I don't see any comparison in that article to Gamergate. I see the use of the suffix "-gate", which has become part of the English language to mean something like "a scandal, to which there is a loud outcry from the general population" (or from the appropriate population, in this case Commander players). This is taken from the famous Watergate scandal (see also this WP article about various scandals that use "-gate"). I'm not getting the "ethics" thing either; the Watergate scandal was all about unethical deeds covering up other unethical deeds. Nothing in the SCG article suggests to me that there was any attempt to compare players' reactions to the removal of tuck to Gamergate.
I don't see any comparison in that article to Gamergate.
"It's about ethics in Commander Rules Committee reform" is a direct shot at how Gamergate used "it's about ethics in video game journalism" as a cover story for unbridled hatred and misogyny. The fact that Gamergate, as a movement, was so utterly vile (I remind you that they felt it necessary to protect "ethics in video game journalism" through harassment, doxing, death threats, and literal terrorist threats) means it's deeply insensitive for the writer to compare detractors of the rules change to it (the connotation is that he feels said detractors simply want to harass people and are using the rules change as pretext) and negligent of SCG's editing staff to let such a thing through.
I don't see any comparison in that article to Gamergate.
"It's about ethics in Commander Rules Committee reform" is a direct shot at how Gamergate used "it's about ethics in video game journalism" as a cover story for unbridled hatred and misogyny. The fact that Gamergate, as a movement, was so utterly vile (I remind you that they felt it necessary to protect "ethics in video game journalism" through harassment, doxing, death threats, and literal terrorist threats) means it's deeply insensitive for the writer to compare detractors of the rules change to it (the connotation is that he feels said detractors simply want to harass people and are using the rules change as pretext) and negligent of SCG's editing staff to let such a thing through.
I agree that line combined with the title makes it pretty obvious he's referencing gamergate, which I think was a childish thing he likely did just for sensationalist click-bait.
I agree with the overall message of the article. I understand why they got rid of tucking and I kind of agree with it. Commander is a casual format, and tucking is only really useful against people playing overpowered combo-enabling commanders (in other words, not casual players). If you're in a competitive play-group that uses that sort of commander, then by all means you should house-rule tucking so that there's a legitimate way to deal with those commanders. For the Timmy's who like playing big splashy commanders and cards (the people the format was and still is designed for) tucking was just a feel-bad thing that usually didn't even have too much of an impact on the game. They made this rule for the casual players that the format is supposed to be for, and I can agree with that.
That said, the tone of the article was very condescending, and the obvious comparison to gamersgate is just flat out sensationalist and not the kind of thing a site as prominent in our community as SCG should be publishing.
I don't see any comparison in that article to Gamergate.
"It's about ethics in Commander Rules Committee reform" is a direct shot at how Gamergate used "it's about ethics in video game journalism" as a cover story for unbridled hatred and misogyny. The fact that Gamergate, as a movement, was so utterly vile (I remind you that they felt it necessary to protect "ethics in video game journalism" through harassment, doxing, death threats, and literal terrorist threats) means it's deeply insensitive for the writer to compare detractors of the rules change to it (the connotation is that he feels said detractors simply want to harass people and are using the rules change as pretext) and negligent of SCG's editing staff to let such a thing through.
It's really really not. He even intentionally draws government comparisons later in the article too. You're absolutely forcing the comparison.
I don't see any comparison in that article to Gamergate.
"It's about ethics in Commander Rules Committee reform" is a direct shot at how Gamergate used "it's about ethics in video game journalism" as a cover story for unbridled hatred and misogyny. The fact that Gamergate, as a movement, was so utterly vile (I remind you that they felt it necessary to protect "ethics in video game journalism" through harassment, doxing, death threats, and literal terrorist threats) means it's deeply insensitive for the writer to compare detractors of the rules change to it (the connotation is that he feels said detractors simply want to harass people and are using the rules change as pretext) and negligent of SCG's editing staff to let such a thing through.
As someone who agrees 100% with you on the Gamergate issue itself, I think you're seriously stretching here. "It's about ethics in..." has become a meme in itself, even though it obviously originated from the Gamergate issue. I've seen people use it as a joke in all sorts of contexts. Using the meme does not at all imply that you are attempting to draw a comparison to the vileness of the Gamergate "movement." I see absolutely nothing in the article that would imply the author is attempting to make this comparison that you're putting into his mouth.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
I don't see any comparison in that article to Gamergate.
"It's about ethics in Commander Rules Committee reform" is a direct shot at how Gamergate used "it's about ethics in video game journalism" as a cover story for unbridled hatred and misogyny. The fact that Gamergate, as a movement, was so utterly vile (I remind you that they felt it necessary to protect "ethics in video game journalism" through harassment, doxing, death threats, and literal terrorist threats) means it's deeply insensitive for the writer to compare detractors of the rules change to it (the connotation is that he feels said detractors simply want to harass people and are using the rules change as pretext) and negligent of SCG's editing staff to let such a thing through.
You honestly should do more research before you spout off information based on misguided or incorrect info.
Sapphire: If you'd like to discuss Gamergate as a whole outside the context of this article, to my understanding there's a Debate thread about it. I've read about the movement in extensive detail and have kept myself to applying it to the context of the SCG article as best I could in light of that, so we don't need to drag the subject away with abstraction.
ThoughtXRiot: On the subject of "ethics in..." being a meme without a specific Gamergate connotation, I disagree on the grounds that it's very hard to remove something from its source in that capacity (similar to how people argue "gay" as an insult doesn't refer to homosexuality, yet it's still homophobic to use it that way). I might be getting a bit on the SJW side here, but at the end of the day, a site like SCG that tries to have mass appeal should be playing it safe with content like that because they're not trying to appeal just to those who find those jokes funny, but to every Magic player, including those who think it's the opposite of funny.
That article is pointlessly inflammatory and condescending.
Not everything is about you. This rules change is not about you.
This whole entitlement thing gets really annoying, considering the 'you' in that statement is the existing players of the game. The writer advocates for the rules committee to not care about the actual players of the game.
The "you" is not all magic players, the "you" is people who are incredibly upset about the rules change. He's not advocating that the rules committee ignore all players.* Sheesh.
That's not what it means. At all. The 'you' there refers to the players of the format objecting to the rules change, being already existing players of the format. Essentially, he's saying the rules change isn't about the existing players of the format, which it wasn't.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
Personally I dont think I really have any issues about the rules change, and I dont really consider myself a Commander player.. but I still had to stop and reread it when I got to the "In this case, the validity of the authority is (at least to me) beyond question..." paragraph. What is this author even trying to say?
What about Commander in particular should disallow the players of that format from voicing their opinions about it?
Why is this article in general written in a way thats so unnecessarily aggressive and offensive?
"The rules change is not about you"? Really? Who is you? Who are you talking to? The people reading your article? Presumably people who play Commander and disagree with you?
The whole thing reads like one side of a forum argument that accidentally got published as an article.
ThoughtXRiot: On the subject of "ethics in..." being a meme without a specific Gamergate connotation, I disagree on the grounds that it's very hard to remove something from its source in that capacity (similar to how people argue "gay" as an insult doesn't refer to homosexuality, yet it's still homophobic to use it that way). I might be getting a bit on the SJW side here, but at the end of the day, a site like SCG that tries to have mass appeal should be playing it safe with content like that because they're not trying to appeal just to those who find those jokes funny, but to every Magic player, including those who think it's the opposite of funny.
To whom do you find the "ethics in..." meme offensive? The people who dislike the rules change, the people victimized by Gamergate, or the GGers themselves?
I think the difference you and I see is that you regard "ethics in..." specifically as a pretext for harassment, whereas I see it as GG's knee-jerk response to pretty much any criticism of GG, to the point where it's impossible to take them seriously, hence the meme. Using "gay" as a pejorative is bad because it's taking a word which has a positive or neutral definition and treating it as something bad, in a world where it's entirely plausible to believe that the speaker is saying that being gay is an inherently bad thing. Using the "ethics in..." meme is taking a ridiculous catchphrase used by a mob of loud, whiny people and applying it to the context of a different mob of loud, whiny people (and as such implying their objections are ridiculous), but given that it's generally a bad thing to be part of a loud, whiny mob, I don't think it's unreasonable to poke fun at one such group by comparing them to another such group.
I do agree that it was probably better for SCG to err on the side of professionalism and not make mention of such a contentious topic.
Personally I dont think I really have any issues about the rules change, and I dont really consider myself a Commander player.. but I still had to stop and reread it when I got to the "In this case, the validity of the authority is (at least to me) beyond question..." paragraph. What is this author even trying to say?
What about Commander in particular should disallow the players of that format from voicing their opinions about it?
Why is this article in general written in a way thats so unnecessarily aggressive and offensive?
"The rules change is not about you"? Really? Who is you? Who are you talking to? The people reading your article? Presumably people who play Commander and disagree with you?
The whole thing reads like one side of a forum argument that accidentally got published as an article.
Outside the Gamergate references the tone isn't that different to some things posted by Mark Rosewater in his "Good design is (insert Maro's personal opinion here)" articles.
I'm cool with SCG writers having an opinion on the rules change that is different to mine, and arguing for it. I'm not offended by SCG having an editorial policy of only printing that opinion and presumably telling their writers to fall into line behind it, or with them being a little elitist about it - we all do that from time to time.
But comparing people you don't agree with to Gamergate, or (dead German dictator, thanks forum censor) or puppy drowners - that's just not cool, IMHO.
I think the difference you and I see is that you regard "ethics in..." specifically as a pretext for harassment, whereas I see it as GG's knee-jerk response to pretty much any criticism of GG, to the point where it's impossible to take them seriously, hence the meme.
I don't get this. All groups will use an equivalent of this line when presented with bad actions of its members ("actually, feminism is about equality" "actually, Christianity is about loving thy neighbor" "actually, libertarianism is about freedom" etc). Why is it so different when gamergate uses it?
ThoughtXRiot: On the subject of "ethics in..." being a meme without a specific Gamergate connotation, I disagree on the grounds that it's very hard to remove something from its source in that capacity.
Only if you really insist on forcing the comparison. Every "Yo daw, I heard you like X..." meme is a reference to Inception if you get down to brass tacks, but that connection is ultimately immaterial the grand majority of the time, as it is here.
Can we all just agree that childish, clickbaity titles suck, and the people who write them suck? Maybe if you want to be taken seriously with your article, don't lead off with being a dick. There are plenty of places discussing the tuck rule that you can just ignore the opinion of anyone who needs to spice up their crappy writing by being insulting and dismissive before they even get to the first sentence of the actual article.
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I'm not familiar with this controversy in MTG, but comparing it to Gamergate when it doesn't sound at all on that level of terrible human behavior strikes me as a stretch. Of course, I imagine the writer actually made the comparison (however vaguely) because they knew it would draw in an audience of readers and generate some form of discussion of the article, which gives the site and the writer some advertising and recognition through word of mouth, whether or not it's positive. Either way, it's pretty sensationalized since I haven't heard anyone threatening to kill and do other unmentionable things to proponents of the change, that and it's just a topic focused around the game that players should be allowed to have input on without ridicule on the basis that players are sort of what keep the game going.
I mean, Gamergate isn't notorious because people are critiquing games: it's notorious because those who claim they are critiquing a system are not actually critiquing it and are instead trying to push a group of players out of the community (women) and are actively attempting to silence any forms of critique about the games themselves through, often, violent threats and harrassment. I don't think people have been doing that about a rule change in a format, and the article's susbtance sort of makes me feel like the author really doesn't understand the Gamergate situation at all. :/
Did this topic really need to be dredged up? Its whole purpose seems to be "Look how much I hate GamerGate! Maybe if I keep saying how awful they are senpai will notice me."
If you want to discuss gamergate, you can do so in Debate. If you have an issue with the SCG writer, contact SCG and let them know what you think. I will keep this discussion open to discuss the merits of the writer's points, but respect everyone's opinion, even the SCG writer. If this delves into another gamergate discussion, it will be locked.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"It's about ethics in Commander Rules Committee reform" is a direct shot at how Gamergate used "it's about ethics in video game journalism" as a cover story for unbridled hatred and misogyny. The fact that Gamergate, as a movement, was so utterly vile (I remind you that they felt it necessary to protect "ethics in video game journalism" through harassment, doxing, death threats, and literal terrorist threats) means it's deeply insensitive for the writer to compare detractors of the rules change to it (the connotation is that he feels said detractors simply want to harass people and are using the rules change as pretext) and negligent of SCG's editing staff to let such a thing through.
I agree that line combined with the title makes it pretty obvious he's referencing gamergate, which I think was a childish thing he likely did just for sensationalist click-bait.
I agree with the overall message of the article. I understand why they got rid of tucking and I kind of agree with it. Commander is a casual format, and tucking is only really useful against people playing overpowered combo-enabling commanders (in other words, not casual players). If you're in a competitive play-group that uses that sort of commander, then by all means you should house-rule tucking so that there's a legitimate way to deal with those commanders. For the Timmy's who like playing big splashy commanders and cards (the people the format was and still is designed for) tucking was just a feel-bad thing that usually didn't even have too much of an impact on the game. They made this rule for the casual players that the format is supposed to be for, and I can agree with that.
That said, the tone of the article was very condescending, and the obvious comparison to gamersgate is just flat out sensationalist and not the kind of thing a site as prominent in our community as SCG should be publishing.
It's really really not. He even intentionally draws government comparisons later in the article too. You're absolutely forcing the comparison.
As someone who agrees 100% with you on the Gamergate issue itself, I think you're seriously stretching here. "It's about ethics in..." has become a meme in itself, even though it obviously originated from the Gamergate issue. I've seen people use it as a joke in all sorts of contexts. Using the meme does not at all imply that you are attempting to draw a comparison to the vileness of the Gamergate "movement." I see absolutely nothing in the article that would imply the author is attempting to make this comparison that you're putting into his mouth.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
You honestly should do more research before you spout off information based on misguided or incorrect info.
ThoughtXRiot: On the subject of "ethics in..." being a meme without a specific Gamergate connotation, I disagree on the grounds that it's very hard to remove something from its source in that capacity (similar to how people argue "gay" as an insult doesn't refer to homosexuality, yet it's still homophobic to use it that way). I might be getting a bit on the SJW side here, but at the end of the day, a site like SCG that tries to have mass appeal should be playing it safe with content like that because they're not trying to appeal just to those who find those jokes funny, but to every Magic player, including those who think it's the opposite of funny.
That's not what it means. At all. The 'you' there refers to the players of the format objecting to the rules change, being already existing players of the format. Essentially, he's saying the rules change isn't about the existing players of the format, which it wasn't.
How about how it's openly hostile and insulting?
What about Commander in particular should disallow the players of that format from voicing their opinions about it?
Why is this article in general written in a way thats so unnecessarily aggressive and offensive?
"The rules change is not about you"? Really? Who is you? Who are you talking to? The people reading your article? Presumably people who play Commander and disagree with you?
The whole thing reads like one side of a forum argument that accidentally got published as an article.
To whom do you find the "ethics in..." meme offensive? The people who dislike the rules change, the people victimized by Gamergate, or the GGers themselves?
I think the difference you and I see is that you regard "ethics in..." specifically as a pretext for harassment, whereas I see it as GG's knee-jerk response to pretty much any criticism of GG, to the point where it's impossible to take them seriously, hence the meme. Using "gay" as a pejorative is bad because it's taking a word which has a positive or neutral definition and treating it as something bad, in a world where it's entirely plausible to believe that the speaker is saying that being gay is an inherently bad thing. Using the "ethics in..." meme is taking a ridiculous catchphrase used by a mob of loud, whiny people and applying it to the context of a different mob of loud, whiny people (and as such implying their objections are ridiculous), but given that it's generally a bad thing to be part of a loud, whiny mob, I don't think it's unreasonable to poke fun at one such group by comparing them to another such group.
I do agree that it was probably better for SCG to err on the side of professionalism and not make mention of such a contentious topic.
Avatar by Numotflame96 of Maelstrom Graphics
Sig banner thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Outside the Gamergate references the tone isn't that different to some things posted by Mark Rosewater in his "Good design is (insert Maro's personal opinion here)" articles.
I'm cool with SCG writers having an opinion on the rules change that is different to mine, and arguing for it. I'm not offended by SCG having an editorial policy of only printing that opinion and presumably telling their writers to fall into line behind it, or with them being a little elitist about it - we all do that from time to time.
But comparing people you don't agree with to Gamergate, or (dead German dictator, thanks forum censor) or puppy drowners - that's just not cool, IMHO.
I don't get this. All groups will use an equivalent of this line when presented with bad actions of its members ("actually, feminism is about equality" "actually, Christianity is about loving thy neighbor" "actually, libertarianism is about freedom" etc). Why is it so different when gamergate uses it?
And yet, you have just compared people you disagree with to said dictator.
Only if you really insist on forcing the comparison. Every "Yo daw, I heard you like X..." meme is a reference to Inception if you get down to brass tacks, but that connection is ultimately immaterial the grand majority of the time, as it is here.
GGG [Primer] Omnath, Big Green Beatstick Machine GGG
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
The reaction seems...predictable.
Yes, he's and ass, but we can just ignore him and carry on.
Are the comments at the bottom of the SCG story disabled? I can't see any.
Had my popcorn good to go as well....
I mean, Gamergate isn't notorious because people are critiquing games: it's notorious because those who claim they are critiquing a system are not actually critiquing it and are instead trying to push a group of players out of the community (women) and are actively attempting to silence any forms of critique about the games themselves through, often, violent threats and harrassment. I don't think people have been doing that about a rule change in a format, and the article's susbtance sort of makes me feel like the author really doesn't understand the Gamergate situation at all. :/
Thank you for your cooperation.