MTG Salvation

It'll consistently cost 3G or 4G, which is good for a 5/5 with an ability that let's it attack and block. Plus, it'll smooth out your party count. It'll be important for green in Limited, though it's not going to make waves elsewhere where even if you want to build around the party mechanic, you can do so with actual good cards of those types.

Quote from Rosy Dumplings »

@mikeyG: I apologize if I lost the train of conversation for a bit (will edit original post). I apologize for speaking out of turn. To be fair, you have been the only person mentioning "good faith" discussion so far (at least by name). With that said, I have a hard time imagining what a good faith discussion would even look like. When you start the conversation with the presumption that one side is more "correct" than the other, the "incorrect" side has little reason to buy in and engage in that conversation.

I don't think you were out of turn, I just wan't clear on what you were saying. I think a good faith discussion is one where people give legitimate consideration to the points raised and reasoning provided and don't simply use the opportunity to proselytize or attack people.

I don't disagree with your latter point, and I think that comes with time. It may never come, honestly, though I still think there's value in trying to facilitate that. I literally teach pro-SJW topics in small, rural communities in a particularly conservative province and I have been yelled at, had slurs shouted at me, and I've been threatened (down to being doxxed and having fake dating profiles created to paint me as sexual pervert/pedophile). Doesn't stop me from trying to educate and empathize, if anything it just makes the successes all the sweeter. And those successes start with not assuming people are too entrenched in the opinions to be reached, that may be true for some, but not for all. It just takes the right approach. Questions over accusations, empathy over condemnation, engagement over judgment.

Whatever is discussed in this thread, I can imagine no future in which a discussion here allows one side to argue "their side" of why a given orientation or gender identity is "unnatural" or why a given ethnicity/race should be exported. Instead, the conversation will inevitably consist of one side trying to provide facts and the other side relentlessly trying to poke holes in those facts. In fact, just look at the exchanges regarding the very existence of structural racism and the origins of the BLM movement on this very thread. One person provided a bevy of resources... and the other person apparently ignores them.

Which I would argue is not engaging in the conversation in good faith. And it is worth pointing out that while individual posters may refuse to engage in reading resources/studies/etc, others (be they active participants or lurkers) will.

As a culture (at least in the USA), we are at a point where the nature and origin of FACTS is a political issue and science is seen as "only part of the story".

Haha, given what I heard today from the street preacher I mentioned upthread, it's not just the USA.

It can be exhausting to engage with people who refuse to entertain facts, but it can be done. It's a matter of understanding them on a human level and meeting them where they're at. Challenging? Yes. Frustrating? Oh **** is it ever. Possible? Absolutely. But it is why I prefer to be paid because it is significant effort, so I understand why it's daunting in a community like this where the labor is unpaid.

If you feel that there are some moderates on this site or people who may be going with the flow without giving things personal thought, I can respect that. If politics is opened up as an acceptable topic, however, I don't know how the needed conversations can realistically take place between people mindlessly shouting the exact same points past one another on loop. I would expect people to treat those threads as contests to be "won" by sharing the right information rather than a space to gain information.

For what it's worth, I think a lot of the posters on the site are likely not finished baking, politically-speaking. And even those who have more firmly-defined political opinions are able to change. Your mileage may vary on the likelihood of that change, but if I can get people in rural Alberta to understand that trans people aren't evil, deranged, and/or dangerous, I believe people on MTGS can be reached about topics of bigotry.

On the realistic probability of these conversations happening in a productive way, I share your concerns. Posters can barely express an opinion (positive or negative) about a card, set, or deck without someone trying to prove them wrong and the community has developed a toxic reputation as a result. But we've had room for these conversations before, the key ingredient is role modeling behavior and moderating/facilitating with finesse. This community can absolutely do that.

Interesting design space that is unlikely to be explored in a non-Un set, for obvious reasons. It's suitably legendary in that one probably doesn't want this effect in multiples (either on the board or in a set to begin with).

There really isn't that much more to say. The real power issue here is with activated abilities. I like the interesting tweak on Voltron-style legends to enable an instant/sorcery build rather than counters/auras/equipment. Though I think it should be restricted to those card types because activated abilities are going to rapidly spiral this out of control. Even a lowly Angelic Page becomes potent, I can imagine there are activated abilities that would break Amisa in half. So perhaps limit it to sorcery and instant spells you control? Still very powerful and there's likely a broken combination in there somewhere, but more realistic in the game (excepting memory issues).

Quote from Rosy Dumplings »

2. In this era of purity testing, I can understand (but do not necessarily agree with) the concern that some people have… especially during the pandemic, when people may not have full access to their offline support systems. I personally do not feel that I need to boycott any bakery or grocery store that has allowed neo-nazis to buy things there. I don’t care if bigots make use of my preferred car wash if they aren’t actively bothering people while they are there. I personally feel that imposing such purity requirements (outside of specific areas/cases with VERY real and imminent safety concerns) is kind of absurd as most stores won’t recognize bigots… and because certain marginalizing views encapsulated in tags like all lives matter or blue lives matter seem to have found their ways into mainstream party narratives… but other people very much DO hold those purity standards.

For the record, the "purity test" here is that a contingent of posters don't want to see bigoted attitudes shared on the forums without challenge (or, if egregious enough, moderator action). Is that unreasonable? I ask because the phrase "purity test" is usually thrown around as a way to frame advocacy around higher standards as unreasonable.

As well, it is important to note that this forum isn't like a shop or a car wash, it's a place where opinions, ideas, and discussion are encouraged and platformed. There ought to be different standards for behavior, lest the forum become a space that's unwelcoming for some - it's why the forum has rules and moderation of behavior at all. This is more akin to allowing homophobic street preachers use your space to spread their hate and ignorance (he said, three blocks from a local business doing exactly that right this minute), and telling counter protesters they can't pushback or say anything without actions taken by your business to stop them.

At the end of the day, it is easy to interpret actions taken from a desire to not have thread after thread devolve into largely off-topic arguments as a desire to not want to annoy/alienate or deal with/acknowledge bigoted individuals within the community. When someone’s incendiary statements goad someone into making someone post inappropriate political messages… What’s the plan? Are you willing to accept the unfortunate implications of most responses (implicitly encouraging people to do that more, appearing to favor bigotry or oppose those standing up against it, etc.) You have talked a lot about being able to make civil communication in a way that doesn’t cause people to dig in their heels but what is the ultimate fate of people who refuse to accept anything less than actively removing everyone with problematic views from the forum (whether by bans or through harassment)?

I think your first question is an important one, it's something I've been thinking about as well. Your second question, though, is framed oddly. Do you you think its the position of the people advocating in this thread that people with alt-right/bigoted views should just be removed from the site by bans or harassment? Anyone who feels otherwise can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that we're pushing for more leeway to actively engage in good faith discussion (so long as it remains respectful). The bigots can stay, it's their bigotry that ought to go and there's value in giving space to posters to engage and challenge those views, demonstrate support for marginalized people, and help give people (whether people actively engaged in the discussion or viewing it as a lurker) something to think about. Many people in this site's presumed userbase (predominantly young, predominantly white, majorly male) have expressed that space to actively engaged concepts openly and without condemnation helped them get out of the alt-right's gravitational pull. Whole articles have been written about the phenomenon (particularly in the case of YouTubers, Tik Tok-ers, and other social media avenues of educating/debating a topic).

Simply removing people because they have problematic views is a waste of an opportunity to engage and educate - if not that poster, than the many watching the conversation who may share similar opinions.

Hmmm, could this be a cycle of kitchen sink commons for 2N?

Much like the green one before it, two of these effects will always be useful to some degree. In the right circumstances, this fairly effectively shuts down the opponent for a turn and replaces itself. That's not nothing.

Quote from bobthefunny »

My apologies, what I meant was, that this should be that area. This is a gaming forum, for discussing a hobby and a past time.

I think that's a great ideal, but still naive. I've never felt this community was truly that (literally as far back as the 'News days), nor any other comparable space online. Though, I don't really expect them to be, wherever you find people interacting you will find issues of racism/homophobia/misogyny/etc. And again, I won't speak for all marginalized people, but I don't have an expectation that that ideal can be reached - just that the people responsible for the space try to facilitate healthier discussions.

The Harry Potter community is dealing with issues of transphobia, sports communities are having conversations about racism, etc. Communities dedicated to hobbies and pastimes aren't devoid of these conversations. I get why you're aspiring to that, I just don't think it's realistic. And to a degree, I don't know that it's responsible, either.

To hopefully clarify what I mean by that, I'll use the analogy of a classroom as it's my bread and butter at work. One of the most frequent requests I get is to conduct professional development for teachers because the schools have policies around making classrooms safer, but many teachers lack for the confidence/skills to intervene in instances where bigotry is expressed in subtle/casual ways. Teachers already have enough to deal with, and they get that this is also important, but for many it's just not their strength and it's easier just to end conversations and maybe send a student to the office for detention if they do something egregious. Those teachers foster environments of neutrality, which isn't the same thing as fostering environments of safety and of growth - which is why my team gets called in for PD. To their perspective, the space is orderly and hurtful conversations are shut down so things are good. Yet from the perspective of some of the kids in class, they will see things differently. Common sentiments expressed in our focus groups were things like "I felt like if I defended myself, I'd be in trouble too", "no one stood up for me, not even my teacher", "I feel isolated/unsupported/anxious in that space", and "I don't want to be there."

That's clearly not a 1 to 1 comparison, but I think it helps illustrate where I'm coming from.

I left it general. People when attacked will lash back, and this places stress on all who participate in the confrontation. Willingly or unwillingly.
Dogwhistles to alt-righty/bigoted attitudes is a problem. These have no place on this site.

True, but they're here and I know you just want people to report and ignore but that's not happening and I think understanding why it's not is important.

I suppose a part of my struggle with this is the emphasis on attacks and confrontations. While certainly that might be accurate for some interactions, I think it's reductive to categorize all of the conversations we're talking about that way. I've seen posters attempt more of a call-in strategy, and I think more often than not the pushback against bigotry has been conducted with an intent of real shifts in beliefs. Hell, I've PMed posters to engage them in real dialogue away from the public view where people may be more inclined to posture and snipe for clout.

We ask that you report this issues to the moderation staff. If the staff responses are not adequate, that itself is an issue, which hopefully can be addressed and improved through discussion with community members in the staff inboxes and helpdesks, such as this one, and seeing what other ways community involvement can be improved.

I guess ultimately the issue here is one of vision. Do we think a community is healthier when hard conversations are stifled or when they're given space to proceed healthily and in good faith?

How do you think community involvement can be improved?

Thank you for your viewpoint here. I agree that it would be irresponsible to assume that confrontation would not occur. The point I was trying to make is that this type of confrontation in a digital environment often serves to escalate and exacerbate the problem.

Having allies and showing support is important, but this is best served by showing solidarity with the victim than in antagonizing the aggressor.

I suppose in the short term that could be true, but I do not believe that escalation is inevitable, nor do I think instances of escalation are lost causes even when they occur. Conflict is messy, so is growth - that's true of individuals and of communities.

I suppose that's how I see the role of authority figures in this context. They sift through the escalating tension to identify the healthy version of the conversation, deescalate and guide people to that healthier version of the conversation. If things are escalating, it's because people are invested in the issue on the table. I say harness that energy, just ensure it's directed in productive ways rather than destructive ways.

Last year, my city's Pride Festival hit the skids after a cluster**** of racism-related conflicts. In the wake of it, the community turned on itself, with escalating tension, death threats, people losing jobs, and a whole organization dissolving. My org began hosting summits to facilitate conversations at the organization/community leader level to hopefully resolve a lot of the unresolved conflicts and filter that down to the community level. Obviously we weren't going to solve racism with a series of summits, but conversations and deescalating meant we were moving in that direction. People shared, people heard about things they'd never experienced, structural issues and power dynamics in the community were exposed as unhealthy, relationships strengthened, and simple resolutions/initiatives were undertaken. There's still a ton of work to be done, but the community is healing because we made space for hard conversations, and yes for confrontations where warranted.

What I would hope to have occur is that the incident get reported to the moderation, such that the offender can be made aware of the issue in a way that would prevent escalation and reduce repetition of the behavior.

Do you believe that is happening? Do you think simply stopping the behavior on the forum is enough? These questions are more rhetorical in nature, more food for thought than otherwise.

There is certainly a rift right now between staff and community, in part due to the current burden and capabilities of the staff. I recognized that there is much room for improvement, and I certainly hope these discussions can help be a step towards that improvement.

For what it's worth, and please take this in the spirit intended, but when people perceive a vacuum of leadership on issues of principle they will attempt to fill it. I think the sentiments being expressed to you are indicative of that perception at work. I say that only because I think it's a dynamic the staff should understand the motivation behind if they want to dispel the perception and I think it ought to be considered as the staff discuss things.

It's truly basic, but it is costed well and will attack as a 6/5 more often than not. It's not impressive, but it will help close games in Limited which is exactly what it was made for. Lack of any kind of ability other than size is rough, though. It'll get chumped for days.

Channeler is interesting, though I'm not certain it's great. The prospect of a 4/4 for 2 is intriguing, though the tap ability is finnicky. I can see it best used in a flashback/jumpstart/madness spellslinger-style decks where the discard is less of a cost and more of an enabler. I think the tools are there, it just needs to find the right home.

It'll add up quick, for sure. It'll be considered in most +1/+1 counters decks that use white. I can already think of a few Commander decks I may try it in. Not a huge card, but a potent one that enables a lot of good plays.

This is pretty good in limited. A 5/4 for 5 that can attack indestructibly is good for Limited. I don't know that it's got much to offer Constructed, but it's a solid card for Limited because it'll effectively slot into decks that even just splash black and doesn't work against any archetype except I guess really dedicated party builds.

Quote from bobthefunny »

This site is one of those places where people CAN step away from their problems.

No, it's not. The staff thinking it is, though, is profoundly naive and certainly clarifies a lot.

If a person trying to unwind is constantly attacked and not allowed to unwind, is it really surprising that they end up pissed off and stressed? That they end up pissed off at the very cause that "awareness" is being raised for? And pissed off at the person attacking them, for the manner in which they are constantly bringing up that "awareness"?

Who are you referring to here? Are you saying that marginalized people are mad and stressed because other posters are raising awareness about ignorant/bigoted/offensive attitudes displayed on the forum? Who is the attacker here, is there a lot of attacks going on? I'll admit that I haven't seen a lot of direct attacks going on so much as dogwhistles to alt-righty/bigoted attitudes and frankly that's a bigger piss off and stressor than other posters taking a stand against it. But I may have misread you.

Creating a safe space means creating an environment where those people can be relax, not harassed, and not have to interact with the hateful rhetoric. In the context of this site, it means creating an environment which (1) does not have people and messages that disparage them, such as racist, misogynistic, or prejudicial messages - and (2) does not have people constantly bringing up the issue in the face of everyone else, which then instigates those very fights right in their faces - which, coincidentally causes those very issues to cut those wounds right back open again - in the very place that they hoped to find that very safety.

So, for context, I'm the director of a charity that supports 2SLGBTQ+ people across our province, and I championed a whole educational program that is a full-day class on creating and maintaining safer spaces. I work with municipalities, schools, community organizations - I even worked with a federal prison once. I don't know that I'd call myself an expert, but this is certainly something I work with daily.

Your first point is certainly on target, but I don't think the second is. Safe spaces don't assume challenging/hurtful conversations won't happen, they ensure that the people who could be in some way harmed by those situations have backup so they aren't in a position to deal with it alone. And in some cases that means having allies take on the work of pushing back against ignorance and helping people understand why their attitudes/actions are harmful. Safety isn't stopping conversations about bigoted opinions from happening, it's ensuring that when they do happen that they are healthy/respectful discussions and the people most impacted by them are supported. In my trainings, I advocate for authority figures (teachers, supervisors, etc) to be those supports, facilitate healthy and anti-oppressive discussions, and follow-up with people who may have been impacted to ensure they're okay. On a site like this, I'd anticipate the staff would take that on but here it's largely been a handful of users. And I'm grateful that they do.

I certainly can't and won't speak for every marginalized person on the forum, perhaps some like these conversations being avoided. I think that's like an ostrich with its head in the sand, racist/homophobic/misogynistic/etc members are on the forum, and in my experience letting things go unchallenged doesn't make things go away. I personally feel most supported and 'safe' (in this context) when I know other posters won't let casual bigotry slide and will seek to pushback and educate. That, in my opinion, is the hallmark of a real safe space.

In the context of this site and our position on these issues, what we are asking is NOT to ignore hateful rhetoric. If it exists, report it, and let us handle it.

Not to be petty, but I reported a homophobic slur in a thread title and nothing happened for three days. I'm not bringing it up to criticize the staff, I get why that situation played out as it did and that's my point. The staff isn't able to facilitate and guide conversations like it used to, they aren't in the position to be the empathetic authorities nurturing a community (not that previous iterations of the staff didn't have their issues). I think it's why you're seeing regular posters attempt to step into that role by pushing back on posters expressing opinions that may be hurtful to other posters. And it's very likely why you're receiving so much frustration, the staff's stance on this feels more like neutrality than real leadership - especially from the perspective of posters putting in effort to be supportive and try to make other posters feel supported (which is to say nothing of the general principle many of these posters may be guided by beyond just supporting other posters).

I appreciate that the staff is having conversations about how to address the politicization and partisanship of everything, I hope feedback from posters has contributed to those conversations. I don't think the issue is going away anytime soon, it'll probably only worsen as the world continues to strain.

I think these are both interesting and will be fun to play, even if they aren't exceptionally powerful. Ubuun in particular looks promising, it'll at least slot directly into my awaken/land creatures deck.

That's good value for that cost. Obviously the additional land and cantrip are the biggest value here, but the life and counter are great little add-ons as well.

Quote from Silent Wind »

Does this also give you back cards with Multikicker?

Yes, it should. Multikicker counts as a kicker ability based on the translated wording, the same way megamorph counts as a morph ability for Backslide.

Quote from AnneJello »

Are there ANY kicker cards worth using besides Phyrexian Scuta? They tend to overprice kicker costs for some reason. I'd like to see that mechanic pushed a little more.

Depends on the context. In Limited? Kicker has always been reliable utility/flexibility.

In Constructed? Blink of an Eye/Into the Roil, Jilt, Kavu Titan, Orim's Chant, Rite of Replication, and Urza's Rage all see (or saw) constructed play in various formats at various points in time, at least. And those are just the ones that had arguable competitive success at their height of play.

Your point is fair, though remember that kicker has to be valued slightly higher because of its flexibility so conservative costs are the easiest way to keep them in check. They've explored alternative kicker costs, though, and I think they should have again here.