Before I begin I want to take a moment to thank everyone who has voted in my Type 1 survey. The results have surprised me. However, the overall participation has been low. As in statistically insignificant.

So I once again call on all Magic players reading this who didn't vote already to take a minute out of your busy schedules and answer the following questions:

1. Do you want the reprint policy abolished (with the condition that any reprints of Type 1 cards will only be legal in Type 1 venues)? Yes/No
2. Will the policy's removal have an adverse effect on your collection's value? Yes/No
3. If you answered yes for #2, estimate the loss you will incur.
1. Less than $100
2. Between $100 and 500
3. Between $500 and $1000
4. Between $1000 and $5000
5. More than $5000

Send the answers to the following address: vladtheimpaler99@hotmail.com

Subject line should read: Reprint Survey

I will only count responses that go to the vlad address. One set of answers per person. The reply should look something like this:

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. B

I will tally the results one week from the posting of this article.

And now back to the show.

As the title suggests we will be looking at such weighty issues as life, death and rebirth. In the natural world this cycle can be a beautiful thing. However, add a dash of Wizards corporate culture and the beautiful becomes tragic.

Let's begin at the end.

Death
In the early part of August, the DCI announced that the three-judge system was on its way out. At first glance, it seems to be a commendable decision by Jeff Donais and his Coven: The original press release by James Lee acknowledged that the"DCI recognizes that this change will burden a few areas and individuals for whom the three-judge system most met their needs." And I have to say I was proud of the DCI for once. They seemed willing to risk some of Wizards' profits to eliminate a judging system that could be abused by those with nefarious intentions. It was an altruistic move on the DCI's part.

Good for them!

Yep.

And then I read Jeff Donais' follow-up to Lee's announcement. Any good will created by the original statement dissolved as I perused Donais' defense of the decision. The key statement was this:

"This was a difficult decision to make, but removing the three-Judge System was the right call to make for the future of the game. We experimented with the system for two years, but ultimately it was the wrong thing to do. We put a ton of thought into this decision and studied the sanctioning data very carefully before making it. We would not have made this decision if we thought it would 'kill Magic' in any area."

There are two points that require commentary. First, the"we experimented with the system for two years." Now when people defend Wizards many times, they say that players shouldn't question the company's decisions because the employees are the professionals and they put an inordinate amount of thought into their actions.

Okay, let's put that idea to the test.

Approximately two years ago there was most likely a DCI meeting dealing with the issue of tournament attendance. Some venues weren't bringing in the requisite eight players every week to sanction tournaments. How does the DCI aid a retailer on the verge of loosing their in-store tournament scene? The answer: The three-judge system.

At the time, someone must have voiced concerns about possible abuses of the system. I mean, these are the professionals who look at every angle of a problem: They must have realized that the three-judge system was deeply flawed.

But they instituted it anyway. Why? Because it was better to have a flawed system and keep the money flowing than to do nothing and risk Magic dying in certain regions. And they kept this going for two years.

For two years, the DCI sacrificed fairness for revenue streams.

I detest them.

It's not that I'm against Wizards making money, but players need to be able to have unwavering faith in the judges/tournament system. Without that trust, event attendance will suffer. The DCI knowingly using a faulty judging system for two years does not help to instill trust.

(Or perhaps the DCI gave it a shot to see exactly how bad it was, naively hoping that people were less scummy as they believed they were - The Ferrett)

Second, there is the"we would not have made this decision if we thought it would 'kill Magic' in any area" comment. The implication here is that they would have kept the three-judge system as long as its inclusion aided Wizards's bottom line. This just reinforces the first statement. The DCI is not about instituting and maintaining a fair and unbiased tournament environment; they are another cog in the Wizbro profit-generating machine. Maybe it would be easier for Donais and his staff if they just donned dresses and slapped on some lipstick before tournaments. Then if a player needed a ruling in their favor, they could purchase services from a"gentleman judge." Rates could be $20-$50 to give your opponent an oral warning and $150-$300 to go"all the way" and get someone suspended (exact price determined by how skilled the judge is).

Rebirth
In the middle of the month Jeff Donais graced our community with another exciting message. The Arena League (AL) program was being"redesigned and upgraded for 2003...."

Joy.

Arena League is about as exciting as a foil Eager Cadet signed by Rosewater and Buehler. It reminds me of that 'every child gets a gold star' self image crap they peddle in public schools. It's like the Magic Special Olympics. Why would anyone play in a League where one of the win conditions is playing the most games? Oh, the challenge of it all!

In my personal experience the answer to who would play, thankfully, has been no one. Every store I've played at has experimented with Arena League...and very quickly phased it out.

And don't tell me this is about building young player's self-confidence. Going from AL to actual tournaments seems akin to killing sharks with a knife after practicing on goldfish. Also don't lecture me about how it's a marketing gimmick to get kids playing at stores and buying product. I know it's a gimmick, but in this case not a good one. As I said before, I've never seen a store use Arena League for any significant length of time.

This, of course, is probably why Donais is trying to upgrade it to"cool" status by asking for player feedback. My favorite parts are these two statements:

"...[T]he prizes should not be something that would attract lots of high-level players to play in Arena."

"What should we do to make sure people don't just order Arena kits and sell the prizes on eBay or through some other dishonest means?"

Translations:

"The prizes have to suck as to not attract competitive players."

"Wizards has a security problem" and"Arena prizes in the past have been in such great demand that people have gotten them from Wizards for resale purposes only."

So if you put them together: Arena League prizes are desirable enough for people to want to obtain them dishonestly, but undesirable enough to keep away competitive players. My question is, who are these people they are trying to attract? Is Wizards trying to tap into the vastly-ignored special education demographic? And maybe even more importantly, why was a Wizards employee allowed to admit that the company can't control who acquires prize materials? Doesn't anyone in at Wizards proofread these statements before they get released? Here's my suggestion for Arena 2003:

Cancel it.

Life/Evolution
To wrap this article up, I want to briefly discuss the Magic Colony. I enjoyed following the exploits of the first Colony because it was - except for the well-established Benafel - a group of marginal pro players who had the potential to make it big on the tour. So the big attraction to me was to see if these eight guys could come together as a team in a few weeks and dominate the tour for a month (yeah, I know PTR was part of it, but not everything can be perfect). It has irked me to no end to hear Wizards reporters talk about how the first incarnation of the Colony was a disappointment except for Ken Ho winning PT - Osaka.

And then, just a couple months ago, Colony II formed. This was supposed to be the bigger and better version. It included such luminaries as Kai Budde, Brian Kibler, Ben Rubin, Eric Froehlich, and Felix Schneiders. This was a Colony on steroids. With this membership list the measurement of success changed from"can they dominate" to"how much will they dominate"?

So how do the Colonies compare?

Well if you look at the percentage of winnings they took in each tournament*, Colony I is the clear winner. The original group took 20% of the total purse at GP Tampa (3,450 of 17,500) and 15% at PT Osaka (34,300 of 217,630). Combine the two and they walked away with 16% of the prize money... And keep in mind that in both events a Colony member made it to the Final Two. I would say that's an accomplishment for any team.

Colony II, on the other hand, only took home a paltry 3% from Worlds (6,700 of 208,130) and the highest placing Colony member, Kibler, finished at 11^th.

In the future it might be worthwhile for Sideboard reporters to check the numbers before declaring any team a success or failure.

Until the next rant,
Michael Clauss
enderwiggan55@hotmail.com

* - This does not include the money from the World's team competition, because not all Colony II members participated in that event.