@ikegami Don't call it a nod if you don't want to (I'm not going to argue linguistics with you). I didn't mention any L5 judge saying MTGCommander was official. The rule book doesn't mention ban lists, but it does mention "additional resources".

Ping me if you join with @Rusher please.

Why would you continue polluting the comments section after I opened this room for us?

Why did you? I posted where you did.

Publicity?

How else would I let you know the room existed?

I can't ping a user that has never joined a room before

Re "I didn't mention any L5 judge saying MTGCommander was official.", Yes, you did. Your answer says MTGCommander, then you said the answer came "from a level 5 judge"

You did more than start a room in that comment.

Did I say my answer came from a level 5 judge?

yes

Please, do quote me.

"My answer came from a level 5 judge" - Rusher, 2014

'Anyone who wants "circumstantial evidence" from a level 5 judge'

^

Get out of here Rusher

A reference to my earlier comment that your answer is just circumstantial evidence.

Mike I'm going to ignore you since you are not making any attempt to work this through

Ikegami, my answer did not come from a level 5 judge. It came from me.

I included a reference to an article written by a level 5 judge.

So we should believe a level 5 judge because he said something unrelated to the question at hand?

I'm not sure I agree with you Rusher

Are you implying that if my answer did not come from a level 5 judge, then my answer must be entirely unrelated to level 5 judges?

No.

What?

Guys can I have a link to the initial post again?

Thank you I will make a decision and get back to you both shortly

@ikegami Fine, I'll humor you instead of skipping ahead. Should you believe a level 5 judge? If you want to.

Should you believe the header at the top of MTGCommander that says "Official"? If you want to.

I think you are lieing

All your judge shows is that Commander is based on EDH, right?

I don't know. I didn't say Commander was based on EDH in my answer.

I did explain why WotC changed the name from EDH to Commander though.

Wasn't a name change. EDH still exists.

I retract that.

EDH still exists but they have renamed themselves to WotC as far as I know

Okay

Re "I did explain why WotC changed the name from EDH to Commander though.", Yes, nice extra reading, and surely the source of the upvotes.

@ikegami Necessary for the transition to the rules quote, which mentions Commander, not EDH.

Yes, you did establish there's a relation between the two. But that's all you did.

That was the point of that sentence.

But that's all you did in your entire post, I mean.

Well, I disagree.

Apparently the voters do too.

Do not presume to know why voters vote. Like I mentioned above, my best guess is for the history lesson.

It's funny you're saying I am the one with the "believe what the Internet says" argument.

@ikegami Let's expand on those two comments. I pulled information on the Internet from a level 5 judge, a Wizards of the Coast site, and the rule book. Among those three, one is undisputable, one is iffy because the WotC site is geared towards MTGO, which may not be an exact reflection of Commander, and the last is just a lvl 5 judge saying whatever he wants to say.

On the other hand, you got the word "official" from the title of MTGCommander. What makes it any more credible than my three sources?

I don't dispute that the information is true.

but none it supports "MTGCommander.net is the authoritative reference for all things commander."

except that very sentence.

So you're asking us to take the word of some shmoe on StackOverflow.

nowhere else is mtgcommander.net mentioned.

Note that "level 5 judge said something" is very unconvincing. It's trivial to become a judge, and they are very often incorrect. Isn't 5 as low as it gets? I've corrected a level 2 judge a couple of times, the top judge for all of the internet.

@ikegami Level 5 is the highest level (aside from Judge Emeritus, which is more of an honorary title given to judges who have contributed a lot to the game)

@ikegami MTGCommander is explicitly mentioned in the rule that I quoted in my answer, which was not generated by some "shmoe" on Stack Overflow (although I appreciate the title).

I'll also point out that "unconvincing" is a subjective word. I find your answer far less convincing than mine, because the only argument presented is "This page says it is official, and so it is."

In fact, I can remove the foundation upon which your argument is based very quickly. There are now at least two sites claiming to be official. I present the other Official Ban List for Commander.

I could spend a few bucks and actually use www.commanderbanlist.com. Then it would be super official.

Re "I'll also point out that "unconvincing" is a subjective word." It's a polite way of saying "unreliable". Keep in mind that I did qualify my use of it

@ikegami Is the title of a page reliable?

I would answer "It depends." But I want to know why you think the title of MTG Commander is "reliable".

What are you getting at?!

You challenged the reliability of my entire post. Every single sentence. Don't take it personally when I challenge the reliability of yours.

Re "MTGCommander is explicitly mentioned in the rule that I quoted in my answer", Are you being dense on purpose? MTGCommander is NOT mentioned as an official source.

Re "You challenged the reliability of my entire post.", No, I didn't.

I didn't challenge the reliability of any of your post.

I just said your argument isn't valid: your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.

The conclusion is correct, but there's nothing to support it.

Well your premise is "the title of the page says it is official". Your conclusions is "it is official". That also does not follow.

Re 'Well your premise is "the title of the page says it is official"'

No, I didn't make an argument. I didn't pretend to back my claim that mtgcommander is official. I simply said it is.

Just like you. I just didn't pretend otherwise.

Why should we believe what some schmoe on Stack Overflow says?

Do you really want an answer?

I do.

A whole essay could be written on how to judge a person's likeliness of being correct on SO. The short version might be: In addition to the standard trust mechanisms, SO adds a few of their own, including means of auditing a user's past performance.

Are you saying that your history on Stack Overflow makes you credible?

Or, alternatively, that my history makes me less credible?

Yes, that is definitely a factor. But it's obviously not all of it. In your case, we'd have to judge you based on other factors since SO doesn't have much to say about you.

Note that I haven't said anything negative about your credibility or trustworthiness.

I'm just answering your questions, though I don't know where you're going with them

Re "Your argument has arguably less support than mine does.", The only thing I've been saying is that there is no support.

I disagree. I think the amount of support present in both answers is subjective.

(looks up definition) You think the support "is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."? That's not support.

Let's take one small example. The title of a page has the word "official" on it. Is that indicative of an official page? Well it depends on how much credibility you give the page. One person may give it some. I might give it none.

That's fine. I never presented it as support. I said that's what it is.

Fine. If you want to completely separate credibility from "supporting arguments" then neither answer has any support. I'm not here to argue linguistics.

No idea what that means.

That's because it doesn't make any sense. Supporting arguments should come from credible sources.

The pages you quoted are extremely credible. None of them say anything about mtgcommander.net being official, though, so their credibility is not relevant.

The rule book said the MTG Commander was the source of "additional resources". I am able to connect dots here. I don't need it to be spelled out for me with the word "official".

Your argument boils down to: 1) These page are by credible. 2) They mention mtgcommander.net. 3) The list on mtgcommander.net is official. You can't get to (3) from and (1) and (2).

A life counter dice is an additional resource.

My argument has nothing to do with the credibility of the SOURCES. It has to do with the credibility of MTG Commander itself.

Commander images are additional resources.

If you can establish MTG Commander as credible, then the word "official" at the top means something.

Fine, the ban list may or may not be an additional resource. I get your point.

It doesn't mean that MTG can make official rules.

Actually it does. The rules specifically allow for MTG Commander to house additional resources. It does not restrict it from introducing official rules.

The author of the site is also on the rules committee for Commander. He makes the rules.

Establishing credibility might be what separates my answer from yours. Would you agree?

Re "The rules specifically allow for MTG Commander to house additional resources." No, Anyone can house additional resources. The rules merely point to them.

The rules for MTG are permissive. If they don't say something can happen, it can't.

Furthermore, The rules have no standing to make a banlist, much less delegate that authority. Ban lists are dictated by the entity running the tournament.

I better go post my own banlist on mtgcommander, then!

Again, nothing in what you quoted claims mtfcommander is official.

Lots of web sites have links to other sites. It's silly to think it's considered an endorsement!

@ikegami Actually, MTG Commander itself claims that MTG Commander is official. That much is present in both of our answers, in the very first sentence. The difference is that I attempt to establish the credibility of MTG Commander, and you do not. Credibility is subjective. It's importance to my answer is subjective.