|
Given how much there is, this is a great place to start.
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2012 13:24 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 00:02 |
|
|
rinski posted:Joke? Legitimate comment? I honestly have no idea, but later in the same silly, drunk, obviously not serious stream he said, "SO BAD! I can't watch this durdlefest," so I don't even know. Considering when you two put up draft videos on Youtube I would shout at the screen that you needed to shut up and listen to OM, combined with the fact that you're actually not terrible, I feel pretty safe saying she's really quite good. But I'm sure lots of people reach gold as a fluke, right? 
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2012 14:09 |
|
|
Bonus chat with my mom! (Remember to tell your mom you love her, punks!)quote:me: http://i.imgur.com/pE5IF.jpg
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2012 14:45 |
|
|
It sounds like you presented the picture in a fairly contextualized view. Specifically "hey I'm right, aren't I mom?" view. Also "there is worse" does not at all excuse the art in question. quote:But all that is just how the stance falls, not intentional does that make since Also this is really unclear or your mom is really, really dumb. The position isn't "unintentional" at all. The two figures aren't actually having a fight and the painter just happened to make the picture with some accidental subtext. The painting was made to make this action as clear as possible.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 03:22 |
|
|
Here is what happened. People: Hey, WoTC this card can be interpreted as sexualized violence that's not cool. WoTC: Oh ok, sorry, well be more careful. He is angry about that? Ruining a game? I'ts a win win for everyone and there is zero reason to be upset by that sequence of events and all the hate in this thread has come from frustration and anger at an infantile, and often hateful reaction from idiots around the web. No one is going to give your mom poo poo for not interpreting the art in question with any sexual connotations. I bet though if you told your mom that nerds are posting about how surprise sex victims are to blame and magic is ruined because wizards promised to be more cautious about its art she would probably think that's incredibly lovely.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 03:44 |
|
|
The reaction is coming from people feeling like if the card gets apologized, that people have won in changing their precious Magic game, and the very real potential that someone is making them think that possibly they might be bad people deep down, because they enjoyed the card. It's pride and shame. Also having your mom discuss a card doesn't invalidate every other person's comments, especially women, on it.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 15:36 |
|
|
Speaking of making women feel welcome in the hobby, these were in the (unisex) bathroom at the comic store my wife and I went to for the AR pre-release:  Not visible in the photos are handwritten comments about the posters written on the surrounding wall, I'm sure you can guess what they're like. If you are sitting on the toilet you are literally look right at these posters. The comic store owner also came over and said "good luck guys" then looked at my wife and literally said "and to you as well, fair lady." Whenever any of the staff referred to the woman who worked at the store they always called her "the beautiful" or the "lovely" and gave the actual helvault box to the person who could "give our lovely [the woman's name] the best sincere compliment." I wasn't near the register so I'm not sure how that played out. These were nice people who tried hard to put on a good magic event, and there was a lot of nice little touches to the event like ways to win bonus packs and snacks and things. There were a decent amount of women players there too. It just bums me out in a way sometimes that even nice people who would never think of themselves as sexist or misogynist or anything like that can still perpetuate this kind of stereotypical boy's club stuff.
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 16:15 |
|
|
Comic books are terrible and often staffed by terrible people. When the new DC reboots re-wrote Starfire to be completely uninterested in any sort of connection except a sexual one. She apparently doesn't care to remember the names of people she's met but she has sex with the two male protagonists within the first issue. It offended a ton of people and created a lot of discussion about sexism in comics. The response from DC's Editor Dan Didio was "We'll see it can't be sexist because a woman worked on it" Most comic books are bad and everyone should stop reading them. Stinky Pit fucked around with this message at Apr 29, 2012 around 20:37 |
| # ? Apr 29, 2012 20:30 |
|
|
A mature and civilized discussion of racial epithets! http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=413960 
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 17:39 |
|
|
That bandswithgoats guy seems pretty spot on. (Okay fine it's me.)
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 19:48 |
|
|
So, I was talking in the D&D 5e thread about Magic psychographics the other day, and I was thinking: what does it say about our hobby that Timmy, Johnny, and Spike (and Melvin, though I can't say about Vorthos) are all male?
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 21:21 |
|
|
Mornacale posted:So, I was talking in the D&D 5e thread about Magic psychographics the other day, and I was thinking: what does it say about our hobby that Timmy, Johnny, and Spike (and Melvin, though I can't say about Vorthos) are all male? That the research and design guys know their playerbase?
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 21:23 |
|
|
Mornacale posted:So, I was talking in the D&D 5e thread about Magic psychographics the other day, and I was thinking: what does it say about our hobby that Timmy, Johnny, and Spike (and Melvin, though I can't say about Vorthos) are all male? Yeah, it's an assumed male player base. What's weird to me is that every card is a "he" when people talk about them. Chapin referring to emancipation angel as a "he" over and over again really threw me for a loop because Angel's are always female (except Malach of the Dawn and that one mirage guy)
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 21:26 |
|
|
Wezlar posted:That the research and design guys know their playerbase? This sort of thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. Besides, Rosewater keeps saying that Magic's retention stats are really good, and they are trying to focus on bringing new players into the hobby. Part of expanding the playerbase means marketing to those who are explicitly not a part of it (yet); as far as women are concerned, it feels like WotC are still failing badly at this.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 21:27 |
|
|
It also suggests Wizards staff should not be allowed to name their own children.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 21:32 |
|
|
Ashenai posted:This sort of thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. I just meant that the profile things have nothing to do with gender and everything to do with playstyle, they're male because most of magic players are male.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 21:36 |
|
|
Wezlar posted:I just meant that the profile things have nothing to do with gender and everything to do with playstyle, they're male because most of magic players are male. I think that's what Ashenai was getting at. It's not that naming the psychographics male names suggests there's some particular kind of different play style for women. The point is that when you approach the game from the assumption that all your players are male, you're going to do things that will reinforce that because they're going pressure women away.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 21:42 |
|
|
Wezlar posted:I just meant that the profile things have nothing to do with gender and everything to do with playstyle, they're male because most of magic players are male. Yes, and that's what I meant by "self-fulfilling prophecy." If you make everything male-focused because "most magic players are male," then all you're doing is making sure that most magic players will continue to be male. Which, among other things, is bad business strategy.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 21:43 |
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:I think that's what Ashenai was getting at. It's not that naming the psychographics male names suggests there's some particular kind of different play style for women. The point is that when you approach the game from the assumption that all your players are male, you're going to do things that will reinforce that because they're going pressure women away. I mean, I guess so? I think it's kind of grasping at straws to look for something to pick at. I really don't think there would be any difference in card design if Timmy was Tina but it's not really something we can quantify or discuss with any sort of authority or evidence?
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 21:44 |
|
|
Wezlar posted:I mean, I guess so? I think it's kind of grasping at straws to look for something to pick at. I really don't think there would be any difference in card design if Timmy was Tina but it's not really something we can quantify or discuss with any sort of authority or evidence? It's not a question of card design. These psychographics aren't just discussed internally; the WotC people post about them constantly, Rosewater has written around 10 DailyMTG articles explaining them in detail, and there are official tests where you can find out whether you're a "Timmy" or a "Johnny/Spike" or whatever. These are consumer-facing terms; essentially, marketing material. You, the customer, are supposed to be interested and excited to know how much of a "Melvin" you are. This is what makes it problematic. And I'm not saying it's a huge problem, because I don't think it is; it's more a symptom of the underlying issue.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 21:57 |
|
|
There's nothing inherently male about the name Spike, so maybe it is you who are the sexists!  I mean it's kind of dumb that the psychography names are all dudes, but I would bet that most new and casual players don't read MTG blogs anyway. Working on making more appealing/less sexist art and getting creepy sexist dudes out of the hobby are way higher priorities, imo.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 21:59 |
|
|
Karnegal posted:What's weird to me is that every card is a "he" when people talk about them. Chapin referring to emancipation angel as a "he" over and over again really threw me for a loop because Angel's are always female (except Malach of the Dawn and that one mirage guy) This annoys the ever living poo poo out of me. Every time I hear someone refer to Stoneforge Mystic or Knight of the Reliquary as "he," I go into a tizzy. When it's in person, I always tell people "he? You might want to look at that illustration again." I usually use the pronoun "it" for my cards because my cards are genderless objects. I don't have anything against "he" and "she" being used, but at least make the pronoun agree with the illustration.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 22:13 |
|
|
Those cards aren't "he," because they are cards instead of people. They are "it."
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 22:16 |
|
|
Star Man posted:This annoys the ever living poo poo out of me. Every time I hear someone refer to Stoneforge Mystic or Knight of the Reliquary as "he," I go into a tizzy. When it's in person, I always tell people "he? You might want to look at that illustration again." It's really just a pet peeve, but it seems bizarre to me that people aren't looking at really obvious art. Would you call a planeswalker "it"? Just curious.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 22:18 |
|
|
Mornacale posted:So, I was talking in the D&D 5e thread about Magic psychographics the other day, and I was thinking: what does it say about our hobby that Timmy, Johnny, and Spike (and Melvin, though I can't say about Vorthos) are all male? If you make one of them female, doesn't that suggest that that's the "female" psychographic? I get the concept of the male default but I don't see how you "fix" that here without adding some baggage that either warps their intent or makes them less useful. Do you give them all male/female paired names? That weakens their use as jargon by having redundant names.
|
| # ? May 6, 2012 05:48 |
|
|
Sigma-X posted:If you make one of them female, doesn't that suggest that that's the "female" psychographic? Well, I don't actually think they're under any obligation to change anything, but I do think there are things they could do if they thought it was important. Firstly, unisex names are a thing that exist. Alex, Chris, Robin, Jamie, and so on and so forth. Switching up pronouns (not within the same text, but if they're writing multiple articles about them, switching it up between them) would help reinforce the choice. Artwork of both sexes (again, spread out through multiple articles, not just spammed at the same time) would be another subtle, background way to reinforce the idea that not every 'Alex' is a man, just like not every Magic player is a man. It would also be possible to combine this with the idea of paired names - names like Alexander/Alexandra, or Christine/Christopher, that have gender variants and unisex nicknames, would be perfect. Introduce them as the paired name in the official articles, then refer to them by the unisex nickname most of the time. That way headings can include both names and make it more prominent that the psychographics aren't male-only, but not sacrifice clarity within actual discussion. But like I said, I think the ship has already sailed on this - they didn't think of the male-as-default issue before publicly introducing the terms to the community, and now there'll be resistance if they try to change them. Players don't like learning new terms for old concepts, and especially not when the reason they have to do that is to benefit players that aren't them in a way they don't even understand.
|
| # ? May 6, 2012 06:25 |
|
|
It was in MTGSalvation thread of all places that I saw someone address the gendering of the psychographics. They offered the counterparts of Tammy, Jenny, and Star.
|
| # ? May 6, 2012 06:34 |
|
|
I made a new tumblr: magic flavor text explained
|
| # ? May 6, 2012 08:28 |
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:It was in MTGSalvation thread of all places that I saw someone address the gendering of the psychographics. They offered the counterparts of Tammy, Jenny, and Star. They're an internal design tool, not a part of what's released. While they reflect a patriarchal cultural that assumes a male norm, they're not really a significant issue beyond the fact that they imply that design assumes (or assumed) a male player. At this point they're established, and trying to alter them isn't going to be useful for design, which is why they exist in the first place.
|
| # ? May 6, 2012 08:53 |
|
|
And yet it would take very little effort to change them and the negative impact would be minimal, there's not much reason not to do so other than being comfortable with what you've already got. And making two specific Un-cards non-canonical I guess. kingcobweb posted:I made a new tumblr: magic flavor text explained This is great.
|
| # ? May 6, 2012 10:01 |
|
|
HazCat posted:But like I said, I think the ship has already sailed on this - they didn't think of the male-as-default issue before publicly introducing the terms to the community, and now there'll be resistance if they try to change them. Players don't like learning new terms for old concepts, and especially not when the reason they have to do that is to benefit players that aren't them in a way they don't even understand. Battlefield, exile, lifelink, cast, deathtouch, dies, etc.
|
| # ? May 6, 2012 14:02 |
|
|
I always saw the player archetype names as children, never really thought about it from a gender standpoint. Though I've never met a man nor woman named spike.
|
| # ? May 6, 2012 14:17 |
|
|
Given how often the psychographic profiles get tossed around as insults against one's least-favorite playstyle (loving Timmies getting all the mythic slots etc), I feel like having one/any of them be female would lead to a bunch of casually gendered insults. EDIT: Also I really hate how little attention people pay to the gender of their creatures, but I'm not sure if that's sexist or not. The playgroup I recently parachuted out of did this CONSTANTLY.
|
| # ? May 6, 2012 14:23 |
|
|
I usually only notice the gender of legendaries and Walkers, I didn't realize hero of bladehold was female until just recently.
|
| # ? May 6, 2012 14:53 |
|
|
Stormageddon posted:I usually only notice the gender of legendaries and Walkers, I didn't realize hero of bladehold was female until just recently. You'd notice if you had the groanworthy promo art version.
|
| # ? May 6, 2012 15:09 |
|
|
I always thought Timmy came from Prodigal Sorcerer (the original "Tim" and definitely a dude) and the others were plays off of cards as well. Is this not the case?Nehru the Damaja posted:You'd notice if you had the groanworthy promo art version. Fuckin anatomy, how does it work?
|
| # ? May 6, 2012 15:11 |
|
|
weekly font posted:I always thought Timmy came from Prodigal Sorcerer (the original "Tim" and definitely a dude) and the others were plays off of cards as well. Is this not the case? No. Mark Rosewater wrote an article on their origins.
|
| # ? May 6, 2012 15:15 |
|
|
Ashenai posted:No. Mark Rosewater wrote an article on their origins. Well, poo poo. *~~~the more you know
|
| # ? May 6, 2012 15:19 |
|
|
Karnegal posted:It's really just a pet peeve, but it seems bizarre to me that people aren't looking at really obvious art. Would you call a planeswalker "it"? Just curious. The way my vernacular tends to be, planeswalkers and humanoid legendary creatures are always he or she. Animals, non-legendary creatures, and genderless creatures are usually called "it."
|
| # ? May 6, 2012 15:48 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 00:02 |
|
|
Why do people call Elesh Norn "she?" I thought all Phyrexians were its - just a mash of flesh and metal, too efficient to be concerned with sex and reproduced in vats.
|
| # ? May 6, 2012 16:06 |
|
