2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Wizards cuts ties with artist Noah Bradley
    An employee is about making money, its a business.
    If a person is not advocating for your company, they are very well free to do whatever they want.
    If the artist is gay, trans, democrats or republican, a jew, muslim, black or white, asian, or physical disabled.
    All of that doesnt matter nor should it matter for an employer, as it has nothing to do with the work.
    It would be helpful if you wouldn't go into these general rants all the time and instead stay focused on the topic. Again, you're making up things to be mad about. Wizards didn't cut ties with this guy for being gay, or a democrat/republican, a jew, a muslim, or any of the things you listed (not even "having different political beliefs", because if you think what he did qualifies as that, then whew). They did so because he admitted to being a sexual predator. This is what this is about.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Wizards cuts ties with artist Terese Nielsen
    expressing your believes and opinions is NEVER evil, its your damn right to do that.

    And before someone jumps around the corner with : "Its freedom of speech, but not freedom of consequences"
    Keep in mind that nobodies life should be destroyed by expressing your opinions.
    If you cannot speak out as you risk losing your job, or endure massive financial ruin, or even people actively harassing and attacking you physically, they even translate that hate on your family and everyone around you.
    Thats not reasonable consequences, thats straight up terrorism, fueled by the deepest and most evil hatred.
    Jeez, can you turn it down a notch?

    What we have here is a (in numbers: 1) company cutting ties with an artist, not a destruction of someone's life. Wizards has done so in the past - Harold McNeill is an easy example. The only thing that has changed is that Wizards is now putting out official statements about it.

    I'm pretty sure an artist with skills on Nielsen's level has no problems finding work elsewhere. As far as I know, there are no indicators of her being driven to financial ruin or being attacked physically. None of this has happened - you're making up things to be mad about. (Yeah yeah, I'm sure there's a tweet by someone, somewhere that could be interpreted as a threat, but how does it go? Ah, yes ... "It's just a message on the internet - grow some thicker skin!")
    Maybe we will get a similar story like with (The Rebecca Guay Controversy) , just maybe.
    There's no controversy surrounding Rebecca Guay. She just decided on her own terms that she didn't want to work with Wizards anymore (or raised her prices to the point where she's above Wizard's art budget constraints).
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on [M21] Mothership 6/15— Shrine tribal
    Funny how the two shrines that are probably worst play-wise have the best art.
    AW-wise it's easily W > R > G > B > U, but powerlevel-wise it's probably B > G > U > R > W.

    I do hope that we return to Kamigawa at some point...
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Don’t know if this is the right place to put this.
    Quote from H3RAC71TU5 »
    The crux of it is this: systemic problems require systemic solutions. If you don't recognize that a problem is systemic in nature, your treatment will be overly superficial (e.g., "I'm not prejudiced because I have black friends, therefore all racism in society is solved. Done!"). Prejudice is an aspect of racism, but it has to be understood in terms of the broader societal context. Note that the context is a constant regardless of the scale, an understanding which is missing from your analysis.
    Let me preface this by saying that I don't actually disagree with you here; the structural/systemic elements of racism have adressed poorly so far and are definitely the ones that need the most attention right now. In my original post I mentioned the problem of placing "medium-sized" actors - organizations like the KKK, other supremacist groups, racist or at least strongly prejudiced communities - but of course these can only "be a thing" because they're imbedded in systems that somehow allow them to exist. But in the end, racism is both a bottom-up and top-down issue, that's why I think it's not helpful to completely cut one half of it out of the definition.

    On the smaller, more personal level, comments like "that's racist (of you)" are most commonly understood to refer to "small r racism", similar to "that's homophobic." It would be good if people didn't always take it as a personal attack and instead saw it as an opportunity to reflect on their own biases and the context of their daily lives, but frankly I don't think it's possible with such a loaded term. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, I don't know.

    Quote from H3RAC71TU5 »
    Note that I'm here making a good faith effort to explain everything, far from the attitude that "it's not my job to educate you." And I don't think that the left really has a choice in its strategy of using language correctly. So while I understand where you're coming from I think you should consider more why the left's ideology has the features it does.
    Oh, the bit about the "it's not my job to educate you" was in reference to the Twitter threads and the general debate on this topic. I appreciate that you're taking your time with this, although I think we're pretty much on the same page. A lot of online/media debate is focused on "winning" an argument, "destroying" / "canceling" someone, "exposing" them for what they really are, etc. While there definitely are many people that you simply can't get through to, I do think that those judgments are often made too quickly. Of course Twitter with its low character limit encourages this from all participants in any given conversation.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Theros: Beyond Death (flavor spoilers)
    Quote from Flisch »
    In conclusion, I wish they'd add more variety (even if it's just hinted at for future revisits) to each culture and race rather than just making a stereotype seen on four-six cards and call it a day.

    A typical Maro-type response to this (I feel) would be that they have only so many cards to depict any tribe/faction/region etc. so they have to rely on stereotypes to a certain degree to drive the point home, or else player's wouldn't be able to "get it". Essentially, these type of decisions are the result of branding and marketing concerns.

    I too am of the opinion that they tend to go a bit too far with this in the recent past. I think the customers could very much handle "less pigeonholed" worldbuilding, where everything pertaining to a group or a combination of colors has to fit into a very tight frame.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Don’t know if this is the right place to put this.
    Quote from H3RAC71TU5 »
    It's not "changing" the definition. The qualification that racism is necessarily systemic is a decision which was made collectively by intellectuals in their discussion of the issue of racism. It follows naturally as a consequence of analyzing the social issue in which merely defining it as prejudice would not adequately describe or explain many phenomena. Racial inequities in society are a product of racism, but it is reductive to say they are a product of some individual's prejudices against a given race. The causality of racial inequities is just more complicated than coming down to just prejudice, they would exist and continue to exist even if every individual did not hold those prejudices. Insofar as "racism" is a word which is employed for the express purpose of defining a social problem, narrowing its definition to prejudice would make it fail to define the problem. It is a standard practice in intellectual discourse to refine language as needed by the subtleties involved in the topic at hand. Defining racism as only prejudice also opens to door to white people complaining about prejudice directed toward them, which is not a comparable social issue to solve (in fact, it is relatively trivial in importance) and needlessly derails the discussion. The technical use of the word "racism" by intellectuals might be more difficult to understand for uneducated people who are accustomed to their colloquial usage. But if someone takes the trouble to explain it to them, one would hope they'd listen and try to understand.
    For many people, the term "racism" encompasses everything from what you've described as racial prejudice to full-fledged systems of oppression. It's an umbrella term that doesn't only apply to societies or systems, but actors on any part of the societal scale. Imo this should be taken as a fact of the world we live in, if you like it or not. When it comes to language, most people don't care about how certain terms are defined by intellectuals - they use them intuitively, based on how they've seem them used by others throughout their lives. Going against this is very difficult, especially when talking about a issue as big as racism. That's why I'm not sure if it's helpful to flat-out label the colloquial definition of racism as wrong. It leads to communication issues way too easily.

    I've seen many instances where "racism" is used interchangeably with "systemic racism", basically as a snyonym. This can understandably cause confusion (and, by extension, frustration). Because if both both words mean the same - why specify? And if the only two options are personal prejudice and institutionalized racism, where do you put small-to-mid scale organizations?

    I can understand that many activists may not be happy with using "systemic racism" because it's a word with less overall impact and makes people feel like they're not part of the problem. Almost no one wants to be a racist, so using just "racism" is suited better for grabbing people's attention. However, once you get past this initial stage of getting people involved (for better or for worse), I think a more granular use of language is very much beneficial. I've seen a lot of Twitter and forum threads derail because of the "reverse racism doesn't exist, educate yourself" response. For many activists, that's where they draw the line - they don't want to debate about the meaning. But to people on the other side, responses like this give off strong anti-vaxxer/flat-earther vibes. As a result, vocal activists are often accused of "only going by their ideology", "pushing an agenda" or being part of a marxist/socialist/communist conspiracy (which I find absolutely hilarious btw).

    If you want to have meaningful conversations with people, the mutual battle line demarcations have to be overcome somehow. I understand that many minority actors are not OK with constantly being asked to make the initial effort that has a high chance of not paying off anyway (hence the "it's not my job to educate you" stance). But I don't think insisting on redefining an umbrella term to only have a very specific meaning is a winning strategy, really.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on [C20] Flavor and Lore
    Got excited during the stream yesterday when Maro started talking about how they can't outright return to Kamigawa... but then the card he revealed was "only" a Azusa reprint.

    I like how Chromatic Orrery references Mirrodin, looks like it's something Karn (or another PW) built on Dominaria.

    Also the title of this thread should be changed to [C21].
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on M21 Planeswalkers Decks
    Teferi's Wavecaster and Sigiled Contender have some really cool art, too bad they're stuck on cards that will never get played anywhere :/
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on [M21] Pack Leader— NOTAWOLF preview
    I have to agree, that art has a bit of an un-set feel to it. The plate armor + helmet looks a bit silly on a non-humanoid, regular dog and then you have the exaggerated "hero pose" and the other, non-armored dogs in the background... They overshot the goal a bit on this one.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Maro's Core 2021 Teaser
    Quote from Urabrask »
    • A brand new planeswalker (from a plane we’ve visited)
    Fingers crossed for an (actual) Lorwyn PW.

    - Flamekin walker
    - Treefolk walker
    - Giant walker
    - Kithkin walker

    All of these would be great. Elf and Merfolk would be OK as well, but we already have those.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Zendikar in 2020
    Honestly, I do not understand Zendikar's appeal at this point.

    I like the idea of "Adventure world" and am fine with the tribes being used in the setting but... I'm not really sure what else there is to say. Lots of the flavor of "adventure world" came from the actual setting itself... which has been largely wrecked.

    Yeah, this is something I've been wondering about as well. It's not like original Zendikar was like a world littered with ruins of multiple bygone civilizations. The big mystery were the Eldrazi and only the Eldrazi, and virtually everything about the worldbuilding was connected to them (most importantly the hedrons). Now that the mystery has been lifted and the Eldrazi are no more, what's really left to unearth here? It'll be interesting to see how they handled this issue.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on Return to Amonkhet ideas
    Quote from Flisch »
    I'm on the fence about this. On the one hand, I'd love for the locust and the scarab god to be redeemed. On the other hand I'm genre savvy enough to doubt that. Unlike the other 5 gods, the three corrupted gods were changed pyhsically, which usually means they have become irredeemably corrupted, see Brisela and, well, basically most fantasy stories.
    I think this could be dealt with by having them go into some sort of "cocoon state", temporarily vanishing from the surface and then reappearing later. In the story, maybe explorers could happen upon and reawaken them when exploring some tombs.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on [IKO] Ikoria: Lair of Behemoths- Ebook and Story
    Quote from 5colors »
    Second your kinda hit on the reason for this being brought up. People are saying Vivien being against hunters is unreasonable since they are getting food when its not really gone over. All references to hunting seem to be for the sport hunters. WhileBushmeat Poacher might be a food hunter but also likely doing it for profit on the black market and likely not providing the city with needed sources since the lore (and not just from Vivien) doesn't suggest that.

    Its likely humans can and will eat monster meat but thats never brought up on how Vivien feels on that.
    Well, in this case I'm going to change my complaint to "normal hunting" not being brought up at all. They went out of their way to establish poaching as a thing that exists and is looked down upon even by the people that hate monsters, but as a result ended up leaving a very valid question like "where does the food come from" up in the air. And I think that's kind of a big oversight because in a world that's all about humans, monsters and their relationships/conflicts between them, "justified hunting" is another interesting angle those can be explored from. It even fits in the trope space Ikoria is tapping into, since it's not only Godzilla/monster movies but also the Monster Hunter game franchise.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on [IKO] Ikoria: Lair of Behemoths- Ebook and Story
    Quote from 5colors »
    Often when writing a fictional world you have to balance between using words that your audience understand and whats true to the world. As Mullerornis said poachers is used as a shorthand for "illegal hunter" to give us the audience a quicker way to figure out this card.


    I had a similar talk in a writing workshop where people didn't like using the term atheist for a nonbeliever in a fantasy world with real gods and thought apantheon or antipantheon would be a better term, while the against argument was that it might be a another term for someone needs to learn long with the other fantasy terms going on and a more familiar word might be better used here.
    Using easy-to-understand words is one thing, but using them thoughtlessly can damage your worldbuilding because things begin to lose their meaning the second the reades tries to look beneath the surface. OK, let's say that "poacher" is just a term for "bad hunter". What separates them from the good hunters? As far as we know, there isn't such a thing (or have I missed something?). Monster hunting is seen as something that is, without exception, done for sport, to collect trophies or the narcisisstic need to be "part of a myth" (Dark Bargain). However, other cards indicate that monster parts can in fact be turned into useful tools (Flycatcher Giraffid) and or can be consumed as food (Bushmeat Poacher).

    If you take a minute and think about the conditions humanity lives under on Ikoria, it seems almost crazy that hunting monsters for food isn't seen as a normal thing. In an absurdly hostile environment that requires humans to build their cities under volcanic shelf (and manage lava flows to create walls of lava for defense) and build flying balloon cities, where do you have room for any sort of agriculture? And if you don't have any crops, where do you get your food from? Monster meat seems like the obvious choice here. The rampaging feline serial killer may be scary, but keeping yourself fed is definitely higher on the prioritiy list.

    It's still a nitpick, but you can definitely add flavour by paying attention to how people of your world talk about things. There could be an interesting "hunting for sustenance VS hunting gone too far" conflict here.

    As for your example, I think simply falling back on the term "non-believer" would be the easiest way around things. It's the most old-timey feeling and fantasy-friendly of the expressions while still being very easy to understand.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Identity of Wedges: Ikoria
    Quote from Mullerornis »
    For Skysail, White and Green are represented by their sense of community and peacefulness, while the Black is likely manifesting through their desire for independence, again pretty opposite to the Abzan.
    I don't want to keep on going on and on about this, but "desire for independence" reads like a red thing to me. It's not like black can't have it, but it would have to be associated with a somewhat predatory material/political/societal gain. Maybe it's just me, but I can see a "independence to ensure peace and the security of the community" mindset as Naya, Jeskai, or Mardu - definitely not Abzan though, especially when black is supposed to be the center color.

    Looking through the spoiler again and finding things like Facet Reader, I got the feeling that the human settlements on Ikoria are simply less defined by their colors than the Tarkir clans. At first I thought "settlement X is mainly [wedge] because it's in that region" was a weak argument, but it might just be this way. Drannith definitely is the settlement that best matches its colors in terms of philosophy, with Lavabrink coming in second and Skysail third.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.