Are you a Quiet Speculation member?
If not, now is a perfect time to join up! Our powerful tools, breaking-news analysis, and exclusive Discord channel will make sure you stay up to date and ahead of the curve.
When he vented his frustrations on his personal blog, Matt Crocker (@mfcrocker), a Magic Player, writer and Level 1 Judge from Bristol, UK had no idea the resulting article, a treatise about how to create safe spaces as a judge would "blow up". Blow up it did. Although Matt's a writer for Brainstorm Brewery and I follow him on twitter, I first saw the article when it was shared by Riki Hayashi. It's fair to say when a luminary in the Magic judging community like Hayashi is taking notice, you're on to something.
The article itself is a fairly straightforward one. It deals with what Matt perceives as a lax approach to enforcing policies regarding discriminatory language at regular REL. It's a good read and it highlights the dangers behind an attitude I'm sure all of us who consider ourselves tolerant have, and that's "intentionality matters'.
From the article,
Adrian, a long term player at the store is watching a match, when Chris, his friend loses. As he is commiserating his friend, Adrian says” Ah that whip of Erebos, its such a gay card, you’d have had it without him playing that” Chris replies “um, you can’t say that. You’re right though, the card is retarded”
A couple of people on tables near this exchange look visibly uncomfortable, and one comes to get you and relays what’s Happened. What do you do?
The rules, in Matt's opinion, fall short of achieving the DCI's number one aim in these scenarios which is to create a safe space for players.
It's a convincing case Matt makes. The most groundbreaking part of the piece is where he takes exception with the pervasive belief that intentionality matters. Many of us have referred to an annoying or underperforming card as "gay" or "retarded" or "AIDS" at some point. If we're trying to enforce the notion that a tournament venue is a safe place, we're all going to have to get used to the idea that whether or not you are directly trying to harm, or even directly referencing someone who may be affected by hearing terms like that is irrelevant. The rules at regular REL for this sort of thing are somewhat lax and tightening them isn't probably the issue, but impressing upon judges that they should be enforced is a great policy. Even if the rules don't call for anything more punitive than having a talk with a player you overhear saying something that could be construed as offensive, the article argues that the judge staff should absolutely do that. It's not about punishing players, it's about reminding players who are not trying to hurt anyone's feelings that the behavior they find innocuous (and probably don't mind curbing) threatens the sanctity of the tournament setting.
It's a good case Matt makes, and the article is a quick but important read. Let's discuss below.
I guess it was only a matter of time until the social justice warriors campaign against free speech and thought crime entered the magic community.
A social justice warriors campaign thoroughly backed by the judge program and Wizards of the Coast, no less! It’s pretty great 🙂
From the perspective of a totalitarian I guess it would appear to be pretty great, to someone who recognizes that censorship is always justified via a threat narrative not so much.
It certainly would appear totally necessary for you to use (and defend the use of) words like “gay” and “retarded” over innocuous terms such as “bad” or “unfun”.
Oh no, wait, it wouldn’t. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Is it censorship or common courtesy? You still have the right to say whatever you want, and by all means do so, but realize you might be out of line and offending someone.
Why are you repeating your comments from the original article here on QS?
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. Nobody is trying to stop freedom of speech.
http://xkcd.com/1357/ sums it up pretty well.
It would be irresponsible to take seriously any opinion non-ironically using the term “social justice warrior”.
Actually, it’s about ethics in judge policy
You have the right to speech (depending on your country’s laws) free from governmental oppression. You do NOT have the right to be free from social consequences. MTG is a social grouping far more than anything else, and the goal is to be INclusive, not EXclusive. Slurs like “gay”, “retarded”, and the like, are not welcoming.
I know of a specific store where those players (targets of slurs) have congregated and the store is incredibly successful, yet for many of the players there are more convenient stores. Why go there? Because they won’t have to deal with a negative atmosphere. Those closer stores lose out, because they didn’t take the time to educate their player base.
I also know of former players who left because of the atmosphere. Think they’re coming back? Probably not.
This is a pretty sticky subject. I, personally, have mixed feelings about this stance being openly embraced by WotC.
I absolutely agree that Magic events should be a comfortable space for any and all players. Period.
However, there seems to be a shiftiness of accountability, here, merged with an incredibly gray area of subjectivity. And, of course, censorship.
I’m a reasonable man. And if someone were to approach me, and explain– politely and without attitude– that my language made them uncomfortable, it would take little effort for me to alter this, and I would do so. And that’s fine! (setting aside for a moment that they are opting to allow my language [which, even though not directed at them] to make them uncomfortable).
I find Mr. Crocker’s exmaple to be rather poor, in attempting to defeat the argument “words are words”. Considering that the conversation that was being had was being shared (privately) by two people, and not being directed at the person in a deliberately disparaging or aggressive way, it seems rather unnecessarily policing to insist that these players rectify their language.
And if this is the policy going forward, where will a line be drawn? I’m not trying to turn this into a slippery slope situation, but I honestly can’t see where this conflict of “natural expression” vs. “disruptive conduct” would (theoretically) end.
>I absolutely agree that Magic events should be a comfortable space for any and all players. Period. However
That kind of statement doesn’t really leave room for a “however”
> censorship.
You’re not using that word correctly.
>I’m a reasonable man. And if someone were to approach me, and explain– politely and without attitude– that my language made them uncomfortable, it would take little effort for me to alter this, and I would do so.
That’s literally what the author advocates
>(setting aside for a moment that they are opting to allow my language [which, even though not directed at them] to make them uncomfortable).
Victim blaming? Really?
> I find Mr. Crocker’s exmaple to be rather poor
The fact that everyone has a “it’s fine as long as you’re not directing hate speech at a particular group” is the literal impetus for him writing the article. The DCI has a duty to enforce the tournament site as a safe place and that includes trying to stop people from using words like “gay” and “retard” even when reasonable guys like you are calling their friend a retard and not someone who has a brother with Down’s Syndrome. Your attitude is the literal exact thing the article addresses.
>And if this is the policy going forward, where will a line be drawn? I’m not trying to turn this into a slippery slope situation, but I honestly can’t see where this conflict of “natural expression” vs. “disruptive conduct” would (theoretically) end.
You literally just concocted a textbook slippery slope argument. I know you don’t want to do that, because the “slippery slope” is a well known logical fallacy, but that’s your literal argument, and maybe it’s not a good one if even you agree it’s a slippery slope argument.
– That kind of statement doesn’t really leave room for a “however”
It does when it is prefaced with “in my opinion”. Which I thought was unspoken via context-clues in a civil discussion. Please understand, I don’t want to make anyone feel uncomfortable, maliciously deliberate or otherwise.
– You’re not using that word correctly.
“Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions”
Please correct my usage.
– That’s literally what the author advocates
The part I find curious about the exchange is why the uncomfortable duo didn’t address the offenders themselves? Involving a judge just seems sort of an unecessary escalation?
– Victim blaming? Really?
Please define the crime in question. Someone taking offense to the content of a private conversation someone being “victimized”. It’s a lapse of judgment, maybe. Or oversensitivity, perhaps. Are you sure you are using “victim blaming” correctly?
– The fact that everyone has a “it’s fine as long as you’re not directing hate speech at a particular group” is the literal impetus for him writing the article. The DCI has a duty to enforce the tournament site as a safe place and that includes trying to stop people from using words like “gay” and “retard” even when reasonable guys like you are calling their friend a retard and not someone who has a brother with Down’s Syndrome. Your attitude is the literal exact thing the article addresses.
Setting aside the unecessarily ad hominem attacks, I think that’s the crux of the issue I’m vascillating on, here: “safe space”. The usage of that word– and others (“disruptive”, “offensive”)– is where the technicalities get muddy. This whole scenario is a prime example of case-by-case interpretation, then? When someone’s sensibilities are subject to discomfort?
I’m not trying to be inflammatory; it’s a very interesting subject. If someone loses a match, and sits there silently seething at (himself, his opponent, bad draws, whatever), that could also be construed as “unsafe”, since it’s likely someone else is going to be uncomfortable. How do you disassemble each scenario individually? Having a judge come over and invalidate their frustration as “inappropriate”?
– You literally just concocted a textbook slippery slope argument. I know you don’t want to do that, because the “slippery slope” is a well known logical fallacy, but that’s your literal argument, and maybe it’s not a good one if even you agree it’s a slippery slope argument.
See my above comment. I can offer other scenarios with gray areas if you would find that helpful in me explaining my confusion and concerns.
I’m sorry, maybe there’s a misunderstanding going on somewhere. The end of the article above says “let’s have a discussion”. I’m trying to have one. You seem to want to launch an assault on a contradictory (or I guess, orthogonal) point of view. Exacerbated, perhaps, at my mediocre articulation?
I found the (quasi-philosophical) points made by Eoin Lanier in source article interesting and valid.
Ultimately, I think the final response from Crocker displays a lot of clarity, re: behavior, and attendance being a privilege. And that makes me wary.
I’ll leave Jason to respond to the main body of your reply but I wanted a clarification on the last thing – are you wary about attendance being considered a privilege? Because this isn’t a new concept; we already treat it as such with the disqualification system and store owners being able to remove people from their store.
If this isn’t what you meant I apologise.
That wasn’t what I meant, at all, nono.
I fully accept (and respect) that WotC can set the guidelines for behavior however they please. And I also understand that the crux of this ruling(?)– fundamentally– is Wizards and their staff wanting to provide the safest and most welcoming gaming experience possible.
I don’t envy your position as having to navigate these situations, honestly. I respect the idea. It’s the execution that I’m uncomfortable with.
No apology is necessary- I appreciate your seeking clarification!