Here is a letter from the President of WotC on the change
in Jyhad backs, followed by my reply. (By the way I believe
his official title is President. Here he only claims the
mantel of Janitor. If I am in error on his title I am sure
a WotC NetRep will be happy to correct me).
First: Please note I would not post this e-mail except
that it was clearly intended for posting.
David Kiker
Now the letter:
*************************************************************************
What follows is a letter I'm sending out to the net about the Jyhad/V:TES name
change.
Charles, please pass this along to all the netreps and have them post it in
their areas.
Thanks.
Mavra!
=================
Friends:
Hi, this is Mavra, aka Peter, the janitor at Wizards of the Coast. Several of
you have written me with your concerns on the name change of our game Jyhad to
V:TES, and the subsequent removal of the word Jyhad from the contents of the
game. This letter is a response to those letters, and the letters I haven't
yet received.
This was a tough decision as you can probably imagine. And in truth, I think
it was one of those times we as a company genuinely faced a no-win scenario.
Making the change seriously risks killing the game and pissing off our
customer base. We have never suffered from the delusion that this would
somehow help the sales or popularity of the game.
Keeping it the way it is, I believe, is immoral. It's as simple as that. I
can't have a game like this in my catalog and look my Israeli distributor
straight in the eye.
I know a lot of you don't feel that there's anything immoral about using the
word Jyhad in a game. But our products are reaching new customers and
countries that never cared about traditional roleplaying games and such, and
may of them disagree. Of course I didn't see this as a problem originally,
but I have a middle-class WASP background and spent many years thinking the
United States was the center of the universe and that the thoughts of people
in the Middle East didn't really matter. Fortunately I met Beverly and she
taught me how much of an ass hole I was for thinking that way, and so at the
age of twenty-eight I grew up and got a life.
Folks, we just can't pull this kind of crap anymore. We're a big company now,
selling games all over the world, way outside the niche markets we started in.
We have a duty to represent ourselves as a mature company that is sensitive
to the political, religious, gender, and ethnic issues that are facing society
today. This change is in response to that duty.
We could lose millions of dollars over this decision.
I don't care. We have to what we think is right.
Mavra!
(Peter D. Adkison, Janitor, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.)
*****************
Now my (David Kiker) reply:
I will keep this short I know you are busy.
I am trying to offer some reasonable suggestions
and not pointlessly debate a decision, now final.
Based on your letter you obviously care about how
others feel (since this is the basis of your decision).
Take a moment and try to see my disappointment.
1) I have spent about $450 on Jyhad cards (my friends
a like amount). This is a lot of money for most people
for a game. We expected (hoped) the game would be supported
for us (We based this hope on the excellant support of
your Magic game).
2) I like Jyhad. I wrote you at WotC saying that long before
any problems arose. I strongly believe in giving credit
for positives as well as raising my voice about negatives.
Clearly based on the degree of feeling you show in your letter
your decision is final.
Fine, I accept that. (Not agree but accept.)
Now let's follow the consequences of that decision.
I (the customer) have been harmed by your mistake
(i.e. your initial decision to name your game with
a very offensive word and put this word on the card backs.)
This harm is through no fault of my own. I read your
ads and I bought your game, I sort of assumed you would
not give it an offensive name you would later not support.
What can I do now?
The only thing I know how. Boycott. It is really the
only thing a consumer can do. I do not want to harm
V:TES or WotC (WotC certainly has given me enjoyment
with their products). Nor am I foolish enough to believe
what I do will really make a significant difference.
But I have no choice, for me it is a matter of principle
in making sure corporations remain responsive to their
customers. I have been harmed and this is (currently)
my only option.
Why should I pay for your mistake?
What can you do?
Well given the final decision to change the card backs, the only thing
I can think of is: REALLY correct your mistake. Instead of the name
change being a partial solution (i.e. WotC still has 180 million offensive
cards in print and intends to sponser tournaments with them) make it a
full solution. Allow people to trade in their old cards for new.
This does not have to be as complicated as some folks have made out.
Do not trade in cards 1:1 for the same card. (I realize this is the
best for customers but also recognize that a 1:1 trade in is not practicle
because of the amount of labor.) You could allow
people to send you the contents of a booster pack (i.e 1 rare, 3
uncommon, 4 Vampires, 12 commons) and give them a new booster pack.
They trade in a box, give them a new box. This seems better then giving
up on us the customers and the game. At the VERY least (and I do not
really favor this) allow customers who trade in cards to get new
cards at a very very deep discount (just enough to cover your costs).
I do not favor this because it was your mistake, but it is at least
something of a compromise.
Take care, hopefully I won't find myself boycotting your
game (That would be rather a waste since Jyhad was one of my
favorite CCG)
David Kiker
k...@template.com
On 7 May 1995, David Kiker wrote:
> Here is a letter from the President of WotC on the change
> in Jyhad backs, followed by my reply. (By the way I believe
> his official title is President. Here he only claims the
> mantel of Janitor. If I am in error on his title I am sure
> a WotC NetRep will be happy to correct me).
>
> First: Please note I would not post this e-mail except
> that it was clearly intended for posting.
>
> David Kiker
<big snip...big scissors>
>
> Well given the final decision to change the card backs, the only thing
> I can think of is: REALLY correct your mistake. Instead of the name
> change being a partial solution (i.e. WotC still has 180 million offensive
> cards in print and intends to sponser tournaments with them) make it a
> full solution. Allow people to trade in their old cards for new.
<small snip>
> David Kiker
> k...@template.com
I think that rec...jyhad ought to speak out about the "trade-in"
proposal. Personally, if it is the ONLY way to survive the change, I'll
do it. But in a way, I feel beaten down by this. Spiritually exhausted.
My two blood counters
(that are become worth less and less),
Marty Runyon
In article <3oj5de$m...@template.com>, David Kiker <k...@template.com> wrote:
>Based on your letter you obviously care about how
>others feel (since this is the basis of your decision).
Kinda strange how Tom has said that the name thing was merely a
side issue, and Peter implies that it is a central issue. So, was it
marketing, or moral imperative? I don't care anymore, but it's
interesting to see the dichotomy.
>full solution. Allow people to trade in their old cards for new.
>
>This does not have to be as complicated as some folks have made out.
>Do not trade in cards 1:1 for the same card. (I realize this is the
>best for customers but also recognize that a 1:1 trade in is not practicle
>because of the amount of labor.) You could allow
Ew ew ew ew ew!! That's horrid! Why in the world would I ever
trade in a good core set of cards that I traded to get (*after* the
point of purchase) to get a set that I'll have to trade for *again*!?!
I don't think that this would be a very popular solution.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
David Kiker forwarded a letter to the net from Peter Adkinson to the
newwsgroup rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad:
In article <3oj5de$m...@template.com>, David Kiker <k...@template.com> wrote:
>Keeping it the way it is, I believe, is immoral. It's as simple as that. I
>can't have a game like this in my catalog and look my Israeli distributor
>straight in the eye.
Have you *asked* your Israeli distributor if he would find the
word on a cardback offensive? Have you asked those whom you feel you
would offend if indeed it would offend them? A friend of mine works for
a company that does business in the mid east regularly. I posted a
comment from him on this debate to the group, and now I'll echo it to
you. They have a product that was shipped to several Kuwati sites that
had a system password which used an internal company mnemonic in it.
That password contained the word "jihad". They received no complaints
about it. Not even a memo. And to quote him, "those people *know* how
to send out memos [when something upsets them]." Changing the name
without changing the cardbacks is easy [Vampire: the Eternal Jyhad, if
you feel that vampire name recognition is important], and would have
satisfied your existing customer base much more than the current
solution.
Of course, all this is water under the bridge, but I cannot be
satisfied with the route you chose in this matter.
>We could lose millions of dollars over this decision.
>I don't care. We have to what we think is right.
And I wish you the best of luck. We, the customers, also have
to do what we think is right, and in this case, it is most definitely to
buy none of the new product. I hope that your new market will support
the game that you feel your old market couldn't.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>>This does not have to be as complicated as some folks have made out.
>>Do not trade in cards 1:1 for the same card. (I realize this is the
>>best for customers but also recognize that a 1:1 trade in is not practicle
>>because of the amount of labor.) You could allow>> Ew ew ew ew ew!! That's horrid! Why in the world would I ever
>trade in a good core set of cards that I traded to get (*after* the
>point of purchase) to get a set that I'll have to trade for *again*!?!
>I don't think that this would be a very popular solution.
It would work for me. I'd rather get the same cards I've got. If I
can't, I'd be satisfied with a random selection of cards equal in
quantity to the number I've got now. Why would I turn in my cards if
that were the way they were going to do it? So I could continue to
buy more cards and boosters without feeling my earlier investment was
*entirely* wasted.
--
Doug DeJulio | R$+@$=W <-- sendmail.cf file
mailto:dd...@pitt.edu | {$/{{.+ <-- modem noise
http://www.pitt.edu/~ddj/ | !@#!@@! <-- Mr. Dithers swearing
In article <3ok67i$r...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote:
> Have you *asked* your Israeli distributor if he would find the
>word on a cardback offensive? Have you asked those whom you feel you
>would offend if indeed it would offend them? A friend of mine works for
Peter responded to me in e-mail, saying that yes, he did ask,
and that was one of the reasons that he pushed so hard for the name
change. As I've said, I wish them the best of luck. I suppose I'll
just have to wait for Netrunner now...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Marty Runyon <run...@robles.callutheran.edu> wrote:
> On 7 May 1995, David Kiker wrote:> > Well given the final decision to change the card backs, the only thing
> > I can think of is: REALLY correct your mistake. Instead of the name
> > change being a partial solution (i.e. WotC still has 180 million offensive
> > cards in print and intends to sponser tournaments with them) make it a
> > full solution. Allow people to trade in their old cards for new.
>> I think that rec...jyhad ought to speak out about the "trade-in"
> proposal. Personally, if it is the ONLY way to survive the change, I'll
> do it. But in a way, I feel beaten down by this. Spiritually exhausted.
Peace Marty,
I don't like the change either (like you didn't know that), but it is past the
time to change that (WotC is committed to the changed cards). I wholeheartedly
support the idea of a trade-in. By accepting the cost of performing the trade-in,
WotC will show that they aren't trying to screw the established Jyhad players
out of more money. If WotC does a trade-in, I'll purchase more cards. If not,
I won't. The ball is back in WotC's court.
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote:
>>Based on your letter you obviously care about how
>>others feel (since this is the basis of your decision).> Kinda strange how Tom has said that the name thing was merely a
>side issue, and Peter implies that it is a central issue. So, was it
>marketing, or moral imperative? I don't care anymore, but it's
>interesting to see the dichotomy.
Different people focus on different aspects of a problem. It is my
impression that the (lack of) success of the game was the driving reason
for the name change. Obviously, these priorities are reversed for Peter.
Whose focus is more correct, in the absolute sense? Who knows.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Joseph Cochran (js...@discus.ise.vt.edu) wrote:
: In article <3ok67i$r...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,: Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote:
: > Have you *asked* your Israeli distributor if he would find the
: >word on a cardback offensive? Have you asked those whom you feel you
: >would offend if indeed it would offend them? A friend of mine works for: Peter responded to me in e-mail, saying that yes, he did ask,
: and that was one of the reasons that he pushed so hard for the name
: change. As I've said, I wish them the best of luck. I suppose I'll
: just have to wait for Netrunner now...
AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
They can't even keep their stories straight!!
I thought that the "Jyhad is offensive" excuse got tossed aside a long
time ago, and they as much as admitted that they were changing the card
backs because (a) they wanted a "consistent look" and (b) they wanted to
attract new players. Now they're back to the politically correct crap.
Peter says that they could lose millions of dollars in sales - to whom?
The millions of Middle Eastern customers who are going to buy the game,
open it up, find the "Jyhad" cards inside, and THEN get ticked off?
*sigh*
To get an idea of how ridiculous this argument is, look at Illuminati.
Now there's a game with the potential to offend EVERYBODY. Steve Jackson
doesn't seem too worried to me, and he sure appears to have a hell of a
lot more integrity than WotC.
Brand
--
br...@iglou.com "Shake a person up enough and what they thought was a
--------------- personality starts to separate. We can be *anything*."
- Grant Morrison
why don't you make american "Jyhad" and Israeli "Vtes" I think if you can
make "Italian" Magic you can make American Jyhad. write If there is any
problems
there is no way i am doing that trading. I threw away half my commons
anyway. I will definetly be giving up on Jyhad if they change the
backs.But i don't want to especially want to do that with the new
expantion coming out. You better come up with a better solution ( like 1:1
) because half my trading would be useless if you do it that pack like
trading. If you find you do have to change the backs and there is no
better solution than "pack trading" then you might as well just stop
printing Jyhad( oh-sorry) V:TES.