It is patently ridiculous to ban an entire archetype, and if I'm being honest, it sounds like you're just letting your emotions get the better of you.
Infinite combo decks make up very little of the meta. In vintage and standard, there are no tier-1 combo decks. In legacy and modern, there is as single tier-1 combo deck each. Combos don't dominate to any degree. They're incredibly vulnerable to disruption, they fall apart to the average sideboard, and in formats like commander, they're hard to set up while several other players are watching. They're just not good. There's no reason to ban cards that aren't performing well.
I noticed you're also asking for people to stop using alternate win-cons, planeswalkers, net-decks, and cards they know are "broken." The brutal truth is this: Nobody will ever voluntarily build a weaker deck just so you can have more fun. If I'm organizing a basketball team, I'm not gonna pick a bunch of 4'5" guys with breathing problems because my opponent gets mad when I try to draft LeBron James.
You say that "A stronger fighter (i.e. the best players) should look for a challenge to win, not take the easy way out." By asking for concessions, you're trying to take the easy way out. You're rejecting a challenge. A win is supposed to be challenging not because your opponent is going easy on you. A win is supposed to be challenging because both players are trying their best.
Valentine#52796
It is patently ridiculous to ban an entire archetype, and if I'm being honest, it sounds like you're just letting your emotions get the better of you.
Infinite combo decks make up very little of the meta. In vintage and standard, there are no tier-1 combo decks. In legacy and modern, there is as single tier-1 combo deck each. Combos don't dominate to any degree. They're incredibly vulnerable to disruption, they fall apart to the average sideboard, and in formats like commander, they're hard to set up while several other players are watching. They're just not good. There's no reason to ban cards that aren't performing well.
I noticed you're also asking for people to stop using alternate win-cons, planeswalkers, net-decks, and cards they know are "broken." The brutal truth is this: Nobody will ever voluntarily build a weaker deck just so you can have more fun. If I'm organizing a basketball team, I'm not gonna pick a bunch of 4'5" guys with breathing problems because my opponent gets mad when I try to draft LeBron James.
You say that "A stronger fighter (i.e. the best players) should look for a challenge to win, not take the easy way out." By asking for concessions, you're trying to take the easy way out. You're rejecting a challenge. A win is supposed to be challenging not because your opponent is going easy on you. A win is supposed to be challenging because both players are trying their best.