Cube community design sounds like a contradiction, and it half is. A cube with one owner has a point of view. A cube built by committee has an average. But the owner who ignores the people drafting the list every week ends up with a cube that is theirs and nobody else’s, and then nobody else shows up. The useful position is in between, and it is more specific than “listen to feedback.”
This is about how to take input from a group without handing them the pen. It is written from the experience of running a cube for a community that has opinions, and from watching other owners get this wrong in both directions.
Why not just let the group decide?
Because groups do not design; they accumulate. Every drafter has a card they love, a deck they want to be better, and a card they hate losing to. Grant every request and the cube gets the union of eight people’s favorites and loses the intersection of what makes them a deck.
The specific failure looks like this. One regular asks for more reanimator support, so Entomb and Animate Dead go in. Another asks for better graveyard hate because they keep losing to reanimator, so Rest in Peace and Leyline of the Void go in. A third asks for fewer “unfun” cards and names Rest in Peace. The owner now has a cube that supports a deck, punishes that deck, and is being asked to remove the punishment. Each request was reasonable. The sum is a mess.
Groups are also biased toward the present. The request after a night where Boros won every round is “nerf aggro.” The request after a night where control won is “nerf blue.” An owner who acts on each is tuning the cube to last week’s variance, which we wrote about in variance in cube design.
Why not just ignore them?
Because the drafters know things the owner cannot.
The owner sees the cube from the outside: the spreadsheet, the counts, the slot plan. The drafters see it from the inside: what it feels like to be in pack two with a half-built deck and nothing coming. A regular who says “I can never find enough two-drops for white” is reporting a fact about the cube that the owner’s count of white two-drops did not reveal, maybe because half of them are mediocre and get passed, maybe because they are being taken by every deck.
Drafters also know what they enjoy, which the owner cannot know for them. If three regulars say the sacrifice deck is the most fun thing in the cube, that is design information: deepen it. If nobody has drafted Lands in a year, that is design information too: it is not fun enough to pursue, however good it is on paper.
And there is the plain social fact. People who are heard come back. People whose requests vanish into silence drift away. A cube that nobody can influence is a cube that belongs to one person, and one person is not a draft.
What is the owner’s job?
Editor, not stenographer and not dictator. The editor’s job has three parts.
Hold the purpose. Every request gets measured against the sentence that says what the cube is for. A request that serves the purpose is a candidate. A request that cuts against it gets a kind no with the reason. If the cube is a teaching tool and someone asks for Sensei’s Divining Top, the answer is no, and the reason is that the cube is for new players and Top is not.
Translate requests into problems. A drafter asks for a card; the owner asks what problem the card solves. “Can we add Kolaghan’s Command” might mean “Rakdos needs more two-for-ones” or “I want to beat artifact decks” or “I like that card.” The first two are design problems with many solutions. The third is a preference, which is fine but weighs less.
Make the call and own it. After hearing the room, the owner decides. One person has to, or nothing coherent happens. The decision gets a line in the changelog with the reasoning, and that line is where the community sees that it was heard even when the answer was no.
A process that works
One working version, offered as a starting point rather than the standard.
- One place for requests. A pinned thread or channel in the group’s Discord. Not DMs, not conversations at the table that get forgotten. Everything in one place, visible to everyone.
- Every request names a problem and a replacement. “Add X” is bounced back with “for what, and what comes out?” This filters half the requests at the door, because the requester often realizes the slot is already full.
- Requests go on the watch list, not into the cube. Same list the owner’s own ideas go on. A request waits for the monthly swap like everything else. The cadence we described in a cube is never finished applies to community input too.
- Monthly, the owner posts the swaps with one line each. Including which requests went in, which did not, and why. “Bounced Smothering Tithe for now; the request was that Orzhov needs a four-drop, but the cut would be Lingering Souls and that costs the tokens lane more than Tithe adds.”
- Once a year, a real vote on structure. Not on cards. On the big things: should we add a lane, should we change the power band, should we grow to 540. The structure is the part that belongs to the group most, and the owner should be willing to lose that vote.
If this is useful, the newsletter sends more like it.
Which requests should be granted?
Rough triage, in order of how seriously to take them.
| Request type | Weight | Example |
|---|---|---|
| A lane is unbuildable | High | “I’ve tried Selesnya three times and never had enough payoffs.” Check the counts; this is usually right. |
| A card is miserable to face | High, if repeated | “Nobody likes losing to Armageddon.” If three people say it, it is a texture problem. |
| A deck everyone loves could be deeper | Medium-high | “The sacrifice deck is the best thing here, can it have more?” Yes, within the slot budget. |
| A card is weak | Medium | Often right, but check pick data before cutting; one drafter’s “weak” is another’s lane piece. |
| A specific new card should go in | Medium-low | Watch list, with replacement named, wait for data. |
| A card the requester personally loves | Low | Legitimate, and it might fit, but it weighs least. |
| Nerf whatever won last week | Very low | Wait three weeks and see if it is still winning. |
The high-weight categories are the ones where drafters have information the owner lacks. The low-weight ones are preference, and preference is fine, but it does not get to overrule the design.
What about a cube that is meant to be shared?
Some cubes are community property on purpose: a store cube, a club cube, a cube with several co-owners. The design lesson is the same, with one change: the editor role still has to exist, but it can rotate or be a small committee of two or three. What does not work is a cube where everyone can edit the CubeCobra list. Within a year that cube is a staples pile with a few pet cards, and nobody can say why anything is in it.
If the cube belongs to a group, give the group the structure vote and give one or two people the card decisions for a set term. Then rotate. The point of view will shift slowly, which is fine, rather than being averaged away, which is not.
How do you say no?
Briefly, warmly, and with the reason. “Not for this list. The cube is built so new players can read every card, and that one has a paragraph on it. If we ever run a higher-power night, it is first in.” That is a complete answer. It tells the person they were heard, tells them why, and leaves the door open.
What does not work is silence, or “I’ll think about it” with no follow-up, or a yes that the owner resents. A no with a reason is better for the relationship than a yes without conviction, because the yes makes the cube worse, and the person who asked will eventually notice that too.
FAQ
Should cube drafters have a say in the list?
Yes, as a source of information the owner cannot get otherwise: which lanes feel unbuildable, which cards are miserable, which decks are loved. The owner still makes the final call.
How do I handle cube requests from my group?
One visible place for requests, each naming a problem and a replacement; requests go on the watch list; monthly swaps posted with reasons, including the ones declined.
Can a cube be designed by committee?
Not well. A committee averages preferences away. Give the group a vote on structure and keep one or two editors for card decisions, rotating if the cube is shared.
What if a regular keeps asking for the same card?
Answer once with the reason, in writing, in the shared channel. If the reason changes, revisit it. If it does not, the written answer stands and you do not have to argue it again.
One editor, many voices
A good cube has many people’s fingerprints on it and one person’s judgment behind it. Hear the room, hold the purpose, make the call, and say why. The game is the reason. The people are the point.
Subscribe to The Ludarium newsletter for new pieces on cube design and the groups that play it. If you are near Indianapolis, Cube Commonwealth, our cube group, is relaunching as part of The Ludarium; subscribers hear first when the first night is set.
Get the next one in your inbox.
Cube news, draft guides, and Cube Commonwealth updates from The Ludarium.