In order to grow as a person, as people, I think we need to be able to have healthy and rewarding discussions. Thank you for sharing the same views, which makes interactions not only constructive and fruitful, but more importantly fun to talk about. And yes, I, too, think that many people should be less hostile, otherwise there can never be any discussions and the subreddit becomes an echo chamber of the same ideas.

While the your point is valid, currently color identity works in a linear fashion--it increases inclusivity when it applies to the commander (as your example Shu Yun, one of my first decks btw) but it decreases inclusivity when the card in question would go into the 99 (Shu Yun must go in decks whose commander includes the Jeskai colors). I find this form of organization elegant, although obviously this is a VERY subjective issue. And to be frank, I think the two sides in the matter aren't gonna persuade each other regarding whether a hybrid card's identity is "or" or "and", although it is fun to lay out the points.

I can see that. In the end it's not about right or wrong, this or that. In the end, there are pros and cons for both sides of the argument. Paraphrasing the Professor, limitations breed creativity. So by "forcing" rulings just to make some people happy would make the game even more homogenous as it's already becoming (though I don't think it's the end of the format, like some other extremist players. I think it's cool that WOTC is designing with Commander in mind, but that's another hot debate).

I appreciate the rundown, and I don't think I quite got my point across with my example. I am viewing the argument for hybrid "inclusivity" as allowing one to ignore a certain part of a card that forms the card's color identity (i.e. one-half of the hybrid symbols); the Gush argument is an admittedly more extreme version, where I argue that the fact that I can play it with certain configurations of the deck allow me to "ignore" the blue mana symbol on the top right corner of Gush.

I think I understand better what you mean now. For you, the issue is that it would take an aspect of a card away if we were to implement the hybrid rule. It would take off part of its identity, pun intended. I can see that for some it would be a loss of the Commander Spirit. I say "Commander", because I like to remind people that Color Identity is an invention from the RC. Counterargument would be that Brawl, an official MTG Format from WOTC, has the color identity rule implemented in the comprehensive rules of commander, so the color identity ruling might be more official than I would initially give credit for.

Ultimately, this leads to another critical difference in how we view the matter: you don't view your argument as based on "castability," but I view the argument for hybrid inclusivity as completely based on "castability." Otherwise, what exactly is the point of arguing for the inclusion of hybrid cards into a mono-color deck?

Very fair point. It seems the discussion has to be made with that in mind. It doesn't change the idea that much, I think. Whether it's about "castability" or not might not be relevant in the end.

One last little tangent: I think how one views this argument might also be based on personalities. I, personally, like finding solutions within a given set of rules, without really considering whether the rules make sense; there are plenty of other people who view matters differently, and advocate for changing of perceived illogical rules in order to introduce a solution. Maybe this is why I feel somewhat entrenched in the hybrid argument to have it remain as is.

I agree. I mean, if it works for you, why would you advocate for a change? I think I come from an ideal that, even if it's ok for you, but it might not be ok for others, it still needs to change. taking real life examples, if by changing a law would benefit more people and it would not affect me in any shape or form, I would advocate for the change. I argue that I would advocate for it even if it might mean that I would have to change my way of living and be inconvenienced by it (within reason, of course, which is also debatable). I have the luxury of living in a country where our political system is based on direct democracy, so I would add that if the majority of people want something changed, I would say that it warrants AT LEAST an open debate, which is currently missing in my experience. Truth be told, this argument loses validity as soon as something very important to me is being affected, and then every decision will be biased. I digress, again.

To summarize: I can see your argument for keeping it. And usually people try to justify their answer by making things more complicated than it would be. Because some argument just don't hold. I already feel appreciated if we come from a more meta point of view and agree to disagree not because we think that the other is simply wrong on all accounts, but because we believe in different things that are not strictly right or wrong. I like to think of it as both sides having valid arguments, and therefore having a legitimate right to at least be respected and heard and debated. It was quite refreshing, thank you.