About diversity and inclusivity (including VEKN Rules Team Rulings 05/07/2020)

Mewcat wrote:

Vlad wrote:

To help ending it : a proposal for the renaming (took me 2 minutes so be nice if you don't like it )


Gypsies : Travellers
Rom Gypsy : Fortune Teller
Tarbaby Jack : Jack Jack
Terrorists : Mobsters / all clans
Tsigane : Megane

Simply ask people to print pdf with the new names and we're good !

The point here is to prevent some new player showing up to tarbaby meta and wondering what kind of game vtes is. If you just rename them some asshole is for sure gonna use the original card as a proxy.

I really dont get the grievance here. Some cards that are basically not played were banned and somehow that hurts you. The company is just trying to be polite and give the game a chance to attract new players. New players are good.

but again you don't understand what we're trying to tell you.

The problem is not in the card but in the banning for this reason. To put it simply, people who are in favor of these cards being banned want or will also want to ban others if nobody reacts.
these people want to ban cards that will impact the game and this in depth.
A person like: Janne Lönnqvist is in favor, for example, of banning the Slavic trait, or Mind rape, segregation and many other cards. If you let these people who obviously have a big influence on the decisions taken by the community speak without answering you will no longer have the same game in a very short time.
Again I apologize for my very low level of English and I hope you understand the idea I want to convey here

darkal wrote:

these people want to ban cards that will impact the game and this in depth.

I'd just like to point out that when you say "impact the game," you mean "impact tournaments." The game has not been impacted at all (ie, one can still play those cards unless one intends to play in a tournament). You can ban 100% of the card pool and the actual game will not be affected.

If you're going to argue that banning these cards plus more is going to eventually affect the depth at the tournament level, then I'm not sure how you can argue this. From what I understand, tournaments are not a hotbed of diverse archetypes anyway. You could ban 75% of the card pool that don't make the cut for a tournament and the decks would all look the same as they do now.

darkal wrote:

but again you don't understand what we're trying to tell you.

The problem is not in the card but in the banning for this reason. To put it simply, people who are in favor of these cards being banned want or will also want to ban others if nobody reacts.
these people want to ban cards that will impact the game and this in depth.
A person like: Janne Lönnqvist is in favor, for example, of banning the Slavic trait, or Mind rape, segregation and many other cards. If you let these people who obviously have a big influence on the decisions taken by the community speak without answering you will no longer have the same game in a very short time.
Again I apologize for my very low level of English and I hope you understand the idea I want to convey here

So you are not opposed to these bans, but some theoretical future bans. Seems hyper reactionary to me. I dont know exactly who made this decision but I dont sense any sinister plot here. I could yell at Ben Peal for hours about his design choices but I would trust him to make reasonable choices here.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

darkal wrote:

these people want to ban cards that will impact the game and this in depth.

I'd just like to point out that when you say "impact the game," you mean "impact tournaments." The game has not been impacted at all (ie, one can still play those cards unless one intends to play in a tournament). You can ban 100% of the card pool and the actual game will not be affected.

If you're going to argue that banning these cards plus more is going to eventually affect the depth at the tournament level, then I'm not sure how you can argue this. From what I understand, tournaments are not a hotbed of diverse archetypes anyway. You could ban 75% of the card pool that don't make the cut for a tournament and the decks would all look the same as they do now.

I do not agree, if for example the Slavic trait was considered racist, the impact would be significant on the rules of the game, in tournament or on friendly games.

this is an example among many others

Without considering if a card can be offensive or not and to whom (it can be very subjective and context dependant, and very slippery too, BCP just doesnt know clearly if its the end or not), the impact of the bans in the meta and how a company must react to SJ pressures, a big mistake has been done with this decision on a management level.

We all know how controversial theses subjects can be, and taking it this way, with a pure hard ban, over any other softer and consensual solutions and without a big concertation had 100 % chance to trigger the shitstorm we are in now.

This was inevitable, every experienced and capable individuals in community management or public relationships knows that.

The situation is not irreversible. BCP can listen and fix it or continue his way. But it will be without a part of the community.

Please listen.

Without considering if a card can be offensive or not and to whom (it can be very subjective and context dependant, and very slippery too, BCP just doesnt know clearly if its the end or not), the impact of the bans in the meta and how a company must react to SJ pressures, a big mistake has been done with this decision on a management level.

We all know how controversial this subject can be, and taking it this way, with a pure hard ban, over any other softer and consensual solutions and without a big concertation had 100 % chance to trigger the shitstorm we are in now.

This was inevitable, every experienced and capable individuals in community management or public relationships knows that.

The situation is not irreversible. BCP can listen and fix it or continue his way. But it will be without a part of the community.

Please listen.