u/Candid-Scarcity3735

Hi Gavin, and hi everyone,

I'm Matteo, an Italian Pauper player who's been in the format for a couple of years now. I enjoy Pauper, and despite being the metagame stale for a while, I still have fun with it.

I'm writing this not because I necessarily disagree with the latest ban decision taken, but because I think the way recent decisions have been communicated deserves some constructive feedback. I want to be clear: I appreciate that the PFP puts out videos and articles explaining its reasoning. That transparency is genuinely valuable and better than a lot of other formats get. My concern is more about the substance and framing of that communication.

Here are a few specific points from the video "Today We're Banning a Card - A Pauper Update" and the article "Explanation of Pauper Seeker of Skybreak Ban for June 29, 2026" that I think are worth revisiting:

When discussing sideboard answers to the Seeker/Bow combo deck, the video points to cards like Blue Elemental Blast, Cast Into the Fire, and Troublemaker Ouphe. Most experienced Pauper players would recognize these as staples that see play regardless of whether the combo deck is in the metagame at all — Blast in any blue deck, Cast into the Fire for its general versatility, Ouphe because artifacts and enchantments are present in the format while also defining it. Framing them as targeted answers to this specific deck feels like it overstates the case a bit.
The line about it being "almost assured" that a piece of the combo would eventually get banned sits a little uneasily next to the earlier posts and reels asking players' opinions on whether to ban it. If the outcome was already close to decided, it might be worth being upfront about that rather than framing it as an open question to the community.
The stated philosophy of "acting sooner rather than letting something we know needs to go stick around" doesn't quite match how Basking Broodscale was handled after Modern Horizons 3 — that combo dominated the format for months, including a rough Paupergeddon in Rome in November 2024 (mirror of the combo in the final and 13 decks in the top 32), before being banned in March 2025, nine months after release. It would help to understand what's different this time, or whether the panel's approach has intentionally shifted.
Similarly, the reasoning that a ban was needed partly to avoid "tainting" data from upcoming events like Paupergeddon and Pauper Genesis is a bit hard to square with the fact that Sneaky Snacker — also from MH3 — has already appeared at multiple major events over the past two years without action being taken.
On the "you could combo off turn three" framing: that's true in a best-case scenario, but most seasoned players know glass-cannon decks are inconsistent, and no one of the actual 5-0 or Challenge-winning lists were leaning on cards like Simian Spirit Guide or Lotus Petal. Highlighting this line, risks giving an imprecise picture of why the deck was a problem in your opinion.

None of this is meant as criticism for its own sake — I just think that when a body as central to the format as the PFP explains its reasoning, the examples it uses should hold up to scrutiny from players who've followed the format closely. Otherwise, the communication risks feeling less like an honest explanation and more like a narrative constructed to support a decision that was already made.

With that in mind, here are some concrete proposals that might bring value and clarity to the future of the format:

Publish clearer banning guidelines. A public explanation of what criteria and heuristics the panel weighs (combo speed, resilience, format polarization, statistics etc.) — something like a standing framework players can reference.
Expand and rotate panel membership. A larger panel with regular membership turnover would make decisions feel more representative and reduce the influence of internal politics or personal biases (if any).
Set clearer eligibility criteria for panel members — for example, a minimum level of active tournament play online or in paper, and safeguards against conflicts of interest (such as involvement in organizing paid events like Paupergeddon or Pauper Genesis).
Lean away from virality-driven framing Maintain a formal and transparent tone in communications, rather than presenting content as a request for community input when a decision has, in fact, likely already been made.
Let the data speak. When possible, ground ban explanations in win-rate and metagame-share data over multiple events.

I'd genuinely love to see this discussed — I think most of us want the same thing: a format that feels managed with transparency and decision taken following clear criteria. Curious to hear what other players think too.

Hi everyone,

I'm a video analyst for a U17 team in the Slovenian First League, and I'm looking to improve the quality of my analysis by adding physical metrics such as player distance covered and speed.

I'm wondering if there's a free tool that can extract these stats from match footage taken with VEO cameras. I know it's possible to build something using AI and coding, and I did try that route, but I ran into a lot of issues with AI accuracy, and I don't have the programming skills to develop a reliable solution myself. I'm aware this could be done with GPS monitoring but we only had that system for the main team.

So, does anyone know of a free tool that can track player distance and speed from video? I'd love to incorporate this type of data into my reports for the club.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions or advice!

Best way from Tirana to Durrës in July/August with a toddler? (fastest/cheapest ratio)

An open letter to Gavin Verhey and the Pauper Format Panel about recent communications

Need recommendations: Free software for player distance/speed analysis from video

Orzhov Blade discord