where much of the infrastructure for this would have already existed).  That is meaningful to me, and the testimonials on this did move the needle for me.  

Seth Manfield:

Despite Ondrej's tweets and some agreement, there is even less to go on with Seth than there is with LST in terms of concerning anecdotes.  Here, implicit bias shows up for me as viewing Seth as an outsider to my friend group and play group.  I often find myself rooting against Seth because my friends and teammates are among the people he is playing against (and often defeating) in the feature match and top 8 area.  So I had an initial gut reaction of "I don't want to vote for Seth."  We don't have to be proud of our initial reactions, but we have to look them in the eye and do the work of digging deeper to arrive at a less biased conclusion.  When I did that work and looked at Seth's accomplishments and the accusations of shady play, I emerged with a clear Yes vote.  

My HoF ballot this year will include both Lee Shi Tian and Seth Manfield, two of the most qualified players that in my opinion have more than earned a vote.  

I am considering other players who have 4 or more top8s still (I reviewed those with less than 4 and didn't see a compelling candidate there that I had not considered at length in years past)., but I wanted to share this info above while timely, as I consider the rest of my ballot.

Best,
Matt Sperling 

Banned and Restricted Announcement - June 11, 2018

By Errant Foresight

STANDARD: No changes

You read that correctly. Goblin Chainwhirler remains Standard-legal, and that will be the case until Dominaria rotates. We simply cannot keep banning cards every few months just because the internet has allowed the competitive Magic community to distill a format to its most cold-blooded essence in record-breaking time. Banning kills consumer confidence and creates a general feeling of uncertainty and paranoia, even if it does make Standard reasonable for a few weeks until you all break it again.

In this particular instance, well...Dominaria has the makings of a classic set. The cards are fun, powerful, and appealing, and the draft format may legitimately be the best of all time. We don't want a blemish on what we hoped would be our signature offering for years to come.

That's why we're asking for your help. We believe--and we think everyone would agree--that everything would be a lot better if you just...chose not to play Goblin Chainwhirler in your Standard decks. Please? The card has fostered an unhealthy homogeneity in deckbuilding and created negative net fun for everyone who plays our most popular format. If you all could reach a mutual agreement to leave it out of your decks without us actually having to ban it, everyone wins.

We're not decreeing that you can't keep playing the Chainwhirler deck--and don't kid yourself, there's only one actual deck there. But what does it say about you if you continue to play it in light of the damage it causes? I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I wouldn't sleep well at night if I were contributing to a poor experience for Magic players the world over. The "win at all costs" mentality has deleterious effects on others and on yourselves.

Furthermore, isn't the card what some would call "training wheels"? Are you really so bereft of talent that you need some undercosted development failure to do your heavy lifting? Are you incapable of winning two rounds at FNM without freerolling your opponents' Llanowar Elves and Glint-Sleeve Siphoners? You don't actually want to play Magic; you just want the automatic wins. Luis Scott-Vargas himself has gone on record that he looks down upon this play pattern. Maybe you don't need Chainwhirlers--maybe what you really need is practice.

If you insist on continuing to ruin everyone's fun because you suck at Magic, I challenge you to the following: the next time a young mage shows up to your LGS with a Saproling deck, I want you to look his or her parents in the eyes and tell them that YOU'RE the reason their kid will be having a horrible time this evening. Tell them it's more important for you to win a couple of boosters than for their son or daughter to find fulfillment in expressing themselves creatively. If you can bear to do that, by all means, keep whirling those chains. But the least you can do is take a little responsibility for your behavior.

Now, we understand that not everyone will be amenable to this line of thinking, because not everyone is as smart and reasonable as we're hoping you'll be. If your friends or someone else at your LGS continue to play Goblin Chainwhirlers, we're giving you the green light to ridicule them. If we're all being honest, some of you don't like this sanitized, kumbaya environment we've been trying to foster, and you've got a lot of pent-up hostility. This is your ticket to berate a host of people consequence-free. If the Chainwhirler stalwarts in question are your friends, it might be time for some serious soul-searching. Why would you want to associate with someone who's willing to win at the cost of literally killing the game you love? Stop inviting them to your group outings until they put the goblins down. They'll come around.

We are also changing the way we report winning decklists from the Magic Online metagame. Standard League decklists will continue to be curated in a way that ensures that a diverse array of decks is shown, and to make that even more effective, any deck that manages to win with multiple one-toughness creatures in it will be displayed at the top of the list and will be displayed the following week as well. This is not intended to "trick" you into playing one of these decks, but rather to show you the possibilities that are unlocked when the players who insist on playing Goblin Chainwhirler (who we refer to internally using the "SpikeWhirlers" psychographic) decide to embrace their inner "Richie/Rachelle" (psychographic for players who are insensitive to entry fee losses).

So to reiterate, Goblin Chainwhirler is NOT banned. But we'd really prefer if you didn't play it.

MODERN: Mox Opal, Scalding Tarn, and Cavern of Souls added to Reserve List

Not every Spike is what we would call a Spike-Richie or Spike-Rachelle. With increasing frequency, a new player looking to join in on the Modern format fun faces a significant and difficult investment decision. Some Modern decks now cost what Legacy decks cost just a few years back. That investment requires trust in Wizards and for some it requires putting money they might need later in life into a Magic collection. In order to protect that investment, we are adding Mox Opal, Scalding Tarn, and Cavern of Souls to our Reserve List.

This ensures that Modern remains an accessible format by protecting the investments new and existing players make when buying into decks like Affinity, Lantern (a popular entry-level choice), Storm, Humans, and others. What makes Modern great is _____ [Note to editor: please ask around and find someone who knows the answer, nobody on our floor had it], and we think these Reserve List additions will give more players access to that experience without having to risk financial ruin if we reprint their cards.

There is one more detail here I need to mention quickly. Our Reserve List commitment is to protect not only valuable cards as the stated intent might suggest, but also random cards that are not yet valuable, but could someday become valuable by virtue of being on the Reserve List. Would we structure our promise this way if making it today? No we wouldn't, but it is the promise we made. So we are also adding Gideon's Phalanx; Chandra, Bold Pyromancer; and Rimefeather Owl from Modern to the Reserve List.

That wasn't even the worst question...(GDS3)

Mark Rosewater revealed the answer key to the Great Designer Search 3's multiple choice test about a week ago and some interesting discussion has followed.  https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/make-choice-part-1-2018-02-12

Even those of us who weren't involved in GDS3 directly took interest, most notably PVDDR:

The answer to this question is baffling to me. It just seems... false. 4/4 flying vigilance is simply more likely to be an UW card than a BG card. Like, it could literally show up next set as UW, but not as BG. pic.twitter.com/fSN2dyTmRH

— Paulo Vitor (@PVDDR) February 14, 2018

Thus began a long Twitter discussion over whether that 4/4 flyer question was sloppily worded or downright incorrectly worded, or something else.  

I thought the question was so poorly worded that if the test actually mattered, and I was in charge, I would throw it out.  But today I'd like to point out that this wasn't even the worst offender on that same test!  If I could only throw out one question, I would throw this one out:

32. You've designed a card, and you want the Play Design team to like it. How should you choose your casting cost? 

a. Ask someone from the Play Design team to choose the casting cost.
b. Find a similar card as a basis for the casting cost and then make it one cheaper.
c. It doesn't matter; they'll fix the cost if you get it wrong.
d. Pick the strongest cost that isn't broken.
e. Use your intuition.

Here is Mark Rosewater's notes in the answer key:

Making Magic is a collaborative process. To best accomplish this, you need to learn to let people play to their strengths. Could I cost a card? Sure, but I won't do it as well as a play designer who was hired specifically for their ability to judge power level. By asking them first, I lessen the chance that playtesting gets affected because of poor costing. Also, if your goal is to get Play Design (or anyone, really) to sign off on something, it helps to involve them in the process.

I don't think MaRo's answer is the best or even the second best answer among the choices given.

The biggest problem with this answer is that asking another team for help is absolutely part of a healthy exchange of ideas and part of solving complex problems in a collaborative way, but it's a very dangerous hammer if even routine daily tasks such as picking a casting cost for a card you want spikes to like start to look like nails. 

"Who should write the first draft?" is an important question in many contexts.  "Who should review that first draft and help improve it?" is a separate and equally important concern.  But the answer to these challenges is certainly not to collapse them into one question or one step.  It's fine if Play Design has early and frequent input into the design of casting costs, and it's even fine if there is an exceptional circumstance in which they do get first crack at it (if the card has "Emrakul" in it's name for example, maybe we can shortcut right to Play Design input), but the question's only parameter here is that the designer wants Play Design to like the card.  That's way too broad a category of designs to be going out to a team whose primary job isn't design and asking them to do the initial design work.

One answer (not my favorite) that is still better than MaRo's top choice is "Pick the strongest cost that isn't broken."  This isn't an ideal starting point since you won't always be right about what is broken, you might not even have enough context to know what broken means in the world the card will be released into, and not every cost should be near the maximum power level anyway, but your best guess at strongest not-broken cost is a better starting point for Play Design to work with than no starting point at all ("you pick it"), especially if you just interpret "isn't broken" conservatively.  So if you're using this sparingly (which you better be - see above) then "strong but not broken" plus your intuition (hmm, what's that?) about where that line is, applied conservatively, leaves you at least actually attempting to do your job before handing it off to QA.

Because the other answers are all deeply flawed, "Use your intuition" is the best answer among those presented, even though it's a weird answer in the context of multiple choice.  You don't think your best designers can create casting costs that please the Play Design team within the boundaries of fair power level, even as a first draft that will get additional testing?  That's a depressingly low bar for design.  And if you're thinking, "'Intuition' is just too ill-defined to scale properly or be consistent designer to designer" or something like that, my response is, "If intuition wasn't involved in a big way, they'd be tweaking algorithms instead of interviewing humans for the design roles."  Let me get this straight, intuition is something we all know is a major asset your strongest designers have, but incoming designers are scored INCORRECT if they say they intend to use their intuition to design a card?

I"ll end with this: The Legal team (my team) where I work often reviews marketing materials before they are released, to check for claims that might not be well supported, IP issues like use of trade names & media, trade secret/confidentiality concerns about the level of detail in any description, among other issues.  If I'm interviewing a marketing candidate and I ask them, "How would you make sure that marketing descriptions of, say, certain security features are satisfactory to the Legal team?" the answer, "I'd use my intuition about what Legal is looking for, then have Legal review a draft before it goes out" is a pretty good answer (not quite as good as actually unpacking what the issues might be or how to find out, but pretty good).  On the other hand, "I'd ask Legal to draft the content for me" would be a horrible answer.