i am not sure if swans is competitive

Well it did win a Modern state championship here. Here I attempt to further improve the deck to tier 1.5/2 competitive. Or are you saying the only decks that should be tagged competitive are netdecks of the few dozen current tournament-winning archetypes?

Eidolon of the Great Revel would help with opponent lockout to get to the swan combo

well, to be fair, first off tiers are established by how much it is played rather than how powerful it is (though those two correlate) so since the deck does not have a lot of standings it would be considered tier 4. as for the state championship, most of the decks it faced had little interaction to stop the combo, it's no wonder it beat eldrazitron, especially since eldrazitron has no removal and a bad combo matchup. one tournament result doesn't make a deck competitive.

oh, yeah, and the owner of the deck even admitted it was bad.

How is any of your input constructive? If you don't enjoy it or don't think it's competitive, give suggestions on what you think would make it better. bah-bammmm. And the owners original list is bad. Bad it was also a budget list, and had one linear gameplan. This list is far more competitive than the states list that won.

Thanks for the vote of confidence! Far more competitive might be a stretch though. Like other people have observed, Swans is pretty much strictly worse than Twin since it just has to run fewer spells.

He's probably just a troll anyways. Defining tiers based on usage makes zero sense on a website dedicated to brewing, like I said before. If he's insisting semantics, we can just call it a prospective tier 1.5-2.5 instead.

defining tiers based on usage does not make zero sense. that's what tiers are, how often a deck is used. this website was never stated to be designed strictly for brewing

You already (correctly) explained that "tiers" refers to usage, and I already said that if we want to be semantically accurate, we can use a different word like "prospective." Further arguing the point isn't constructive, as C.LewisMTG just pointed out, and I said it's arguing semantics. "Semantics" refers to the meaning of words, so "arguing semantics" has come to refer to aimlessly arguing about the meaning of a word.

Also, whether or not the site "was designed strictly for brewing" (if we're arguing semantics, then you're incorrect because I only said "dedicated to"), the fact is this list is a brew. So it doesn't make sense to discuss tiers here since this list is tier 3 by definition, whereas we're obviously trying to change that.

If you do want to debate the semantics, maybe we can coin a term for a metric that runs parallel "tiers" that measures the usage of the deck in a metagame at mixed strategy Nash equilibrium instead of the current usage (tier)? If you don't like "prospective tier", maybe "power level" or "expected tier"? Another person might be tired of arguing semantics at this point, but you're in luck because I actually study philosophy, linguistics, and computer science!

Edit: agh! put the wrong link and it wouldn't let me edit