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!

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 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.

Actually, it’s about ethics in judge policy

>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.

It would be irresponsible to take seriously any opinion non-ironically using the term “social justice warrior”.

Why are you repeating your comments from the original article here on QS?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A social justice warriors campaign thoroughly backed by the judge program and Wizards of the Coast, no less! It’s pretty great 🙂