Banlist update: 7 cards banned for offensive imagery/names

[Sinis]

As much as I agree with the rest of your statement about how washing it over won't make it so it had never existed, and my position remains that WotC's move is a gutless deflection from the real work they need to do in their corporate structure, censorship is not the line of argument to take here, because it's not even remotely relevant.

I am curious why it's being called a "gutless deflection" when they explictly called out that they have more work to do internally, both in the initial announcement and in further statements by Mark. Like, every bit of messaging around it is "This is a first step, we have more to do", so I don't really get where the idea that this is it comes from? Is it just general skepticism of Wizards or corporate cultures in general?

Both. It's a skepticism for entrenched corporate cultures AND specifically for Wizards.

First, in my many years observing corporate messaging and spending time in organizations that are trying to change, it almost never happens. When it does, it doesn't start with public my-bads for 20 year old offenses. Those are just the most cost-effective not-really-material messages they can send. It's literally free publicity because gaming news outlets definitely picked it up without Wizard's paying them anything.

Second, I'm cynical about it because the track record for this kind of thing generally is poor. The people in management who make these cultures possible and steer departments need to individually change or be replaced, and frankly, neither of those is likely in general, and even less likely for Wizards.

Third, I think Wizards, if the two open letters from former employees referenced in this thread are to be believed, is so far from being equal and diverse that they just won't get there. How do you only have two black artists in the game's total 25+ year life? How does Invoke Prejudice end up with it's multiverse ID, let alone going to print in the first place? These things are not coincidences, period. That's an entrenched culture. AEther Revolt was released in 2017 with a 7-11 joke. Do you think the people who made that joke, with Rosewater's apparent blessing, have been dismissed or will be dismissed?

I do not. Just being realistic.

[pokken]

When it does, it doesn't start with public my-bads for 20 year old offenses. Those are just the most cost-effective not-really-material messages they can send. It's literally free publicity because gaming news outlets definitely picked it up without Wizard's paying them anything.

I think it cost wizards plenty to do this. They could have just quietly changed the collector number on invoke prejudice and maybe banned that, and it's likely they would have been able to slink back into the shadows.

Instead they shined a big old light on a bunch of cards, even some I wouldn't have considered (Crusade in particular) and are spending countless hours reviewing something like 15,000 magic cards.

And they have to deal with all the people either:
1) Calling them craven for caving to the "sjws"
2) Being pissed off about losing money/losing the ability to play cards
3) Bashing them for taking so long to do it
4) Questioning their motives

The broad approach they took was far above and beyond what I'd expected and came at an absolute serious cost to them.

[Sinis]

I think it cost wizards plenty to do this. They could have just quietly changed the collector number on invoke prejudice and maybe banned that, and it's likely they would have been able to slink back into the shadows.

I think Pradesh Gypsies is pretty awful, also.

But, I think it's 'free' in that they took some egregious offenders and banned them. The actual cost in man-hours to ban cards that have no impact on any format?

What, like a week of someone's time? What's that, 40 hours? Let's say someone slogged for 40 hours at $20 an hour to find problematic cards with google and wikipedia. That's $800? For wizards? Who. Cares. It's not even the price of a speeding ticket for them.

Instead they shined a big old light on a bunch of cards, even some I wouldn't have considered (Crusade in particular)

This seems suspect to me. "We found a problem with some cards no one had a problem with, look how progressive we are!"

You see it as them being actually progressive, I see it as them finding things that could be construed to be problems so they can push back against people who are saying they aren't progressive. There's a name for this phenomenon, it's "One-upmanship."

and are spending countless hours reviewing something like 15,000 magic cards.

Allegedly. I don't believe they're actually spending that time, and if they are, it's insignificant next to their internal cultural problems. It's a bandaid on a bulletwound.

And they have to deal with all the people either:
1) Calling them craven for caving to the "sjws"
2) Being pissed off about losing money/losing the ability to play cards
3) Bashing them for taking so long to do it
4) Questioning their motives

Sure, but, they should be bashed for 3-4. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that Invoke Prejudice was a problem, and has been for many, many years. You can (almost) make an argument for it being a product of its time. In the spirit of being charitable, I'll even accept that.

However, how long has it been since it could broadly be seen to be unacceptable? As others have pointed out in the thread, I guess now's a great time because they just had two open letters levied against them?

I understand where you're coming from; there's this idea that nothing Wizards could say or do will exonerate them to some. I agree that it's unfair. But, you know what they could have done? With this banning announcement, they could have made a commitment to hiring minority creators and artists in a specific, measurable and time-bounded way. "We will hire X minority artists, designers and content creators by such and such a date, and they will comprise Y proportion of our team at that date." or, at the very least "We plan on using consultants by such and such a date to help us better understand the problems within our organizational structure and will make a future statement committing to specific, measurable and time-bounded change."

Not "We'll look into it." That doesn't have any actionable anything in it. "We'll look into it" is the "I'm not promising to do anything" of commitment.

The broad approach they took was far above and beyond what I'd expected and came at an absolute serious cost to them.

It's more than I'd expect, but not enough for me to not be cynical about it.

Don't get me wrong, I hope for better and I think that they did a thing that will have good results for the rare player who actually had to face these cards and it made them feel bad. I reserve judgment on whether it was a 'good thing' as the starting point for actual movement within their company.

I realize what I'm saying is not falsifiable with our current information, but, I have a suspicion that in 5 years, nothing will change.

[ZenN]

What, like a week of someone's time? What's that, 40 hours? Let's say someone slogged for 40 hours at $20 an hour to find problematic cards with google and wikipedia. That's $800? For wizards? Who. Cares. It's not even the price of a speeding ticket for them.

Not that I want to necessarily get into the semantics of how a business is generally run, but the actual cost in man-hours to them would be significantly higher than that, and took some time from people whose salaries equate to significantly more than $20/hour. Just MaRo's time alone is closer to $200/hour, and he has spent at least a few hours on this, and I can almost guarantee that they've spent a solid number of man-hours on lower level personnel fielding support issues because of this, whether it be phone calls, emails, Tweets, whatever.

Without having detailed knowledge of their internal structure we of course don't have any way to accurately measure the actual cost to them that this action represents.

[Sinis]

Not that I want to necessarily get into the semantics of how a business is generally run,

The point I'm trying to make is that the cost in term of hours of them going through the oldest expansions for offensive cards, in consideration that there is low-hanging fruit, is negligible compared to the cost of taking measures to fix their culture.

You and pokken are right, it's not "free", but I guarantee you it's not what anyone would describe as "costly".

[ZenN]

You and pokken are right, it's not "free", but I guarantee you it's not what anyone would describe as "costly".

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is costing them an arm and a leg. In terms of the numbers WotC deal with year to year, $50k-$100k is still a very easy cost for them to absorb. It's just disingenuous to imply it's costing them an amount so small they'd legitimately never notice it.

I still fully believe it would've been a much, much better choice to handle this the way WB did with Looney Tunes (as I talked about earlier in this thread), which would have, I think, appeased the majority of people, cost them much less than even this does, and not obligated them to spend further time and money on reviewing older cards for specific offenses.

[Sinis]

I still fully believe it would've been a much, much better choice to handle this the way WB did with Looney Tunes (as I talked about earlier in this thread), which would have, I think, appeased the majority of people, cost them much less than even this does, and not obligated them to spend further time and money on reviewing older cards for specific offenses.

It wasn't meant to be disingenuous; my intent is to show that, while it was a cost, it wasn't especially comparable. That inexpensiveness is one of the things that makes me believe that they aren't especially serious about change. The other thing is that they haven't committed to a definite set of things that they will do.

I really like the way WB handled this issue.

[pokken]

I still fully believe it would've been a much, much better choice to handle this the way WB did with Looney Tunes (as I talked about earlier in this thread), which would have, I think, appeased the majority of people, cost them much less than even this does, and not obligated them to spend further time and money on reviewing older cards for specific offenses.

I thought a lot about this because my initial thought was this line as well. There is a distinction however. You choose to watch WB cartoons.

In a magic tournament you have no control over what cards other people play. If someone makes a slavery themed deck with legal cards you have to sit there and look at it or lose your money or deal with calling a judge or whatever.

Images as part of a game are quite different from old cartoons you choose to watch or not. They give you warning first so you can leave.

If WOTC had to put a disclaimer on tournament signups that said "hey some of the cards you see might be racist, you can just go if you want" I think that would be awful.

edit: Another factor to bear in mind is that most of these WB cartoons were made in the 50s-80s. Stuff made in the mid 90s does not get the same "product of its time" defense as stuff made in the 80s, and surely not the 50s or 60s.

[ZenN]

There is a distinction however. You choose to watch WB cartoons.

You choose to play Magic, and you choose to go to events. Nobody is forcing anybody to do either of those things, the same way nobody is forcing someone to watch old Looney Tunes cartoons.

Even still, though, the whole point of a tournament conduct policy is to regulate the behavior of attendees, and it's really easy to have your conduct policy say something like, "don't be a racist dick". Sure, someone is still going to show up with a lynch themed deck, and then that person will get banned from events.

[pokken]

You choose to play Magic, and you choose to go to events. Nobody is forcing anybody to do either of those things, the same way nobody is forcing someone to watch old Looney Tunes cartoons.

I think there's quite a bit of difference in watching Looney Tunes and playing magic. Magic is a living game and they want to be inclusive and bring in diverse groups of people.

There is not a potentially lucrative social activity you are not allowed to do if you don't want to watch racist cartoons. You just don't put in the DVD.

Maybe an analogy helps, I dunno, but suppose Fortnite came out in the 90s and there was a skin you could get of a dude in obvious blackface. 30 years later it's 2020 and people are still playing fortnite.

Do you think Fortnite lets people go around in blackface? And do you see the difference between that and say, old cartoons?

(* edit: please God don't let there be racist fortnite skins, I don't play it, just an example I could think of of a multiplayer game that might last a long time, maybe WOW's a better example).

[ZenN]

Do you think Fortnite lets people go around in blackface? And do you see the difference between that and say, old cartoons?

I'll be honest, I know next to nothing about both Fortnite and WoW, but odds are very good that what they would actually do is just edit the skin. This sort of thing has been done in many games over the years, for reasons of censoring sexual content, removing racist depictions, etc. For example, in CS:GO, there have been a few times when weapon skins have caused problems, like when it turns out that one of them is using an unlicensed piece of art. When these sorts of things occur, they don't remove the item from the game, or prevent people from using it. They patch it, modify the offending skin in some way, and that's that. There is no functional impact.

In terms of Magic, obviously you can't just patch old cards. The closest you can get is to reprint them with different art, different flavour text, etc. Alternatively, ban the original cards and create functional reprints with different names, if the name itself is part of the problem.

Actually, hey. There's an idea. I'm a lot more okay with them banning old cards they deem to be offensive in some way if they immediately follow those up with functional reprints. That way there is essentially a net-zero effect on the game itself. This is especially relevant with something like Invoke Prejudice, which has a very unique and very strong effect that is just no longer available in the game. I would love a new version of that card with the exact same cost and ability, and just call it something different and give it new art. Problem solved.

[pokken]

Actually, hey. There's an idea. I'm a lot more okay with them banning old cards they deem to be offensive in some way if they immediately follow those up with functional reprints. That way there is essentially a net-zero effect on the game itself. This is especially relevant with something like Invoke Prejudice, which has a very unique and very strong effect that is just no longer available in the game. I would love a new version of that card with the exact same cost and ability, and just call it something different and give it new art. Problem solved.

New art, slightly new wording/different name, functional reprint - I am on board with that. Trade-in program where you get the new card and some product for your trouble or whatever.

It's a fair point that the skin example is not a functional downgrade to change/remove it, just aesthetic, and banning cards is a functional downgrade of your stuff. In MMOs and such they don't just yoink your stuff.

[Segrus]

Actually, hey. There's an idea. I'm a lot more okay with them banning old cards they deem to be offensive in some way if they immediately follow those up with functional reprints. That way there is essentially a net-zero effect on the game itself. This is especially relevant with something like Invoke Prejudice, which has a very unique and very strong effect that is just no longer available in the game. I would love a new version of that card with the exact same cost and ability, and just call it something different and give it new art. Problem solved.

It may have been talked about elsewhere, but presumably this isn't a viable option due to the reserved list. Not all of the cards on the list are reserved list, but Invoke Prejudice definitely is. Locks them out of making any functional reprints.

[pokken]

It isn't that hard to make strictly better versions, since most of them suck horribly. Many RL cards have been superseded.

[Segrus]

It isn't that hard to make strictly better versions, since most of them suck horribly. Many RL cards have been superseded.

While this is a separate conversation, I'm personally against WOTC continuing to take old cards and buffing them. I'd rather not promote further power creep beyond what they're already doing. Are you saying you'd be fine with an even more powerful version of the already powerful Invoke Prejudice?

Besides, I'm not really sure it's just that easy. I'm not an expert on the reserved list though and I don't know the full details on exactly what's allowed/what isn't.

[pokken]

Sure why not. Make it cost (2/u)uuu. Strictly better for the most part.

Things can be very incrementally better without being gamebreaking. Invoke is not really played much tho on account of it isn't really that strong for its Mana cost.

[onering]

I don't think a trade in policy would violate the reserve list. It would be costly, but basically figure out how many invoke prejudice are out there, print that many of the functional reprint, and let owners trade them in, then destroy the original cards. Print the new cards with the old borders. Give it old school looking art, I'm sure that anyone around the office could bang out something comparable to the original art in terms of technical quality just without the obvious racism.


As for slippery slopes, it's always a fallacy, because the idea of a slippery slope is that you won't know where to draw the line, you'll slide down into absurdity. The idea that WotC may ban more cards isn't a slippery slope if your just pointing out a few other egregious examples like the 7/11 boat that might get the axe. That's just reasonable. The thing is, they will draw a line, and I'd bet it will be done pretty conservatively, because there are plenty of pressures against banning cards. Look at the ones they banned, they are mostly pretty %$#%, 2 contain full on slurs, one has the KKK, Crusade has unfortunately been reclaimed by the far right and they've been uncomfortable with Jihad for awhile (Jihad is the most interesting card to get banned btw, in terms of effect). Those cards were all easy bans, many had been complained about for decades and nobody gave a crap about most of them as actual cards. Consulate Dreadnaught, on the other hand, is clearly something they are aware of as being problematic because it features a racist joke, but yet they didn't ban it with the others, because it's a more difficult ban from a game perspective. To be honest, I don't think it will be banned.

Legend: /pol is a helluva drug huh?

[Legend]

I think Jihad was banned in part because it's real world antithesis Crusade was banned. If only one or the other had been banned, there'd have been an uproar.

I view Invoke Prejudice in a vacuum (that is, without knowledge of the artists prejudices*) as "culturally and racially insensitive" but not as "racist", for the following reasons:
1. The card is monoblue, which is not a human skin tone. Even if it was, mana colors are not analogous to real life human skin tones.
2. The card name is intended to evoke a sense of something unsavory/evil, not unlike countless other Magic cards, none of which to my knowledge are meant to glorify their depictions, merely to portray them as elements of a fantasy world.
3. The figures appear to to me to be black in nature or dressed in black as opposed to the white hoods/robes of the klan.
4. There is a humanly impossible amount of smoke/mist pouring forth from the mouth of one of the figures in the back indicating to me that they're supernatural/spiritual in nature and not human(oid).
5. The klan employ several instruments of terror. Medieval two-handed battle axes is not one of them.
6. The effect doesn't single out a color. Even if it did, mana colors are not analogous to real life human skin tones.
7. The effect, like the card name, is intended to evoke a sense of something unsavory/evil, not unlike countless other Magic cards, none of which to my knowledge are meant to glorify their depictions, merely to portray them as elements of a fantasy world.

*Ban all of the artists cards if his beliefs are a factor.

(Jihad is the most interesting card to get banned btw, in terms of effect).

Why is that?

[ZenN]

Invoke is not really played much tho on account of it isn't really that strong for its Mana cost.

I'm definitely going to have to disagree with you there. Invoke Prejudice is a very powerful card, and the reason it's not really played much is a combination of its price tag and the fact that basically only mono blue or Ux decks can reasonably make that UUUU on curve.

I've played against the card in a Memnarch deck, where it routinely, easily hit the table on turn 3 after a Coldsteel Heart or Sky Diamond. Memnarch player gets to play out all his lovely colourless creatures, and any other creature decks at the table are just screwed.

[Sinis]

Invoke is not really played much tho on account of it isn't really that strong for its Mana cost.

I'm definitely going to have to disagree with you there. Invoke Prejudice is a very powerful card, and the reason it's not really played much is a combination of its price tag and the fact that basically only mono blue or Ux decks can reasonably make that UUUU on curve.

I've played against the card in a Memnarch deck, where it routinely, easily hit the table on turn 3 after a Coldsteel Heart or Sky Diamond. Memnarch player gets to play out all his lovely colourless creatures, and any other creature decks at the table are just screwed.

I agree. I've played with it an awful lot (to my shame? I'm not sure how I feel about it). It fared the best in creatureless/lite decks, or decks with only blue creatures.

It was an uphill battle for most people. It has weakened over the years with cards like Cavern of Souls getting printed, Prowling Serpopard and other anti-counter stuff, but, it's still definitely a force to be dealt with.

[pokken]

I'm definitely going to have to disagree with you there. Invoke Prejudice is a very powerful card, and the reason it's not really played much is a combination of its price tag and the fact that basically only mono blue or Ux decks can reasonably make that on curve.

It's really only strong in a narrow type of deck with minimal or colorless creature. Odds are in favor of it being much weaker than most stax pieces available, especially with the awkward mana cost making it unlikely you're going to be able to protect it with countermagic outside of the narrow or free stuff.

The one time I played it, it got killed pretty much instantly as I recall. Think it was by a 6 mana rec sage. Darn?

I'd say that it is a *fairly* powerful card I guess, but it's nothing to write home about.

[Airi]

I'd love to see WotC do something about Earthbind while they're at it. I don't know that banning it is that something, but while it's not as egregious as other offenders, the art is still really damn creepy and uncomfortable.

[Sinis]

I'd love to see WotC do something about Earthbind while they're at it. I don't know that banning it is that something, but while it's not as egregious as other offenders, the art is still really damn creepy and uncomfortable.

Friends of mine have speculated that especially racy art might also get the chopping block. Not just the creepy aspect of Earthbind, some versions of Elvish Ranger, OG fire elemental. The insensitivity on that front was made clear when they printed Red-Hot Hottie.

Although, low bar being low, at least most of the depictions of women are reasonable-ish in Magic's catalogue. Nissa and especially Chandra remain fully clothed, and there are many more Danitha Capashen, Paragons, Lena, Selfless Champions, and Sylvia Brightspears than Hero of Bladeholds.

[pokken]

There is a clearly demarcated line between art that is rape-adjacent (earthbind) and cards that are objectifying women for me. You've got to be careful with over-policing the objectifying stuff (e.g. sexy Liliana or whatever) because it's pretty easy for that to cross over into slut shaming/body shaming.

Glorifying violence against women - get that out of here. Drawing pretty girls? Let's try to make sure we do better in the future at reasonable representations and not reprint the grosser stuff.

[Airi]

Friends of mine have speculated that especially racy art might also get the chopping block. Not just the creepy aspect of Earthbind, some versions of Elvish Ranger, OG fire elemental. The insensitivity on that front was made clear when they printed Red-Hot Hottie.

Although, low bar being low, at least most of the depictions of women are reasonable-ish in Magic's catalogue. Nissa and especially Chandra remain fully clothed, and there are many more Danitha Capashen, Paragons, Lena, Selfless Champions, and Sylvia Brightspears than Hero of Bladeholds.

In my opinion, the issue isn't that she's scantily clad. That's probably an issue for WotC from a marketing issue, but it isn't what generally makes it problematic.

Its more that its a really submissive sexualized pose that in the context of the card, isn't consensual. Its just... really uncomfortable in context.

Edit: I missed Pokken's comment but I generally agree there. As a women, I've got no problem with the traditional, uber sexy model-esque art. Liliana is fine. It's only not fine when thats the only depiction of women you have, which is something WotC has improved on greatly in recent years.