Wow, now that you've boiled down the characters to their skin color and age, I realize MTG really is filled with identical characters. I hope WotC becomes populated with more people like you who understand the quality of characters and the game are based mostly on the ratio of people with different skin color and genitals. After all, how will our progressive audience be able to enjoy the game without having a character that matches their combination of age, sex, gender identity, skin color, political beliefs, disability, nationality, and otherskin species. Thank you for the eye-opening analysis.
Pretty sure you're being sarcastic here, but the people being underrepresented do seem to care about it. Why shouldn't women be represented more evenly than 1:2? Why would 50/50 representation, and making female gamers feel more welcome, be a bad thing?
Not a bad thing, though is there a particular point to it? I mean, is there any evidence that male players are less likely to play cards that depict female creatures, or vice versa for females and male art? Does the race/gender of a card's art even factor into people's decision to play MTG?
I understand the point about the importance of variety for the sake of storytelling, but I'm not particularly convinced that most MTG planeswalker's race or gender really HAS much bearing on their stories. I admit I'm a little behind on my reading, but in the last few blocks were there a lot of cases of this?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
Wow, now that you've boiled down the characters to their skin color and age, I realize MTG really is filled with identical characters. I hope WotC becomes populated with more people like you who understand the quality of characters and the game are based mostly on the ratio of people with different skin color and genitals. After all, how will our progressive audience be able to enjoy the game without having a character that matches their combination of age, sex, gender identity, skin color, political beliefs, disability, nationality, and otherskin species. Thank you for the eye-opening analysis.
Pretty sure you're being sarcastic here, but the people being underrepresented do seem to care about it. Why shouldn't women be represented more evenly than 1:2? Why would 50/50 representation, and making female gamers feel more welcome, be a bad thing?
Not a bad thing, though is there a particular point to it? I mean, is there any evidence that male players are less likely to play cards that depict female creatures, or vice versa for females and male art? Does the race/gender of a card's art even factor into people's decision to play MTG?
I understand the point about the importance of variety for the sake of storytelling, but I'm not particularly convinced that most MTG planeswalker's race or gender really HAS much bearing on their stories. I admit I'm a little behind on my reading, but in the last few blocks were there a lot of cases of this?
The part of the thread I was replying to spun off a comment that 33% representation for women wasn't enough for MaRo. Presumably he, at least, thinks increasing representation could bring more women to the game.
But if race/gender has no bearing on the story, why not be inclusive? Why are people arguing for Infinite Variety of White Male instead?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Not a bad thing, though is there a particular point to it? I mean, is there any evidence that male players are less likely to play cards that depict female creatures, or vice versa for females and male art? Does the race/gender of a card's art even factor into people's decision to play MTG?
I understand the point about the importance of variety for the sake of storytelling, but I'm not particularly convinced that most MTG planeswalker's race or gender really HAS much bearing on their stories. I admit I'm a little behind on my reading, but in the last few blocks were there a lot of cases of this?
The part of the thread I was replying to spun off a comment that 33% representation for women wasn't enough for MaRo. Presumably he, at least, thinks increasing representation could bring more women to the game.
But if race/gender has no bearing on the story, why not be inclusive? Why are people arguing for Infinite Variety of White Male instead?
I definitely am not arguing for white males specifically (I generally don't even remember the gender of the cards I play). I just found it an odd claim that females would be more drawn to the game if more of the planeswalkers were females, as the thought had never really occurred to me as an important consideration. Whatever MaRo wants to do, I don't particularly care, I just don't necessarily agree with the logic he presented.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
Well, I obviously don't have market research on the matter, but I ran it past my wife for anecdotal n=1 data. Her response was unequivocally yes; that men outnumbering women by a significant margin would make her feel like it was a game by, for, and about men, and that even if she wasn't consciously put off by it, there would be a feeling of 'this isn't intended for me'. So take that as you will.
Edit: imagine if a similar game had women outnumber men by two to one, instead, and not drawn in appeal-to-heterosexual-men sexy style (not that Magic necessarily is, this is just a thought experiment). Having just thought about it now, I think I might feel a bit like I wasn't the target audience, but hard to say when it hasn't actually happened.
Even better, start at 100% female, imagine how that would make you feel, then gradually dial it back until you get to 'just' 2:1.
Wow, I'm pretty sure some people in this thread are trolling. (Particularly the part about how we have to be accepting of people who think they're fire-breathing dragons.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Well, I obviously don't have market research on the matter, but I ran it past my wife for anecdotal n=1 data. Her response was unequivocally yes; that men outnumbering women by a significant margin would make her feel like it was a game by, for, and about men, and that even if she wasn't consciously put off by it, there would be a feeling of 'this isn't intended for me'. So take that as you will.
Edit: imagine if a similar game had women outnumber men by two to one, instead, and not drawn in appeal-to-heterosexual-men sexy style (not that Magic necessarily is, this is just a thought experiment). Having just thought about it now, I think I might feel a bit like I wasn't the target audience, but hard to say when it hasn't actually happened.
Even better, start at 100% female, imagine how that would make you feel, then gradually dial it back until you get to 'just' 2:1.
Then you get into the strange circumstances of the My Little Pony phenomenon or Sailor Moon. Which perhaps begins to explain things about having a storyline that appeals to the human heart rather than just the perceptual reality of one person. No similar than how some authors achieve international recognition for their works, even though their works are very native to their own culture. Whether that is Japanese or British in the case of Harry Potter.
The main mechanism that I see is to look at Magneto, Magneto on his is his own man. He does things, he has a past. But he's also had two twin children, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. He's a terrorist, an anti-villain, but also a parent. That opens his storylines up a bit more into different avenues.
However, with the current age bracket of 20 something you're not going to see characters like Iroh from Avatar the Last Air Bender. Iroh's a sort of mentor to the younger characters to which the role has went to Ajani in this game. However Iroh:
His son died during a major invasion and siege into another kingdom, after the long siege and the death of his son he retired from the battlefield and withdrew from the siege. Later on he helped to save the kingdom he tried to siege in the past. That's where age allows you to come into consideration that can tell a story. Older characters have a past, younger characters are still developing. Iroh's a fully developed character and as such has different tropes available to him that younger characters do not
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
“From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time”
― Friedrich Hayek, The Constitution Of Liberty
Ooh, Hayek! Can we get into how he made a number of errors of basic arithmetic, all in one direction? Errors that even freshman econ students have caught him on? Errors that have been discussed on this very forum if you go back a few pages?
“I am certain, however, that nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice.”
― Friedrich Hayek
I can think of one thing that can, Herr Hayek. Certain Chaplinesque Austrians, no doubt.
Saying Hayek did mistakes has nothing to do with this specific sentence. Hayek got some stuff wrong, some stuff right, you did nothing in showing this sentence is in the first set not the second.
In fact, this particular idea of his is widely accepted by mainstream economics. If you have a economy were people start with different initial labor enhancing assets (which could be anything you want here, like intelligence types or talent in certain specific tasks), the result is a unequal distribution. You can force a equal distribution but since the transformation must discriminates between initial assets, it's viewed as a unequal treatment.
Hayek was fundamentally correct in his assertion. The issue is actually why unequal treatment should be seen as something undesirable, since it obviously is not (most people will agree that special treatment for blind people is correct, for example).
The issue here is actually one of efficiency. It's shown that a efficient redistribution is reachable, but it is via redistribution of assets. Since those particular assets cannot be redistributed, there's not a known efficient mechanism of redistribution in this case. It means the likely result of a redistribution of income is a inefficient point, which is undesirable from the economic perspective.
It can be politically desirable for certain groups, for any number of reasons, and that's ok in my mind, as long as they are aware that redistribution is not viable and inefficient.
Actually, I said "a bunch of errors in one direction", which is usually an indicator of fraud.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Actually, I said "a bunch of errors in one direction", which is usually an indicator of fraud.
Not point out what was those errors and how they apply here is the problem. You can't just ignore everything someone writes because he was proved to be a "fraud". And Hayek is far far from that point.
Actually, I said "a bunch of errors in one direction", which is usually an indicator of fraud.
Not point out what was those errors and how they apply here is the problem. You can't just ignore everything someone writes because he was proved to be a "fraud". And Hayek is far far from that point.
You mean, besides Koch hiring Hayek to come up with reasons to get rid of Social Security? But, per letters found at the Hoover Institution, Hayek was afraid of America's high-cost healthcare system. Koch and Levine told him not to worry about the Social Security safety net because, working at the University of Chicago, Hayek paid into Social Security. So, hypocrisy.
There's also back in 1931, when Hayek claimed, offering no evidence, to have predicted the Great Depression. Listening to men like Hayek caused the Great Depression, but whatever.
But basically Hayek's entire thing was "any government safety net leads to Stalinism, mind control, etc." Basically conspiracism and slippery-slope thinking. Naturally, Kochheads consider him their high priest.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Hyalapterouslemur, italafoca has called you out on ad hominem argument and challenged you to respond directly to the claim he made. Are you capable of doing this, or do you get distracted by tangential thoughts too easily?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Actually, I said "a bunch of errors in one direction", which is usually an indicator of fraud.
Not point out what was those errors and how they apply here is the problem. You can't just ignore everything someone writes because he was proved to be a "fraud". And Hayek is far far from that point.
You mean, besides Koch hiring Hayek to come up with reasons to get rid of Social Security? But, per letters found at the Hoover Institution, Hayek was afraid of America's high-cost healthcare system. Koch and Levine told him not to worry about the Social Security safety net because, working at the University of Chicago, Hayek paid into Social Security. So, hypocrisy.
There's also back in 1931, when Hayek claimed, offering no evidence, to have predicted the Great Depression. Listening to men like Hayek caused the Great Depression, but whatever.
But basically Hayek's entire thing was "any government safety net leads to Stalinism, mind control, etc." Basically conspiracism and slippery-slope thinking. Naturally, Kochheads consider him their high priest.
Hypocrisy is not a valid counter argument. If a thief tells you stealing is wrong he is correct despite the fact that he doesn't follow his own wisdom. You surely have some reasons to dislike the thief, but the thief and his ideas are two different things. Attacking Hayek, the person, does nothing against his ideas.
All this despite his not being a hypocrite at all. Hiring someone to speak against something intellectually is not a crime. It's precisely what think tanks do. If Hayek's school of thought wasn't already against social security, then there would be some reason to talk about intellectual hypocrisy. But he wasn't, he was just asked to elaborate and give his thought on something every libertarian already had in mind.
About his being advised to use social security, Koch is not a idealist. One more person using the safety net will not change it's damage and if that meant convincing Hayek to spread the good word, so be it. Human being are not those magical angels were good opportunities are denied in the name of meaningless idealism. Should Marx refuse Engel's money ? The kind of study Marx did in his later life would not be possible if he worked, so he had to live as a capitalist and thus in hypocrisy. But anyone calling him out on this is of course quite stupid and making a fool of himself.
"Listening to men like Hayek caused the Great Depression". I'm interested to see your view in what the great depression was and what caused it. Because at this point I'm sure you're wrong since Hayek never advised the adoption of fiduciary money.
Hayek "entire thing" is much larger and complex then you believe. Not even his one book that cover what you said ("The Road to Serfdom") can be simplified in such gross and inaccurate terms. And of course, the road is not even a small fraction of Hayek's work.
As a economist of neoclassical orientation, I'm not too fond of Hayek's ideas as well. But what you are doing in this thread is pure defamation, which is not fair.
I'm afraid we're off topic here, so I will not respond to tangent points anymore. I"m still waiting for a argument against Hayek conjecture on inequality.
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
There is a difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. It's true that we are not all fundamentally the same or produce labor of equal quantity or quality, but everyone ought to be equal in that we should all be permitted the same rights, be eligible to work the same jobs, etc.
Well, I obviously don't have market research on the matter, but I ran it past my wife for anecdotal n=1 data. Her response was unequivocally yes; that men outnumbering women by a significant margin would make her feel like it was a game by, for, and about men, and that even if she wasn't consciously put off by it, there would be a feeling of 'this isn't intended for me'. So take that as you will.
Edit: imagine if a similar game had women outnumber men by two to one, instead, and not drawn in appeal-to-heterosexual-men sexy style (not that Magic necessarily is, this is just a thought experiment). Having just thought about it now, I think I might feel a bit like I wasn't the target audience, but hard to say when it hasn't actually happened.
Even better, start at 100% female, imagine how that would make you feel, then gradually dial it back until you get to 'just' 2:1.
The question is, whether or not the male:female ratio of MTG characters is alienating to women, would changing the ratio to 50:50 necessarily make the game more appealing to women? You could change the cast of Sex in the City to have as many male characters as female characters, but unless you transform the show utterly, I'm still going to have exactly zero interest in watching it. Maybe girls are, generally speaking, simply less interested in playing strategy games than guys, and so catering to them could prove to be a commercial mistake that would cause more male players to lose interest in the game than it would draw female players to the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not a bad thing, though is there a particular point to it? I mean, is there any evidence that male players are less likely to play cards that depict female creatures, or vice versa for females and male art? Does the race/gender of a card's art even factor into people's decision to play MTG?
I understand the point about the importance of variety for the sake of storytelling, but I'm not particularly convinced that most MTG planeswalker's race or gender really HAS much bearing on their stories. I admit I'm a little behind on my reading, but in the last few blocks were there a lot of cases of this?
The part of the thread I was replying to spun off a comment that 33% representation for women wasn't enough for MaRo. Presumably he, at least, thinks increasing representation could bring more women to the game.
But if race/gender has no bearing on the story, why not be inclusive? Why are people arguing for Infinite Variety of White Male instead?
I definitely am not arguing for white males specifically (I generally don't even remember the gender of the cards I play). I just found it an odd claim that females would be more drawn to the game if more of the planeswalkers were females, as the thought had never really occurred to me as an important consideration. Whatever MaRo wants to do, I don't particularly care, I just don't necessarily agree with the logic he presented.
Edit: imagine if a similar game had women outnumber men by two to one, instead, and not drawn in appeal-to-heterosexual-men sexy style (not that Magic necessarily is, this is just a thought experiment). Having just thought about it now, I think I might feel a bit like I wasn't the target audience, but hard to say when it hasn't actually happened.
Even better, start at 100% female, imagine how that would make you feel, then gradually dial it back until you get to 'just' 2:1.
On phasing:
Then you get into the strange circumstances of the My Little Pony phenomenon or Sailor Moon. Which perhaps begins to explain things about having a storyline that appeals to the human heart rather than just the perceptual reality of one person. No similar than how some authors achieve international recognition for their works, even though their works are very native to their own culture. Whether that is Japanese or British in the case of Harry Potter.
The main mechanism that I see is to look at Magneto, Magneto on his is his own man. He does things, he has a past. But he's also had two twin children, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. He's a terrorist, an anti-villain, but also a parent. That opens his storylines up a bit more into different avenues.
However, with the current age bracket of 20 something you're not going to see characters like Iroh from Avatar the Last Air Bender. Iroh's a sort of mentor to the younger characters to which the role has went to Ajani in this game. However Iroh:
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Saying Hayek did mistakes has nothing to do with this specific sentence. Hayek got some stuff wrong, some stuff right, you did nothing in showing this sentence is in the first set not the second.
In fact, this particular idea of his is widely accepted by mainstream economics. If you have a economy were people start with different initial labor enhancing assets (which could be anything you want here, like intelligence types or talent in certain specific tasks), the result is a unequal distribution. You can force a equal distribution but since the transformation must discriminates between initial assets, it's viewed as a unequal treatment.
Hayek was fundamentally correct in his assertion. The issue is actually why unequal treatment should be seen as something undesirable, since it obviously is not (most people will agree that special treatment for blind people is correct, for example).
The issue here is actually one of efficiency. It's shown that a efficient redistribution is reachable, but it is via redistribution of assets. Since those particular assets cannot be redistributed, there's not a known efficient mechanism of redistribution in this case. It means the likely result of a redistribution of income is a inefficient point, which is undesirable from the economic perspective.
It can be politically desirable for certain groups, for any number of reasons, and that's ok in my mind, as long as they are aware that redistribution is not viable and inefficient.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
On phasing:
Not point out what was those errors and how they apply here is the problem. You can't just ignore everything someone writes because he was proved to be a "fraud". And Hayek is far far from that point.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
You mean, besides Koch hiring Hayek to come up with reasons to get rid of Social Security? But, per letters found at the Hoover Institution, Hayek was afraid of America's high-cost healthcare system. Koch and Levine told him not to worry about the Social Security safety net because, working at the University of Chicago, Hayek paid into Social Security. So, hypocrisy.
There's also back in 1931, when Hayek claimed, offering no evidence, to have predicted the Great Depression. Listening to men like Hayek caused the Great Depression, but whatever.
But basically Hayek's entire thing was "any government safety net leads to Stalinism, mind control, etc." Basically conspiracism and slippery-slope thinking. Naturally, Kochheads consider him their high priest.
On phasing:
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Hypocrisy is not a valid counter argument. If a thief tells you stealing is wrong he is correct despite the fact that he doesn't follow his own wisdom. You surely have some reasons to dislike the thief, but the thief and his ideas are two different things. Attacking Hayek, the person, does nothing against his ideas.
All this despite his not being a hypocrite at all. Hiring someone to speak against something intellectually is not a crime. It's precisely what think tanks do. If Hayek's school of thought wasn't already against social security, then there would be some reason to talk about intellectual hypocrisy. But he wasn't, he was just asked to elaborate and give his thought on something every libertarian already had in mind.
About his being advised to use social security, Koch is not a idealist. One more person using the safety net will not change it's damage and if that meant convincing Hayek to spread the good word, so be it. Human being are not those magical angels were good opportunities are denied in the name of meaningless idealism. Should Marx refuse Engel's money ? The kind of study Marx did in his later life would not be possible if he worked, so he had to live as a capitalist and thus in hypocrisy. But anyone calling him out on this is of course quite stupid and making a fool of himself.
"Listening to men like Hayek caused the Great Depression". I'm interested to see your view in what the great depression was and what caused it. Because at this point I'm sure you're wrong since Hayek never advised the adoption of fiduciary money.
Hayek "entire thing" is much larger and complex then you believe. Not even his one book that cover what you said ("The Road to Serfdom") can be simplified in such gross and inaccurate terms. And of course, the road is not even a small fraction of Hayek's work.
As a economist of neoclassical orientation, I'm not too fond of Hayek's ideas as well. But what you are doing in this thread is pure defamation, which is not fair.
I'm afraid we're off topic here, so I will not respond to tangent points anymore. I"m still waiting for a argument against Hayek conjecture on inequality.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
But from what I understand (again, not an economist) Austrian arguments are mostly moralistic. They don't like measurements.
And of course, Hayek's own friends at the University of Chicago were very pro-fascism. Just ask anyone from Chile.
Infraction for trolling. - Blinking Spirit
On phasing:
The question is, whether or not the male:female ratio of MTG characters is alienating to women, would changing the ratio to 50:50 necessarily make the game more appealing to women? You could change the cast of Sex in the City to have as many male characters as female characters, but unless you transform the show utterly, I'm still going to have exactly zero interest in watching it. Maybe girls are, generally speaking, simply less interested in playing strategy games than guys, and so catering to them could prove to be a commercial mistake that would cause more male players to lose interest in the game than it would draw female players to the game.