Did you know you can open a bottle of champagne with a saber? Well, you can. If you are just learning how to use a saber (a tool used for decapitating foes while on horseback) or—far more likely—just learning how to open a bottle of champagne, you wouldn’t attempt this feat. While that’s an exaggeration, the same lesson is true for writing.

The first installment of this series was the preamble to the process. Before sitting down to write anything, a potential author must understand what it is he or she is trying to say. Of course, that only goes so far. The grandest of architects cannot will a building into existence. Rather, there are specific tools for the job. The rules of language are odd because they are constantly evolving. Words have distinct definitions, yet they may mean slightly different things in disparate regions. On top of that, the choices made by the author can directly influence how a reader interprets a piece. The onus is on the writer to not only welcome readers into a piece, but also educate and do this through the kludge that is the written word. Therefore, it follows that if you are going to create work, you should have some degree of mastery over language.

Last time, I asked you all if you would be interested in coming together as a community to create our own plane in the vast Multiverse, and the response was more than positive. Of those of you who voted (and there were quite a few), over 90% expressed interest in helping to create a community-crafted plane. But the fun didn’t stop there. I received countless e-mails and tweets from all of you expressing your interest in the project—as well as in presenting different ideas you all had for the world we will create. All of the positive energy toward the project has me fired up, and I’m ready to work with you all in order to watch the magic unfold!

Here is how this will play out: In each article, I will present all of you with a challenge. Each of these challenges will help lead us toward making key creative decisions for our world. I will set a time limit (and most likely a word limit) for each challenge, and then I will gather all the information into my next article. Once all the submissions are in, they will be organized in an article so that we can put it to a vote, and as a community, we can decide what we want to incorporate into our plane. All final decisions will be posted into a Google Live Update Status Document that will be updated with each final decision we make as a community. This document will slowly fill itself out until we have created an entire style guide of our own—for our own plane. All information contained within the live document will be considered our official canon, and it will be free to be used by any community member and be built upon in future submissions.

For this analysis, I am defining “top-finishing deck” as finishing in the top 5% of tournaments with 129+ players (8 rounds or more). I know that I have been inconsistent in choosing a definition for top-finishing deck, so there are issues with comparing these analyses. However, I decided that I will stick to this definition for this and all future analyses. Furthermore, this methodology means that we are looking at a winner’s metagame, not necessarily a complete metagame. Please note that I consolidated some decks for ease of presentation. In general, I look at the deck and ask if the general philosophy is to play a controlling game or an aggressive game and then place it in its appropriate category. Faeries was a tough deck to categorize as it is a very tempo-oriented deck with control elements. In the end, I decided the other “aggro” decks of the format had a much more proactive, beatdown-focused game plan than Faeries, so I put it under “control.” The percentages are the number of top decks in the archetype divided by the total number of top-finishing decks.

Our stakes, thankfully, are much smaller, but situational awareness is no less useful in our own endeavors than it is in matters of National Security. There are subtle cues and hints that our opponents give off that allow us to pick up information beyond the board state—though some of these clues actually are the board state—and afford us marginal advantages in the information war.

Let's talk a little bit about television shows.

What's the ultimate goal of the people working on a television show? If you said “to create a great piece of programming,” then you'd be close. Their ultimate goal is in fact to create a great piece of programming next season.

Television shows are evaluated for continuation by the people in control of production, people with experience, talent — and yes, sometimes just people with the money to make it happen. They make these judgment calls based on an incredible number of factors — and for all of you Game of Thrones complainants, I can assure you that “faithfulness to the book” isn't something they esteem highly.

Are their systems of review antiquated or ineffective? Perhaps in some cases, sure. It's an evolving industry with a lot of old money involved. But what they want most of all are butts in seats, and that's not going to change anytime soon — nor should it.

And yet, the majority of the audience are, for lack of a better term, ignorant laymen about every aspect of making a television show. Isn't it odd that those are the kinds of people entrusted as a collective with determining the merit of a show? If we don't watch, it will be deemed a failure and canceled, regardless of merit — sorry, Arrested Development. If we do, it will soldier on as a monument to the mediocrity of society — I'll just indict the majority of MTV's programming here.

I've always been reluctant to criticize people and processes I don't significantly understand, which is why I take the time to learn about the things I love. Television, movies, books, music, Magic, the people I vote for on election day — all of them. Having an informed opinion is worthwhile in and of itself.

Let's talk a little bit about Grand Prix Chicago.

The release of Electronic Power Nine cards to MTGO has created quite a splash so far, as for the first time ever, actual Powered Vintage is available for tournament play on Magic Online. Players from all around the world are making the most of this opportunity to get their Vintage on and playing in daily events online.

So, what's good in Vintage online?

Well, in today's article I will be taking a look at tournament results from MTGO Daily Events that have taken place between 6-17 and 6-27 and let you know what has been good so far, as well as give you some tips to stay ahead of the game as the metagame moves forward.

Dear Hall of Fame selection committee voter,

Here is your official ballot for the 2014 Magic Pro Tour Hall of Fame election.

That is the greeting to the ballots that were just sent out to the newly consolidated selection committee that is made up of commentators, tournament officials, key Wizards personnel, and all Magic players in good standing with more than 150 lifetime Pro Points. This year's ballot, which is the first to use the new threshold of 150 lifetime points to be eligible for induction, is considerably smaller than it was last season.

I am going to walk through the ballot year by year and give you a brief overview of the careers of these Hall of Fame–eligible players. I will start with players new to the ballot, meaning their Pro Tour careers began during the 2003–2004 season, and I will work backwards year by year to discuss players who remain on the ballot from previous seasons. If a player has appeared on fewer than 10% of the ballots for three years, the player removed from future ballots. Players can reactivate their eligibility by acquiring 4 Pro Points in the season leading up to a ballot.