I didn't say they didn't have the right. I said that players have a choice as to whom they want to recognize with the language they use to talk about the game. I also didn't say that I avoid both eternal formats. May your meta have more modal spells. http://i.imgur.com/NhtRKZR.gif/img][/quote]
What you said was "Doing so also robs brewers of their right to name their creation". So yes, you did say that. To be fair, however, I misread where you said you deliberately avoid non-eternal formats as the opposite. That's on me, but it doesn't change my point. You should learn the terms of the game, no matter when they're established, especially if they become widely accepted convention.
[quote="Karakand, post: 229934904"]Anyway, they should use whatever terminology keeps them in business. We should use terminology that isn't strictly inferior to simple mana abbreviations at conveying nuance (if I said I ran a G/w deck it conveys more nuance about the character of my deck than saying I ran a Selesnya deck) and we shouldn't use terminology that is hidebound by flavor definitions that may or may not actually represent the deck in question (if I said I play Temur in Type 1.5 and you web search what Temur is, you're not going to have a good idea of what RUG Delver is like) because they exist outside the playing history of the game and, as a result, can either reflect it somewhat (Naya) or be a conscious creation with minimal precedent (Izzet).[/quote]
While I appreciate the idea that could flavor have to do with why they choose names for coverage, I think why they do what they do is a far more simple prospect than that.
.
[LIST]
[*]Green White vs Seleysnia: It seems like they stick with the one with fewer syllables. It's just easier to say.
[*]Izzet vs Blue Red: I would argue Izzet is easier to say. But who knows why they don't just say 'blue red'.
[/LIST]
.
Now, by the same token, RUG is easier to say than Temur, and BUG is easier than Sultai, but they pushed those names so hard during Khans block that now they just kind of stuck. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't.
[quote="Karakand, post: 229934904"]If a deck truly embodied a concept we hadn't seen before and couldn't be easily described by a name that included its color and defining card(s), names like Sligh are useful as by learning the name you learn something that can be used down the line. Stompy was described to me as being "like the format's Sligh" when I first got into Pauper and while I don't really agree with that definition in hindsight, that description gave me a lot of information about the deck itself and the prevailing metagame. It's amusing that you bring up Team America as these days it's fairly standard to refer to it as BUG Control which makes communication more tedious as BUG Shardless Control (whose name has nothing to do with BUG being a wedge instead of a shard!) is a thing in Type 1.5 too.[/quote]
Calling Sligh "Red Aggro" wouldn't be an issue to me. I was around for it being called Sligh way back in the mid-90s, and I hated the name then, too. It tells me nothing about it inherently, and this was far before Google. The definition of the word does not fit what the deck does (maybe in a meta sense, but not in functionality, but that's even worse). I only knew what it was because of Inquest. Stompy at least means what it says. In fact, I'd argue that them saying "it's like the format's Sligh" is pretty accurate because it seems like they might have meant "it's the format's fast aggro deck".
I bring up Team America because many people think of Red White and Blue when they think of the name "America" in a deck, and the deck is not that. It's an unintiuitive and bad name.
Sometimes the ordering of the words matters. As they're called today in coverage, Sultai Control and Shardless Sultai evoke two different style decks. I haven't seen it called BUG Shardless Control in... maybe ever, but certainly not in a long time. That said there just isn't a lot of Legacy coverage these days, sadly. I miss it.
[quote="Karakand, post: 229934904"]Also, Wizards didn't name The Rock, Sol Malka did. Robots is old as dirt too, albeit more as a piece of Spike slang that inevitably arises from talking about the same 30-50 cards over and over again during a season than an actual archetype.[/QUOTE]
To be fair I never said they named it or Robots, I only said they used the terms. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. My point is that often Wizards forces terms, which sometimes stick around, and sometimes they don't.
For example, I remember when they started adding black to Jeskai decks during Khans standard. StarCityGames called the deck Jeskai Black. Wizards, however, decided to try the term Dark Jeskai. It was really interesting to watch the two coverage teams call the same deck by a different name, and neither side relented. This is an example I would argue Wizards lost, as today the deck is still called Jeskai Black. Whether they invented the terms or not, they forced Robots and White Rock the same ways, and lost both of those as well.
They're at their best establishing terms when they attach the names to the cards. Like the shards or the wedges. Those are still used today. Oddly, the two color combo ones didn't stick, but I would still say that it's because they're not easier to say. The three color names roll off the tongue much better (even if I agree RUG and BUG are easier to say, it leaves out other combinations like UWR and BRU that aren't easily phonetic).
