Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-9944069-20170509014102/@comment-26593304-20170509050305

If the main problem here is grammar, what's stopping us from correcting it? It's not like we're changing the meaning of the description/title, we're just making it 1) look nicer and 2) grammatically correct. Unless the original user objects to our corrections for some reason I don't see a problem with proofreading without their permission. We're making it better (hopefully), not worse.

"Bad deck" is also a relative term. All/most decks have some counter to them. For example, hyper-aggro tends to beat most, if not all, decks that take time to set up. Control counters aggro.... usually. Midrange has the tools to counter both Control and Aggro, but often lacks tribal synergy.

And what's the matter with adding theorycrafted decks? The Brainstorm deck (the ”all trick" one; it's there somewhere) I added some time ago was theorycrafted at the time. It has since been tested and shown to be pretty effective. It's not something I'd take into Ranked consistently (although whenever I do my winrate is about 75%) but it's fun and effective.

I don't think there's a problem with a theorycrafted deck so long as it is tested eventually and then judged by the user accordingly. If it's fun or has a high winrate, then keep it. If it's neither, then don't, but the decision ultimately lies with the original user.