Olivia Gobert-Hicks and Jim Lapage added to Commander Rules Committee

[Vertierer]

The problem is, that the playing experience for players from an ethnic and/or demographic minority might actually evoke the feeling of and emulate a recurring nightmare and therefore they would be less likely to unban the card itself.

[Legend]

The RC isn't just in charge of rules management, it's also involved in management of the format in general. While diversifying the RC might not help them make better rules decisions, it might broaden their outreach about the format and their choices, as well as provide different perspectives on how some of the informal aspects play out for different people.

For instance, I think having a woman on the RC is significant, because like it or not women and girls experience the still largely male store scene differently than men and boys do. Is the experience for the average female player different for the average male player when they try to bring up rule 0 discussions? Even if getting diverse perspective just confirms that the RC has already found a good approach that's working for everyone, that's valuable.

The thing is, you don't know what your missing when you don't have input from people from different backgrounds than your own. You may not be missing anything, because maybe your really good at understanding other people's experiences or maybe everyone is having largely the same experience regardless of background, but you can't really know that for sure without input from people of those backgrounds.

Remember, Commander is first and foremost a social format, so the objective rules have, from the beginning, only been part of what the governing body concerns itself with. The social experience is much more likely to be influenced by a person's demographics, even if it's only a small influence. There's a lot that goes into building a format and maintaining it's health.

And honestly, the results of doing this might take people by surprise. Maybe you have women voices at the table and it turns out that instead of banning Earthbind it should have been reprinted with new art featuring a hunk. Maybe the feedback you get is actually kind of predictable but stuff WotC should hear, like women like seeing more female legends, so long as they aren't broken %$#% like Sisay.

All of this, while true IMO, describes what the Commander Advisory Group is for. None of it requires a position on the R U L E S Committee as far as I can tell.

[Jemolk]

All of this, while true IMO, describes what the Commander Advisory Group is for. None of it requires a position on the R U L E S Committee as far as I can tell.

Mmh. Maybe. Conversely, however, there are some pretty subtle biases that are hard to see and make people think a bit less critically about certain perspectives than we really should. Some extra explicit power being distributed to those who may well have perspectives worth hearing can help counteract that, even when we really should logically be able to get away without it. We're not always as logical as we like to think we are, and even trying to compensate for our biases and avoid fallacious reasoning is no guarantee we'll succeed.

I'll agree with you and Dirk that it doesn't do as much as a bunch of liberals seem to believe it does, but that doesn't mean it does nothing, either, or that it's not worth the relatively small amount of effort it requires. (And if it takes more effort than it otherwise should due to some people actively wanting less diversity, that means it does more, as it also functions as a direct rejection of their rather dangerous ideals.) It's sort of like, sure, having more women CEOs wouldn't solve exploitation under our current economic system, but having women be more commonly in any positions of power may well have prevented the "no abortions ever, not even to save the life of the woman" crowd from getting enough power to enact their draconian policies in various places across the States, even if the positions of power in question have nothing directly to do with either healthcare or governance.

[Lorn Asbord Schutta]

but having women be more commonly in any positions of power may well have prevented the "no abortions ever, not even to save the life of the woman" crowd from getting enough power to enact their draconian policies in various places across the States

But this is an example that serves counter-thesis. Without delving into this issue - it is no place for it - but there are women that fully support policies you find disadvantegeous for them. There are multiple reasons for it, but the end result is that simply having more women in positions of power would not necessarily mean that most or any of those now-ruling women would support what is - seemingly or truly - best for women in general. And the same is true for each other possible social group in existence, simply because every singular person is more then just a member of social group it belongs to. They are driven by more then a well-being of people sharing one of their characteristics.
In this particular situation I would not say that diversity is of no use, since it serves as a statement "we have no problem of having those people among us", but for the actual governing of format the only thing that matters is how any new member intend to aproach governing the format.

[RxPhantom]

I won't wade into the greater philosophical debate here outside of the following sentence: inclusion is important and it's easy to discount that importance if you've never been part of a group that has, historically, been excluded.

Regarding this change, I'll wait and see. If it yields any impactful changes, I'll judge then. At the outset, I do have a high opinion of OBG. I know nothing of the other guy.

[kirkusjones]

It's the Rules Committee, sure. But where in the comprehensive rules of Magic does "positive play experience" appear? The RC, no matter what the two letters stand for, has stated that the format is meant to be social and one players should enjoy. They ban stuff based on the experiences of the community and what they believe is in the spirit of the format. That's not strictly rules-based. Nothing in Legacy or Vintage gets banned to make the game more fun, except maybe ante cards?

An argument could be made that a less diverse format is a less fun format, but I can't remember "positive player experience" ever coming up as a reason for banning a card or cards in competitive formats.

[Legend]

There's hundreds of countries in the world; thousands of languages, cultures, and religions; and dozens of gender identities and sexual orientations. I'm rhetorically curious, what six paragons of humanity could possibly satisfy the 2% of people that give a %$#% about these things? I mean, what combination of disparate attributes would need to be present among the six members of the RC in order to fulfill the diversity petition? Because until that's done, there will ALWAYS be someone crying about how they don't feel heard. So when is enough enough? It's a slippery slope argument, I know. But not without precedent. That's why, as far as I'm concerned, the qualifications I listed earlier are enough. The rest are incidental.

[DirkGently]

As far as play experience, I think wotc still has way more control over the format than the RC does. The RC dictates minor rules updates and banlist changes, and writes blurbs about the spirit of the format that six people read, but wotc is the ones holding the purse strings for the LGSs, all the card/art design, sanctioned play policies, etc. If someone is having a bad time at an LGS because people are being jerks, the RC's ability to effect that is pretty close to nil. The LGS themself has most of the power on a small scale, wotc has a lot of power at a large scale, and the RC has bupkis. So while of course I agree that we should strive to make the environment better for marginalized groups (mostly women, let's be real), I think wotc and your LGS are more important places to target, by several orders of magnitude.

I'm kinda curious what people would estimate a representative sample to be, in the context of commander. I think in my experience, without trying to subdivide too far, I've seen something like:

65% white cis dudes
22% asian cis dudes
5% other ethnicity cis dudes
4% trans women
4% cis women

4% is possibly undershooting if for trans women, who seem to be a disproportionately large part of the community relative to the general population, at least from my experience. I think it says something good about magic's general inclusiveness as a hobby, despite the occasional horror stories from women getting harassed by the worst elements.

[kirkusjones]

I've always been curious about that, the LGS I frequent most often for commander has a pretty sizeable population of transwomen, usually five or six out the 30 or so people. I think the culture of acceptance that's been fostered with some lingering perception of Magic as thing for outsiders has made people feel safe to be themselves.

[duducrash]

I think its a regional thing Dirk. My experience is vastly different to yours but I believe im from a much more diverse part of the world.

I think diversity is good. Its good for the RC, its good for the community and I am pretty happy Sheldon knows this and is working on it.

I wish they would somehow look at non "famous" people. Maybe open applications for L3+ judges, maybe do the process "blind" truth is everyone that got in seems really nice and all but I really think MTG content creators play in a inbred meta thats vastly different from much of the world. Sure there are casuals and battlecruisers a bunch, but their everytime I see discourse on twitter I get amazed at how powered down stuff is and how much some strategies are frowned upon when they are 100% a-okay in a random LGS

[DirkGently]

@duducrash I agree 5000% with the bottom paragraph. I wish they'd focus on getting people who play in an open LGS environment in there. To go back to relevant vs irrelevant diversities, while obviously "people who play at game stores" isn't a marginalized group broadly in society, they are very underrepresented within the RC and CAG, which I think has a very relevant impact on how they manage the format.

While of course I agree that diversity (in terms of gender/race/identity/etc) broadly is important, I just find focusing on it to such a high degree in this context to be a bit misguided, especially while ignoring things like the private/public play divide. It's like focusing on the carbon output of the President's car. I agree that carbon emissions are important, but (1) there are probably other factors that are a lot more important in this particular context and (2) it's kinda the tiniest drop in the bucket compared to the system as a whole. I'm glad for diverse people to be represented on the RC and CAG, but I think other factors like LGS representation should be the primary concern.

[toctheyounger]

Unrelated. Jim and Olivia are judges?

Don't think so, if they are/were I would think their bios would have included it.

Pretty sure Jim is a former judge, Olivia most definitely not. Her background aside from card slinging is cosplay and deadlifting random mtg players at conventions.

Fwiw I saw these appointments coming a bit so I'm not overly surprised. Jim is a really nice dude with a level head and representative of many levels of play. Olivia is a great voice for casual play and clearly loves the community. In every matter other than representation of the diversity of the community they're fine picks.

[NGPR]

@DirkGently Not sure I agree with this assessment at all. While the content they create is casual, there are too many unknowns to assume that is the power level they routinely play at. Jim, for instance, always plays his Lich deck or Power + Toughness = 7 lists but has played fringe cEDH/ T2 cEDH lists on his channel for years. For example, the Command Zone players routinely play low power but have mentioned before their meta is significantly faster.

I don't think "I am a L3 judge that goes to a random LGS" is a better qualification than a content creator. Olivia and others get paid to travel the country and play with enfranchised players at Magic Fests, get paid to try new decks and new cards, and generally spend their time within the game - that's going to be significantly more time than one dude in the midwest that goes to a decently-sized LGS.

Are Jim and Olivia the perfect candidates? I don't think so, but I think two diverse people who have lots of exposure to the game, access to lots of different opinions, and have shown to be in good standing are as best as anyone could possibly come up with.

[DirkGently]

@NGPR I don't know much about the new additions in particular. I know in general, most content creators have fairly curated content, so they don't generally risk sitting down against a disproportionately powerful opponent, or players who might not be making a good-faith effort to create a good game, as can happen in an LGS.

If they do play publicly, then I hope they get a representative experience despite being somewhat famous, and then I hope they use those experiences when making format decisions.

[SpikeFeedersJim]

Unrelated. Jim and Olivia are judges?

Don't think so, if they are/were I would think their bios would have included it.

Pretty sure Jim is a former judge, Olivia most definitely not. Her background aside from card slinging is cosplay and deadlifting random mtg players at conventions.

Fwiw I saw these appointments coming a bit so I'm not overly surprised. Jim is a really nice dude with a level head and representative of many levels of play. Olivia is a great voice for casual play and clearly loves the community. In every matter other than representation of the diversity of the community they're fine picks.

I am indeed a former L1 judge, but I don't think my experience judging has much bearing on format management. Judging events is like 85% administration of the event itself, like results tracking and reporting, and 15% rules knowledge. I did present at a couple judge conferences about community dynamics and creating structural incentives, and I think that's a little closer to being relevant to what I'll be doing on the RC.

On the topic of diversity, I think when you see a homogenous small group representing a diverse large group, it betrays bias in the selection process. That doesn't mean we should be chasing diversity for the sake of having a diverse group - it means that we're (often unintentionally) ignoring the talented and brilliant candidates that don't look like us. For the rules committee specifically it can be a little tougher because additions and subtractions come so infrequently, so improved efforts to reach out to folks in Brazil or Japan or Singapore won't necessarily bear fruit immediately. This is not about checking a box for the sake of checking a box, it's about eliminating the things that have historically held us back from finding the best people for the role.

[Gentle Giant]

Having had very time over the past months to be active here, I can't help myself to at least engage with some of the stuff that's being said here. (yeay?)

Given the aforementioned lack of time, I can't fetch it for you, but there's ample research showing that diverse groups come to better decisions than monolithic groups. Thus, speaking in the language of the people in this topic clamouring for objectivity: diversity in a group is objectively better for the management of the format. You might think this is all about subjective 'feely' stuff, as some have phrased it, but different perspectives lead to better ideas and, as per @kirkusjones's comments, this diversity requires different backgrounds 'n lived experiences which often has to do with who you are and where you're from. Maybe instead of dismissing something as 'here go the liberals again', be open to change your mind and look into why it's useful/important.
Whether or not people need to be able to see/recognize themselves in the ruling bodies of the adolescent card games they play for them to feel heard/seen is a wholly different discussion, but I agree with @RxPhantom: that's something you feel more viscerally when you're not already represented in 99.9% of all the other things in life.

Also, there was an interesting twitter thread recently where people from at least the CAG were quite open about also playing in LGSs too. Often with the people there not knowing who they are. So don't jump to conclusions of thinking they only play in online streams and such.

Lastly, are we really going to make the semantic argument of 'it's called the rules committee, so everyone should be at least lvl3 judges'? Come on, a name doesn't purely signify one's responsibilities and it's clear that the RC has been looking to take on more than just rules for a while now. We can do better than that!

[Hermes_]

I am indeed a former L1 judge, but I don't think my experience judging has much bearing on format management. Judging events is like 85% administration of the event itself, like results tracking and reporting, and 15% rules knowledge. I did present at a couple judge conferences about community dynamics and creating structural incentives, and I think that's a little closer to being relevant to what I'll be doing on the RC.

I look forward to the untrusted play document thing that's being worked on by the RC

[DirkGently]

On the topic of diversity, I think when you see a homogenous small group representing a diverse large group, it betrays bias in the selection process. That doesn't mean we should be chasing diversity for the sake of having a diverse group - it means that we're (often unintentionally) ignoring the talented and brilliant candidates that don't look like us. For the rules committee specifically it can be a little tougher because additions and subtractions come so infrequently, so improved efforts to reach out to folks in Brazil or Japan or Singapore won't necessarily bear fruit immediately. This is not about checking a box for the sake of checking a box, it's about eliminating the things that have historically held us back from finding the best people for the role.

I 100% agree with this. It isn't the vibe I've gotten from the RC on the topic (which felt more box-checky), but I'll admit that my information has mostly been from secondary sources and a handful of tweets, as I don't generally pay much attention unless there's been an actual change to the rules/banlist.

If they're doing investigation into untrusted play, that's fantastic. I hope something comes of it.

[toctheyounger]

Don't think so, if they are/were I would think their bios would have included it.

Pretty sure Jim is a former judge, Olivia most definitely not. Her background aside from card slinging is cosplay and deadlifting random mtg players at conventions.

Fwiw I saw these appointments coming a bit so I'm not overly surprised. Jim is a really nice dude with a level head and representative of many levels of play. Olivia is a great voice for casual play and clearly loves the community. In every matter other than representation of the diversity of the community they're fine picks.

I am indeed a former L1 judge, but I don't think my experience judging has much bearing on format management. Judging events is like 85% administration of the event itself, like results tracking and reporting, and 15% rules knowledge. I did present at a couple judge conferences about community dynamics and creating structural incentives, and I think that's a little closer to being relevant to what I'll be doing on the RC.

On the topic of diversity, I think when you see a homogenous small group representing a diverse large group, it betrays bias in the selection process. That doesn't mean we should be chasing diversity for the sake of having a diverse group - it means that we're (often unintentionally) ignoring the talented and brilliant candidates that don't look like us. For the rules committee specifically it can be a little tougher because additions and subtractions come so infrequently, so improved efforts to reach out to folks in Brazil or Japan or Singapore won't necessarily bear fruit immediately. This is not about checking a box for the sake of checking a box, it's about eliminating the things that have historically held us back from finding the best people for the role.

Yeah very much not concerned with your judging experience. If you can pilot Aetherlich, you've got the chops.

As far as the inclusivity thing goes, I think I've seen enough Spike on the Mic episodes you're guaranteed to have been roasted in the comments section for to know you walk the walk, too. I'm personally very happy with your appointment, I think its a great fit.

[Hermes_]

On the topic of diversity, I think when you see a homogenous small group representing a diverse large group, it betrays bias in the selection process. That doesn't mean we should be chasing diversity for the sake of having a diverse group - it means that we're (often unintentionally) ignoring the talented and brilliant candidates that don't look like us. For the rules committee specifically it can be a little tougher because additions and subtractions come so infrequently, so improved efforts to reach out to folks in Brazil or Japan or Singapore won't necessarily bear fruit immediately. This is not about checking a box for the sake of checking a box, it's about eliminating the things that have historically held us back from finding the best people for the role.

I 100% agree with this. It isn't the vibe I've gotten from the RC on the topic (which felt more box-checky), but I'll admit that my information has mostly been from secondary sources and a handful of tweets, as I don't generally pay much attention unless there's been an actual change to the rules/banlist.

If they're doing investigation into untrusted play, that's fantastic. I hope something comes of it.

My understanding is that it's more of a guide for lgs/players at least that's how I read the statement about the work on.