Every time I look there's 5 new decks for formats I don't care about, it's getting cluttered. the little tag things isn't really a nice option forever.

I've noticed that too. How do you think it should be split?

~SE++

Decks I like and decks I don't

I think the simplest split would be a two way one, somewhere along these lines:

New: standard and modern
Old: vintage, legacy, edh

Casual decks can simply use the casual tag and go in whichever is most appropriate (usually old, but some play groups limit their casual decks to newer cards, either intentionally or incidentally.)

This is ugly and nonsensical. Just do a simple Competitive-Casual split.

Offhand, I'm not sure that'd be enough of a split. There's...how many threads on the first page that would go to casual?

EDIT: Looks like seven or eight-ish? Better than I thought, but a more even split would better maintain activities in both areas.

New (standard & modern), Eternal (legacy & vintage), Casual (multiplayer & EDH)?

~SE++

8 that are clearly marked "casual". More are casual but labeled other things.

Regardless, how are you going to not awkwardly fit everything into two neat piles? This is as close as it gets. Miss Bun's example is unsettling, and it doesn't even include the "casual" tag. Sometimes there really are just lump casual decks with no format home.

Tryhard (Standard and Modern), Obsolete (Legacy, Vintage, Block and Extended), Jank (Casual, FFA and EDH) and Hipster (Pauper and the rest)
Or more seriously, I would do Standard, Eternal and Casual. I think the crowd that likes Modern is also interested in Legacy and vice-versa, and Vintage needs someone to look at what you post. Likewise, I think Standard and Casual would like an isolated environment if we are going to do a split. Feel free to disagree.

While I think that Casual and Competitive is a logical splitting point, I think that there can be tension between these two groups and people get upset when they think their thread belongs in the other section but isn't. I want there to be a split but I don't want the two groups warring with each other and I don't think we need elitist mentalities arising from either group.

why cant we just split it by format

Because if we did one for Standard, Modern, Legacy, Vintage, Casual, EDH, Multiplayer, Star, Emperor, Type 4, etc, then we'd have a crap-ton of forums that each have very few threads.

~SE++

Also, the more forums you have, the further other forums (PBP, M:EM, AF&S, YMTC and all of D&D most significantly) are pushed down the page. Plus, I'm given to understand that it's easier to SPLIT forums than to MERGE forums. Is that correct?

answer: why not subforums

Not really, Keeper. Merging's easy--splitting's the harder of the two.

Welp. Nevermind then. I must have been thinking of discussions about merging Art with F&S back on Wizards, which apparently was atrociously difficult for some reason. (Incompetence? Probably incompetence.)

First point stands though.

Sub forums are the only right why to do it. If you can't then don't bother doing anything.

Is it really that big a deal?

There is not nearly enough traffic there to justify splitting it up further.

I mean you're complaining about deck threads existing.

Really?

It's hard to find the threads I'm looking for. Go away.

If you are having trouble finding what you're looking for the forum does have a search function.

The problem with sub forums is that you start going deeper and deeper into sections and it ultimately makes it very difficult to find anything. I'm not sure that will be a problem here but it's an argument against having "constructed" and then building all the formats within it.