Playing right into the criticism that the game will be unrecognizable from all the crossover cards not in magics universe.
Which is exactly what aaron forsythe said wouldnt be the case during that twitch stream
Cant even keep some form of integrity for what, 2 days?
- LuckyJoe1988
- Registered User
-
Member for 11 years, 7 months, and 20 days
Last active Fri, Mar, 29 2024 15:00:34
- 0 Followers
- 541 Total Posts
- 229 Thanks
-
1
lookingupanddown posted a message on 2021/2022 Crossover ShenanigansPosted in: The Rumor Mill
His video yesterday said they already tried a Skyrim crossover before, but that fell through. I think Dark Souls could be doable.Quote from LuckyJoe1988 »Dark Souls has it's ten-year aniversary next year, but so does Skyrim. I'd love to have Alduin in the game in some form or another.
EDIT: Not literally, but as an alternate skin probably. -
5
osieorb18 posted a message on [RETIRED] [Admin] bobthefunny's Strategic ChalkboardPosted in: Staff HelpdesksQuote from Banned1 »I'm going to direct this one at bob, for obvious reasons (apart from the fact that this is his thread):
Is there a way that we can connect or converse more directly with the site owners? I would like to know why your site admins seem to think it's okay to casually use the word 'lynch' in the current political climate. See this post: https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/mafia/817898-voldemorts-throne-room-mafia-game-over-town-win?comment=4901
Given that lynch is a word with very heavy racial overtones, and that we're currently suffering from societal issues around extrajudicial killings, it doesn't strike me that this is acceptable discourse. Perhaps there is some context that I'm unaware of; it doesn't matter. This was discovered by way of a site admin's profile and viewing their most recent posts, and if there's something buried in that thread to explain it, I don't see how any casual observer would bother to sift through ~5,000 posts for an explanation. I wouldn't hesitate to report a random poster for using such language, I certainly don't see how the site owners can lay claim to promoting a 'neutral' atmosphere here at MTGS when even their own admins exercise poor judgment in conversation.
Given the discourse that has already transpired in this very thread (for whatever that's worth), it would only serve to validate the impression that MTGS has an alt-right bias if shadowlancerx were allowed to maintain their current level of power and authority. I respectfully urge that the wolf be removed from the sheep. Thank you.
Is this Flow speaking again trying to repeat what happened on MU?
The forum mafia community on MtGSalvation (and elsewhere) has addressed the use of the word "lynch" and taken steps to move away from it. This has become the standard across major forum mafia communities, with people using "execute", "eliminate", "kill", or "yeet", among others. There is not an active censorship of the word "lynch" for most communities because it would reap more negative results than positive. Not from people not being willing to change, but from change taking time.
Having been in an admin position in another forum mafia community for about two years now, we also brought up the change. And the same discussion happened in every other forum mafia community I've seen:
- Censorship is not a policy to maintain and opens up a very different can of worms.
- The community is diverse; there are non-US-citizens for whom censorship of the word "lynch" is Americans forcing their own problems on the rest of the community.
- It is possible to encourage use of other words and doing so will be more effective over time to peacefully ensure stepping away from the word "lynch" than censorship.
A small few forum mafia communities have still chosen to censor the word, but the more common forum mafia community consensus is one of encouraging other words instead of one of punishing people for using the word.
Additionally, while Shadowlancerx is a member of the MTGSalvation forum mafia community, he does not uniquely represent it. It is an active part of the site which as of most recent discussion, even prior to Shadowlancerx becoming an admin, there were no plans to remove from the site, despite past MTGSalvation admin history of hating on, bullying, and removing non-Magic sections and members involved in said sections. Unlike other admins, Shadow and bob are good people, not emblematic of the rampant bullying of site users, disgusting back-doors gossip, and admin-maintained drama for the sake of drama which has been the normal from MtGSalvation site admins for years. MTGSalvation as a site had become a dead whale since long before the site threatened to close. The previous group of admins realized this and left to make their own site, cutting off anyone who didn't want to switch over as unworthy. Leaving behind a skeleton crew to run things and knowing that the support of the Commander RC and similar sorts of little odds and ends would keep their site afloat rather than what was left of MTGSalvation. Shadowlancerx was asked to step up as a staff member who was prominent in one of the only groups still active on the site, the forum mafia community.
The MtGSalvation forum mafia community has already had offers from other forum mafia communities to join them elsewhere. I was one of several making that offer. The MTGSalvation forum mafia community, while it has had more history than the site itself, has always been a positive contribution even at its lowest moments.
In addition to running a mafia community, like mikeyG, I also used to moderate the Debate section here. There is no impression that MTGSalvation has an alt-right bias. There never has been. MtGSalvation has always been accused of being a liberal echo-chamber.
Quote from bobthefunny »This thread is not a replacement for the (closed) debate forum.
While this thread is not a replacement, a group of prominent MtGS Debate veterans have had a Discord replacement for a while now. Said Discord can be found here for any who are interested:
The Once and Future Debate
Quote from bobthefunny »5. You know what else would affect revenue? Becoming a Magic site that doesn't discuss Magic.
If a person arrives at this site from google, wanting to look up an interaction, or discuss some new cards - but instead they see a bunch of people yelling at each other about entirely unrelated things? Well suddenly that makes this seem like a terrible site to come to for the answers to Magic related questions.
===
I joined this site to discuss Magic. I joined it to discuss Commander. I joined the moderator team to help improve the goals of facilitating that kind of discussion. For the last THREE MONTHS, 95% of my interaction and duties on this site have been entirely non-magic related. I'm frankly getting sick and tired of this.
It's almost like when you shut down the non-Magic sections of a site and move the Magic discussion to another site which is even more draconian about non-Magic discussion than MTGSalvation was because it is representative of the people who run it, you get non-Magic discussion in other sections of the first site... Not sure why this would be a surprise.
Quote from bobthefunny »We do not have the staff to moderate a forum designated to this kind of discussion. We used to have a forum dedicated to this type of discussion, we did not have the staff then, and the forum devolved into 4chan lite. I have no desire to moderate a 4chan lite, nor do I believe it is feasible, nor appropriate for this site. Perhaps one day we will have staff that is interested in bringing this back, and willing to moderate it, and perhaps even make it appropriate for the site. Currently, none of those are true. I will die on this hill.
Nah... You're confusing Debate with the Gutter because that's the propaganda that was pounded into all of our heads. It was never the same thing.
Looking at the retired forum, there are 11 threads that needed to be deleted in the first page alone, and another 9 on the second page. That's not healthy. There are also a significant amount of red text, and banned members in the responses.
Yeah, it was over-moderated as a policy, particularly by admins and a couple of overbearing global moderators, who like the admins, went out of their way to maintain high levels of drama throughout their dealings.
I am well aware that there were several mods that held the forum in fond memory, however there was solid reason to shut it down at the time. Perhaps it could return one day, but today is definitely not the time.
The solid reason to shut it down at the time was that both of the moderators involved (myself and Blinking Spirit) had other commitments. I had school which was taking up more and more of my time, and Blinking Spirit had their own personal concerns. These were not the primary reason it was shut down, though. They weren't even the spark. The admins at the time had openly made clear for years that they wanted to shut down as many non-Magic sections as they could. It was convenient. A section shutdown had been on the table for months.
You can tell the behaviour in the section wasn't really the problem because the Debate regulars now participate in our own Discord, which necessitates a much lower level of moderation than the MtGS Debate section ever had. -
2
bobthefunny posted a message on [RETIRED] [Admin] bobthefunny's Strategic ChalkboardIt is not my intent to lock down this thread, as it is a primary method of reaching out to staff. Likewise, outside of extreme situations, I would prefer to not issue infractions in this thread, as I do not want people to fear or question their ability to bring their issues, thoughts, and ideas here.Posted in: Staff Helpdesks
That said, this thread got very personal very quickly, so I'm putting a brief pause on things. I'm also going to ask that personal attacks on other users not take place here (or anywhere else on the site).
I think we have seen very clearly here how a conversation can easily derail, and change the flow of topic to something other than what it was intended to be.
I would also like to take a brief moment to apologize for my earlier post. My exasperation, frustration, and loss of patience very clearly came through in my tone, and that was unacceptable. I deeply apologize for my lack of calm.
Quote from Kamino_Taka »
I agree that not everything is politics but most opinionated statements unless very specific stem from personal beliefs which include politics so techically alot of statements are political including the statement to not post anything exlpicitly political. Stems from the personal belief of Shut up and do the thing you are here for and only that. That is similar in vein as all the people said about the kneeling of the NFL players protest that they should just shut up and play the game because this is not the place to do that.
Your analogy to the NFL situation is... apt, and thought provoking. Thank you for that.
I do consider there to be a difference however, in reach, scope, timing, and purpose.
The NFL protests were about dedicated and heroic players using their influence and position to reach out (even at personal risk) to bring awareness to a wider audience that was not informed.
Posting on these forums does not involve a user's influence in reaching out and raising awareness to a larger audience. An anonymous user has negligible influence, the reach of the site is very closed to a specific facet and small. In short, I disagree that the context is in any way similar.
However beeing against a on topic political discussion is something I don't understand.
So how's your view on Magic related politics?
We do realize that there will never be a clean differentiation. This is brought up in the "Inclusion in the MTG Salvation Community" announcement that was made, but I will rephrase it here. When Wizards releases statements that inherently have a political judgment - such as removing ties with an artist, or removing existing art from the game, we understand that discussions on those topics will contain some inherent politics.
So long as the intersection of the two remain Magic focused (and not inflammatory/racist/prejudiced) the discussion remains on-topic. The problem occurs when the discussion moves outside of being magic related, or when racist or other prejudicial comments start being made.
This site is about Magic. If you want to talk about something Not Magic - you've come to the wrong place.
I know this is a bit pedantic but if thats the case why do we even have the Talk and Entertainment, Mafia and Forum Game sections?
Are you in favor of getting rid of these with a statement like that? I don't think you do, so I think you don't agree with your own statement and this was more of a heat of the moment thing.
Let me rephrase - Yes, we have areas dedicated to allowing the community to bond over things which are outside the realm of Magic. Those topics are perfectly fine in their designated areas - however, if someone were to bring those topics into the Magic related section of the forums, they would no longer be acceptable in the context of their environment.
My quote above refers in particular to the Magic forums, and in concept of the Site as a whole (If people have come to this site, it is likely that they did so in the main focus of discussing Magic. While it is theoretically possible that we may have Mafia players who have somehow arrived here and joined who have no interest in Magic, I believe that overlap would be small).
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »So how's your view on Magic related politics?
Yea, some topics have a very high tendency to drift away from Magic into politics.
If its about specific artists, "racist" card art being banned, or some policy of WotC, its basically always in some way or form political grounded already and people will either agree or disagree with them on their political reasons.
I answered this above, hopefully well enough, but I shall restate: There will never be a perfect division when it comes to inherently political statements made by Wizards. These clearly will want discussion by the Community, and our goal as staff is to try and make sure these discussions remain on topic.
Inclusion of gay characters in a card game for 13 year old kids, is that needed ? is it helpful ? is it even necessary ?
Some people have very strong believes in that regard, and drastically different too, so its quite natural that such topics will get to that point and if a moderator stifles the conversation because its "no longer on topic" some people get angry about it, as it feels to them like their view is no longer welcome ; while the moderator decision is just to prevent a more excessive drifting away into the political realm.
This site will always stand by the side of inclusion. Any comments stating that such inclusion is unnecessary, unhelpful, or morally incorrect will not be tolerated.
Quote from H3RAC71TU5 »It's important to be honest about it. So yes, if you're going to be political either way, I think a good maxim would be to lean toward allowing discussion. This way, you have people happy with their ability to express themselves and so on, meaning the results are effective for maintaining the health of the community which is your charge as the staff here.
So here's the thing:
- I still disagree with the concept that anything and everything is inherently political. Perhaps this is a difference of definition or scope between us.
- People are not happy with discussions. There is no if and buts about this. Whenever a political discussion occurs, it is very easy to spot from the reports table - each person immediately reports any comment their opposition makes for being inflammatory. Each person wants us to infract their opposition for being closeminded, a troll, a flamer, or being racist - because clearly people whose views don't match their own are wrong, and immoral.
- Other people are not happy with the conversations. My favorite report this year went along the lines of "I respect this persons views, and agree with them, but I am tired of seeing this discussion brought up again in every thread."
- We do not have the staff to moderate a forum designated to this kind of discussion. We used to have a forum dedicated to this type of discussion, we did not have the staff then, and the forum devolved into 4chan lite. I have no desire to moderate a 4chan lite, nor do I believe it is feasible, nor appropriate for this site. Perhaps one day we will have staff that is interested in bringing this back, and willing to moderate it, and perhaps even make it appropriate for the site. Currently, none of those are true. I will die on this hill.
At no point have I suggested that we should bring up politics "every 15 seconds." In fact, the issue I have been pointing out is the trend of political posts hating on groups being posted in threads for causes as minimal as a card depicting a black person. People have a natural desire to want to respond to such content which you have disallowed. But the reverse doesn't happen (people randomly posting leftist or centrist political takes out of the blue), because the nature of politics differs by ideology and this leads to different behavior.
Every spoiler season this year, at least one thread, if not multiple, have gone off the rails. The 15 seconds is exaggerated, however I stand by the concept that the Rumor Mill is not the place to have these discussions. I also stand by the statement that this site is not the appropriate place to host a forum dedicated to that. I most assuredly stand by the fact that hosting such a forum would be a nightmare, and would be an unmitigated disaster given the site's current resources.
This is simply not the place for this.
2. So the options again are either to enforce bias, or to be biased anyways? Again, I disagree. Censoring to one extreme or another can only be harmful to all involved. This is a site that exists to discuss Magic. This should be feasible without overcomplication.
To the contrary, it's entirely possible to not be biased in the matter. The non-biased perspective would acknowledge that one view is extreme and the other is not. The non-extreme (BLM) would only be possible to consider as extreme in the biased perspective that compares and defines it in relation to the extreme one.
The extreme I was referencing here was the action of forcefully advocating a position by moderating against anyone of a differing opinion.
I do not personally believe that BLM is an extreme position, nor do I believe that it (should) be inherently political. Somehow it has become so, but I will fight and die on the hill that it is not.
Likewise, while I will not personally advocate for bluelives, I will advocate for the people that use it in a manner to support police against violence, and against calls to violence against police. To this end, it has become the Site's current stance that moderating against BlueLives in signatures would be that line of overmoderation that you mentioned. I can only emphasize, again, that this currently appears consistent with literally every other business. I have not found a single one that approaches this differently.
I take it you're referring to bluelivesmatter here. I'm speaking more generally about hate groups, and it seems to me no coincidence that those same hate groups also are favorable towards bluelivesmatter. The lovely thing about reason is that we can draw inferences about things that lead us to opposite conclusions of popular opinion.
The context was not clear - in part Hate Groups in general have no place here. The KKK, All Lives Matters, and White Lives Matters are not allowed. Thus, I am now confused as to your original post. Your point was "3. A balance which is inclusive to hate groups is toxic to the cohesion of the forum community". If you're talking about Hate Groups in general, this point is invalid, as we do not allow them. The only context that made sense is the current discussion of whether #BlueLivesMatters should be allowed on the site.
If this association was in error on my part, I apologize.
3. The site is not here to pass moral judgment. You know what else would be detrimental to a community? Excising anyone with a differing viewpoint than your own.
The idea that excising people with different viewpoints than mine would be harmful to the community... is a moral judgment. Politics, after all, is a subset of moral theory. However, I haven't advocated for the excising of people just because their views differ from mine. Earlier in this thread, I engaged in polemics against the political positions you were kind enough to state in order to demonstrate that we're both partisan. I don't think you should be excised just because I disagree with you, because you haven't advocated for things that are inherently dehumanizing. I can recognize that you in good faith believe your views are what's best for a variety of people (a moral judgment).
Quote from H3RAC71TU5 »
I'd like to touch again on the claim that the site isn't here to make moral judgments. This is false on its face, because the forum has rules of conduct in the first place which are based in moral judgment. Bob, you earlier introduced the term "moral" into the discussion and I was appreciative of you doing so because its frequently the case that people have a dismissive attitude about whatever they term "moral" due to its subjective connotations. If we were so inclined, we could engage in a discussion which in every explicit sense was only descriptive and leave its normative character as subtextual, but I don't think that would be a very sincere, clear, or constructive approach. Every decision we make in life entails a moral judgment; we could take no action otherwise. You can't avoid making moral judgments, just as you can't avoid being political, and maturity involves acknowledging this.
This... feels like it's getting into semantics. While I can see what you are arguing, I doubt that you do not see the point I was trying to make.
Yes, every community, every nation, every group of people will have laws and rules based on the morals it wishes to emphasize. However, there are some topics that are disagreed upon, ambiguous, or otherwise in contention. While each of us on the staff, and the owners, may have our personal opinions on these topics, the Site itself is not here to pass judgement on those. The site is not here as a platform to advocate for a cause in contention. Each of us that wishes to do so, does it on our own time, in our own locations.
There is also the issue that the quote of mine you placed is in reference you your point 3: "3. A balance which is inclusive to hate groups is toxic to the cohesion of the forum community". Given the context of the preceding posts about the validity of BlueLives, and that Hate Groups in general are not allowed here, the association was the inference that your point was associating BlueLives as a Hate Group. Thus, the context of MY quote about passing moral judgement is that it is not this Site's duty or prerogative to make the judgement about whether or not a group qualifies as a Hate Group. We'll leave that to those better suited for it.
4. And what overzealous and authoritarian approach are you referring to here?
- A simple request to keep discussion to the topics that this forum was made for?
- Or that if people fail to follow the rules of the community, they are asked to leave?
Intervening in discussions just because they're "off topic" is very likely to be excessive.
Intervening in off-topic discussions is literally our job. If every thread were to turn into a thread about gardening, this would be a terrible Magic site. Replace "gardening" with any single other topic that is not Magic, and that statement remains true. Even Politics.
Now, perhaps there is some remote set that will come out that provides an overlap between gardening and Magic. Then, gardening might find itself on topic... if it remains related to Magic. Replace "gardening" with any single other topic that is not Magic, and that statement remains true. Even Politics.
5. You know what else would affect revenue? Becoming a Magic site that doesn't discuss Magic.
I don't see how this is the necessary outcome. I suspect that politics is something that will rarely come up because most people here are primarily interested in discussing Magic and that's not going to change.
This past year has proven otherwise. Politics has repeatedly come up, and been disruptive every single time. Every time, people report the opposition, and people not involved in the discussion report it and request that it please just stop.
I agree that people are primarily interested in discussing Magic. That's why discussing politics here is disruptive. That's why discussing politics here is not appropriate.
Never mind that Magic itself is expressly political, apparently provoking political responses with choices as simple as depicting black people in card art. The controversies here are over something really basic, which essentially distills to the question of whether humanity is universal or not. Such a basic controversy can't go unresolved.
Depicting a black person in art is not Magic being expressly political. In fact, there is literally nothing political about depicting a black person in art. The only thing political, would be the person making a political statement because a black person was depicted in art. The art is not political, Magic is not being political, the person is.
Humanity is universal. I will stand by that, and the site will stand by that.
Yes, I am human and can be frustrated. I also do have my own personal opinions, though as I am in a position of some sort of authority here, I do my best to refrain from exercising them too strongly, lest people inadvertently believe those statements to be on behalf of the site, rather than myself. (The site has had issues with some moderator opinions and pieces being mistaken as site policy rather than personal in the past). I also do wish to avoid potential optics of bias.Quote from mikeyG »Careful, your slip is showing.
While everyone will have their personal biases, I can do my best to try and keep it in check and moderate as objectively as possible.
Perhaps it is a bit of a strawman, but that was also a bit of the intention. There are topics that have been derailed to extreme political discussion, which goes beyond what you discuss.Quote from mikeyG »I'm willing to bet that you don't go to a Walmart, or a Target, or even a McDonald's to shout at people about your views on this.
Well, no, and that's a bit of a strawman. I don't do that, I doubt anyone here does. Speaking for myself, however, when I'm in a public space (like a forum) and I witness ignorant comments or bigoted behavior I will (if safe) say something. And, in my experience, the reverse is also true and I've been in public and have had bigoted things said to me (usually for being ~*~TOO GAY~*~ but sometimes for other social justice/progressive statements). Being in public and never experiencing socio-political issues in everyday places is completely foreign to me.
This does make me sad. You have been an excellent influence on the forums, and a very long time standing member and accomplished moderator and admin of the site through trying times. Your departure does deeply distress me, as it clearly shows a dissonance in what the site is and should be.For me, though, I'm going to take your advice and I'm going to go. I'll probably lurk and hibernate, see if the site changes again, but this clearly isn't the place for me anymore.
Quote from H3RAC71TU5 »They could reinstate the Discussion forum. The site is probably not inclined to do so, since apparently it was retired because it required a heavy amount of work to moderate for no doubt obvious reasons. But I agree this is a workable solution.
The debate forum was well intentioned, and started off well and well moderated. But it quickly went down a black hole. Towards the end of its existence, debates were not held in good faith, and there was a tendency to argue and make contrarian points just for shock and attention. There ended up being multiple "debates" which were nothing more than outright trolling, as well as rife trolling throughout what might be considered legitimate debates.
And this doesn't even touch on the topics found in the NSFW Debate subforum (which I am personally confused why was ever a thing here).
Looking at the retired forum, there are 11 threads that needed to be deleted in the first page alone, and another 9 on the second page. That's not healthy. There are also a significant amount of red text, and banned members in the responses.
I am well aware that there were several mods that held the forum in fond memory, however there was solid reason to shut it down at the time. Perhaps it could return one day, but today is definitely not the time.
===
A reminder: This thread is not to replace the debate forum. It is to discuss site policy, or to bring matters and concerns to the attention of the staff and owners. It is not the place for philosophical, theoretical, or political debate.
It IS the place for discussion about the Regulations of the site.
For those wondering about direct contact with the owners of the site: I will discuss with them if there is a way to make this feasible, but my guess is that it less likely. MagicFind operates a large number of sites, and part of the purpose of the staff is to be the intermediary to the Owners, so as to limit being swamped. The owners are aware of this thread, but unlike all of us, I doubt that most visit the site on a frequent basis, let alone daily. That's what the staff is for.
I will happily forward relevant concerns, and if any of those concerns involve staff (or even myself), forward and alert them to those, while limiting my personal involvement to the best of my ability and ethics.
-
3
Buffsam89 posted a message on [RETIRED] [Admin] bobthefunny's Strategic ChalkboardPosted in: Staff Helpdeskswhile lots of other people come to this gaming forums to AVOID politics and just focus on the game.
I can agree with this. It appears I was “sucked in”, but it can be difficult to just cut some conversations off.
I think the biggest takeaway here is, if everybody who’s clamoring for change went to the appropriate channels and put that energy there, rather than bicker with a bunch of nerdy *********s, we would probably be further along in this process. I think this year has been the most “actionable” I’ve seen from the groups that are most vocal, but Buffsam89 isn’t the one whose going to be making the changes. Vote. Get involved and play your part. Who cares what MTGSalvation censors or allows, aside from the obvious red flags. The energy directed here needs to be fed into the appropriate channels. And from there, a trickle down effect is certainly to ensue. -
2
Buffsam89 posted a message on [RETIRED] [Admin] bobthefunny's Strategic ChalkboardThe reason I said that you can’t talk politics in good faith is because it affects everyone differently, and you’ll always be in favor of policies and practices that benefit you(not personally, though technically). Are you really going to tell me you’d be in favor of policy that would negatively affect you? No, absolutely not. So, regardless of where you align on the political spectrum, you’re still looking out for numero uno when all is said and done. In almost every case, and it’s evident here, what people will be looking out for is their $$$. What is in their best interests. While it is true that not every policy has an impact on the dollars and cents, you most often aren’t getting those policy’s in isolation. There is give, and there is take. That’s why I can’t get behind the current divide in our country based on Liberal Vs. Republican. It’s deeper than that.Posted in: Staff Helpdesks
Take me for instance. I was never in favor of Obama-care. As a manager in what would be considered a “small business” in terms of business practices and organizational makeup, it was a total net-negative on our operation and my staff. Were there positives? Certainly, but not for me and not for those close to me. So, why should I endorse a proposal like that? I know that the above is overly simplified but I think you get my point.
Similarly, take the BLM movement. After the death of George Floyd, there was support from pretty much every group in the United States that something needed to change. It’s “systemic”, as I’m so often reminded. If a system is broken, you first need to identify the point of failure, and then proceed with the rebuild. A system as large as the police force in America isn’t something that is going to change over night. Hell, it can’t be changed in a year. It affects too many people to institute radical change. It requires people to Vote. Get involved. Become educated. But, it appears that many are unsatisfied with the speed at which the gears are turning. And destruction has followed. I can’t get behind that. I won’t. I’ll push for change, but I haven’t received any comfort from those asking for it that it just won’t be as bad, or worse than it already is, just for different people.
Human nature dictates that, when push comes to shove, the vast majority are in it for ourselves. -
2
Buffsam89 posted a message on [RETIRED] [Admin] bobthefunny's Strategic ChalkboardYou may find my behavior to be problematic, similarly to how I find yours to be problematic as well.Posted in: Staff Helpdesks
I don’t understand the point of representation without there being an effort for it to be meaningful. For instance, at our company we just hired a VP who’s of middle-eastern descent. He’s the only minority VP, and was hired for a newly created position to oversee an already established department in an attempt to spread the workload. That’s a checked box. There is absolutely *zero* meaning to his hire aside from optics. He wasn’t promoted internally, they created the position he filled, and he is basically a head-piece for an already functioning department. Then, to top it all off, they added him to our senior leadership team. I see zero value in that. It doesn’t persuade any of the minorities on staff to do anything differently. 2 of our black managers were miffed, considering the job was filled when 70%+ of the workforce had been furloughed. People want representation, but they also want the opportunity to be the representative.
Admittedly, I hadn’t read the novels and wasn’t entirely educated on her character. But, the choice of being a black woman married to the king was just so incredibly PC that it sucked the fantasy element right out of the character, thus creating the “token” status. While Teferi has a much longer list of source material, he, his wife and daughter were fantastic additions to the MtG universe and full of flavor.
edit: for the sake of clarity and to help illustrate my point. If Marvel made a White Black Panther, without the fleshed out story like they had for White Tiger, I would have a similar reaction. It would be criticized for different reasons, of course. But, it doesn’t take a White guy playing black panther for me to like the Black Panther character or story.
-
2
Buffsam89 posted a message on [RETIRED] [Admin] bobthefunny's Strategic ChalkboardSo asking somebody to not look at everything politically is insinuating that you live in a bubble?Posted in: Staff Helpdesks
Edit:
And while I did use “You” and “You’re”, I wasn’t specifically speaking to you, personally. I’d same the same thing to Flossedbeaver, Theonlyone, and MikeyG. -
2
Buffsam89 posted a message on [RETIRED] [Admin] bobthefunny's Strategic ChalkboardNice, following up with attacking my character.Posted in: Staff Helpdesks
See you can't leave your political lense at home when it comes to certain subjects.
No idea how that has anything to do with politics. -
2
Buffsam89 posted a message on [RETIRED] [Admin] bobthefunny's Strategic ChalkboardYeah, everything after “privilege“ was white noise. You don’t know me, and you don’t know my story. Yet, that didn’t stop you from making wild assumptions. Therefore, proving my point.Posted in: Staff Helpdesks
Consider this conversation over. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
8
3
2
1
1
3
Wrath is no vice when inflicted upon the deserving.
5
5
1
Now now, we don't know if Seize Control is in the next volume of CA2, no need to get my hopes up.