Striking

It has come down to this... and it is sad. WoTC asked for our opinion, and then completly disregarded it. I know many people who I personally got to write to WoTC concerning the back change. From what I read, several people on this newgroup did likewise. So what do I propose? A strike... complete and utter, of the new game. We, the current players of Jyhad, were more than patient with WoTC when they told us our game's name was undergoing a change. We even accepted the possibility that the Vampire card backs would be changed... but also our library cards? If you honestly believe that the trend to allow Jyhad to be mixed with V:TeS will continue, you are sadly mistaken... people will take advantage of the system, and then they will realize there's no way of actually stopping this except to make people go with either one group of the other. What do I hope to gain from this? It's very simple... the net community is VERY powerful, in particularly in areas such as this. If we all band together and strike and tell our non-net friends to join in on the strike, WoTC will take serious losses. Then they will have two options: go back and change the backs (again), resulting in more confusion and mayhem; or write the game off as a loss, shutting it down. Either way, those of us who are loyal will have our card collections, and be able to play and enjoy ourselves as if the name change never happened. For those who support the strike, do not write me personally; I appreciate the support, but it will not aid the cause very much, since I'm already for (going to) strike. Instead, tell your friends, get on any net areas which Jyhad is discussed and write about striking. We will prove to WoTC that the net can make a valid difference, and if they're going to ask our opinion, they should take it at face value. Any who disagree, comments are more than welcome. Thank you for your time reading this, and remember, here you CAN make a difference. -David Leader - contested Prince of Atlanta *Editor's note: David Leader will not be reprinted in the new edition*

David Leader <dle...@larry.cc.emory.edu> wrote: >It has come down to this... and it is sad. WoTC asked for our opinion, >and then completly disregarded it. I know many people who I personally >got to write to WoTC concerning the back change. From what I read, >several people on this newgroup did likewise. We did not disregard it. We considered very carefully whether mixing card backs actually broke the game or not. It is our opinion that they do not break the game. We don't agree that marking cards break the game; this does not mean that we ignored the customer feedback. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In article <3ob58s$f...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >We did not disregard it. We considered very carefully whether mixing >card backs actually broke the game or not. It is our opinion that they >do not break the game. We don't agree that marking cards break the >game; this does not mean that we ignored the customer feedback. You considered our opinion and disregarded it. Regardless of why, you set aside our feedback. We know that we are less important than Magic players. You are just reinforcing that. | 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

In article <3ob58s$f...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > >David Leader <dle...@larry.cc.emory.edu> wrote: >>It has come down to this... and it is sad. WoTC asked for our opinion, >>and then completly disregarded it. I know many people who I personally >>got to write to WoTC concerning the back change. From what I read, >>several people on this newgroup did likewise. >We did not disregard it. We considered very carefully whether mixing >card backs actually broke the game or not. It is our opinion that they >do not break the game. We don't agree that marking cards break the >game; this does not mean that we ignored the customer feedback. When your customers tell you that a certain action will make them very unhappy, and you go ahead anyway, you are "ignoring" their objections. This is a standard usage of the English word "ignore". Has the air at Wizards become so rarified that you no longer speak English there? Or have you decided to practice Doublespeak as a corporate policy? This "we didn't ignore you" is almost as annoying as the actual changing of the card backs. Fact is, Wizards decided to go ahead with their marketing plans in spite of tremendous objections by the current players. Between this and the idiocy of the DT rulings, ignoring Wizards of the Coast and "official" statements about the rules is starting to make a lot of sense. It's clear that the people on this list play a lot more Jyhad than people working for Wizards, and that we (well, maybe not me) understand the game better. All of you putting effort into 'house' rules and thinking up fixes for the broken cards, thanks very much! It's good that *someone* is supporting the game. -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

In article <3on5dv$m...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >We don't do everything Magic players demand we do, either. The feedback >of Jyhad players is valued just as much as for any of our other games. You do more of what Magic players demand than what Jyhad players demand. As a Magic player, I am very satisfied with your customer support. I have had several occassions to contact them. I have constantly read the mtg newsgroups and mailing lists, and have watched your response to player concerns and demands. I have also watched the same for Jyhad. Don't tell me that there isn't a Magic bias, because there is. I don't think that it's wrong for you to have it (after all, Magic is the game that vaulted you into the limelight), but I do think that it's wrong for you to try and convince me that it isn't there when I can plainly see it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas Doehne (doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu) wrote: : In article <3ob58s$f...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu : (Thomas R Wylie) writes: : > : >David Leader <dle...@larry.cc.emory.edu> wrote: : >>It has come down to this... and it is sad. WoTC asked for our opinion, : >>and then completly disregarded it. I know many people who I personally : >>got to write to WoTC concerning the back change. From what I read, : >>several people on this newgroup did likewise. : >We did not disregard it. We considered very carefully whether mixing : >card backs actually broke the game or not. It is our opinion that they : >do not break the game. We don't agree that marking cards break the : >game; this does not mean that we ignored the customer feedback. : When your customers tell you that a certain action will make them : very unhappy, and you go ahead anyway, you are "ignoring" their : objections. This is a standard usage of the English word "ignore". : Has the air at Wizards become so rarified that you no longer : speak English there? Or have you decided to practice Doublespeak : as a corporate policy? Speaking of the word "Ignore," has cust...@wizards.com stopped responding to questions about the new backs because they are ignoring the loyal Jyhad customers? I've tried repeatedly to offer them my opinion and ask for an "official" word, and they ignore me. That appears to be "disregard"... -- | Greg Bush | Anar kaluva tielyanna | | gbu...@calvin.edu | Ar nai hiruvalye seere | | Calvin College | "The sun shall shine upon your path, | | Computer Center | "And may you find peace" | | http://www.calvin.edu/~gbush68/ | | PGP public key available upon request |

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > You considered our opinion and disregarded it. Regardless of >why, you set aside our feedback. We know that we are less important >than Magic players. You are just reinforcing that. We don't do everything Magic players demand we do, either. The feedback of Jyhad players is valued just as much as for any of our other games. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran (js...@discus.ise.vt.edu) wrote: > In article <3ob58s$f...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, > Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >We did not disregard it. We considered very carefully whether mixing > >card backs actually broke the game or not. It is our opinion that they > >do not break the game. We don't agree that marking cards break the > >game; this does not mean that we ignored the customer feedback. > You considered our opinion and disregarded it. Regardless of > why, you set aside our feedback. We know that we are less important > than Magic players. You are just reinforcing that. ------ Hell don't feel that way guy... in Magic the customers are NEVER asked how they feel about an issue... check out the Magic.misc conf to see. Maybe that is better than asking...getting feedback... and doing it anyways... VOTE WITH YOUR WALLETS!! I will... only thing a "mainstream" company will understand. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3opr24$a...@news.imssys.com>, Andrew <hou...@imssys.imssys.com> wrote: >------ Hell don't feel that way guy... in Magic the customers are >NEVER asked how they feel about an issue... check out the Magic.misc >conf to see. Maybe that is better than asking...getting feedback... >and doing it anyways... I've never had a problem with Magic's level of support and response. For one thing, everyone I've dealt with strikes me as competent, friendly and efficient (Tom is a great model for a Magic netrep). Most of the grousing in the magic groups is just that: grousing. I've never seen anything that would alienate their *entire* customer base, and any objections I've had to their policies are from a personal standpoint (i.e. *I* wouldn't do that, but it doesn't hurt the game). In Jyhad, however, we have been frequently overlooked, have had to fend for ourselves on ruling issues (a problem which is lessening thanks to Tom's return to the group), and have had DTR's which make no sense whatsoever. Issues of game balance have been disregarded, and we have been lied to at least once. This is completely different from Magic, and unacceptable to me. Let me stress again: I have very few complaints about WotC's support of Magic: the Gathering. They do an excellent job. Jyhad, however, is a different matter. > VOTE WITH YOUR WALLETS!! I will... only thing a "mainstream" >company will understand. Oh, I intend to. I have all of the Jyhad cards I need (including a complete set), so I don't need to buy any more of those. I'll decide on whether or not to purchase the expansion when the time comes for it to be printed. Who knows what will change between now and then. [ quoted text not captured ]