Vampire TES/Jyhad question

I heard that Vampire TES and Jyhad were going to be incompatible. Is this true? Thanks Leland Wilson

LWilson849 (lwils...@aol.com) wrote: : I heard that Vampire TES and Jyhad were going to be incompatible. Is this : true? Define 'incompatible'... The backs will be different, so one can tell at a glance which is which. The fronts will be different, so one can tell at a glance which is which. Some cards are being removed as spoilers... Colour coding is being added to the game... Text on some cards is being changed (i.e. tradition: Domain) to ensure that there is no chance of playing them any way but the way WotC wants them played... Word is that the rules will start with a 'basic' game for beginners, and will only incorporate the full, 'original' jyhad rules for those wanting an advanced challenge... how much emphasis will be put on this is unknown. Other than that, the two games/versions of the same game will be totally compatible. Shane H.W. Travis | Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for tra...@duke.usask.ca | thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Hebrews 13:2

wils...@aol.com (LWilson849) >I heard that Vampire TES and Jyhad were going to be incompatible. Is this >true? Yes and no. The card faces will be very similar, differing only in layout and errata (which will of course mostly be good, although we may have a few misrules like Rotschreck cast into stone, or at least ink). The backs will differ, and so anybody playing a mixed deck will be playing with a marked deck, permitting a wide variety of cheating techniques, particularly for "degenerate" decks (here meaning decks with only a few types of cards). Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote: >Text on some cards is being changed (i.e. tradition: Domain) to ensure > that there is no chance of playing them any way but the way WotC wants > them played... Look, if you really want to play Domain as being usable by an untapped vampire (for example), do so as a house rule. We are not thought police. When someone asks here whether an untapped vampire can play Domain, I give the official answer. If you don't like an official answer, play with a house rule. Just keep the official answer in mind when teaching new players, or for when you play with a new group, that may or may not be using your house rule. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: > The backs >will differ, and so anybody playing a mixed deck will be playing with a >marked deck, permitting a wide variety of cheating techniques, >particularly for "degenerate" decks (here meaning decks with only a few >types of cards). > Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) Well, first I'd like to take issue with this statement. I will be using a mixed deck but it won't be "marked". I'll play with the good cards that I get from Dark Soveriegns and use my old Jyhad cards also. Only people that are real asses are going to cheat in the ways that you describe. And really, why would you want to play with someone like that? The people that I play with will be using both types of cards, and I'm not worried about anyone cheating or marking their deck. It's unfortunate that all you guys are so hung up about this card back issue. Play the game for fun. That's the key word here FUN. Ah well, to each his own I guess... chris rho...@medicine.wustl.edu

Article: 10012 Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad From: mon...@ix.netcom.com (Montri Chew) Subject: Re: Vampire TES/Jyhad question Date: 30 Jun 1995 08:53:35 GMT In <3sv02n$p...@cerberus-138.wustl.edu> rhodesc@medicine (Chris Rhodes) writes: > >curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >> The backs >>will differ, and so anybody playing a mixed deck will be playing with a >>marked deck, permitting a wide variety of cheating techniques, >>particularly for "degenerate" decks (here meaning decks with only a few >>types of cards). > >> Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) > >Well, first I'd like to take issue with this statement. I will be using >a mixed deck but it won't be "marked". I'll play with the good cards Your mixed deck will be "marked" whether you think it is or not. All the new cards from Dark Sovereigns will have the VTES cardbacks so Dark Sovereigns cards are distinguishable from Jyhad cards when they are face-down. You may not conciously use it to your advantage, but you may be influenced by seeing a certain type of card back on the top card of your library or in your crypt since you have receive more information about the identity of that card than you would have if the card backs of your cards were all the same. Heck, your opponent can perhaps use the information that they shouldn't have to their advantage too (aha, a Dark Sovereigns vampire...) It's kind of like playing with a slightly-loaded dice in the best-case situation :) >that I get from Dark Soveriegns and use my old Jyhad cards also. Only >people that are real asses are going to cheat in the ways that you describe. >And really, why would you want to play with someone like that? The people You don't have a choice of what type of people you will play against if you play in tournaments. There are unfortunately too many people out there who thinks that winning is everything, especially when there's some economic gain involved... >that I play with will be using both types of cards, and I'm not worried >about anyone cheating or marking their deck. It's unfortunate that all You are certainly a very care-free person :) >you guys are so hung up about this card back issue. Play the game for >fun. That's the key word here FUN. Ah well, to each his own I guess... I have and will continue to have fun playing and collecting Jyhad. I will have less fun trying to, for example, trade my Jyhad cards with a new player who only has VTES cards since he/she probably won't want any. After all, why should he/she be bothered with having to play decks with mixed card backs. > >chris >rho...@medicine.wustl.edu > * Montri Chew (mon...@ix.netcom.com) *

rhodesc@medicine (Chris Rhodes) wrote: >curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >> The backs >>will differ, and so anybody playing a mixed deck will be playing with a >>marked deck, permitting a wide variety of cheating techniques, >>particularly for "degenerate" decks (here meaning decks with only a few >>types of cards). > >Well, first I'd like to take issue with this statement. I will be using >a mixed deck but it won't be "marked". I'll play with the good cards >that I get from Dark Soveriegns and use my old Jyhad cards also. Only >people that are real asses are going to cheat in the ways that you describe. Peace Chris, So, if you took one of your existing decks and added Giovanni to your crypt and Necromancy cards to your library, wouldn't it be obvious to you when a Giovanni/ Necromancy card was coming up next? Would this be cheating? Would this make you a "real ass?" >And really, why would you want to play with someone like that? The people >that I play with will be using both types of cards, and I'm not worried >about anyone cheating or marking their deck. It's unfortunate that all >you guys are so hung up about this card back issue. Play the game for >fun. That's the key word here FUN. Ah well, to each his own I guess... I agree, Chris, that the object is to have fun, but mixed decks are NO FUN for two reasons, 1) ascetically (sp) ugly, 2) makes cheating (intentional or not) easier. I know the people that I play with and know that they wouldn't intentionally mark their decks, but what about people that I play against whom I've just met (say at a convention)? The card back change is a Bad Thing (TM) and is just another symptom of the rot that is infecting WotC. Can you say, "History repeats itself?" Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

Another idea for dealing with the change in card backs - your predator can cut your library or crypt immediately before you draw from it, any time you are entitled to draw from it. Slows things down a little, but if anything it turns the card-back markings into a liability. The info about the card type is only available after you've already decided to draw, so it doesn't let you see the future; and if you have followed some kind of marking scheme, if your opponents figure it out, it gives them info about what you just drew. -- Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)

bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) wrote: >your predator can cut your library or crypt immediately >before you draw from it, any time you are entitled >to draw from it. Peace Jeremy, This may come off sounding disrespectful, but it isn't intended to be. >Slows things down a little, but if anything it turns >the card-back markings into a liability. The info about >the card type is only available after you've already >decided to draw, so it doesn't let you see the future; >and if you have followed some kind of marking scheme, >if your opponents figure it out, it gives them info >about what you just drew. Have you actually tried this? Suggest this during a Magic game and see what sort of response you get. Why should I be forced to do a lot of unnecessary deck gymnastics when it is WotC's fault? "Slows things down a little"?? What about decks that cycle cards fast (rush combat)? Jyhad doesn't need anything to slow it down any more (as this is one of the major complaints). I think it is a bad idea and we wouldn't even need to discuss this if WotC had some sense. [ quoted text not captured ]

James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >Have you actually tried this? Suggest this during a Magic game and see >what sort of response you get. Why should I be forced to do a lot of >unnecessary deck gymnastics when it is WotC's fault? "Slows things down >a little"?? What about decks that cycle cards fast (rush combat)? Jyhad >doesn't need anything to slow it down any more (as this is one of the >major complaints). I think it is a bad idea and we wouldn't even need >to discuss this if WotC had some sense. It also makes the deck-peeking nosferatu either usless (the ones that look at your own deck), or powerful (the one that lets you look at your prey's deck). Alec -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: : bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) wrote: : >your predator can cut your library or crypt immediately : >before you draw from it, any time you are entitled : >to draw from it. : Have you actually tried this? Suggest this during a Magic game and see : what sort of response you get. I'd rather deal with that sort of response than to sit around while people argued over whether or not I should be allowed to play with my evil marked deck. : Why should I be forced to do a lot of : unnecessary deck gymnastics when it is WotC's fault? A difference in attitude, I suppose. Although I'm not terribly happy about the change, it's done. There's nothing I can do about that. So my reaction is to look for ways to make the best of it; and for that purpose, I don't give a fig whose fault it is. This leads to the following strategies for me : (1) I won't purposely build marked decks; in fact I'll go out of my way to "un-mark" them by including cards with both back designs for cards I use multiples of. (2) I'll play with people who trust me not to abuse the card backs, and I'll play with people whom I trust not to abuse the card backs. If we occasionally get minor bits of intelligence because we know our card mix very well, so it goes. If no one is abusing it, no one's gaining much more of an advantage... (3) In the event that I can't manage (2), as a last resort I'll suggest things like frequent deck-cutting or draws from the bottom of the deck to appease my suspicious opponents. Although I don't like drawing from the bottom of the deck, seems to cause more problems than it fixes. : "Slows things down : a little"?? What about decks that cycle cards fast (rush combat)? Jyhad : doesn't need anything to slow it down any more (as this is one of the : major complaints). I don't think a cut before *every* card draw is necessary to essentially eliminate the card marking advantage. Just as long as it's done occasionally and unpredictably. Myself, if I were playing with a group who didn't trust each other enough for 1 and 2 above to pacify them, I'd rather have a little deck gymnastics and slow-down of the game than to never play with expansion cards. : I think it is a bad idea and we wouldn't even need : to discuss this if WotC had some sense. Again, a difference in attitude. Now that it's done, I don't care about placing blame - I just want to find ways to continue playing and enjoy the evolution of the game with the new cards. And, from my end, this isn't meant to be disrespectful though it probably sounds it (btw, I wasn't offended at all by the tone of your post, James)...but if your reaction to the situation will be to play with your old cards and cry in your beer about how WotC made it impossible for you to use the expansions...well... I bet I know which of us is going to have more fun with the game. -- Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)

Alec Habig (aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu) wrote: : It also makes the deck-peeking nosferatu either usless (the ones that look at : your own deck), or powerful (the one that lets you look at your prey's deck). Ouch, hadn't thought of that. Makes most of my discussion with James elsewhere in this thread moot... -- Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)

If you are really this worried about it, then just paint all of your card backs the same color. Then nobody will be able to tell the difference. --Cyberai the cyber-samurai -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- What do you mean 'Uh oh'? Is that a good 'Uh oh' or a bad 'Uh oh'? It's a bad Uh oh. Oh yeah, definately a bad Uh oh.

bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) wrote: >James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: >: bea...@netcom.com (Jeremy York) wrote: >: >your predator can cut your library or crypt immediately >: >before you draw from it, any time you are entitled >: >to draw from it. > >: Have you actually tried this? Suggest this during a Magic game and see >: what sort of response you get. > >I'd rather deal with that sort of response than to sit around while >people argued over whether or not I should be allowed to play with >my evil marked deck. Peace Jeremy, Please, try this while playing Magic. See what sort of response you get. >: Why should I be forced to do a lot of >: unnecessary deck gymnastics when it is WotC's fault? > >A difference in attitude, I suppose. Although I'm not terribly happy >about the change, it's done. There's nothing I can do about that. That is where our attitudes diverge. My solution is an aggressive counter-stance. I'll not buy any VtES cards. None of my group is either. I'll not introduce new players to Jyhad. If WotC wants to shove the burden of responsiblity (economically) onto me, then I'm more than happy to fight back. If WotC owns up to the card change, accepts responsibility, and offers a card exchange (the only truely fair solution), then I'll go back to prolytizing the game, until then . . . . >So my reaction is to look for ways to make the best of it; and for >that purpose, I don't give a fig whose fault it is. This >leads to the following strategies for me : I'll not be shit upon and take it. It is WotC's fault. They want me to pay for it. I'm not going to. > (1) I won't purposely build marked decks; in fact I'll go > out of my way to "un-mark" them by including cards with both > back designs for cards I use multiples of. > > (2) I'll play with people who trust me not to abuse the card > backs, and I'll play with people whom I trust not to abuse the > card backs. If we occasionally get minor bits of intelligence > because we know our card mix very well, so it goes. If no one > is abusing it, no one's gaining much more of an advantage... > > (3) In the event that I can't manage (2), as a last resort I'll > suggest things like frequent deck-cutting or draws from the bottom > of the deck to appease my suspicious opponents. Although I > don't like drawing from the bottom of the deck, seems to cause > more problems than it fixes. These are good suggestions, BUT they don't solve the problem of tournament play, which is where card restrictions come from. Mixed decks will be illegal in less than ONE YEAR. >: "Slows things down >: a little"?? What about decks that cycle cards fast (rush combat)? Jyhad >: doesn't need anything to slow it down any more (as this is one of the >: major complaints). > >I don't think a cut before *every* card draw is necessary to essentially >eliminate the card marking advantage. Just as long as it's done >occasionally and unpredictably. Myself, if I were playing with a group >who didn't trust each other enough for 1 and 2 above to pacify them, >I'd rather have a little deck gymnastics and slow-down of the game >than to never play with expansion cards. I'd rather WotC accept responsibility and do a card exchange. >: I think it is a bad idea and we wouldn't even need >: to discuss this if WotC had some sense. > >Again, a difference in attitude. Now that it's done, I don't >care about placing blame - I just want to find ways to >continue playing and enjoy the evolution of the game with the >new cards. I've got the solution: a card exchange. WotC is afraid that they might lose money on it though. Well, I'm out to prove that they'll lose more money by NOT exchanging than by exchanging. If WotC wants to go for short term profits over long term customer satisfaction and an increased player base, that is their choice to make. I'm just here to make sure that they regret making the wrong choice. > And, from my end, this isn't meant to be disrespectful >though it probably sounds it (btw, I wasn't offended at all by the tone >of your post, James)...but if your reaction to the situation will >be to play with your old cards and cry in your beer about how >WotC made it impossible for you to use the expansions...well... >I bet I know which of us is going to have more fun with the game. No, Jeremy, you have not been disrespectful and I'm glad to hear that you haven't felt disrespected (I try to remain civil in all my posts). First, I don't drink beer (I can't stand the taste). Second, I'm not crying; I'm protesting/boycotting aggresively. Rather than lay there and allow WotC to ream me out (w/o Vaseline), I'm fighting back. I'll be there laughing (sadly and ironically) when WotC kills VtES due to poor sales and losing most of their established customer base. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3tnafe$9...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >From: "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> >Subject: Re: Vampire TES/Jyhad question >Date: 9 Jul 1995 01:13:18 GMT (middle deleted for saving space) >> And, from my end, this isn't meant to be disrespectful >>though it probably sounds it (btw, I wasn't offended at all by the tone >>of your post, James)...but if your reaction to the situation will >>be to play with your old cards and cry in your beer about how >>WotC made it impossible for you to use the expansions...well... >>I bet I know which of us is going to have more fun with the game. >No, Jeremy, you have not been disrespectful and I'm glad to hear that you haven't >felt disrespected (I try to remain civil in all my posts). First, I don't drink beer >(I can't stand the taste). Second, I'm not crying; I'm protesting/boycotting aggresively. >Rather than lay there and allow WotC to ream me out (w/o Vaseline), I'm fighting back. >I'll be there laughing (sadly and ironically) when WotC kills VtES due to poor sales >and losing most of their established customer base. > Nil carborundum illigitimi, > James R. McClure Jr. > The OS/2 Apostle ><insert disclaimer here> And if VtES dies, then a great game will have been lost. Jyhad is the best card game on the market, Letting it die would be a shame, even though it is obvious that WoTC fucked up royally. Still, a boycott, i feel would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. If such a tactic were to be successful, then you would end up with the same problem the Eastern Airline employees had; they struck themselves out of business. The object of a boycot is to get a company to change their ways, I don't think this is going to happen in this case. For one, the major bitch I am hearing is on the net, many where I play are indifferent to the change and looking forward to the expansion set If you feel you must protest and boycott, then, hey, this is America and that is your God given right, and I support your right to protest. But I can't support your protest. Was WoTC stupid? Yes. Did they make some bad decisions? You better believe it! Are they being jerks about it. Yes. Still, while they are wrong in their decisions and lack of support to their base, to give up on this awsome game because of their stupidity, to me, is also wrong (Yes, I know you will continue to play with only Jyhad cards, not buy any VtES or encourage others so you are not giving up on Jyhad, just not supporting VtES). Ultimately, to me, the choices came down to this: Collectable cards are not items vital to the world, such as food, clothing, or shelter. They are not wants that have become necessities like eletricity, cars, computers, tephones, TVs, and dishwashers. This decision does not put the genral public in harm nor does it take away any basic freedoms. So, Jyhad is a great game and the company's stupidity is not going to ruin it for me. If this is where they want to go with it, then so be it. I will buy the expansions and VtES. Their decisions are bad, but no real harm is done (other than bad public service) so I say, let it go, worry about more important things, and have fun. Life's too short.

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >rhodesc@medicine (Chris Rhodes) wrote: >>curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >>> The backs >>>will differ, and so anybody playing a mixed deck will be playing with a >>>marked deck, permitting a wide variety of cheating techniques, >>>particularly for "degenerate" decks (here meaning decks with only a few >>>types of cards). >> >>Well, first I'd like to take issue with this statement. I will be using >>a mixed deck but it won't be "marked". I'll play with the good cards >>that I get from Dark Soveriegns and use my old Jyhad cards also. Only >>people that are real asses are going to cheat in the ways that you describe. >So, if you took one of your existing decks and added Giovanni to your crypt and >Necromancy cards to your library, wouldn't it be obvious to you when a Giovanni/ >Necromancy card was coming up next? Would this be cheating? Would this make >you a "real ass?" Okay, would this really matter? You could also take all of your existing Brujah and Potence cards and put a small barely discernable mark on the same corner and you would also have the same effect. The truth is, in Jyhad/VtES it doesn't matter awhole lot to know what your next card is. >>And really, why would you want to play with someone like that? The people >>that I play with will be using both types of cards, and I'm not worried >>about anyone cheating or marking their deck. It's unfortunate that all >>you guys are so hung up about this card back issue. Play the game for >>fun. That's the key word here FUN. Ah well, to each his own I guess... >I agree, Chris, that the object is to have fun, but mixed decks are NO FUN for >two reasons, 1) ascetically (sp) ugly, 2) makes cheating (intentional or not) >easier. I know the people that I play with and know that they wouldn't intentionally >mark their decks, but what about people that I play against whom I've just met >(say at a convention)? The card back change is a Bad Thing (TM) and is just >another symptom of the rot that is infecting WotC. Can you say, "History repeats >itself?" I don't think this should really be a life altering thing for anyone. This is a game. WotC doesn't have a "rot". They are a company that made a game, a damn good game. I hate to see people try to ruin it because they couldn't have their way (that is how I see it by the way, it's seems that everyone is mad because WotC didn't do what you all thought they should do). If you really like this game as much as it seems like you do, then why try to kill it? I have invested just as much, if not more, than anyone else has in Jyhad (have over 2,000 cards) and I still don't feel betrayed or screwed over. Chris rho...@medicine.wustl.edu

[ quoted text not captured ] The only thing I can think of is that WotC is banking on more Masquerade fans getting into V:TES. I don't keep up with White Wolf or any of the RPG rags but I would think WW should have pushed Jyhad heavily to its support base. WotC is going to lose money initially. I don't know anyone who is dying to get out and replace all their cards. Most people I know are joining the boycot. Sad but true: I like the game too much. If/when Jyhad cards are outlawed at tournaments I'll dig deep and buy replacement cards. The opportunity to compete at tournaments is what many of my friends and I strive for. (If we could only get more tournaments in Florida...) It is a disapointment that WotC and WW have decided to go this route but they made a business decision (gamble) to try to improve the popularity of their product. I hate to see the value of my cards decrease but I didn't get into the game to collect so it isn't that big of a disapointment for me. Eric "Life sucks then somebody pays." Me

Chris Rhodes <rhodesc@medicine> wrote: >Okay, would this really matter? You could also take all of your existing >Brujah and Potence cards and put a small barely discernable mark on the >same corner and you would also have the same effect. The truth is, in >Jyhad/VtES it doesn't matter awhole lot to know what your next card is. Wrong. It matters a lot. The decision at it's most basic level - do I discard this potentially useful card (via Barrens, or the discard phase) to get something of more immediate value? A no-brainer if you know what's coming up. At a more common level, do I use this card now for lesser effect, just so I can draw the next card, or do I hold onto it until it does more good? Again, a no-brainer if you know what card is coming up. [ quoted text not captured ]

jer...@mindspring.com (Jerry Jackson) wrote: >In article "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >>No, Jeremy, you have not been disrespectful and I'm glad to hear that you haven't >>felt disrespected (I try to remain civil in all my posts). First, I don't drink beer >>(I can't stand the taste). Second, I'm not crying; I'm protesting/boycotting aggresively. >>Rather than lay there and allow WotC to ream me out (w/o Vaseline), I'm fighting back. >>I'll be there laughing (sadly and ironically) when WotC kills VtES due to poor sales >>and losing most of their established customer base. > >And if VtES dies, then a great game will have been lost. Jyhad is the best Peace Jerry, I agree. >card game on the market, Letting it die would be a shame, even though it is I agree again. >obvious that WoTC fucked up royally. Still, a boycott, i feel would be like I completely agree, it is all WotC's fault. >cutting off your nose to spite your face. If such a tactic were to be >successful, then you would end up with the same problem the Eastern Airline >employees had; they struck themselves out of business. The object of a boycot >is to get a company to change their ways, I don't think this is going to >happen in this case. For one, the major bitch I am hearing is on the net, >many where I play are indifferent to the change and looking forward to the >expansion set Well, things aren't that way here. I told all the players in my group about the card back change and EVERYONE of them felt shit on. I cannot understand why I must bear the financial responsibility for WotC's mistake. I do believe that losing money will change WotC's ways. They have officially stated that money was the primary reason for the card back change. If this decision becomes unprofitable, perhaps WotC will recind this decision. >If you feel you must protest and boycott, then, hey, this is America and that >is your God given right, and I support your right to protest. But I can't >support your protest. That is your choice. >Was WoTC stupid? Yes. Did they make some bad decisions? You better believe it! >Are they being jerks about it. Yes. Still, while they are wrong in their >decisions and lack of support to their base, to give up on this awsome game >because of their stupidity, to me, is also wrong. This is where we differ. I can't see paying WotC's debits for them. They made a mistake and they should be responsible enough to pay for it, as opposed to expecting their customers to (see the software industry). >Ultimately, to me, the choices came down to this: Collectable cards are >not items vital to the world, such as food, clothing, or shelter. They >are not wants that have become necessities like eletricity, cars, >computers, telephones, TVs, and dishwashers. This decision does not put >the genral public in harm nor does it take away any basic freedoms. So, Jyhad >is a great game and the company's stupidity is not going to ruin it for me. If >this is where they want to go with it, then so be it. I will buy the >expansions and VtES. Their decisions are bad, but no real harm is done (other >than bad public service) so I say, let it go, worry about more important >things, and have fun. Life's too short. Watch some Babylon 5. You can't let the little things slide and claim that all is going well. This is just another company failing to take responsibility for their own mistakes and trying to pass the economic burden onto the comsumer. I've had enough and am doing something about it. If WotC refuses to accept responsibility, well, I can happily spend my money on other things. No, TCGs aren't necessities, neither are computes or dishwashers. I guarentee (sp) that if the price of computers went up 25% every two years, consumers would be screaming bloody murder. Even the US government is more efficient than a 25% increase in two years. Yes, Jyhad is a great game. Yes, WotC's stupidity IS going to ruin it for everyone. So you are telling me that if some other non-necessity in your life increased in cost by 25% every two years, you would just grin and bear it? The real harm is WotC killing the best TCG on the market. I will have fun 1) playing Jyhad with the cards I already have, 2) protesting WotC's stupidity, 3) finding other things to spend my money on. Life is what you make it; don't be a sheep. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle "[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is [the People's] right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" - Thomas Jefferson <insert disclaimer here>

In article <3trlsh$n...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >From: "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> >Subject: Re: Vampire TES/Jyhad question >Date: 10 Jul 1995 16:52:33 GMT [ quoted text not captured ] > Nil carborundum illigitimi, [ quoted text not captured ] ><insert disclaimer here> Personally, I prefer Star Trek, but that's another newsgroup. As for bearing increased prices, its called inflation and everyone in the world grins and bears it. As for the computer industry, I think we could spend several hours ripping them apart, but yet again another newsgroup. Just like most people, there are things I thing are worth fighting for and some things that are not worth fighting for. I just don't think this is worth fighting for. I love the game and will love it after it's change and I won't allow their stupidity to ruin it for me. Since this is a fight you have choosen, I sincerely wish you the best of luck. I have argued with the higher ups on-line, suggesting card exchanges and give aways, all to no avail. I do hope those bastards up there find some way to make it up to their dedicated audience, but I don't see it happening. Still, it is ultimately it is just a game, a great game, but just a game none the less. I like it and will play it, in whatever form it takes. So, James, I guess the only things we can agree on are: 1) Jyhad (even when they change the name, I'll still call it Jyhad) is a great game. and 2) we agree to disagree. Good luck in your boycott. (this is not meant to be cynical or belittling in any way, I do sincerly wish you good luck, because if you do succeed, WoTC will be humbled, and that would be worth seeing.)

> A difference in attitude, I suppose. Although I'm not terribly happy > about the change, it's done. There's nothing I can do about that. > So my reaction is to look for ways to make the best of it; and for > that purpose, I don't give a fig whose fault it is. This > leads to the following strategies for me : > > (1) I won't purposely build marked decks; in fact I'll go > out of my way to "un-mark" them by including cards with both > back designs for cards I use multiples of. > > (2) I'll play with people who trust me not to abuse the card > backs, and I'll play with people whom I trust not to abuse the > card backs. If we occasionally get minor bits of intelligence > because we know our card mix very well, so it goes. If no one > is abusing it, no one's gaining much more of an advantage... > (3) In the event that I can't manage (2), as a last resort I'll > suggest things like frequent deck-cutting or draws from the bottom > of the deck to appease my suspicious opponents. Although I > don't like drawing from the bottom of the deck, seems to cause > more problems than it fixes. I got to agree with you... I also think that some of the posters ae taking this name change WAY out of hand... Let's fact is WoTC is a BUSINESS, as much as we';d hate them to be. When M:TG went mass-market, it pissed me off, so I dumped my small collection. Now Jyhad/V:TES is doing the same thing. I still don't buy my cards at a Spencer's or Babbage's at teh mall, so I provide the business to the local gaming store that's private, as opposed to corporate-owned, but that's my personal thing. I find it hard to believe that you people are whining over CARD DESIGN. From everything I've read (to include some pre-release propoganda from WoTC), the game play isn't going to change one iota. The game mechanics of the "basic game" are simply the standard game without ante, intercepts, maneuvers, additional strikes, presses, torpor, diablerie, or paralyzing. It actually works, in my mind, to make the game simpler to learn basic game mechanics. If all you people have a beef with is the design on the backs of the cards, you people are a bunch of whining babies. I don't agree 100% with WoTC's PC-ness either, but I can't do a damn thing to make them do their thing my way. Can we carry on and discuss something USEFULL like deck-building strategies, game-playing ideas, etc? Chew on this: What interesting ideas do you have when the first expansion comes out and you can play with Ravnos and Giovanni? Who gives a fuck if they don't say "Jyhad". Personally, if your game-playing group is dickly enough to "mark" a deck with cards from either game, find another group to play with! -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______________________ | \| |_____ __ _| |_| (_)_ __ _ __(_)___| | / ae...@rgfn.epcc.edu /_ | .` / -_) V V / _ | | '_ \ '_ \ / -_)_| / or / / |_|\_\___|\_/\_/|_| |_|_| .__/ .__/_\___(_) /_________John________/ /

James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >...I do believe that losing money will >change WotC's ways. They have officially stated that money was the primary >reason for the card back change. If this decision becomes unprofitable, >perhaps WotC will recind this decision. If you reread Peter's letter on this topic (on included below for those who haven't seen it), changing the card backs was certainly not done to make more money; we were certainly aware that it could result in losing money. One can argue that changing the name of the game to V:TES with motivated by money, but to eliminate all references to Jyhad within the game, even to the point of changing the card backs? No, that was not done for money. >This is where we differ. I can't see paying WotC's debits for them. They >made a mistake and they should be responsible enough to pay for it, as opposed >to expecting their customers to (see the software industry). I don't think there's a reasonable parallel in the software industry. If a company were to change the name and such of a program, this wouldn't have any particular bearing on existing copies of the program, and those could be used while ignoring the change to the product. It would not require a more or less total recall of the original product, which is basically what people are asking for when they ask WotC "to pay for it". Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. 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 our Middle East distributors 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 do what we think is right. Mavra! (Peter D. Adkison, Janitor, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.)

In article <3trlsh$n...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] I'm sorry, James, but why is it all Wizards of the Coast's fault? *You* spent the money on the Jyhad cards. We all know TCGs are risky investments, if that's what you are after, and aparently we've all made a bad investment. Life *will* go on. I spent a lot of money on magic cards from my start before the Antiquities expansion all the way to the Dark, but I traded *all* of my Magic cards away for Jyhad cards. Therefore, *I* fucked up royally, not WoTC. They are a business, and they are there to make money. Nothing else. I am not going to boycott V:tES. The new cards look really awesome, and I'll probably end up spending way too much money on Dark Sovereigns, but that is my choics, which goes right along with *your* choice to spend lots of money on Jyhad. Wizards of the Coast had absolutely nothing in the decision for you to spend your money. That was all up to you. >>cutting off your nose to spite your face. If such a tactic were to be >>successful, then you would end up with the same problem the Eastern Airline >>employees had; they struck themselves out of business. The object of a >>boycot >>is to get a company to change their ways, I don't think this is going to >>happen in this case. For one, the major bitch I am hearing is on the net, >>many where I play are indifferent to the change and looking forward to the >>expansion set > >Well, things aren't that way here. I told all the players in my group about >the >card back change and EVERYONE of them felt shit on. I cannot understand why >I must >bear the financial responsibility for WotC's mistake. I do believe that Well, you have to bear the financial responsibilty of *your* mistake, not WotC's. As I see it, WotC did not make a mistake, they made a business maneuver. How many times have you seen a company take an older product, repackage it, and re-sell it as a new product? This happens in the Comics industry all the time. >losing money >will change WotC's ways. They have officially stated that money was the >primary >reason for the card back change. If this decision becomes unprofitable, >perhaps WotC >will recind this decision. > >>If you feel you must protest and boycott, then, hey, this is America and >that >>is your God given right, and I support your right to protest. But I can't >>support your protest. > >That is your choice. It is my choice also, not to Boycott. [ quoted text not captured ]

aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: >Chris Rhodes <rhodesc@medicine> wrote: >>Okay, would this really matter? You could also take all of your existing >>Brujah and Potence cards and put a small barely discernable mark on the >>same corner and you would also have the same effect. The truth is, in >>Jyhad/VtES it doesn't matter awhole lot to know what your next card is. >Wrong. It matters a lot. The decision at it's most basic level - do I discard >this potentially useful card (via Barrens, or the discard phase) to get >something of more immediate value? A no-brainer if you know what's coming up. No, it doesn't matter at all. You've wasted a potentially useful card. In Jyhad you should be using 99% of your cards in a good deck. The truth is you would be drawing that card within the next 20 seconds anyway. You also can't account for what's in another persons deck, so if you throw away a potentially useful card to get what you know is a Fists of Death, and then I use a strike: combat ends you've wasted you original card that you discarded and your Fist of Death. >At a more common level, do I use this card now for lesser effect, just so I can >draw the next card, or do I hold onto it until it does more good? Again, a >no-brainer if you know what card is coming up. > Alec Again, in this game it just doesn't matter that much to know what's coming because your opponent can always suprise you. That whats great about this game. The loser weanies that try 1,000 ways to cheat, almost always come up short. I've played the game before with people that try to cheat, and the truth is they just don't have much luck. I'd say wait to formulate all these opinions until you see how it's going to work. Unfortunately the decision is made, and all you really have to decide is if you're going to keep supporting it or not. I'd say give it a shot, otherwise we all may lose a great game... chris rho...@medicine.wustl.edu

Tom Wylie reposts: >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. (snip) >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 our Middle East distributors >straight in the eye. Hey, look! The Israeli distributor got promoted to cover the whole Middle East again! I'd find this explaination a lot easier to swallow if the Jews and Muslim's I'd spoken to about this actually thought "Jyhad" was a problem. But they don't. Does your Israeli distributor actually have a problem with "Jyhad" on the back of a card? I've looked long and hard for somebody who genuinely objects to the stuff on the back of a Jyhad card. So far, amongst Jews, Muslims, Christians, and atheists, nobody's objected to "Jyhad". One Christian fundamentalist did say that the interlocking biohazard motif on the back of the cards looked to him like a perversion (and hence mockery) of the number "777", which is a number symbolizing holiness or God in Christion numerology. That, I note, you've chosen to keep. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

On 11 Jul 1995 20:44:18 GMT, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) said: >> This is where we differ. I can't see paying WotC's debits for >> them. They made a mistake and they should be responsible enough to >> pay for it, as opposed to expecting their customers to (see the >> software industry). Tom> I don't think there's a reasonable parallel in the software industry. Tom> If a company were to change the name and such of a program, this wouldn't Tom> have any particular bearing on existing copies of the program, and those Tom> could be used while ignoring the change to the product. Ummm... a close analogy would be changing the document format in word processing package so old document would be either completely unusable or only marginally useful (garbled output etc), and making this change because "somebody noticed that the document header contains three 6's in succession -- I mean, we can't go on distributing satanistic documents, can we." [Mavra's original "we're Doing Good and you just don't understand" message deleted] Oh, I know that the Real Reason of the Month is "Political Correctness", WotC has decided that Israelis would find "Jyhad" offensive and Peter and his girlfriend (wife?) want to feel warm and fuzzy because they were Thinking Globally. Problem being that as a result they offended just about every player around the globe -- but that doesn't matter of course, we must keep the minorities happy, Jyhad won't sell to the K-mart crowd otherwise. Now that WotC has removed Jyhad because of Israel and demons from Magic because of religious nutcases, I wonder what's next? I doubt that there's *anything* that some minority group somewhere won't find offensive. It's a slippery slope. Me, I find Political Correctness offensive, particularly when used to justify crap like this. //Petri

Sigh....how long must this thread go on. For whatever excuse WOTC is giving for the name change, such as religious overtones (which I'm sure there is a small group, there's always small fringe groups), the real reason is that the game, in it's current form, just doesn't sell well, and after the success that MtG was, there was high expectations that never were fulfilled, for Jyhad. Aside from the hard-core gamers of Magic, or gamers in general, no one really knows that Jyhad was a vampire game. I wouldn't have known it just walking into a store and seeing the starter deck box there. And so, faced with the options of stop producing the game, or somehow reconfigure the game to sell better, they did the latter, including making it painstakingly obvious that the game is about vampires. Now, if you are arguing over this fact just because of the name change on the back of the cards could 'mark' decks, well, you can mark your deck currently, only it's little more subtle. Start your deck with all of your card upright. 'Mark' your cards that you want marked by rotating them 180 degrees, so that those read upside down. Shuffle carefully, making sure you don't reverse any cards. When you draw your open hand, note the backs of the cards; since the backs aren't symetriccally (?) rotated, you'll quickly learn if you marked cards have an upside down logo or not, and then you can watch for those cards as they come up. If your opponent rotates his half of cards when he cuts, make a mental note that somewhere in the middle of the deck, the pattern will change. Granted, it's not as easy as vampire/jyhad named backs, but it is a pretty effective way of marking cards, and works well. Works especially well if all your friends are lazy and insist that you must shuffle all the cards and get the murder/weapon/room cards into the confidential file in Clue. Needless to say, they won't let me do that anymore after I explained my 'amazing lucky guesses' on the first turn, and showed them this stupid little card marking trick.

Petri....@hut.fi (Petri Wessman) wrote: >Oh, I know that the Real Reason of the Month is "Political >Correctness", WotC has decided that Israelis would find "Jyhad" >offensive and Peter and his girlfriend (wife?) want to feel warm and >fuzzy because they were Thinking Globally. Problem being that as a >result they offended just about every player around the globe -- but >that doesn't matter of course, we must keep the minorities happy, >Jyhad won't sell to the K-mart crowd otherwise. > >Now that WotC has removed Jyhad because of Israel and demons from >Magic because of religious nutcases, I wonder what's next? I doubt >that there's *anything* that some minority group somewhere won't find >offensive. It's a slippery slope. Me, I find Political Correctness >offensive, particularly when used to justify crap like this. > >//Petri You know, I have been a lurker on this thread for a long time, and I have thought about it from a lot of sides, but I have to say that this is the most poignant argument yet made, especially the last paragraph. I couldn't agree more, Petri. When Magic started out, it was a collegiate hit, and Richard Garfield didn't think the game would go beyond college. He was wrong, of course, and then he gets this great idea that will make him rich beyond anything he had conceived before: mass-marketing. It looks to me that Petri and I are appalled at the reasoning behind this, as well as plenty of you folks out there. I won't boycott the game, because I like the game, not the company; I will still sell the cards and carry the products, not because I like what is going on, but because there is a more practical side to this for me (ie., I need the money). To close, I dislike political correctness as much as Petri, and I don't appreciate that reasoning being used to dick over all of us (formerly) loyal consumers. Lorne

ae...@rgfn.epcc.edu (John C Olsakovsky) writes: >I also think that some of the posters ae taking this name change WAY out of >hand... >Let's fact is WoTC is a BUSINESS, as much as we';d hate them to be. I've no objection. Changing the backs is going to hurt sales, although they don't think so, or at least didn't think so. >When M:TG went mass-market, it pissed me off, so I dumped my small collection. >Now Jyhad/V:TES is doing the same thing. I still don't buy my cards at a >Spencer's or Babbage's at teh mall, so I provide the business to the local >gaming store that's private, as opposed to corporate-owned, but that's my >personal thing. >I find it hard to believe that you people are whining over CARD DESIGN.From >everything I've read (to include some pre-release propoganda from WoTC), the >game play isn't going to change one iota. a) Jyhad is a collectable card game, so concerns with appearance and the collectability of prior cards is perfectly legitimate. b) Mixing card backs creates many issues with cheating and card counting with I much prefer not to have to deal with. I don't have to deal with them now, and I won't have to deal with them with any other game. >The game mechanics of the "basic game" are simply the standard game without >ante, intercepts, maneuvers, additional strikes, presses, torpor, >diablerie, or paralyzing. Yeah. Kind of like a symphony orchestra without strings, woods, or brass. If you want to teach people Jyhad, play from a group deck that just doesn't have a lot of elements from the game. A great starter is a Malkavian sneak-bleed-intercept deck, with no combat. They can learn stealth, bleed, and intercept, without needing to use combat or voting. (a successful intercept just means one blood from each vampire) From there the beginner can play in a game with a Malk S&B deck and learn the rest of the system at his leisure. You can also teach with a rush combat deck; the dynamics of voting and intercept combat decks make them not so good for teaching. >I don't agree 100% with WoTC's PC-ness either, but I can't do a damn thing >to make them do their thing my way. We can do something. Don't support companies that turn their backs on loyal supporters. We all want to be able to do great things, to make major changes all by ourselves. In reality, that's usually not possible. But that's OK. If everybody keeps their little corner clean - in this case by opposing the card backs change - we add up to a substantial force. If V:tES flops badly enough (and there's an excellent chance of that), WotC may come to its senses and switch the card backs back. Alternatively, they may sell the game to somebody else. >Can we carry on and discuss something USEFUL like deck-building strategies, >game-playing ideas, etc? The main pro-boycott writer on THIS thread has been James McClure, who writes a lot of good stuff on exactly those subjects, and has continued to do so as he carries on this argument. >Chew on this: What interesting ideas do you have when the first expansion >comes out and you can play with Ravnos and Giovanni? I can't. I'm not willing to spend the money on product from a company that dumps on customers for supposed marketing advantages. It's too speculative anyway. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Scott Slomiany (mat...@MCS.COM) wrote: : Now, if you are arguing over this fact just because of the name change on : the back of the cards could 'mark' decks, well, you can mark your deck : currently, only it's little more subtle. Start your deck with all of your : card upright. 'Mark' your cards that you want marked by rotating them 180 : degrees, so that those read upside down. Shuffle carefully, making sure : you don't reverse any cards. When you draw your open hand, note the backs : of the cards; since the backs aren't symetriccally (?) rotated, you'll : quickly learn if you marked cards have an upside down logo or not, and : then you can watch for those cards as they come up. If your opponent You're missing the point. Of course you can cheat if you *want* to. But if all my Dark Sovereigns cards say "Vampire", and the rest say "Jyhad", my deck is marked whether or not I want it to be. Brand -- br...@iglou.com Vice Pope of Dogbert's New Ruling Class --------------- The unexamined life is not worth living; the unexamined reality is not worth inhabiting.

In article <3tunr2$8...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >f you reread Peter's letter on this topic (on included below for those who >haven't seen it), changing the card backs was certainly not done to make >more money; we were certainly aware that it could result in losing money. >One can argue that changing the name of the game to V:TES with motivated by >money, but to eliminate all references to Jyhad within the game, even to the >point of changing the card backs? No, that was not done for money. >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 our Middle East distributors >straight in the eye. Wait a minute, wait a minute. This _directly contradicts_ what we were told about the decision when it was first announced. I always suspected they were doing this change for some sort of "PC" reasons, but, when I asked Tom Wylie about this shortly after the decision was made, he specifically denied it, and said the _only_ reason that the card backs were being changed was out of consideration to the new players. Now WOTC has a completely different story. Was Tom Wylie lying to all of us? Or was he just very badly misinformed? I believe WOTC thought that the change would help their sales, and announced it that way, and now that it is finally dawning on them that it won't, they're changing their story to "It's a moral decision and I'll stand by it!" so they won't have to admit they were wrong (and start the print run all over again). >We could lose millions of dollars over this decision. >I don't care. We have to do what we think is right. If this load of bull were really true, then they would want to do the _really_ moral thing and make sure none of their offensive Jyhad cards are out there by offering a trade-in. And since they clearly don't care about how much money they lose, they have no reason not to do this. Using this new reasoning, we don't have to argue anymore about how the cards will affect game play-- what if I travel to the Middle East (as I do on occassion) and someone there is offended by my cards? If they had come clean at the beginning as to their reasons for changing the card backs, I might have been able to support their decision. As it is, I find it difficult to believe this new story. Although its true that I like Jyhad too much to give it up, you can bet that I won't be using supporting any of their future products. EZ

Karl J. Hiller <br...@iglou.iglou.com> wrote: >Scott Slomiany (mat...@MCS.COM) wrote: >: Now, if you are arguing over this fact just because of the name change on >: the back of the cards could 'mark' decks, well, you can mark your deck >: currently, only it's little more subtle. Start your deck with all of your >: card upright. 'Mark' your cards that you want marked by rotating them 180 >: degrees, so that those read upside down. Shuffle carefully, making sure >: you don't reverse any cards. When you draw your open hand, note the backs >: of the cards; since the backs aren't symetriccally (?) rotated, you'll >: quickly learn if you marked cards have an upside down logo or not, and >: then you can watch for those cards as they come up. If your opponent > >You're missing the point. Of course you can cheat if you *want* to. But >if all my Dark Sovereigns cards say "Vampire", and the rest say "Jyhad", >my deck is marked whether or not I want it to be. And card rotation doesn't work - not if you let your opponents cut your decks, like is suggested in the rules. Cut it several times with rotations, and your "clever trick" is totally worthless. [ quoted text not captured ]

EZGoldmann (ezgol...@aol.com) wrote: : In article <3tunr2$8...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R : Wylie) writes: [ quoted text not captured ] : EZ Re:political correctness - in one of the country newspapers in victoria Australia there was a report on one christian group campaigning to have magic banned as it 'promoted the acceptance of witchcraft against the express wishes of god' . Now as WotCo$t is becoming so politically correct i think they should rename magic so as to stay consistant as it is obviously offensive . Yeah RIGHT this is going to happen . Its just a case of Jyhad players get screwed by a company that is becoming increasingly full of it. looking for justice JA Chapman.

jams...@aol.com (JamStuart) writes: >>I completely agree, it is all WotC's fault. > >I'm sorry, James, but why is it all Wizards of the Coast's fault? *You* >spent the money on the Jyhad cards. Anyone who purchased any Jyhad cards prior to March naturally (and with WotC's postitive encouragement) expected any expansions to be printed with the card backs of the same type as what they were buying. >We all know TCGs are risky investments, if that's what you are after, and >aparently we've all made a bad investment. It would be one thing for WotC to decline to print expansions with Jyhad card backs due to having a clear business interest in not doing so (e.g., an expectation that such expansions would lose money). It's quite another to deliberately create a new market for new versions of the same cards by ruining the value of their customers previous investments, whether it's done deliberately or not. You're correct to state that one doesn't buy TCG cards if one expects a stable monetary investment. But risk is one thing. This act, however, crosses the line in that it grossly and unnecessarily neglects the interests of the current owners of WotC's previously produced products. >Well, you have to bear the financial responsibilty of *your* mistake, not >WotC's. As I see it, WotC did not make a mistake, they made a business >maneuver. Let me put it this way - if WotC _does_ consider it a legitimate "business maneuver" to change the prevailing design of the card backs of their TCG cards at any given moment, investing _more_ money in such a game is absolutely the WORST investment could make, IMHO. "Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice,..." Fred [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: : >Let me put it this way - if WotC _does_ consider it a legitimate "business : >maneuver" to change the prevailing design of the card backs of their TCG cards : >at any given moment, investing _more_ money in such a game is absolutely the : >WORST investment could make, IMHO. : Nobody at WotC thinks that running around and making major changes such : as changing all of the card backs is a great idea. However, it was considered : to be necessary in this case, for various reasons that did not occur to : us when initially naming and designing Jyhad. Now that we are aware of those : reasons, we will avoid making the same mistakes on future games (and can : extrapolate to avoid similar mistakes), so there should never again be any : reason to rename a card game midstream, never mind change the card backs. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The only way that WotC is going to rebuild trust is by making some kind of reparation, be it a card exchange program, free packs of V:tES boosters to Jyahd owners so that they can avoid "distinct" decks, free card sleeves with opaque backs, or something similar. If you're willing to take a bit of a loss in order to avoid offending people on the other side of the world who haven't even heard of the game yet, why can't you take a bit of a loss to avoid offending existing customers who are ready to stop giving you money because of this? Brand, wondering if I'm just banging my head against the wall... [ quoted text not captured ]

The short answer is that the name change, and the card back change happened for two reasons: moral reasons, and marketing reasons. The reason any particular person may have heard early in this decision-making process would have depended on which aspect the person they were asking was focusing on. When the potential change first came up, the people I talked to were focusing more on changing the game name for marketing reasons. The moral reasons (which I still think had more impact on changing the card backs than on changing the name in the first place) weren't explained, at least not to me, until later. Both reasons for changing the name and card backs existed all along, but individuals tended to focus more on one reason or another at first. This is part of the reason for the earlier confusion as to whether any, or all, of the card backs would be changing; those who were focusing more on the marketing aspects leaned in favor of not changing the card backs at all, but further discussions with people with other concerns resulted in all of the card backs being changed. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >Let me put it this way - if WotC _does_ consider it a legitimate "business >maneuver" to change the prevailing design of the card backs of their TCG cards >at any given moment, investing _more_ money in such a game is absolutely the >WORST investment could make, IMHO. Nobody at WotC thinks that running around and making major changes such as changing all of the card backs is a great idea. However, it was considered to be necessary in this case, for various reasons that did not occur to us when initially naming and designing Jyhad. Now that we are aware of those reasons, we will avoid making the same mistakes on future games (and can extrapolate to avoid similar mistakes), so there should never again be any reason to rename a card game midstream, never mind change the card backs. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >The short answer is that the name change, and the card back change happened >for two reasons: moral reasons, and marketing reasons. The reason any [snip] >The moral reasons (which I still think had more impact on changing the card >backs than on changing the name in the first place) weren't explained, at >least not to me, until later. Peace Tom, Since moral reasons were the major force behind the card back changes, will WotC be doing the morally right thing and provide for a card exchange? Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > >Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >>Let me put it this way - if WotC _does_ consider it a legitimate "business >>maneuver" to change the prevailing design of the card backs of their TCG >>cards at any given moment, investing _more_ money in such a game is >>absolutely the WORST investment could make, IMHO. > >Nobody at WotC thinks that running around and making major changes such >as changing all of the card backs is a great idea. I didn't think WotC did, of course. But the previous poster suggested it was a "legitimate business maneuver" and I object to that. >However, it was considered to be necessary in this case, for various reasons >that did not occur to us when initially naming and designing Jyhad. Now that >we are aware of those reasons, we will avoid making the same mistakes on >future games (and can extrapolate to avoid similar mistakes), so there should >never again be any reason to rename a card game midstream, never mind change >the card backs. I'm sorry Tom, I simply do not believe it's as easy as that. Political correctness is not a stable thing - what's thought "immoral" by the PC crowd this year was often thought perfectly fine last year. I do not believe WotC has or will ever have the capability to predict what might be considered "offensive" in the future by these sorts of standard because I do not believe anyone can. Thus, I am highly skeptical of your claim. The reason that "Jyhad" was not identified as "offensive" by those who thought to inscribe it on the backs of your trading cards was because they could not conceive of any strong reason it should be. And the reason it came as such a surprise to WotC to discover some folks might consider it offensive was that those "some folks" were simply wrong in this case. Not because any new important information that changed anything came to light. That's what I find so frustrating about political correctness: people don't always question it as critically as they should because they're concerned (often obsessed) with not being perceived as being "insensitive". Fred

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >>Let me put it this way - if WotC _does_ consider it a legitimate "business >>maneuver" to change the prevailing design of the card backs of their TCG cards >>at any given moment, investing _more_ money in such a game is absolutely the >>WORST investment could make, IMHO. > >Nobody at WotC thinks that running around and making major changes such >as changing all of the card backs is a great idea. However, it was considered >to be necessary in this case, for various reasons that did not occur to >us when initially naming and designing Jyhad. Now that we are aware of those >reasons, we will avoid making the same mistakes on future games (and can >extrapolate to avoid similar mistakes), so there should never again be any >reason to rename a card game midstream, never mind change the card backs. Peace Tom, So, if the need to change the name/card backs is WotC's fault, when is the card exchange going to occur? Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > >Nobody at WotC thinks that running around and making major changes such >as changing all of the card backs is a great idea. However, it was considered >to be necessary in this case, for various reasons that did not occur to >us when initially naming and designing Jyhad. Now that we are aware of those >reasons, we will avoid making the same mistakes on future games (and can >extrapolate to avoid similar mistakes), so there should never again be any >reason to rename a card game midstream, never mind change the card backs. > > >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Why don't we just lock the barn after the horse is stolen? That makes just as much sense. In San Diego, Tom, the game is dead. I have to deal with customers in the Bay Area and out of state to get any business selling Jyhad. It has become obvious to me that changing the card backs is only going to hurt your already small customer base. Why are you going out of your way to eliminate the rest of your domestic customers? Is there really that much money to be made in the foreign markets? You are losing valued consumers right and left! Doesn't anyone at WotC realize what kind of money is involved? What is WotC going to do when nobody wants V:TES? I've said before that I will bet that less than 100 starters and 100 boosters will be sold down here in San Diego. You might have better luck with DS, but I sincerely doubt it.... Lorne Richardson Agents of Fortune Enterprises a disillusioned retailer

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >Both reasons for changing the name and card backs existed all along, but >individuals tended to focus more on one reason or another at first. This is >part of the reason for the earlier confusion as to whether any, or all, of >the card backs would be changing; those who were focusing more on the >marketing aspects leaned in favor of not changing the card backs at all, >but further discussions with people with other concerns resulted in all >of the card backs being changed. > > > >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Someone, please tell me that I am not the only one that thinks this argument is incongruous and contradictory. You say, Tom, that "reasons for changing the name and card backs existed all along"? How long is "all along"? Since the beginning? Why the hell didn't you just call it V:TES in the first place, then? Or delay the product until a decision was finalized? This leads to what people call "poor business practices".... Your argument then seems to imply that a change to only some of the card backs would take place. What was your boardroom on when they came up with this one? How exactly would you manage to sell both V:TES and Jyhad cards at the same time? It's statements like yours that make me think some sort of "cover up" is going at WotC because if the consumers realize what is really going on up there, nobody will buy your products anymore and then it's bank- ruptcy city.... [ quoted text not captured ]

>The reason that "Jyhad" was not identified as "offensive" by those who thought >to inscribe it on the backs of your trading cards was because they could not >conceive of any strong reason it should be. I think I can safely say that naming the game "Jyhad" is amazingly embarrassing. Here's a real-life analogy: I recently heard someone using the word "Wetbacks" to describe Mexicans because he'd heard it in the movie Pulp Fiction and thought it was cute. This guy needed to get out more, and so do people at WotC. I asked around among people I know and I couldn't find anyone who didn't know that the Islanic Jyhad had something to do with people in the middle east being pissed off that the Isrealies had stolen their land and kept killing them. When I read in the role-playing game that the war between vampires was called the Jyhad, I thought it was pretty ballsy and almost made sense, since vampires were supposed to have been around since he first few chapters of the Bible. The idea being that the real-life Jyhad was somehow linked to the "real" vampiric Jyhad and us humans had somehow actually gotten the name right. When I heard they were putting the name on a card game, I realized that no one with any say at WotC or White Wolf had read a newspaper in the last 5 years. >And the reason it came as such >a surprise to WotC to discover some folks might consider it offensive was that >those "some folks" were simply wrong in this case. Not because any new >important information that changed anything came to light. It's not offensive, it just makes you look stupid. It's obvious that the people at White Wolf used a thesaurus to come up with game terms and that Jyhad came out as a synomym for war. I'd hazard that it is also dangerous, though. Before a crazed white supremacist was arrested for the Oklahoma bombing, the Islamic Jyhad and terrorists were blamed for it. The Twim Towers bombing? It was those damned A-rab Jyhading She-ites. With people now copy-catting the Unabomber, I would not want to distribute anything with the word "Jyhad" written prominently on it.

In article <reynolds....@shazam.cs.iastate.edu>, reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote: > >The reason that "Jyhad" was not identified as "offensive" by those who thought > >to inscribe it on the backs of your trading cards was because they could not > >conceive of any strong reason it should be. > > I think I can safely say that naming the game "Jyhad" is amazingly > embarrassing. Here's a real-life analogy: I recently heard someone > using the word "Wetbacks" to describe Mexicans because he'd heard it > in the movie Pulp Fiction and thought it was cute. This guy needed to > get out more, and so do people at WotC. **** Maybe there is more than one spelling but I thought the "offensive" term was spelled "Jihad"... ??? [ quoted text not captured ]

pu...@cts.com (Lorne Richardson) wrote: >Someone, please tell me that I am not the only one that thinks this >argument is incongruous and contradictory. You say, Tom, that >"reasons for changing the name and card backs existed all along"? >How long is "all along"? Since the beginning? Why the hell didn't >you just call it V:TES in the first place, then? Or delay the product >until a decision was finalized? This leads to what people call "poor >business practices".... Peace Lorne, Ok, I'm telling you that you are not the only one who thinks WotC is trying to damage control and failing. You aren't the only one who is seeing through their smoke screen. [ quoted text not captured ]

reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote: >>The reason that "Jyhad" was not identified as "offensive" by those who thought >>to inscribe it on the backs of your trading cards was because they could not >>conceive of any strong reason it should be. > > I think I can safely say that naming the game "Jyhad" is amazingly >embarrassing. Here's a real-life analogy: I recently heard someone >using the word "Wetbacks" to describe Mexicans because he'd heard it >in the movie Pulp Fiction and thought it was cute. This guy needed to >get out more, and so do people at WotC. Peace Owen, I'm not embarrassed by the name of the game. It is a WoD-specific game term. That would be like being embarrassed by the term "photon torpedo" because photons are actually light 'packets'. > I asked around among people I know and I couldn't find anyone who >didn't know that the Islanic Jyhad had something to do with people in >the middle east being pissed off that the Isrealies had stolen their >land and kept killing them. This has been covered before, but jihad (the correct spelling for the Islamic term) does NOT mean "holy war" (to Islamics). The West has adopted the term jihad and perverted its original meaning into "holy war." This (taking other languages words and changing their meaning somewhat) is a common practice in the English language. > When I read in the role-playing game that the war between vampires >was called the Jyhad, I thought it was pretty ballsy and almost made sense, >since vampires were supposed to have been around since he first few >chapters of the Bible. The idea being that the real-life Jyhad was >somehow linked to the "real" vampiric Jyhad and us humans had somehow >actually gotten the name right. What "real-life Jyhad?" Jihad has little of nothing to do with the Arab-Israel situation. > When I heard they were putting the name on a card game, I realized >that no one with any say at WotC or White Wolf had read a newspaper in >the last 5 years. Please, explain. Maybe someone at WW did understand the anglicanized version of jihad and chose their game term with great forethought. >>And the reason it came as such >>a surprise to WotC to discover some folks might consider it offensive was that >>those "some folks" were simply wrong in this case. Not because any new >>important information that changed anything came to light. > > It's not offensive, it just makes you look stupid. It's obvious that >the people at White Wolf used a thesaurus to come up with game terms and >that Jyhad came out as a synomym for war. It is obvious to me that the game designer for VtM was well read/educated and coined the term "Jyhad" for a good reason, not some open-the-dictionary-and-pick- the-first-word-you-see. > I'd hazard that it is also dangerous, though. Before a crazed white >supremacist was arrested for the Oklahoma bombing, the Islamic Jyhad and >terrorists were blamed for it. The Twim Towers bombing? It was those >damned A-rab Jyhading She-ites. With people now copy-catting the Unabomber, >I would not want to distribute anything with the word "Jyhad" written >prominently on it. So, we should all self-censor anything that could possibly be offensive or controversial? Last time I checked, the First Amendment was still intact (Thank God!) and offensive/controversial speech was still a right. The fact that some people are shallow-minded and quickly jump to foolish conclusions should not lead to a deterioration of the freedom of speech. What does the Unabomber have to do with Islamic terrorists or religious stuggles? [ quoted text not captured ]

reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) writes: (I wrote:) >>The reason that "Jyhad" was not identified as "offensive" by those who >>thought to inscribe it on the backs of your trading cards was because they >>could not conceive of any strong reason it should be. > > I think I can safely say that naming the game "Jyhad" is amazingly >embarrassing. Depends on what you mean by "safely", I suppose. If you wish to be embarrassed by it, that's your problem - no one else's. >Here's a real-life analogy: I recently heard someone using the word "Wetbacks" >to describe Mexicans because he'd heard it in the movie Pulp Fiction and >thought it was cute. This guy needed to get out more, and so do people at >WotC. And what has this to do with the word, "Jyhad", which is a loose (misspelled) reference to "jihad", a word which is correctly defined in the English (note: I _do_ mean English - it's meaning in Arabic or other languages are irrelevant here) as "holy war"? Seems a totally reasonable usage to me. You, sir, are a prime example of my problems with the social phenomenon of political correctness. You don't seem to have a particularly logical standard of what should be considered "offensive" to a person or group - at least not one that you're willing to advance and defend - yet you thoughtlessly pass judgement on the behavior of others and even go so far as to seem astounded by it. > When I read in the role-playing game that the war between vampires >was called the Jyhad, I thought it was pretty ballsy and almost made sense, >since vampires were supposed to have been around since he first few >chapters of the Bible. The idea being that the real-life Jyhad was >somehow linked to the "real" vampiric Jyhad and us humans had somehow >actually gotten the name right. > When I heard they were putting the name on a card game, I realized >that no one with any say at WotC or White Wolf had read a newspaper in >the last 5 years. I can't fathom what you're talking about. The simplest definition of "jihad" has nothing to do with Islam. It's true that its roots came from that source but in language, definitions necessarily take on a life of their own at a certain point. I assert that that has happened in the case of "jihad". The White Wolf folks read newspapers. It's just that nothing in the world of current events affects this. > It's not offensive, it just makes you look stupid. It's obvious that >the people at White Wolf used a thesaurus to come up with game terms and >that Jyhad came out as a synomym for war. Of course they did - that's what it means. That's what language is - symbols which suggest meaning to other people. And using them correctly is not an offensive thing. The only communications that I would allow were "offensive" are thoughts and ideas which are _themselves_ offensive and get communicated _through_ words. Had WotC or White Wolf created a game which implied Muslims or Arabs were warlike and fanatical, _that_ would be offensive. Jyhad does not. Fred

>> I think I can safely say that naming the game "Jyhad" is amazingly >>embarrassing. >I'm not embarrassed by the name of the game. It is a WoD-specific game term. That's exactly the point -- it's NOT a WotC specific term. Just ask the first 10 people you see what Geehad means and most if not all with say it has something to do with religious middle-eastern guys. >That would be like being embarrassed by the term "photon torpedo" because >photons are actually light 'packets'. Well, no. Dilithium Crystals are a better example. Lithium is that stuff you drink to clean out your system, and it normally hangs out in pairs, I believe, making dilithium pretty trivial stuff, crystals or no. It was supposed to be a scientific-sounding term with no connection to anything anyone may have ever heard of before. >This has been covered before, but jihad >(the correct spelling for the Islamic term) It's actually an arabic word, so there probably is no correct spelling. Do you remember when everyone decided "Gaddafi" was "more correct" than "Kaddafi" for the guy running Lybia? At any rate, the spelling is unimportant, since almost everyone has _heard_ about the Islamic Ji/yhad on the news and news shows and "Jyhad" is obviously that word. >does NOT mean "holy war" (to Islamics). It sort of does. I've heard that your jihad is your personal duty to protect/spread the faith, and that may involve the killing of unbelievers, much like it did to the Christians. So, a jyhad can be a holy war. The important fact, though, is that to many, many Westerners and people who will see this card game, Jyhad does mean a group of people involved in a holy war. >What "real-life Jyhad?" Jihad has little of nothing to do with the >Arab-Israel situation. I'm afraid I've already accused you of living in a closet, than, so doing it again won't hurt :-) "Everyone" knows that "The Islamic Jyhad" (and they won't quibble over the spelling) are those terrorist guys who kidnap Americans and blow things up. Again, ask 10 poeple what they think about when they hear the word "Jee-hadd." >> It's not offensive, it just makes you look stupid. It's obvious that >>the people at White Wolf used a thesaurus to come up with game terms and >>that Jyhad came out as a synomym for war. >It is obvious to me that the game designer for VtM was well read/educated and >coined the term "Jyhad" for a good reason, >not some open-the-dictionary-and-pick-the-first-word-you-see. "Celerity" is one reason I think they used a Thesaurus. It means speed, alright, but it's connotation is a social/business action, rather than a physical one. >> I'd hazard that it is also dangerous, though. Before a crazed white >>supremacist was arrested for the Oklahoma bombing, the Islamic Jyhad and >>terrorists were blamed for it. The Twim Towers bombing? It was those >>damned A-rab Jyhading She-ites. With people now copy-catting the Unabomber, >>I would not want to distribute anything with the word "Jyhad" written >>prominently on it. >So, we should all self-censor anything that could possibly be offensive or >controversial? Yes. You should keep to yourself the fact that the half-dozen Mexicans over there are a bunch of lazy taco-eating wetbacks. There's a line to be drawn, for sure, but I'd draw that line somewhere before prominently displaying the single word most associated with "the enemy" by a group known to explode buildings owned by people who piss them off. Like WotC keeps saying, they're a real business now and have responsibilities. >What does the Unabomber have >to do with Islamic terrorists or religious stuggles? Any perceived association with Islam and terrorists is going to draw some attention from right-wing paramilitary groups. In the mind of many Americans, any word sounding like Jyhad is linked to Islam and terrorists. I can in part sympathize with these people, having read plans for Iowa to declare martial law if the governor declares a "drug emercency," but we already know these people blows things up they don't like. Mailbombs are becoming "trendy" now, thanks to the Unabomber. That's the connection, and I wouldn't want to play with it, esp. when I thought Jyhad was just a cute made-up word at first.

> The reason that "Jyhad" was not identified as "offensive" by those who thought > to inscribe it on the backs of your trading cards was because they could not > conceive of any strong reason it should be. And the reason it came as such > a surprise to WotC to discover some folks might consider it offensive was that > those "some folks" were simply wrong in this case. Not because any new > important information that changed anything came to light. That's what I find > so frustrating about political correctness: people don't always question it > as critically as they should because they're concerned (often obsessed) with > not being perceived as being "insensitive". > Fred In my opinion are the worst people those who battle something not because of themselves, but because they THINK some others may take offense. Most of the time, these others don't care a bit. I think this is a situation like that. Let the people who take offense against the word Jyhad speak out. Never heard such a response on the net (not even anonymously). I think some people at WotC THINK some people may take offense. Bwah... not enough reason to slaughter the best CCG for, I think. -- Johan Meijdam jo...@pa.twi.tudelft.nl

pu...@cts.com (Lorne Richardson) wrote: > > aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > >Both reasons for changing the name and card backs existed all along, but > >individuals tended to focus more on one reason or another at first. This is > >part of the reason for the earlier confusion as to whether any, or all, of > >the card backs would be changing; those who were focusing more on the > >marketing aspects leaned in favor of not changing the card backs at all, > >but further discussions with people with other concerns resulted in all > >of the card backs being changed. > > > > > > > >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for > >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. I'm getting in on this one a bit late, but I'd like to relate an absolutely amazing discussion I had with the WOTC people at Origins. When Peter Atkinson and his sales (or marketing?) director came by our booth to talk to a friend there, I cornered them (point blank) on this card back change. Peter was rather dumbfounded and apparently decided to let the mouthpiece take over. Her response was: "Jeff Harris (aparently a playtester/designer) tried to cheat as best he could and couldn't do it, so it's really a non-factor." I told her not to insult my intelligence and that I wasn't going to give up until I heard how knowing that my next card is a Majesty (or some other game saving card) couldn't help me in any way. Her response was: "I would suggest you talk to Jeff Harris about it, he knows more than me." They both then walked away. Unfortunately, I was unable to catch up to the suggested person, so I didn't get the enjoyment of hearing his excuse. The bottom line is that when someone goes to WOTC and complains, they just respond with "it's not a problem" rather than answering the question. Then again, since they have no answer, this is probably the best thing they can say. Cliff

The card-back change speculation isn't going away, and I'm truely curious about what happened, so I'll keep responding: >> I think I can safely say that naming the game "Jyhad" is amazingly >>embarrassing. >If you wish to be >embarrassed by it, that's your problem - no one else's. I'm not embarassed -- I'm not the one who misused a common word so that people think a game about vampires is actually about car-bombs. Here are some more examples to show exactly what I'm talking about: you describe a drug used by assassins called "hish-hash." A large number of people know that it's a reasonably common drug and is pronounced "hasheesh." You describe leaping over a "cha-sim." Most people know it's pronounced "kasim." Trying to pick an obscure, partially made-up word and not realizing that most people know that word as something else already is embarassing because it makes you look stupid. >......jihad", a word which is correctly defined in the English (note: >I _do_ mean English - it's meaning in Arabic or other languages are irrelevant >here) as "holy war"? Seems a totally reasonable usage to me. This is exactly what I think White Wolf was thinking. "Holy War," cool. Good thing they didn't look up Holocaust and find out it just means killing a lot of people of we'd have a game called "The Holocaust." I guess you don't know why that would be kind of a bad name for the Jyhad CCG as well? >You, sir, are a >prime example of my problems with the social phenomenon of political >correctness. You don't seem to have a particularly logical standard of what >should be considered "offensive" to a person or group - at least not one that >you're willing to advance and defend - yet you thoughtlessly pass judgement on >the behavior of others and even go so far as to seem astounded by it. You took 6 lines to insult SOMEONE ELSE since I never mentioned anyone being offended. I think you're a self-righteous knee-jerking wanker. See-- one line. Here's what _I_ said: o I don't see how the word "Jyhad" can offend any reasonable individual. o I think that WotC is embarrassed that their "obscure" word Jyhad is actually in current use and that they didn't realize it, and that it associates their game with the wrong thing. o I see a slight amount of danger in using a word associated with terrorists when paramilitary groups and the FBI (I'm talking about Steve Jackson games, here) are known to be a little fast on the draw. A _slight_ amount of danger. >> When I heard they were putting the name on a card game, I realized >>that no one with any say at WotC or White Wolf had read a newspaper in >>the last 5 years. >I can't fathom what you're talking about. The simplest definition of "jihad" >has nothing to do with Islam. It's true that its roots came from that source >but in language, definitions necessarily take on a life of their own at a >certain point. I assert that that has happened in the case of "jihad". The >White Wolf folks read newspapers. It's just that nothing in the world of >current events affects this. The Irish do not have a jihad against the brits, the peasants in Chiapas are not engaged in a jihad for land rights, the Serbs are not jihading against the Bosnian Muslims. The only time you will ever hear the word 'jihad' in conversation or the news is when someone is talking about the middle east, Palestine and so forth. Jihad is not a synonym for 'war,' like 'conflict' is, for example. It has more meaning than that.

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >This has been covered before, but jihad (the correct spelling for the Islamic >term) does NOT mean "holy war" (to Islamics). The West has adopted the term >jihad and perverted its original meaning into "holy war." This (taking other >languages words and changing their meaning somewhat) is a common practice in >the English language. I am not an expert in liguistics but I would be somewhat shocked if this practice were not common for any language. English is no particular exception. Fred

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >pu...@cts.com (Lorne Richardson) wrote: >>Someone, please tell me that I am not the only one that thinks this >>argument is incongruous and contradictory. You say, Tom, that >>"reasons for changing the name and card backs existed all along"? >>How long is "all along"? Since the beginning? Why the hell didn't >>you just call it V:TES in the first place, then? Or delay the product >>until a decision was finalized? This leads to what people call "poor >>business practices".... > >Peace Lorne, > >Ok, I'm telling you that you are not the only one who thinks WotC is trying to damage >control and failing. You aren't the only one who is seeing through their smoke screen. > > > Nil carborundum illigitimi, > > James R. McClure Jr. > The OS/2 Apostle > ><insert disclaimer here> Howdy James... Their smoke isn't enough to classify as a wisp, let alone a screen. I mean, what Tom is saying is ridiculous! First, it's political correctness and morality, and now he says that they thought about changing the name all along. I make my living selling this stuff, and I _don't_ appreciate having my inventory devalued by someone else's poor business practices, let alone the immense fun I get out of playing the game! Even Intel came clean with the Pentium flaw, albeit after a goodly amount of time, but they didn't come up with some lame story and then change it later. And Intel knew that if they didn't do something about the flaw, and they decided on a _chip replacement plan_. So, if WotC wants to damage control, then maybe they should take a page from the Intel playbook and offer a _card replacement plan_. Are you listening, Tom? What does the boardroom have to say about this? (I know that's what you've been suggesting all along, James, and that is just the best damn solution that I've heard to this whole thing. It's not perfect, for other reasons that I won't state here on this post, but it's damn near, and probably as close as we're likely to get.) [ quoted text not captured ]

reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote: >>> I think I can safely say that naming the game "Jyhad" is amazingly >>>embarrassing. > >>I'm not embarrassed by the name of the game. It is a WoD-specific game term. > > That's exactly the point -- it's NOT a WotC specific term. Just ask >the first 10 people you see what Geehad means and most if not all with >say it has something to do with religious middle-eastern guys. Peace Owen, So, you are saying that since most Americans are underinformed about the true world situation and quick to judge things they don't understand that I should be embarrased about a game term? >>That would be like being embarrassed by the term "photon torpedo" because >>photons are actually light 'packets'. > > Well, no. Dilithium Crystals are a better example. Lithium is that >stuff you drink to clean out your system, and it normally hangs out in >pairs, I believe, making dilithium pretty trivial stuff, crystals or no. > It was supposed to be a scientific-sounding term with no connection >to anything anyone may have ever heard of before. Correct and "Jyhad" is a term also. >>This has been covered before, but jihad >>(the correct spelling for the Islamic term) > > It's actually an arabic word, so there probably is no correct spelling. >Do you remember when everyone decided "Gaddafi" was "more correct" than >"Kaddafi" for the guy running Lybia? At any rate, the spelling is >unimportant, since almost everyone has _heard_ about the Islamic Ji/yhad >on the news and news shows and "Jyhad" is obviously that word. No, "Jyhad" /= "jihad" anymore than "two" = "too." "Jyhad" and "jihad" are homophones [not to be confused by the politically correct crowd for homophobe], words that sound alike but have different spellings and meanings. >>does NOT mean "holy war" (to Islamics). > > It sort of does. I've heard that your jihad is your personal duty to >protect/spread the faith, and that may involve the killing of unbelievers, >much like it did to the Christians. So, a jyhad can be a holy war. No, that is the anglicanization of the meaning of jihad. > The important fact, though, is that to many, many Westerners and >people who will see this card game, Jyhad does mean a group of people >involved in a holy war. So, since most people see D&Ders as college nerds who run around in sewers or devil worshipers, does that make me either? Ignorance /= truth. >>What "real-life Jyhad?" Jihad has little of nothing to do with the >>Arab-Israel situation. > > I'm afraid I've already accused you of living in a closet, than, >so doing it again won't hurt :-) "Everyone" knows that "The Islamic >Jyhad" (and they won't quibble over the spelling) are those terrorist >guys who kidnap Americans and blow things up. > Again, ask 10 poeple what they think about when they hear the word >"Jee-hadd." "Everyone knows", the classic beginning of a strawman argument. So since the Michigan Militia is a bunch of nuts running around playing Army and possibly plotting against the US government, does that mean all militias are threats to the US government? Ask 10 people what they think of the NRA or NEA or Michigan Militia, does their misconception of that organization make it true? >>> It's not offensive, it just makes you look stupid. It's obvious that >>>the people at White Wolf used a thesaurus to come up with game terms and >>>that Jyhad came out as a synomym for war. > >>It is obvious to me that the game designer for VtM was well read/educated and >>coined the term "Jyhad" for a good reason, >>not some open-the-dictionary-and-pick-the-first-word-you-see. > > "Celerity" is one reason I think they used a Thesaurus. It means >speed, alright, but it's connotation is a social/business action, >rather than a physical one. I recongnized "celerity", "obfuscate", "potence", and "protean" the first time I saw them. Maybe I'm just much better read than the average American. FWIW, my Webster's New Riverside dictionary defines "celerity" as, "Speed: swiftness <moved with celerity>". >>> I'd hazard that it is also dangerous, though. Before a crazed white >>>supremacist was arrested for the Oklahoma bombing, the Islamic Jyhad and >>>terrorists were blamed for it. The Twim Towers bombing? It was those >>>damned A-rab Jyhading She-ites. With people now copy-catting the Unabomber, >>>I would not want to distribute anything with the word "Jyhad" written >>>prominently on it. > >>So, we should all self-censor anything that could possibly be offensive or >>controversial? > > Yes. You should keep to yourself the fact that the half-dozen Mexicans >over there are a bunch of lazy taco-eating wetbacks. Gee, now I'm a racist. Your crystal ball is cracked, Owen, and such PC- attitudes are contrary to the fundamental freedoms insured by our Constitution. [see the First Amendment for more information] > There's a line to be drawn, for sure, but I'd draw that line >somewhere before prominently displaying the single word most associated >with "the enemy" by a group known to explode buildings owned by people >who piss them off. Like WotC keeps saying, they're a real business now >and have responsibilities. No, there are lines to be erased and walls to be torn down. Closing off opinions that "we" feel are "evil"/"wrong" just allows them to fester and grow. Only exposing ALL ideas to the open forum of public debate and eliminate such mental dross from our society. Free speech is a necessary tool toward eliminating ignorance and prejudice. >>What does the Unabomber have >>to do with Islamic terrorists or religious stuggles? > > Any perceived association with Islam and terrorists is going to draw >some attention from right-wing paramilitary groups. In the mind of many >Americans, any word sounding like Jyhad is linked to Islam and terrorists. >I can in part sympathize with these people, having read plans for Iowa >to declare martial law if the governor declares a "drug emercency," but >we already know these people blows things up they don't like. > Mailbombs are becoming "trendy" now, thanks to the Unabomber. That's >the connection, and I wouldn't want to play with it, esp. when I thought >Jyhad was just a cute made-up word at first. So, since Jesus Christ hung around with whores and loan sharks, did that make him an "evil person?" Guilt by association is also contrary to the fundamental freedoms that the Founding Fathers established and millions of patriots have died to preserve. In the mind of many Americans, Wheel of Fortune is entertainment [cynicism alert]. What is a "drug emergency" and why would Iowa need to declare martial law for? Sounds like the govern- ment is overreacting again. So now a card game based on an RPG about imaginary monsters (Vampires) causes people to send explosives through the mail. Well, at least I got a laugh out of all this. A sadly ironic laugh, but I enjoy black humor [another non-PC term], so it was a hearty laugh. Protecting the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, James R. McClure Jr. New Jeffersonian <insert disclaimer here>

fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >>This has been covered before, but jihad (the correct spelling for the Islamic >>term) does NOT mean "holy war" (to Islamics). The West has adopted the term >>jihad and perverted its original meaning into "holy war." This (taking other >>languages words and changing their meaning somewhat) is a common practice in >>the English language. > >I am not an expert in liguistics but I would be somewhat shocked if this >practice were not common for any language. English is no particular exception. Peace Frederick, Neither am I, but English is well known for giving new meanings to words from other languages and using them a new English words. Yes, other languages adopt words from languages, but they don't change the meanings in the way that English does, IME. [ quoted text not captured ]

Lorne Richardson <pu...@cts.com> wrote: >>Both reasons for changing the name and card backs existed all along... >Someone, please tell me that I am not the only one that thinks this >argument is incongruous and contradictory. You say, Tom, that >"reasons for changing the name and card backs existed all along"? >How long is "all along"? Since the beginning?... "all along" means "since the subject of changing the name, and maybe card backs, was first broached". >you just call it V:TES in the first place, then?... In retrospect, Jyhad was a bad choice for the game's name. But it seemed fine at the time, both to us and to White Wolf. >Your argument then seems to imply that a change to only some of >the card backs would take place. What was your boardroom on >when they came up with this one?... The issue raged back and forth for quite a while, as new arguments were brought up, new input came in from the field, etc. Different answers were discussed publicly before the final decision was made, because we were trying to keep people aware of what was going on. Given that the idea of having mixed card backs (one for the library and one for the crypt) in the V:TES product was brought up by customers as well as people in house, I don't think it's fair to slam "the boardroom" for considering that option. Not that any of the decisions were made in the boardroom (I don't think we even *have* a boardroom...); the decisions were made by the product team. [ quoted text not captured ]

Cliff Yahnke <yah...@qmgate.anl.gov> wrote: >They both then walked away. Unfortunately, I was unable to catch up >to the suggested person, so I didn't get the enjoyment of hearing his >excuse. The bottom line is that when someone goes to WOTC and >complains, they just respond with "it's not a problem" rather than >answering the question. Then again, since they have no answer, this >is probably the best thing they can say. You're right, not everybody at the company knows the answer to every question. Marketing doesn't know everything R&D does, CST doesn't know everything production does, ops doesn't know everything editing does, and so on. And since we've had considereable problems in the past with people answering questions when they really didn't know the answer, because they felt (as you apparently do) that the customer deserved an answer, most people here are being more careful about forwarding questions to someone who can properly answer them. In the long run, it's more damaging for someone in production to give an incorrect answer to a rules question than for the customer to be passed on to CST, for example. In this case, the people you were talking to responded with the best information they had from the people in the company who spend the most time on Jyhad/V:TES, and that answer is that card marking just isn't a significant answer in game play. You may not agree with that answer, but that's the best answer someone in the company who is not directly invovled with the game can give you. Since you wanted further details, they did exactly the right thing by passing you on to someone familiar with the details, rather than making them up or hoping that they remembered them correctly. I'm sorry that you weren't able to find Jeff later in the convention, but it's not always possible to find the people you want. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew <hou...@imssys.com> wrote: >**** Maybe there is more than one spelling but I thought the "offensive" >term was spelled "Jihad"... ??? People are just as likely to assume that "Jyhad" is used to "hide" the fact that Jihad is being referred to as they are to assume that it's something completely unrelated. In fact, the first reading is probably more likely for someone bombarded with cutsey product names like "QuikLube", or "PizzaTyme". [ quoted text not captured ]

pu...@cts.com (Lorne Richardson) wrote: >Howdy James... Peace Lorne, Don't be offended, but I've got to say this: am I the only one who saw Minnie Pearl when I read that? Too much TV, I guess. >Their smoke isn't enough to classify as a wisp, let alone a screen. I agree. One would think that with WotC being so close to Smoke & Mirrors HQ, aka Redmond, Washington, they'd be better at it. >replacement plan_. So, if WotC wants to damage control, then maybe they should >take a page from the Intel playbook and offer a _card replacement plan_. Are you >listening, Tom? What does the boardroom have to say about this? > >(I know that's what you've been suggesting all along, James, and that is just the >best damn solution that I've heard to this whole thing. It's not perfect, for other >reasons that I won't state here on this post, but it's damn near, and probably as >close as we're likely to get.) Thanks for the support on the card trade in, Lorne. I believe that WotC is concerned about the possibility of HUGE numbers of Jyhad cards flying in. There were significantly more of them produced than either Antiquities or Legends (WotC did card trades/replacements for both of those). I have been told that in both of the above cases the number of cards send in was a fraction of one percent of the printrun. I expect it would be similar w/ Jyhad. WotC should fully accept responsibility for THEIR mistake and "do the right (moral) thing." A card trade-in is Jyhad's/VtES's only hope for (un)life. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > You're right, not everybody at the company knows the answer to every > question. Marketing doesn't know everything R&D does, CST doesn't know > everything production does, ops doesn't know everything editing does, and > so on. And since we've had considereable problems in the past with people > answering questions when they really didn't know the answer, because they > felt (as you apparently do) that the customer deserved an answer, most > people here are being more careful about forwarding questions to someone > who can properly answer them. In the long run, it's more damaging for > someone in production to give an incorrect answer to a rules question than > for the customer to be passed on to CST, for example. > > > In this case, the people you were talking to responded with the best > information they had from the people in the company who spend the most > time on Jyhad/V:TES, and that answer is that card marking just isn't > a significant answer in game play. You may not agree with that answer, > but that's the best answer someone in the company who is not directly > invovled with the game can give you. Since you wanted further details, > they did exactly the right thing by passing you on to someone familiar with > the details, rather than making them up or hoping that they remembered them > correctly. I'm sorry that you weren't able to find Jeff later in the > convention, but it's not always possible to find the people you want. > Sorry Tom, but that excuse doesn't fly with me. People in marketing have to sell your game to distributors and stores, so they be aware of the fact that the card backs are changing and why (or why not) it will affect the players. I certainly don't expect this person to know that you can't play The Second Tradition: Domain on an untapped Vampire, but when you guys arbitrarily make a HUGE change like this EVERYONE in marketing had better know the details, period. I don't mean to make this message sound personal towards you because you've always answered my questions in a friendly manner. Unfortunately, you have to defend WOTC's position on such a controversial issue. Cliff

> I'm afraid I've already accused you of living in a closet, than, > so doing it again won't hurt :-) "Everyone" knows that "The Islamic > Jyhad" (and they won't quibble over the spelling) are those terrorist > guys who kidnap Americans and blow things up. > Again, ask 10 poeple what they think about when they hear the word > "Jee-hadd." I live in a fairly rural area, but the majority of neighbors play the card game or have a family member/close friend who does. > Yes. You should keep to yourself the fact that the half-dozen Mexicans > over there are a bunch of lazy taco-eating wetbacks. I could take this out of context, but I won't ;) > Any perceived association with Islam and terrorists is going to draw > some attention from right-wing paramilitary groups. In the mind of many > Americans, any word sounding like Jyhad is linked to Islam and terrorists. > I can in part sympathize with these people, having read plans for Iowa > to declare martial law if the governor declares a "drug emercency," but > we already know these people blows things up they don't like. Fine, I'll let the right-wing paramilitary groups buy some cards. Tell them to get a starter, a couple of boosters, and we'll get together for a game or two. > Mailbombs are becoming "trendy" now, thanks to the Unabomber. That's > the connection, and I wouldn't want to play with it, esp. when I thought > Jyhad was just a cute made-up word at first. Then when the right-wing paramilitary groups find out what the cards really mean, maybe they'll start "booster bombing" so that they can actually get some use out of the cards. Vissarion Prince of Mortuary, New Mexico (oops. I mean Moriarty...)

"Daniel R. Hust" <drh...@tesuque.cs.sandia.gov> wrote: >Also, it just crossed my mind (got that one from the Thesaurus: occur to). >I was looking at all of my Magic cards and saw that all of the boosters >have unique wrapping. Why didn't WotC create new card backs for the >Fallen Empires expansion? The Dark? Arabian Nights (BTW, this expansion >has a card titled "Jihad")? Would Magic have been as popular if WotC >made every release incompatible with the releases before it? Peace Daniel, This point has been made (and ignored by WotC) before. >Why can't WotC distribute the V:TES cards in V:TES wrapping, label it as >a Jyhad expansion, and still have the card backs Jyhad? This practice >hasn't hurt Magic, it would attract new buyers by proudly displaying >"Vampire," and you wouldn't hurt old sales by making the cards >incompatible. Has anyone suggested this? Yes, I suggested immediately after the backstab. Tom said it would look stupid for the packs to say one thing and the cards another. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Peace Owen, James, you probably haven't been on the internet for very long, since you still can't resist the urge to flame someone without actually reading what they wrote. Once you've been around for a while, James, you'll realize that responding to someone by name is frowned upon. >So, you are saying that since most Americans are underinformed about the true >world situation and quick to judge things they don't understand that I should >be embarrased about a game term? No, I'm saying that you are less informed than most Americans, since they all know that the Islamic Jihad is a currently operating group in the middle east and you do not. I'm saying that you should be embarrassed to broadcast your ignorance. >>>This has been covered before, but jihad >>>(the correct spelling for the Islamic term) >> >> It's actually an arabic word, so there probably is no correct spelling. >No, "Jyhad" /= "jihad" anymore than "two" = "too." "Jyhad" and "jihad" are >homophones [not to be confused by the politically correct crowd for homophobe], >words that sound alike but have different spellings and meanings. If they were both words, James, I'd agree, but Jyhad isn't a word. Tom makes a very good point that with the existance of KwikShops and things, it's instinctive to think that Jyhad is merely a cutesy spelling for jihad. > "Everyone" knows that "The Islamic >>Jyhad" (and they won't quibble over the spelling) are those terrorist >>guys who kidnap Americans and blow things up. >"Everyone knows", the classic beginning of a strawman argument. A strawman argument is when you restate the other person's argument so as to make it look bad and then argue against that and ignore what a "real" opponent might say. It's called a strawman since you are building a strawman to argue against. You, James, are the one engaging in a strawman argument. What I'm actually saying is that I think WotC is changing the name from Jyhad because they realized it was already a pretty well-known word having nothing to do with their product. The strawman you are building is that I am a member of some imaginary "politically correct social movement" and find the word Jyhad offensive. Back to the "everyone knows," you seem to be granting me the point that most people do associate "jihad" with terrorists. That's exactly my point -- not that the Infitada(sp?) is composed of anyone especially "terrorist" or not. >So since >the Michigan Militia is a bunch of nuts running around playing Army and >possibly plotting against the US government, does that mean all militias >are threats to the US government? Ask 10 people what they think of the >NRA or NEA or Michigan Militia, does their misconception of that organization >make it true? But would you run for public office and boldly state that you were endorsed by the Michigan Militia and had been playing AD&D for 10 years? It's not a case of you censoring any "ideas" you had. Now suppose you had formed your own political party and had decided to call yourself the Knot-Z's. You aren't doing all that well and someone informs you that some party in Europe had a name that sounded like that, and a lot of Americans didn't like it. Do you insist that Nazi doesn't and shouldn't have a negative meaning? Do you protest that Knot-Z is nothing like Nazi? Do you staunchly stand by your first amendment rights and stick with the Knot-Z name in the light of this Nazi party you just heard about? This is similar to WotC's situation. As a disclaimer, I'm not drawing a parrallel between actual Nazis and the Islamic Jihad, but between the negative connotations each word currently has. >such PC- >attitudes are contrary to the fundamental freedoms insured by our Constitution. >[see the First Amendment for more information] This really has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Of course WotC has the _right_ to say whatever they want about Muslims, jihads and so on But, James, they don't want to say anything about it at all. They have no wish for their game to be associated with the middle east. In fact, they'd be tickled if it were associated with vampires. >> There's a line to be drawn, for sure, >No, there are lines to be erased and walls to be torn down. Closing off >opinions that "we" feel are "evil"/"wrong" just allows them to fester and >grow. This illustrates the absurdity of what you are writing. What opinions? Tell me, James, what opinions am I asking WotC, or anyone else, to restrain from stating? The line to be drawn here is "how bad does a bad choice have to be before we just change the card backs?"

On 23 Jul 1995, Owen Reynolds wrote: > >The reason that "Jyhad" was not identified as "offensive" by those who thought > >to inscribe it on the backs of your trading cards was because they could not > >conceive of any strong reason it should be. > > I think I can safely say that naming the game "Jyhad" is amazingly > embarrassing. Here's a real-life analogy: I recently heard someone > using the word "Wetbacks" to describe Mexicans because he'd heard it > in the movie Pulp Fiction and thought it was cute. This guy needed to > get out more, and so do people at WotC. Safely? I just thought that I should point out that there is not a word in my dictionary called "Jyhad", and that the "Muslim holy war" is "Jihad." If the dictionary is wrong, please correct me. Until then, I will stand by my belief that the word "Jyhad" and the word "Jihad" are homophones (two or more words pronouned alike but different in meaning or derivation or spelling). > I asked around among people I know and I couldn't find anyone who > didn't know that the Islanic Jyhad had something to do with people in > the middle east being pissed off that the Isrealies had stolen their > land and kept killing them. Islamic Jyhad? Is that where both Methusleahs have to be Islamic to play? If so, then "people" should be replaced with "vampires", and Isrealites should be replaced with "other vampires." > When I read in the role-playing game that the war between vampires > was called the Jyhad, I thought it was pretty ballsy and almost made sense, > since vampires were supposed to have been around since he first few > chapters of the Bible. The idea being that the real-life Jyhad was > somehow linked to the "real" vampiric Jyhad and us humans had somehow > actually gotten the name right. Perhaps the game used a twisted form of the word jihad on purpose (Jyhad IS a twisted holy war, right? ;). This does not mean that the meanings are exactly the same. > When I heard they were putting the name on a card game, I realized > that no one with any say at WotC or White Wolf had read a newspaper in > the last 5 years. Maybe they had read every paper for the last five years and thought that "Jyhad" was safe because all of the papers talked about "Jihad." > It's not offensive, it just makes you look stupid. It's obvious that > the people at White Wolf used a thesaurus to come up with game terms and > that Jyhad came out as a synomym for war. My thesaurus didn't have jihad, Jyhad, or either of these words under the entry "war." It proudly boasts that it as 30,000 entries and 300,000 references. > I'd hazard that it is also dangerous, though. Before a crazed white > supremacist was arrested for the Oklahoma bombing, the Islamic Jyhad and > terrorists were blamed for it. The Twim Towers bombing? It was those > damned A-rab Jyhading She-ites. With people now copy-catting the Unabomber, > I would not want to distribute anything with the word "Jyhad" written > prominently on it. What? You mean it was some vampire who blew up the Twin Towers? Bomb. Weapon. Bearer may take a D action to burn a location. Was this the card they used? What exactly is the text on "Twin Towers" - I don't seem to have this card. I assume it is a unique location... Which vampire did it - a Brujah spreading anarchy? A Gangrel trying to reclaim the forest lands? Just some crazy Malkavian? It's just a game. Also, it just crossed my mind (got that one from the Thesaurus: occur to). I was looking at all of my Magic cards and saw that all of the boosters have unique wrapping. Why didn't WotC create new card backs for the Fallen Empires expansion? The Dark? Arabian Nights (BTW, this expansion has a card titled "Jihad")? Would Magic have been as popular if WotC made every release incompatible with the releases before it? Why can't WotC distribute the V:TES cards in V:TES wrapping, label it as a Jyhad expansion, and still have the card backs Jyhad? This practice hasn't hurt Magic, it would attract new buyers by proudly displaying "Vampire," and you wouldn't hurt old sales by making the cards incompatible. Has anyone suggested this? [ quoted text not captured ]

reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) writes: (Responding to a post of mine:) >>>I think I can safely say that naming the game "Jyhad" is amazingly >>>embarrassing. > >>If you wish to be embarrassed by it, that's your problem - no one else's. > >I'm not embarassed -- I'm not the one who misused a common word so that >people think a game about vampires is actually about car-bombs. Then how would you know if it's embarrassing? You can't be "embarrassed for someone else", so either _you're_ embarrassed or it's not embarrassing. Take your pick. What you're suggesting makes no sense. >Here are some more examples to show exactly what I'm talking about: >you describe a drug used by assassins called "hish-hash." A large number >of people know that it's a reasonably common drug and is pronounced >"hasheesh." You describe leaping over a "cha-sim." Most people know it's >pronounced "kasim." > Trying to pick an obscure, partially made-up word and not realizing >that most people know that word as something else already is embarassing >because it makes you look stupid. Clue: I don't think White Wolf was unaware that people would figure out that Jyhad was a slightly altered form of the word "jihad". Clue: they're not the least bit embarrassed about it. You are or no one is. >>......jihad", a word which is correctly defined in the English (note: >>I _do_ mean English - it's meaning in Arabic or other languages are >>irrelevant here) as "holy war"? Seems a totally reasonable usage to me. > >This is exactly what I think White Wolf was thinking. "Holy War," cool. Good >thing they didn't look up Holocaust and find out it just means killing a lot >of people of we'd have a game called "The Holocaust." I guess you don't know >why that would be kind of a bad name for the Jyhad CCG as well? No, you're right. I don't know that - because it wouldn't be one. What could you be thinking? >>You, sir, are a prime example of my problems with the social phenomenon of >>political correctness. You don't seem to have a particularly logical >>standard of what should be considered "offensive" to a person or group - at >>least not one that you're willing to advance and defend - yet you >>thoughtlessly pass judgement on the behavior of others and even go so far as >>to seem astounded by it. > > You took 6 lines to insult SOMEONE ELSE since I never mentioned anyone >being offended. Let me put it this way - you seemed to infer that you had a problem with the name "Jyhad" due to the way you wrote your post. I _assumed_ you were aware of what the issue is here. It seems from reading your most recent post that that was bad assumption. I'm sorry about that but I can't help it if you happened to wander into this thing in the middle you don't really know what's going on. >I think you're a self-righteous knee-jerking wanker. OK, cool. You're entitled to your opinion. >See-- one line. Here's what _I_ said: > >o I don't see how the word "Jyhad" can offend any reasonable individual. Agreed. >o I think that WotC is embarrassed that their "obscure" word Jyhad is > actually in current use and that they didn't realize it, and that it > associates their game with the wrong thing. Don't be absurd. Of COURSE they knew the word "jihad" (NOT "jyhad", BTW) is in current use when they first invented the name. That's not what the problem was. (Hint: have you read Peter Adkison's letter?) Apparently what they "discovered" was that it might be offensive to certain people of "Middle- Eastern origin". Whether there's any significant number of such people and whether it's actually reasonable that they should be offended is what's really in dispute here. >o I see a slight amount of danger in using a word associated with terrorists > when paramilitary groups and the FBI (I'm talking about Steve Jackson > games, here) are known to be a little fast on the draw. A _slight_ > amount of danger. But irrelevant, I think. As others have pointed out, if you're going to be afraid of what someone else might do, you might as well tear up the First Amendment and forget rule of law. I don't think most law-abiding citizens are ready to concede that quite yet - at least, not in the U.S., where an act of terrorism is still a rare and very sensational event. >>The simplest definition of "jihad" has nothing to do with Islam. It's true >>that its roots came from that source but in language, definitions necessarily >>take on a life of their own at a certain point. I assert that that has >>happened in the case of "jihad". > > The Irish do not have a jihad against the brits, the peasants in >Chiapas are not engaged in a jihad for land rights, the Serbs are not >jihading against the Bosnian Muslims. You can not make a proof from negative examples. >The only time you will ever hear the word 'jihad' in conversation or the news >is when someone is talking about the middle east, Palestine and so forth. Untrue. Webster's Colliegate Dictionary define "jihad" as "holy war" for a reason. That reason is that people commonly use the word in English to refer to any fanatical purpose, quite apart from any religious context, let alone Islam. If _you_ don't happen to hear it used that way very often, that may reflect a lot of other factors apart its common usage. Go look it up in several American dictionaries. That is proof of what I say which most people will accept as valid. >Jihad is not a synonym for 'war,' like 'conflict' is, for example. It has >more meaning than that. It has _other_ meanings from that. None the less, that is one completely valid definition. Fred

In article <reynolds....@shazam.cs.iastate.edu>, reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote: > >> I think I can safely say that naming the game "Jyhad" is amazingly > >>embarrassing. > > >I'm not embarrassed by the name of the game. It is a WoD-specific game term. > > That's exactly the point -- it's NOT a WotC specific term. Just ask > the first 10 people you see what Geehad means and most if not all with > say it has something to do with religious middle-eastern guys. Which is the problem, from what I heard. People who might have been interested didn't know this is a vampire game. > It's actually an arabic word, so there probably is no correct spelling. > Do you remember when everyone decided "Gaddafi" was "more correct" than > "Kaddafi" for the guy running Lybia? At any rate, the spelling is > unimportant, since almost everyone has _heard_ about the Islamic Ji/yhad > on the news and news shows and "Jyhad" is obviously that word. Actually, Gadhafi became the correct spelling when he himself used it. J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com> PGP keys by request Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

On 25 Jul 1995, James R. McClure Jr. wrote: (Lots of editing...) > > Yes, I suggested immediately after the backstab. Tom said it would look > stupid for the packs to say one thing and the cards another. > Sure glad we will not have THAT stupid situation on our hands... > > > Nil carborundum illigitimi, > > James R. McClure Jr. > The OS/2 Apostle > > <insert disclaimer here> > > I probably should have edited your closing also, but it's just too cool. Algustas *****Never complain and never explain.***** Benjamin Disraeli

There has not yet been a final decision on whether to have any kind of card exchange problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >I'm sorry Tom, I simply do not believe it's as easy as that. Political >correctness is not a stable thing - what's thought "immoral" by the PC crowd >this year was often thought perfectly fine last year. I do not believe WotC >has or will ever have the capability to predict what might be considered >"offensive" in the future by these sorts of standard because I do not believe >anyone can. Thus, I am highly skeptical of your claim. WotC is not trying to be "politically correct". We are trying to do what we feel is the right thing. Part of that includes respecting others' beliefs. Having spent four years at UC Santa Cruz, I'm very familiar with the sorts of people generally labeled "politically correct", and there's a huge difference between that kind of unthinking radicalism, and the opinions expressed around here. >The reason that "Jyhad" was not identified as "offensive" by those who thought >to inscribe it on the backs of your trading cards was because they could not >conceive of any strong reason it should be. And the reason it came as such >a surprise to WotC to discover some folks might consider it offensive was that >those "some folks" were simply wrong in this case... Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree on that point, then. I find it extremely strange that you would try to figure out for someone else whether that person is offended by something or not. Having an opinion as to whether they *ought* to be offended is one thing, but whether they actually are? [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas R Wylie wrote: > Andrew <hou...@imssys.com> wrote: > >**** Maybe there is more than one spelling but I thought the "offensive" > >term was spelled "Jihad"... ??? > People are just as likely to assume that "Jyhad" is used to "hide" the > fact that Jihad is being referred to as they are to assume that it's > something completely unrelated. In fact, the first reading is probably more > likely for someone bombarded with cutsey product names like "QuikLube", > or "PizzaTyme". Jyhad is not really a game for starting CCG players (most people need help with the rules and 2-3 others to play it against, I think), so I don't think it would be bad for the CCG market that people feel more attracted to 'simple', colourful games like MTG, which is a good introduction to the Jyhad in my experience. I knew nothing about the World of Darkness when I bought my Jyhad deck, but I knew it was a game about vampires, and a good one as well. I think the magazine writers (especially the ones not in pay by the selling company) and the existing players have most influence in bringing players in. Alienating both groups probably will be disastrous for the game. I also know Jihad means 'Holy War', but there are also a lot of words with more than one completely different meaning (at least, there are in Dutch). I simply didn't care: it's the game that counts, not the name. I even think that 'shall we play Jyhad tonight' sounds better than 'shall we play Vampire: The Eternal Struggle tonight'... Off-topic: James and Owen: I am increasingly getting sick of your Holy Flame-War. Last post by Owen was the worst, because he accused James of flaming him, called it bad practice and coninued flaming James himself. I won't call it hypochrite, because then I would start flaming as well, which I don't like. -- Johan Meijdam jo...@pa.twi.tudelft.nl

Isn't this tread getting a little out of hand? I mean, WotC is going to do what they're going to do, period. You guys will do whatever you'll do, period. Is it really worth getting so nasty about it? Just my $0.02. Gary

>>o I think that WotC is embarrassed that their "obscure" word Jyhad is >> actually in current use and that they didn't realize it, and that it >> associates their game with the wrong thing. Let me ammend this -- they didn't realize to what _extent_ people would think "jyhad" == "jihad" == middle eastern car-bombings. This is what they discovered. >Don't be absurd. Of COURSE they knew the word "jihad" (NOT "jyhad", BTW) is >in current use when they first invented the name. That's not what the problem >was. (Hint: have you read Peter Adkison's letter?) Apparently what they >"discovered" was that it might be offensive to certain people of "Middle- >Eastern origin". Whether there's any significant number of such people and >whether it's actually reasonable that they should be offended is what's really >in dispute here. Ah-ha. No, what's actually in dispute, and the question for which I was guessing the answer, is: "What is the real reason for the changes?" Lots of people have trouble accepting that they are really changing the name because jews are offended (the Isreali distributor was mentioned, and no other middle eastern countries were refered to.) It seems odd since the word "jyhad" is presumably making light of a word muslims hold dear, not jews. Also, netters claim that after asking around among the Arab community, they can't find anyone who's offended. The original reason given for the change was that they thought the word "jyhad" was confusing and failing to attract people who would buy a card game based on vampires. That makes a lot of sense but doesn't explain why you'd change the card backs, too. One explaination is that "things in larger companies just happen." That may be the real reason, but WotC isn't all _that_ large. I'm suggesting an alternate reason. I don't even think that Mr. Adkison(? I'm quoting from above) is necessarily lying. Not realizing a word means something different to a large group of people is, in a sense, insensitivity.

Does anybody else think it odd that, after saying the Jyhad card backs are so offensive that WotC has to change them, WotC chooses to give away vast numbers of them as promotional items? If they are so offensive they can't be printed, why is it justifiable to mail thousands of them to Scrye readers and give thousands of them away to game store customers at Vampire day? I don't think this is the slickest marketing move, either. Arranging that more potential V:tES customers have the Jyhad cards will increase the disgruntlement, confusion, and opportunities for deck marking resulting from the back change. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote: >>Peace Owen, > > James, you probably haven't been on the internet for very long, since >you still can't resist the urge to flame someone without actually reading >what they wrote. Once you've been around for a while, James, you'll realize >that responding to someone by name is frowned upon. Peace Owen, First, the above is a salutation; a common opening to a letter. Since I write all my email in the same fashion as smail, I begin with a salutation. If you don't like this, I suggest you rewrite conventional English. Second, I've been here a while (ask around). Third, _I_ feel that using someone's name is a plus, not a minus. I, personally, have problems remembering people's names (to associate them to faces), so I use the person's name a lot to reinforce the linkage. Fourth, if you feel that what I wrote is a flame, then maybe you are the inexperienced internetter. I've recieved several emails on my consise and polite responses and don't believe in flamewars. They accomplish nothing but to waste bandwidth. I'm hear to discuss/argue/learn/inform other Jyhad players about current events/rules/strategy/deck design. Why are you offended by my addressing you by your name? >>So, you are saying that since most Americans are underinformed about the true >>world situation and quick to judge things they don't understand that I should >>be embarrased about a game term? > > No, I'm saying that you are less informed than most Americans, since >they all know that the Islamic Jihad is a currently operating group in the >middle east and you do not. > I'm saying that you should be embarrassed to broadcast your ignorance. No. One should never be embarrassed by being ignorant, especially if one continually attempts to correct such ignorance. Ignorance is mearly a lack of knowledge or information. This is easily correctable. Afterall, we were all totally ignorant once (we were newborn babies). Trying to say that I should be ashamed of the fact that I'm not prejudiced, like most Americans, is a foolish point. Perhaps, the converse is true? You are so blinded by your prejudice/bias that it prevents you from seeing other's viewpoints and thereby makes you ignorant and you are angered by seeing someone not burdened in a similar fashion. If I start a terrorist group and call it Jerry's Kids or K-Mart does that make the original organizations terrorists also? Just because some radical Islamic fundamentalists have chosen to use jihad in the Western sense does not mean that many Arabs cannot see jihad as something fundamentally different that what Westerners see it as. What about Act Up (the radical gay rights organization)? Does their existance mean that all gays are militant? Does it mean that all ACTors are gay? Does it make me gay when I stand UP? I'm saying that I'm better informed than most Americans (I don't get my view of the world spoon fed to me in sound-bites from the liberal media). I'm capable of looking at a word like jihad/jyhad analytically and not kneejerking into thinking about Arab terrorists. I'm saying that I'm informed and intelligent enough to distinguish between reality (Islamic Jihad) and fantasy (Jyhad the card game) and I'm not going to confuse the two (I don't think that Jyhad players are responsible for the NY bombing, nor do I believe that IJ has secret vampire members). If I'm broadcasting my ignorace, why isn't anyone else chiming in to correct me? I ask, as an ignorant newbie, that if anyone else reading this feels that I'm totally clueless, please, post that you feel so. I'd really like to know and I promise that you can't offend me. >>>>This has been covered before, but jihad >>>>(the correct spelling for the Islamic term) >>> >>> It's actually an arabic word, so there probably is no correct spelling. > >>No, "Jyhad" /= "jihad" anymore than "two" = "too." "Jyhad" and "jihad" are >>homophones [not to be confused by the politically correct crowd for homophobe], >>words that sound alike but have different spellings and meanings. > > If they were both words, James, I'd agree, but Jyhad isn't a word. >Tom makes a very good point that with the existance of KwikShops and >things, it's instinctive to think that Jyhad is merely a cutesy spelling >for jihad. They are words. It doesn't make a difference if one is a game term and the other is in the dictionary. I'm sure I could find plenty of game terms that aren't in the dictionary; this doesn't make them any less words. Confusing jyhad for jihad may be intuitive to you, but that is what I would call ignorace (a lack of knowledge or information). >> "Everyone" knows that "The Islamic >>>Jyhad" (and they won't quibble over the spelling) are those terrorist >>>guys who kidnap Americans and blow things up. > >>"Everyone knows", the classic beginning of a strawman argument. > > A strawman argument is when you restate the other person's argument >so as to make it look bad and then argue against that and ignore what a >"real" opponent might say. It's called a strawman since you are building >a strawman to argue against. Correct. I probably misused the term. It has been ~10 years since my last logic class. > You, James, are the one engaging in a strawman argument. What I'm >actually saying is that I think WotC is changing the name from Jyhad >because they realized it was already a pretty well-known word having >nothing to do with their product. I don't believe that I am. I do believe that we agree (somewhat) on what WotC reasoning (at least one of the reasons) for the name change is. Some people inside WotC believe that the citizens of the world are too stupid to be able to distinguish between fantasy and reality and they figure that this will affect their cash flow, so they are turning their back on their established customer base and going for the quick buck. If they had studied history and economics more, they would realize that this is a poor choice. > The strawman you are building is that I am a member of some imaginary >"politically correct social movement" and find the word Jyhad offensive. You sure sound like someone who's head is filled with PC mush. You sound offended to me (and Fred). Maybe, I'm wrong (it won't be the first nor last time). But, maybe I'm right. > Back to the "everyone knows," you seem to be granting me the point >that most people do associate "jihad" with terrorists. That's exactly >my point -- not that the Infitada(sp?) is composed of anyone especially >"terrorist" or not. Yes, most people are ignorant as to the real meaning of jihad. >>So since >>the Michigan Militia is a bunch of nuts running around playing Army and >>possibly plotting against the US government, does that mean all militias >>are threats to the US government? Ask 10 people what they think of the >>NRA or NEA or Michigan Militia, does their misconception of that organization >>make it true? > > But would you run for public office and boldly state that you were >endorsed by the Michigan Militia and had been playing AD&D for 10 years? > It's not a case of you censoring any "ideas" you had. Yes, I will. I'm proud of who and what I am and have no intention of hiding my beliefs/actions when I run for public office. > Now suppose you had formed your own political party and had decided >to call yourself the Knot-Z's. You aren't doing all that well and someone >informs you that some party in Europe had a name that sounded like that, >and a lot of Americans didn't like it. If I formed a political party, I'd call it the Jeffersonian or the Constit- utionalist party. > Do you insist that Nazi doesn't and shouldn't have a negative meaning? >Do you protest that Knot-Z is nothing like Nazi? Do you staunchly stand by >your first amendment rights and stick with the Knot-Z name in the light >of this Nazi party you just heard about? > This is similar to WotC's situation. No, it is not. We are talking a game here. By and large gamers are an "elistist" segment of the population. We are more intelligent, better educated, and better off economically than the average person. Gamers (by and large) can distinguish between fantasy and reality, between a game term and a terrorist organization. If I did call something the Knot-Z (what sort of widget would it be), I'd have chosen that name for a very good reason and I'd stick with it. If I say something that offends someone (and that statement is either factual or personal opinion), I definitely stick to it and would happily repeat it or expound upon it. That is what the First Amendment is about. That is what we are doing here; exchanging information/ideas in a public forum with only our peers to judge us. Isn't life grand? > As a disclaimer, I'm not drawing a parrallel between actual Nazis >and the Islamic Jihad, but between the negative connotations each word >currently has. I'm sure if I took the time, I could easily compare Nazism and the Islamic Jyhad, but I don't chose to. >>such PC- >>attitudes are contrary to the fundamental freedoms insured by our Constitution. >>[see the First Amendment for more information] > > This really has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Of course WotC >has the _right_ to say whatever they want about Muslims, jihads and so on >But, James, they don't want to say anything about it at all. They have no >wish for their game to be associated with the middle east. In fact, they'd >be tickled if it were associated with vampires. Jyhad is associated with vampires (in a World of Darkness sense). WotC is just looking to make more money (which IS the purpose of a company). They mistakenly believe that the name of their game is the major reason for its poor sales. They figure they can fix it by changing the name. They are wrong. What I was refering to did have to do with the Freedom of Speech. Self- sensorship is the worst kind of sensorship. Once you've been conditioned to sensor yourself and the enemies of Free Speech have already won. Only the free and open exchange of information and ideas can cure ignorance. Political correctness seeks to hinder/eliminate Free Speech and thereby foster ignorace. My point is that if we all sensored ourselves to the point of never saying anything that might offend someone, we'd never say anything at all. WotC should stick with the original name and side with openness and freedom, not repression and ignorance. >>> There's a line to be drawn, for sure, > >>No, there are lines to be erased and walls to be torn down. Closing off >>opinions that "we" feel are "evil"/"wrong" just allows them to fester and >>grow. > > This illustrates the absurdity of what you are writing. What opinions? >Tell me, James, what opinions am I asking WotC, or anyone else, to restrain >from stating? The opinion that all Arabs/Islamics are bomb-toting rag-heads. The silly idea that people aren't capable of separating reality from fantasy. The utter foolishness of treating the electorate like infants who need to be coddled and spoon-fed doses of carefully-strained reality. The crap that people aren't capable of handling "offensive" ideas, that they can't see nor decide what is right or what is wrong. That the government needs to hold my hand and that We (the People) can't be self-reliant. Enough is enough, it is time for the people to take a stand. In this case, the players should boycott WotC for treating us like babies and trying to steal our hard earned money. WotC has already shown that they can turn tail with the best of them (see the removal of demonic reference from Mt$ for further details), so I guess I shouldn't expect Jyhad to be any different. Someone stands up and wimpers "I'm offended by that word/idea." and *poof* a good game goes down the toilet. I'll not bow to PC-fostered ignorace. I'm offensive and proud of it. > The line to be drawn here is "how bad does a bad choice have to be >before we just change the card backs?" How bad does any word/idea have to be before you just censor it? [please, note, I just recognized that I misused "sensor" for "censor"] [several times above. I don't have a spell checker or seek function] [in Netscape's mail utility, so please forgive the oversight.] From Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions with out interference, and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers." Self-sensorship is the first step down a dark path. Once you choose the Dark Side, WotC, forever will it dominate you. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >There has not yet been a final decision on whether to have any kind >of card exchange problem. card exchange *program*? (Tho' you're probably closer to the truth :-) -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. |

Gary Schwartz <schw...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu> writes: >Isn't this tread getting a little out of hand? I mean, WotC >is going to do what they're going to do, period. You guys will >do whatever you'll do, period. Hardly. Neither the powers-that-be at WotC nor the players on this group are automata. All involved parties are reasonably intelligent humans and information can certainly change actions. I retain my hope that the folks at WotC will realize there are a number of intelligent solutions to the card back situation which will improve their profits, maintain playability and value of existing cards, and provide no offense to anybody. The current plan is reducing and will reduce interest in the game, creates some unpleasant problems for current Jyhad owners, and has certainly offended a number of players Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >>I'm sorry Tom, I simply do not believe it's as easy as that. Political >>correctness is not a stable thing - what's thought "immoral" by the PC crowd >>this year was often thought perfectly fine last year. I do not believe WotC >>has or will ever have the capability to predict what might be considered >>"offensive" in the future by these sorts of standard because I do not believe >>anyone can. Thus, I am highly skeptical of your claim. > >WotC is not trying to be "politically correct". We are trying to do what >we feel is the right thing. Part of that includes respecting others' >beliefs. Having spent four years at UC Santa Cruz, I'm very familiar >with the sorts of people generally labeled "politically correct", and >there's a huge difference between that kind of unthinking radicalism, >and the opinions expressed around here. This is basically a long argument that I am misusing the term "politically correct" and is thus fairly irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. Perhaps I am misusing it, perhaps not. To me, "politically correct" has always connoted the desire to enforce linguistic censorship based on sensitivity to members of other social/ethnic/racial/sexual/whatever groups, although it also occasionally arises in describing other liberal causes. Anyway, this is what I'm talking about when I use the term. To clarify (so we don't get sidetracked) I'm not trying to paint WotC as a organization espousing radical views. Sometimes even "political correctness" as I'm using the term is quite justified. In fact, the phenomenon would never have arisen were there not a need for a certain amount of it. I just feel that its not justified for WotC to self-censor itself in this case, particularly in view of the damage that that self-censorship is causing the people who purchased your product. >>The reason that "Jyhad" was not identified as "offensive" by those who >>thought to inscribe it on the backs of your trading cards was because they >>could not conceive of any strong reason it should be. And the reason it >>came as such a surprise to WotC to discover some folks might consider it >>offensive was that those "some folks" were simply wrong in this case... > >Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree on that point, then. >I find it extremely strange that you would try to figure out for someone >else whether that person is offended by something or not. Having an >opinion as to whether they *ought* to be offended is one thing, but whether >they actually are? (Heh. We're going to have agree to disagree after we argue about it a _little_ bit, huh? :) :) :) ) You are quite correct that we can't tell anyone how to feel. If they feel offended, they'll feel offended regardless of whether we think they "ought" to or not. But that's not the question, here. Whether they "ought" to feel offended is very much the real question. A mugger may very sincerely feel offended if I don't give him all my ready cash but frankly, that doesn't constitute a moral argument that I should give it to him. The same principle applies to WotC using the word "Jyhad". People may feel offended by it, but is this a reason in and of itself for WotC to change their card backs? No, not by itself. Were they justified in feeling that way, one could suggest that that's enough of a reason to take this action, although I also have a further argument that even so, it would weigh poorly against the real damage being done to your customers by the card back change. In short, the ends don't justify the means. Fred

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > >There has not yet been a final decision on whether to have any kind >of card exchange problem. Peace Tom, What is the deadline for such a decision? That is, after what date would a card exchange be OotQ? [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) >There has not yet been a final decision on whether to have any kind >of card exchange problem. Problem? Was that a Freudian slip ? :-) Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Distribution: Owen Reynolds (reyn...@cs.iastate.edu) wrote: : >Peace Owen, : James, you probably haven't been on the internet for very long, since : you still can't resist the urge to flame someone without actually reading : what they wrote. Once you've been around for a while, James, you'll realize : that responding to someone by name is frowned upon. I know that James responded to this already, but I feel the need to back James up on this one: 1) So far, the only person I have seen doing any flaming Owen is you. fred_s and james seem to be attemoting to hold a fairly rational discussion and you are the one insulting people. 2) James has been posting to this group at least as long as I have, which is coming up on 9 months now. As to his other net-usage I cannot say. 3) TTBOMK, James has started _every_single_post_ I have ever seen him make with, "Peace (name)," or simply,. "Peace be with you," if no name was available. It is not an attempted insult; call it a habit, a quirk, a signature, a trademark. If you don't like it - ignore it. 4) Having posted to Usenet for almost 3 years now, I have _never_ heard anyone else complain about their name being used - and almost anyone (on this group anyway) will tell you that I am a big believer in proper nettiquette. Shane Travis | If you can't grant someone else's reasoning as tra...@duke.usask.ca | superior when it plainly is, what's the point Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | of reasoning at all? | - Harry Turtledove, _Prince of the North_

>I know that James responded to this already, but I feel the need to back >James up on this one: >1) So far, the only person I have seen doing any flaming Owen is you. >fred_s and james seem to be attemoting to hold a fairly rational >discussion and you are the one insulting people. Calling someone politically corrrect is widely held to be an insult, and that's what James called me. He's written hundreds of lines to date about how I am unable to do any thinking for myself and am an enemy of freedom and democracy everywhere. I called him a wanker, using 1 line, because he insulted me first and it's a tradition on UseNet to publicly respond to insults. Also, his posts on the subject have been just that -- wanking. What did I say that prompted this charge? I said that maybe WotC took longer than most of us to collectively realize that most people not only do not associate the word "jyhad" with vampires, but that they actually associate it with something else. >2) James has been posting to this group at least as long as I have, which >is coming up on 9 months now. As to his other net-usage I cannot say. I was insulting him by being condescending. And he did it first. I've been "on" (reading and posting to) this group more-or-less since it was founded, as well, for the record. >3) TTBOMK, James has started _every_single_post_ I have ever seen him make >with, "Peace (name)," or simply,. "Peace be with you," if no name was >available. It is not an attempted insult; call it a habit, a quirk, a >signature, a trademark. If you don't like it - ignore it. After someone else took it for an insult, I made a post which failed. Here's a summary of it: Mr. McClure has chosen to use a non-standard greeting, so it's his resposibility if someone is offended. On the internet, and in real life, responding to someone by name when it isn't obvious you consider them a friend or colleague is considered vaguely rude. I don't know the circumstances which promted this apology for being insulted, but Mr. McClure is the one who has purposely chosen to rebel against internet protocol and he's the one who should be doing the apologizing, if anyone. Nothing special, just "I always respond to posts that way and didn't mean anything by it. If it still bothers you, I'll try to remember it and not respond to you by name." Maybe he's already done so in Email, which is where it would belong. The internet is a classless society, and having read a group for so long or posted so many posts does not give you any special rights.

WARNING!: Topicalness of this message is highly suspect. If you aren't interested in the continuing saga of James vs. Owen, skip to the next message. reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote: >>I know that James responded to this already, but I feel the need to back >>James up on this one: > >>1) So far, the only person I have seen doing any flaming Owen is you. >>fred_s and james seem to be attemoting to hold a fairly rational >>discussion and you are the one insulting people. > > Calling someone politically corrrect is widely held to be an insult, >and that's what James called me. He's written hundreds of lines to date >about how I am unable to do any thinking for myself and am an enemy of >freedom and democracy everywhere. Peace Owen, [one more time, this is an eMAIL and MAIL begins with a salutation] Those who espouse political correctness deserve to be called PC. I've said that PCness is an enemy of Freedom and Democracy. If the shoe fits, wear it. > I called him a wanker, using 1 line, because he insulted me first and >it's a tradition on UseNet to publicly respond to insults. Also, his posts >on the subject have been just that -- wanking. ^^^^^^^ This slang term is not in my lexicon. If it is an insult, I'm not insulted. > What did I say that prompted this charge? I said that maybe WotC >took longer than most of us to collectively realize that most people >not only do not associate the word "jyhad" with vampires, but that >they actually associate it with something else. Not exactly. How about: >>>Owen Reynolds >>> >> I think I can safely say that naming the game "Jyhad" is amazingly >>embarrassing. or > Yes. You should keep to yourself the fact that the half-dozen Mexicans >over there are a bunch of lazy taco-eating wetbacks. to which I responded: Gee, now I'm a racist. Your crystal ball is cracked, Owen, and such PC- attitudes are contrary to the fundamental freedoms insured by our Constitution. [see the First Amendment for more information] and you said: > There's a line to be drawn, for sure, but I'd draw that line >somewhere before prominently displaying the single word most associated >with "the enemy" by a group known to explode buildings owned by people >who piss them off. Like WotC keeps saying, they're a real business now >and have responsibilities. to which I responded: No, there are lines to be erased and walls to be torn down. Closing off opinions that "we" feel are "evil"/"wrong" just allows them to fester and grow. Only exposing ALL ideas to the open forum of public debate and eliminate such mental dross from our society. Free speech is a necessary tool toward eliminating ignorance and prejudice. you also said: > When I heard they were putting the name on a card game, I realized >that no one with any say at WotC or White Wolf had read a newspaper in >the last 5 years. [which you later extended to me, see below] and > I'm afraid I've already accused you of living in a closet, than, >so doing it again won't hurt :-) So, Owen, who insulted who first? >>2) James has been posting to this group at least as long as I have, which >>is coming up on 9 months now. As to his other net-usage I cannot say. > > I was insulting him by being condescending. And he did it first. I've >been "on" (reading and posting to) this group more-or-less since it was >founded, as well, for the record. I'm totally confused about this "James is condescending" stuff. I address other net.citizens in an open and equal manner (I use their first name, when available) and this makes me some sort of snob? Maybe my Midwestern values are just to "old-fashioned" for the net. For the record, only TWO people have complained about my salutation and after explaining it by email, the first one retracted his complaint. That leaves Owen, who sees my attempts at being cordial and open as a superiority kick. >>3) TTBOMK, James has started _every_single_post_ I have ever seen him make >>with, "Peace (name)," or simply,. "Peace be with you," if no name was >>available. It is not an attempted insult; call it a habit, a quirk, a >>signature, a trademark. If you don't like it - ignore it. > > After someone else took it for an insult, I made a post which failed. >Here's a summary of it: FWIW, Owen, that person was insulted by the "Peace" part of my salutation, not the use of first names. See above. > Mr. McClure has chosen to use a non-standard greeting, so it's his ^^^^^^^^ >resposibility if someone is offended. On the internet, and in real life, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >responding to someone by name when it isn't obvious you consider them a >friend or colleague is considered vaguely rude. > I don't know the circumstances which promted this apology for being >insulted, but Mr. McClure is the one who has purposely chosen to rebel ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >against internet protocol and he's the one who should be doing the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >apologizing, if anyone. Nothing special, just "I always respond to posts >that way and didn't mean anything by it. If it still bothers you, I'll >try to remember it and not respond to you by name." Maybe he's already >done so in Email, which is where it would belong. > The internet is a classless society, and having read a group for so >long or posted so many posts does not give you any special rights. Now, if this isn't PC . . . . I'm guilty because someone is offended by something I said, no matter how inoffensive it may be. [a core PC pillar (sp)] Addressing somone by name is rude?? Like I said, maybe my Indiana upbringing is "out of date". Where is the "internet protocol" that says I can't use people's names or begin an email with a salutation? For a classless society some people sure wish to draw lines and create artificial levels. I truely believe in the benefits of a classless society, that I why I espouse Freedom so much. That is why I'll spend 258 lines responding to a post that I consider dross. That is also why I've taken the time to respond to this. I've said it before and I'll say it again: only through the free exchange of ideas and information can learning occur and prejudice be erased. Hiding negative ideas won't make them go away. Self-sensorship is self-defeating. Finally, as I have recieved requests to move this to personal emai, I will only respond to this thread by personal email. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle P.S.: to those not involved in this "titanic struggle" (if you don't listen to Cincinatti Reds baseball, you won't get the reference) thank you for your time and bandwidth. <insert disclaimer here>

> Calling someone politically corrrect is widely held to be an insult, >and that's what James called me. That's very similar to how some people consider the term "liberal" to be an insult. And this seems to illustrate James' point about people choosing to be offended by terms that are not inherently offensive. Personally, I would consider it a compliment to be thought liberal. > I called him a wanker, using 1 line, because he insulted me first and >it's a tradition on UseNet to publicly respond to insults. Also, his posts >on the subject have been just that -- wanking. You know, your constant insulting of James is not earning you any friends or logical points in this argument. If you disagree with what he says, and want to call him a name, identify him with something in his argument. "You Libertarian!" or even "You insensitive to other people's feelings" might be appropriate. Insisting on your right to call someone a wanker really has no place in any meaningful discussion. > Mr. McClure has chosen to use a non-standard greeting, so it's his >resposibility if someone is offended. Non-standard? You know, when I visit the Middle East (which is where all the people are that WOTC is so afraid of offending), I greet my relatives with a hearty "Shalom!", which translated, means peace. In Arabic, I believe there is a similar convention, the greeting of "Salaam!", which also means peace. Again, you yourself seem to be illustrating the point of people getting offended by terms that are not inherently offensive. >On the internet, and in real life, >responding to someone by name when it isn't obvious you consider them a >friend or colleague is considered vaguely rude. What? You mean you go around calling anyone you don't consider a friend or colleage "hey, you!" I think _that_ would be pretty rude. > The internet is a classless society, and having read a group for so >long or posted so many posts does not give you any special rights. _You_ were the one who brought up the issue of time spent on the net. And if you truly think the internet is a classless society, you haven't read any of those "People from AOL suck!" posts ;) Look, I can understand why some people might find the word "Jyhad" offensive. But then, some people consider the word "Magic" offensive also. They have every right to be offended-- it's a free country. But because WOTC did not use terms that are _inherently_ offensive, they really have no obligation to change it. I think Jyhad was a stupid for a vampire game, and if they want to change the name of it, that's fine with me. But changing the card backs and causing all sorts of future play problems is just too extreme a measure to avoid offending people who are really choosing to be offended. Ana Na'thraw Urthvas Bethut Dohi'er Vyende EZ

I went back and read the entire series of threads. This isn't an apology, but I did find the confusion. Here is the problem. I made a post (intended to be partially humorous) about the name change. Two people felt a need to respond and I've confused them. Mr. McClure responded with a point-by-point commentary on my post, which I felt was uncalled for and indicated he'd misread me, but wasn't especially rude. Frederick Scott responded with a post essentially saying that "People like me are the problem with today's society." That was a personal insult and firmly placed his post as a flame. I flamed him back, publically, as is UseNet protocol. I'm a stickler for rules. Now, I didn't confuse them at first, but Mr. Scott stopped after that and Mr. McClure continued. He obviously agreed with Mr. Scott: >Those who espouse political correctness deserve to be called PC. >I've said that PCness is an enemy of Freedom and Democracy. If the >shoe fits, wear it. As you can see by this quote from Mr. McClure. I think my confusing the two was natural. >> I called him a wanker, using 1 line, because he insulted me first I was mistaken, here. I called Frederick Scott a wanker because he insulted me first. The posts between Mr. McClure and I merely took on a more insulting tone as time went on. He did not go out of his way to start a flame war, and I'm content to let it stand. On the other hand, Mr. Scott can come back for more any time he's ready for more abuse :-) Follows is an attempt to clear up other misunderstandings: --------------- [JM asked: "Should I always censor language that might offend someone?"] I responded: >> Yes. You should keep to yourself the fact that the half-dozen Mexicans >>over there are a bunch of lazy taco-eating wetbacks. I was not calling you a rascist, and don't feel that this constitutes calling you one, so I'm not apologizing. I did accidentally cut off ", if that's what you think," though. I felt it was a pretty good example of when you should not speak your mind (i.e.: censor yourself) and am not aware of any dislike Mr. McClure may have for Mexicans. -------- [I accused WotC "execs" in an earlier post of not having read a newspaper in 5 years] [James later wrote: "Jihad has little of nothing to do with the Arab-Isreal situation."] (note, jihad, even. Not jyhad.) I responded: >> I'm afraid I've already accused you of living in a closet, than, >>so doing it again won't hurt :-) >So, Owen, who insulted who first? In context, I don't feel this is an insult. I thought it was pretty funny.

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >Does anybody else think it odd that, after saying the Jyhad card backs are >so offensive that WotC has to change them, WotC chooses to give away vast >numbers of them as promotional items? If they are so offensive they can't >be printed, why is it justifiable to mail thousands of them to Scrye >readers and give thousands of them away to game store customers at Vampire >day? They gave each attendee of Origins (at least, all the preregs who picked up packets) one pack via Andon, their subsidiary, who runs the con. Yea, you're right - that WAS rather inconsistent. Fred

reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) writes: >>>o I think that WotC is embarrassed that their "obscure" word Jyhad is >>> actually in current use and that they didn't realize it, and that it >>> associates their game with the wrong thing. > > Let me ammend this -- they didn't realize to what _extent_ people >would think "jyhad" == "jihad" == middle eastern car-bombings. This >is what they discovered. Ah, that's a different thing. Now we're shifting from "who might be offended by the use of the word 'jihad' (or 'jyhad', which we assume will be associated with 'jihad')" to "who might confuse 'jihad'/'jyhad' with the concept of terrorism". There might be some relationship between the two since the former might be caused to some extent by the latter but that doesn't mean the latter is really directly relevant as you suggest. WotC wouldn't care how many people confused "jihad" with Arab terrorism if no one was sensitive about it. There wouldn't be any reason to. In any case, Peter A.'s letter did not indicate that he was concerned about it. What he said he was concerned about was that people of Middle Eastern origin were offended by the use of the term "jihad" in the context of this game - for whatever reason, he didn't really care. As I've indicated elsewhere, I don't think anyone has a good reason to offended merely by the use of the word "jihad" and given that, that WotC is wrong to injure their customers by changing the card backs on their game. If you're trying to argue that this confusion ("jihad" == middle eastern car-bombings) is the good reason that skewers my argument, I can defend against that point but I don't want to bother until you've actually _said_ that... >>Apparently what they "discovered" was that it might be offensive to certain >>people of "Middle-Eastern origin". Whether there's any significant number >>of such people and whether it's actually reasonable that they should be >>offended is what's really in dispute here. > > Ah-ha. No, what's actually in dispute, and the question for which I >was guessing the answer, is: > > "What is the real reason for the changes?" Not really. The president of the company wrote a letter stating why the card back changes and they maintain a netrep here to correct misinterpretations we may have about the company's official position on such matters. Now, it's true that occasionally WotC might be accidently or deliberately disingenuous about such things for various reasons but this issue has been hashed out to a sufficient degree by now that I think it's pointless to speculate on any "hidden purposes" they may have that they're not telling us about. > Lots of people have trouble accepting that they are really changing >the name because jews are offended (the Isreali distributor was mentioned, >and no other middle eastern countries were refered to.) Lots of people may have trouble but not me. I don't _agree_ with such reasoning but I most certainly _believe_ that that is the reason. Past experience I've had with PC-ness suggests that those who overindulge in it are prone to actions like this. To tell the truth, I strongly suspected that some sort political correctness was driving the card back change long before it was admitted - back when WotC was still suggesting the whole thing was a marketing issue. Just the way we kept telling them, "Do anything you want but DON'T change the card backs" over and over and tried to make our points in very logical terms and we'd think we'd had the monster killed time and again and SOMEHOW the damn thing would resurrect itself EVERY time seemingly without reason. When that happens, it becomes quite obvious that you're dealing with someone's (and probably someone powerful) "religious" (figuratively speaking) beliefs which will defy logic. PCness is only one such possibility but under the circumstances, it was clearly the logical one. > The original reason given for the change was that they thought the >word "jyhad" was confusing and failing to attract people who would buy >a card game based on vampires. That makes a lot of sense but doesn't >explain why you'd change the card backs, too. Precisely correct. I think everyone has gradually come to that conclusion and WotC has pretty much admitted it, as well. > I'm suggesting an alternate reason. I don't even think that Mr. >Adkison(? I'm quoting from above) is necessarily lying. Not realizing >a word means something different to a large group of people is, in a >sense, insensitivity. No one thinks Mr. Adkison (and no, I'm not sure I have the spelling correct) is lying. Why do you think we think Mr. Adkison is lying? We just think he's wrong. (OK, there IS a contingent here who thinks WotC is deliberately trying to cause us to buy more cards for profit but to me, it's more significant that it has that practical effect, not that they did it deliberately for that reason.) And no, that many people in Western culture would mistake the concepts of "jihad" with Arab terrorism does not make it insensitive merely to use the word. It's insensitive to use the word in a way that confuses the two but this game does not do that. Fred

ezgol...@aol.com (EZGoldmann) writes: >Look, I can understand why some people might find the word "Jyhad" >offensive. This is exactly why I'm a bit upset with Mr. McClure. He's constantly written that I find the word Jyhad offensive. I don't and made a point of saying that I didn't see how it could be offensive, and pointed out that no one here was able to find anyone who found it offensive. Wouldn't you be a tad upset if someone completely misrepresented your position, even after being corrected, to the point that well-meaning people like you started to reprimand me for something I never said? >I think Jyhad was a stupid for a >vampire game, I do to. That's exactly what I wrote. I said that WotC is probably embarrassed that they didn't even realize what a stupid name it was when they picked it. I do rather like the explaination that they're changing the name to sucker in retailers who won't know V:TES is just Jyhad, though, for it's sheer cynicism. >and if they want to change the name of it, that's fine with >me. What! Die, you bastard! Actually, I find it mildly annoying that any DS cards I buy will stick out. I'll probably get a few more new "old" cards to mix in if I play a deck with DS cards, I guess.

In article <reynolds....@shazam.cs.iastate.edu>, reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote: **** Maybe you guys should consider sticking to the actual ISSUE instead of attempting to show of your debating skills. I doubt if anyone here really cares *what* you call each other. And as far as Usenet groups go... this has hardly been a flame war... more of a dull fizzle. -Andy > I went back and read the entire series of threads. This isn't an > apology, but I did find the confusion. > > Here is the problem. I made a post (intended to be partially humorous) > about the name change. Two people felt a need to respond and I've > confused them. > Mr. McClure responded with a point-by-point commentary on my post, > which I felt was uncalled for and indicated he'd misread me, but wasn't > especially rude. > Frederick Scott responded with a post essentially saying that > "People like me are the problem with today's society." That was a > personal insult and firmly placed his post as a flame. I flamed him > back, publically, as is UseNet protocol. I'm a stickler for rules. > > Now, I didn't confuse them at first, but Mr. Scott stopped after > that and Mr. McClure continued. He obviously agreed with Mr. Scott: > > >Those who espouse political correctness deserve to be called PC. > >I've said that PCness is an enemy of Freedom and Democracy. If the > >shoe fits, wear it. > > As you can see by this quote from Mr. McClure. I think my confusing > the two was natural. > > >> I called him a wanker, using 1 line, because he insulted me first > > I was mistaken, here. I called Frederick Scott a wanker because he > insulted me first. The posts between Mr. McClure and I merely took on > a more insulting tone as time went on. > > He did not go out of his way to start a flame war, and I'm content > to let it stand. On the other hand, Mr. Scott can come back for more > any time he's ready for more abuse :-) > > Follows is an attempt to clear up other misunderstandings: > --------------- > [JM asked: "Should I always censor language that might offend someone?"] > > I responded: > >> Yes. You should keep to yourself the fact that the half-dozen Mexicans > >>over there are a bunch of lazy taco-eating wetbacks. > > I was not calling you a rascist, and don't feel that this constitutes > calling you one, so I'm not apologizing. I did accidentally cut off ", if > that's what you think," though. > I felt it was a pretty good example of when you should not speak your > mind (i.e.: censor yourself) and am not aware of any dislike Mr. McClure > may have for Mexicans. > > -------- > [I accused WotC "execs" in an earlier post of not having read a newspaper > in 5 years] > > [James later wrote: "Jihad has little of nothing to do with the Arab-Isreal > situation."] (note, jihad, even. Not jyhad.) > > I responded: > >> I'm afraid I've already accused you of living in a closet, than, > >>so doing it again won't hurt :-) > > >So, Owen, who insulted who first? > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <fred_sDC...@netcom.com>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] ***** Maybe the word might be "hypocritical"???

In article <3v856c$o...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: > WARNING!: Topicalness of this message is highly suspect. > If you aren't interested in the continuing saga of James vs. Owen, > skip to the next message. ***** You got that right. Since I doubt that most of us are interested in seeing you guys fuss over each other why don't you take it to E-mail??? [ quoted text not captured ]

reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) writes: > I went back and read the entire series of threads. This isn't an >apology, but I did find the confusion. I think - from reading recent posts - that you are confused about "Usenet's rules", such as they exist. ("Such as they exist" for the most part are called "rules of netiquette", which no one quite agrees on. If, however, you want to see some old veterans' version of the ones most people _tend_ to agree on, go to news.announce.newusers, where there are two or three very good articles repetitively posted about one a month or so.) One thing I can tell you - I have _never_ heard anyone claim that an unusual salutation was "insulting" by virtue of it being unusual. A salutation is insulting if it insults. James McClure's salutation is probably about as friendly a one as I've ever encountered. > Here is the problem. I made a post (intended to be partially humorous) >about the name change. Two people felt a need to respond and I've >confused them. Here's another piece of practical advice. If you're attempting to be humorous, use smilies. Typed posts lack all of the non-visual cues face-to-face communication frequently relies on. We can't see your facial expressions, we can't hear your tone of voice. Everyone - including myself - has screwed this up at some time or another so I wouldn't hold it against you if this were the cause of some misunderstanding but it behooves all of us to be as careful about this as possible. > Frederick Scott responded with a post essentially saying that >"People like me are the problem with today's society." That was a >personal insult and firmly placed his post as a flame. I flamed him >back, publically, as is UseNet protocol. I'm a stickler for rules. More advice: if you're quick to look for "insult", be sure you _read_ what the other guy said. Apparently you did _not_ read what I said because I said nothing like that. What I said, in fact, was "You are a prime example of the problems _I_ have with political correctness". (Emphasis of "I" not in the original version.) Note "I" - NOT "society" - you must have dreamed that part up in your head. That quote, when read accurately, is not at all insulting but an accurate description of my opinion on the matter. Furthermore, I know of no Usenet netiquette expert who I respect who would suggest that flaming a person back for flaming you is a "Usenet protocol". I've done it, of course, but I would never have the moxy to suggest it was "OK" to do so. It's a weakness to respond to insult with insult, not a strength. > He did not go out of his way to start a flame war, and I'm content >to let it stand. On the other hand, Mr. Scott can come back for more >any time he's ready for more abuse :-) I couldn't care less about your abuse or anyone else's. Heap it on - it doesn't hurt. Nor does it prove anything. Fred

In article <3v6luj$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > Does anybody else think it odd that, after saying the Jyhad card backs are > so offensive that WotC has to change them, WotC chooses to give away vast > numbers of them as promotional items? If they are so offensive they can't ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ****** Man what a good point! Blows holes in their argument that the card backs could be offensive to some folks out there. If this WAS the reason... why would they pump them out to anybody getting an issue of Scrye??? Kudos to you!! -Andy > be printed, why is it justifiable to mail thousands of them to Scrye > readers and give thousands of them away to game store customers at Vampire [ quoted text not captured ]

<sab...@cwo.com> writes: >I just started playing Jyhad about 3 weeks ago and would have started sooner >if not for the name of the game. I am a very well informed person and made no >connection whatsoever to vampires from the name Jyhad. My first thought was >that it was a game about the Middle East and thus ignored the game. I got >into when I went to game club and saw an interesting game being played and >asked which one it was and was told it was Jyhad. I got into the game >right away. The name is change is more than justified, even if it did >not upset anyone from the Middle East. When I tell people that I play >agame called Jyhad most of them think it is about the Middle East. WotC >is definately doing the best thing for the game. With all due respect, I think you may be missing some information and/or have not thought this through. Sure, most all those present have tended to agree to some extent or another that the name change is certainly justified and the logic behind it sound. However, please note that no one here has been complaining about the name change. But the name change by no means requires a change to the backs of the cards, which is what those who play the game are incensed about - and with good reason. Even WotC by now has admitted that the reason for the card back change (as opposed to the name change) was due to the (newly-acquired) belief that using the word "Jyhad" at all was immoral and not that it really had anything to do with marketing the game. When viewed in that light, the conclusion that WotC is definitely doing the best thing for the game is absolutely incorrect. What could a game company possibly mishandle worse than the act of angering the vast majority of the first-wave players of a game they're trying to sell to a wider market? As someone who's only recently discovered the game, you can ignore this problem if you choose to take that point of view because as of 3 weeks ago, the plight of existing Jyhad cards was well-known. You can buy them or not (and wait until V:tES cards come out) as you choose. However, try looking at the situation for a moment from the point of view of people who invested heavily before the card back change was known - THEN you'll understand the resentment others feel about this. Fred

I think Mr. McClure has been listening to far too much Rush Dimbulb. He used a goodly number of his favorite lines. I just started playing Jyhad about 3 weeks ago and would have started sooner if not for the name of the game. I am a very well informed person and made no connection whatsoever to vampires from the name Jyhad. My first thought was that it was a game about the Middle East and thus ignored the game. I got into when I went to game club and saw an interesting game being played and asked which one it was and was told it was Jyhad. I got into the game right away. The name is change is more than justified, even if it did not upset anyone from the Middle East. When I tell people that I play agame called Jyhad most of them think it is about the Middle East. WotC is definately doing the best thing for the game. SABRjay

[ quoted text not captured ] Do you think that 'Rage' is a game about the outrage felt by Jyhad players who feel they have been screwed by WotC? Donald A. Bachman | Support English as the 'Lingua Franca' of the modern world. -- Donald A. Bachman | Support English as the 'Lingua Franca' of the modern world.

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Well, yes, but the point is not whether people here in the US make the >connection, mistaken or otherwise, between "Jyhad" and "Jihad". The >question is whether those in the Middle East are making the connection. >Apparently they do, and apparently it causes problems. You and I can >debate all day long whether they *should* be making a negative connection >there, but the point is that they are, and that we aren't in the business >of pissing people off. (BOGGLE!) This last sentence is positively amazing. Tom, what to think you're doing to your first wave Jyhad customers?!? This is precisely the logic that I've been attempting to address. What you're saying, in essence, is that you don't wish to make a value judgement about the question of whether "Jyhad" should be offensive to some population group. Yet the question of changing the card backs clearly involves weighing the damage the being done to your first wave Jyhad customers vs. the interests of that population group. When you decline to make that value judgement and simply accept the claims (that "Jyhad" is offensive), you are not being at all fair to the opposing interests. You MUST make that value judgement to be fair and it's clear that you didn't. At the same time, the statements and actions of WotC in the course of justifying the card back change made it clear to us that you made a value judgement about changing card backs that most players feel underrates its significance. Is it any wonder you're encountered a great deal of resentment of this? >Perhaps you're forgetting that we're aiming to expand the bounds of the >gaming industry to the point where playing games (of any kind) is considered >just as much a staple of modern culture as going to the movies is. Therefore, >by our own definition, we cannot simply focus on what habiutual gamers are or >aren't used to. It may well be that Jyhad/V:TES can never catch on outside >of the traditional gaming industry, but we feel that we have to try. Why do you feel you have to try? If the card back decision is part of the fallout from that attempt, it could be very accurate to say that you've burned a perfectly viable limited-market game by trying to push it into markets where it simply isn't going to sell. Was it necessary to experiment with Jyhad, as opposed to developing other CCGs that are would be much more likely to appeal to larger markets? >Freedom of speech includes *our* right to make our *own* decisions about >what is and isn't acceptable content for our products. Freedom of speech >does not include a carte blanche right to run roughshod over a peoples' >beliefs and sensibilities; it includes a responsibility to respect one's >fellow human beings. Actually, while I agree that at the end of the day, WotC has the right to make whatever decision on this matter that they would, I would pick one nit: There is absolutely nothing whatsoever about the concept of Freedom of Speech that involves limiting ones own speech based on the beliefs and sensibilities of others. Quite the opposite - Freedom of Speech is distinctly _OPPOSED_ to the concept that what others think matters when it comes time for me to decide what I think it's necessary to say. If you don't understand that, Tom, you don't understand what's important about this great principle. >>From Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: >>"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right >>includes freedom to hold opinions with out interference, and to seek, receive >>and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers." > >That does not include the right to rub people's noses into ideas that >they don't like and find offensive. That is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT! I don't know where you got this idea but I would dispute this to the ends of earth. The King of England probably didn't like and found thoroughly offensive the idea that his economic policies were unfair to the inhabitants of his American colonies yet I can't believe you would advance the notion that saying so was wrong. This principle is just as applicable when it's a whole society that finds the idea offensive and just some lunatic who's attempting to advance it. >We sought, received, and imparted information from a corner of the world that >hadn't been considered when the original name was chosen, and realized we had >made an error. One final point I'd like to make about WotC's position on this: if WotC has done such great research about this matter, why do you decline to present it to we gamers who are suffering the consequences of your decision? I note that as much as I've read about this issue, never once have I seen WotC present the case concerning _why_ anyone feels the use of the word "jihad" in the context of your game is offensive. I would think if you had truly researched this and come to the considered judgement that "jihad" is offensive, you should be quite willing and even eager to present this to your customers. Fred

<sab...@cwo.com> wrote: >I think Mr. McClure has been listening to far too much Rush Dimbulb. He >used a goodly number of his favorite lines. I just started playing Jyhad >about 3 weeks ago and would have started sooner if not for the name of >the game. I am a very well informed person and made no connection >whatsoever to vampires from the name Jyhad. My first thought was that it >was a game about the Middle East and thus ignored the game. I got into >when I went to game club and saw an interesting game being played and >asked which one it was and was told it was Jyhad. I got into the game >right away. The name is change is more than justified, even if it did >not upset anyone from the Middle East. When I tell people that I play >agame called Jyhad most of them think it is about the Middle East. WotC >is definately doing the best thing for the game. It was always my belief that Jyhad was a game designed to attract those people that played White Wolf's Vampire: The Masquerade role-playing game. Those people are familiar with the use of the word Jyhad, and they would make a connection with the game right away. Now WotC wants to market the game on a massive scale, and go beyond the relatively small following of Jyhad (probably because the money isn't there). That requires a name change to make the game more visible to the average guy that walks in off the street looking to get into collectible card games. In the process, they are alienating their current consumer base, and I think they will end up making it worse than before. Therefore, I _don't_ think they're doing the best thing for the game. Lorne Richardson Agents of Fortune Enterprises

Well, here's my summary of the thread, as a public service, with my own comments: Why are people pissed off about the "changes"? I think 3 completely different reasons: One: they make accidental card-marking occur. This bothers me sinced I don't even want to know that my next vampire _still_ isn't a damn Giovanni and I've got 6 in the crypt. I like having that vain hope... I've used Tusk a few times (lets you look at your next card) and not been all that awed, but maybe I play with too much a a diluted strategy, so my next card is never the one I "need." Card-marking is a really weak Tusk effect, since it will sometimes give you a good idea, or very rarely tell you exactly (depends on how you mark,) and observant players should be able to use it against you, even if it's the first time they've seen the deck. Crypt-marking is more serious, but it's not that hard to get the 11 V:tES vampires you need to go with the single Ravnos. I'd even go to opaque card-backs for crypt vampires. Second reason, that they are afraid of political correctness the same way NRA members are afraid of assault weapon bans. Not using words people consider dirty, but you do not, is going to lead to totoletarian rule I guess. The first amendment is about what the government can do. Has Uncle Sam told WotC to change the name? Do people have the right to complain about words they don't like? Does WotC have the right to listen to them and decide they agree? The last reason, and maybe the most real, is the perception that WotC pretended to listen to it's customers and then did something that they said would piss them off. People have been saying for a while, "OK, so we on the net all hated the card-back change idea, but supposedly Duelist readers said they liked it, and people in Isreal liked it. Can we see the numbers on the survey or what the PLO spokesman said about the left bank situation right now? Can you tell us why you can't tell us, if you can't? Can you explain giving out Jyhad cards last week? etc... ." Notice I'm not commenting on this one.

bac...@a.cs.okstate.edu (BACHMAN DONALD A) writes: >> When I tell people that I play >>agame called Jyhad most of them think it is about the Middle East. WotC >>is definately doing the best thing for the game. >>SABRjay > Do you think that 'Rage' is a game about the outrage felt by >Jyhad players who feel they have been screwed by WotC? I'd never have bought my Rage if I weren't casting about for a replacement to Jyhad. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <3vhsfi$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] But the point was that the game, 'Rage' is being marketed (by another company) which isn't afraid that the name will not be clear to the consumer. Of course, everywhere I see it being sold there is this seven foot tall, cardboard cutout of a werewolf holding the packs, so go figure that people know what the game is about. No doubt, this is the reason that the initial explination, that the game wasn't selling due to a confusing name, was put out to pasture, and the current one, that it might offend someone, somewhere, on a planet of 6 billion people, has been offered instead. Its a shame that the second expination is much thinner than the first, but I guess it was the best they could do on short notice. I would sooner buy that WotC decided that as Whitewolf decided to use a one-word name to market their self-produced werewolf game this time, that WotC didn't want any confusion as to who was producing the game, and so changed the name to be more in line with their cash cow, M:tG. Either way, their crappy attitude has lost them a customer, as I see no reason to play with a marked deck because I happened to support their endeavor from the very beginning. Even if my concern was only the aesthetics of it all, that should count for more with them than it evidently does. > >Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) [ quoted text not captured ]

reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) writes: > Well, here's my summary of the thread, as a public service, with >my own comments: > > Why are people pissed off about the "changes"? I think 3 completely >different reasons: ... > Second reason, that they are afraid of political correctness the >same way NRA members are afraid of assault weapon bans. Not using >words people consider dirty, but you do not, is going to lead to >totoletarian rule I guess. Others may see it this way but I'd like to make it clear that I do not. This is more the rationale of those who bitched about the "demon sweep" in Magic's 4th Edition of "The Gathering". I guess I thought that was kind of silly, myself, since the demon sweep didn't actually hurt anything. Political correctness basically says, "We don't want to make a value judgement when someone else says they're offended by something. We just accept on blind faith that they're being harmed by the offensive 'thing' (whatever it happens to be) since we don't have their cultural frame of reference to say whether they're correct or not." I don't agree with this logic. Making no decision _IS_ making a decision. In this case, it accords the assertion (that something is truly offensive and despicable, etc.) the highest possible validity, when it may not really deserve that. That's a harmless enough when there are no tradeoffs involved. For instance, when black people want to be called "Black" and not "Negro" or when Native Americans prefer that moniker to "Indian", that's fine - it's no particular problem for people to comply with their wishes. But when you have to weigh their desires against some other real world material consideration, that's a different thing. When that happens, you must make the value judgement - even from your imperfect frame of reference - or you're not being fair. Fred

Owen Reynolds <reyn...@cs.iastate.edu> wrote: > Second reason, that they are afraid of political correctness the >same way NRA members are afraid of assault weapon bans. Not using >words people consider dirty, but you do not, is going to lead to >totoletarian rule I guess. A little different - NRA members are afraid of "assault weapons" bans because it makes them felons for having the equipment to participate in rifle matches. No felonies involved in most PC language debates, certainly not on the net :) > The last reason, and maybe the most real, is the perception that >WotC pretended to listen to it's customers and then did something that >they said would piss them off. > People have been saying for a while, "OK, so we on the net all >hated the card-back change idea, but supposedly Duelist readers said >they liked it, and people in Isreal liked it. Can we see the numbers >on the survey or what the PLO spokesman said about the left bank situation >right now? Can you tell us why you can't tell us, if you can't? Can >you explain giving out Jyhad cards last week? etc... ." > Notice I'm not commenting on this one. Hear Hear. This is the big one, really. Alec -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >>...but the point is that they are, and that we aren't in the business >>of pissing people off. >(BOGGLE!) This last sentence is positively amazing. >Tom, what to think you're doing to your first wave Jyhad customers?!? It can't always be avoided. In this case, it was "piss off existing customers" vs. "piss off potential customers". Basically, a no-win situation where that is concerned. Yes, I'm quite aware that most of the people on this group don't appear to give a hang about potential customers, but we have to consider both groups of people. Whatever decision was ultimately made, *somebody* was going to lose. We made the decision that we felt would have the best long-term impact on the game. >This is precisely the logic that I've been attempting to address. What you're >saying, in essence, is that you don't wish to make a value judgement about >the question of whether "Jyhad" should be offensive to some population group. >Yet the question of changing the card backs clearly involves weighing the >damage the being done to your first wave Jyhad customers vs. the interests >of that population group. When you decline to make that value judgement and >simply accept the claims (that "Jyhad" is offensive), you are not being at all >fair to the opposing interests. We were very aware of the impact the change would have on the existing customer base, and gave that due to consideration during the process. Just because the decision didn't come down as the existing customer base would have liked, doesn't mean that the customer base was ignored. >You MUST make that value judgement to be fair and it's clear that you didn't. We did make a value judgment. Our judgment disagrees with yours. That's no reason to blow ours off, or to claim that we didn't make one at all. >>Perhaps you're forgetting that we're aiming to expand the bounds of the >>gaming industry to the point where playing games (of any kind) is considered >>just as much a staple of modern culture as going to the movies is. Therefore, >>by our own definition, we cannot simply focus on what habiutual gamers are or >>aren't used to. It may well be that Jyhad/V:TES can never catch on outside >>of the traditional gaming industry, but we feel that we have to try. >Why do you feel you have to try?... Because focusing on the existing customer base is the best way to stagnate a game. If we just cater to that customer base, and never make any allowances for potential customers who have problems with the game, then the game will stagnate as the existing customers move on to other things despite our best efforts. Also, remember that we are trying to push games more into the mainstream culture, and pasttimes. That includes pushing the entire line of products, not just one or two projects here and there. No, we don't really expect V:TES to ever be any bigger than, say, horror movies, but it's clear that it could be a lot bigger than what the hobby industry is capable of supporting. >Was it necessary to experiment with >Jyhad, as opposed to developing other CCGs that are would be much more likely >to appeal to larger markets? What other CCGs? Magic is already tearing into the mainstream with no effort on our part. V:TES is the only other deckmaster game we have. The longer we wait to try to push another CCG, the harder it will be. >Actually, while I agree that at the end of the day, WotC has the right to make >whatever decision on this matter that they would, I would pick one nit: There >is absolutely nothing whatsoever about the concept of Freedom of Speech that >involves limiting ones own speech based on the beliefs and sensibilities of >others. Quite the opposite - Freedom of Speech is distinctly _OPPOSED_ to >the concept that what others think matters when it comes time for me to decide >what I think it's necessary to say. If you don't understand that, Tom, you >don't understand what's important about this great principle. And the keyword in your statement is "necessary". It's in no way "necessary" for Jyhad to be called Jyhad. >>That does not include the right to rub people's noses into ideas that >>they don't like and find offensive. >That is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT! I don't know where you got this idea but I would >dispute this to the ends of earth. The King of England probably didn't like >and found thoroughly offensive the idea that his economic policies were unfair >to the inhabitants of his American colonies yet I can't believe you would >advance the notion that saying so was wrong... I'm not advancing that notion, no. But there's a huge difference between economic policies that a people must live by (or try to change), and a *game* that you can just as easily leave on the shelf if it offends you or disturbs you or whatever. >One final point I'd like to make about WotC's position on this: if WotC has >done such great research about this matter, why do you decline to present it >to we gamers who are suffering the consequences of your decision? I note that >as much as I've read about this issue, never once have I seen WotC present the >case concerning _why_ anyone feels the use of the word "jihad" in the context >of your game is offensive. I would think if you had truly researched this and >come to the considered judgement that "jihad" is offensive, you should be quite >willing and even eager to present this to your customers. As the letter from Peter said (paraphrasing), it came about as a result of talking with distributors who work in the relevant parts of the world, and who we trusted to have a good idea as to what the people living there do and don't find acceptable. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : not just one or two projects here and there. No, we don't really expect : V:TES to ever be any bigger than, say, horror movies, but it's clear that : it could be a lot bigger than what the hobby industry is capable of : supporting. : As the letter from Peter said (paraphrasing), it came about as a result of : talking with distributors who work in the relevant parts of the world, and : who we trusted to have a good idea as to what the people living there do : and don't find acceptable. A game with pictures of vampires, sex toys, violent acts, weapons, and blood is going to be offensive to the majority, whether the backs of its cards read "The Jews Must Die," "Jyhad," "Vampire: The Eternal Struggle," or "Pooh and Piglet have a Picnic". There doesn't seem to be a way by which such a game could become mainstream as Magic, unless the imagery on the cards were diluted to a greater extent than current Jyhad players could possibly dream of. - Neil Bernstein (to forestall flames: yes, I'm Jewish) PS: Offending the audience apparently isn't a concern for Illuminati: New World Order. But I have no idea what its sales are like.

Someone wrote: : ... a _responsible_ action by WotC: A trade-in... Case one: The name of the game was a mistake, which I argued from the moment I first heard of it, before the game was even release, and I was virtually alone in my opinion. Anyone else who had an opinion was already a Masquerade fan (I had virtually no idea what it was at that time), and the name was fine with them, and I don't doubt that the same line was played out up at Wizards at that time. But a decision had to be made and they made it. Case two: After the game was released but prior to even an inkling of a notion of a name change was even suggested, even when I was still arguing that the name was poor, one good friend of my ultimately refused to play the game precisely because of the name, believing that it was potentially a conflict of religious beliefs, and might be perceived as insulting by people who hold those beliefs. And then WotC had to make a decision, and they made one. The timing was bad, and in reality, they were and are painted into a corner, and no bandaid is going to instantly make the damage caused by their initial short-sighted error go away. It's gonna hurt no matter what they do, but they decided, rightly, that the name Jyhad was a mistake, and that it would be better to excise it completely, now, take the pain, and to hopefully come out better on the other side. But it was their hard decision and they made it. Case last: So the last suggestion is made that the way to make it all right is: : ... a _responsible_ action by WotC: A trade-in... Have any of you even thought about, let alone calculated, the potential expense of such a trade-in? I have seen this suggestion bandied about as if it were more than reasonble, and my same innate sense that told me that Jyhad was a bad name tells me that such a suggestion, at this point, is nuts. The ailment in no way whatsoever justifies this cure, and the cure is potentially more destructive than a simple preemptive amputation. A suggestion to just drop the game completely makes more sense, economically, than to reprint and resupply all of the cards printed so far. The ignorance of basic economics, statistics, and just plain business sense displayed by people here, and the selfish egocentric gimme-opinions that proliferate on this and similir subjects indicate to me that the primordial limbic functions are way too uninhibited and the higher cortical functions are way too suppressed, apparently caused by a combination testosterone/silicon overload. Case Ultimate: Do any of you care about anything else in your lives as passionately as you do about these games? A Trade In? You tell us how much it will cost and otherwise justify why it makes good business sense, beyond the foaming rantings of your own tribal unit, and I will gladly withdraw and retract my rant. rob

>>> Tom Wylie writes: >>>Perhaps you're forgetting that we're aiming to expand the bounds of the >>>gaming industry to the point where playing games (of any kind) is considered >>>just as much a staple of modern culture as going to the movies is. Therefore, >>>by our own definition, we cannot simply focus on what habiutual gamers are or >>>aren't used to. It may well be that Jyhad/V:TES can never catch on outside >>>of the traditional gaming industry, but we feel that we have to try. >> Fredrick Scott responds: >>Why do you feel you have to try?... > Tom: > Because focusing on the existing customer base is the best way to stagnate > a game. If we just cater to that customer base, and never make any allowances > for potential customers who have problems with the game, then the game > will stagnate as the existing customers move on to other things despite > our best efforts. > Ah, Tom: Stagnate a game? I'm sorry that I need to disagree with you, because I feel that this arguement has stagnated, but I am to bullheaded to buck that trend. ;) Do you know how Magic became popular? Word of mouth. In my area, I brought in the first box of Arabian Nights, and actively pushed the game to people here because I liked it. With Jyhad I did/am doing the same. Focusing on keeping your customer base happy does two things: They continue to play the game til they are no longer happy and (more importantly) they push and promote your game for you. They recommend it. They say, "This is something you should check out." WotC's Jyhad (over)reaction has caused me to react in a number of ways. I'm securing JYHAD boxes so that the sizable group here can maintain a fresh supply of cards. I'm keeping my eyes glued in the hope of a _responsible_ action by WotC: A trade-in. I'm _still_ teaching people how to play (4 more people this month, personally, more secondarily). And I'm telling them, "It's a wonderful game, but <my blurb on how I feel about the whole Jyhad issue and the DS expansion>. Either go to another game, or join me in _not_ buying V:tES. You can still by Jyhad and play, and you can still by the second edition, but its better to hopefully send them the message that V:tES is a bad idea without the support of their loyal base." On a slightly side note from Tom & Fredrick, if the message of what Jyhad is is the confusing issue, maybe they should look to White Wolf's marketting team. It's hard not to tell what Rage is about with a seven-foot tall werewolf holding the cards. :) --- Spoutingly yours :) "I can send and recieve e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ Adrian Sullivan "<insert favorite quote here>" sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu -<insert name of those quoted here> @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ GAT/CS/M/P/O d-(---) h++ s g+ p+ au-(0) a-- w+(+++) v+++(-)* c(+++) UX+$ P L 3 E- N+++>++ K+>++++ !W M++ V-->! -po+ Y+ t 5->! j R+++>+++ G++++'' tv b++(+++) D+ B-(---)>? e+* u+(++)@-*/** h!*>+ f* r@++ n+(---) y*+? // from <hay...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu> v2.1 @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$

ro...@cray.com (Robert M Derrick) wrote: >Someone wrote: >: ... a _responsible_ action by WotC: A trade-in... Peace Rob, Probably me. A trade it is the only way WotC can show that it isn't turning its back on the established customer base. > good friend of my ultimately refused to play the game > precisely because of the name, believing that it was > potentially a conflict of religious beliefs, and might > be perceived as insulting by people who hold those beliefs. This makes me sick. "Let's use the percieved perceptions of 'some group' to dictate our actions." No, you shouldn't go around intentionally offending people, but this doesn't mean we should self-censor ourselves out of fear of potential offense. > but they [WotC] decided, rightly, that the name > Jyhad was a mistake, and that it would be better to > excise it completely, now, take the pain, and to > hopefully come out better on the other side. But it > was their hard decision and they made it. Unfortunately, WotC isn't "tak[ing] the pain." They are happily passing on to their consumers. >: ... a _responsible_ action by WotC: A trade-in... > > Have any of you even thought about, let alone > calculated, the potential expense of such a trade-in? Yep, sure have. I even asked how many cards and what percentage of the whole print run had been exchanged during the two previous card exchanges (Legends and Antiquities). The better question is, "Has anyone thought about the potential loss caused by alienating the customer base by not doing a trade-in?" Yes, it will cost WotC money to do a card exchange, but the name problem is their mistake and they should accept responsibility for it vs. sluffing it off onto the wallets of their customers. > I have seen this suggestion bandied about as if > it were more than reasonble, and my same innate sense > that told me that Jyhad was a bad name tells me that > such a suggestion, at this point, is nuts. The ailment > in no way whatsoever justifies this cure, and the > cure is potentially more destructive than a simple > preemptive amputation. A suggestion to just drop > the game completely makes more sense, economically, > than to reprint and resupply all of the cards > printed so far. The ignorance of basic economics, > statistics, and just plain business sense displayed > by people here, and the selfish egocentric gimme-opinions > that proliferate on this and similir subjects indicate > to me that the primordial limbic functions are way > too uninhibited and the higher cortical functions are > way too suppressed, apparently caused by a combination > testosterone/silicon overload. Well, I'm offended by the above paragraph, so, Rob, you shouldn't post anymore. [cynicism alert] The name change is WotC's fault, so why shouldn't they bear the responsibilty (economically)? Why should the established customer base carry the burden instead? Ignorant of basic economics/business sense? Let's see. Magic became popular because of word of mouth advertising. So, angering the established Jyhad players should make VtES a success. Ignorant of statistics? I have checked on what percentage of Antiquities and Legends cards were exchanged and expect that a similar percentage of Jyhad cards would be exchanged. [unless, of course, WotC is wrong about how few of the current players are angered by the changing of the card backs] Selfish gimme-opinions? WotC has done exchanges before, why not do one now? Players/consumers looked at the previous exchanges as a show of WotC's dedication to customer support/ happiness. Why shouldn't Jyhad's consumers/players be afforded that same level of customer support?? Your grasp of the need/justification for a card exchange seems to me lacking. I wouldn't have suggested it if I didn't think it was a good idea. In what way to I gain [gimme-gimme] from a card exchange (other than gaining the ability to buy more VtES cards)? In what way would WotC gain from a card exchange? [hint: happy players recruit new players] >Case Ultimate: Do any of you care about anything else in your > lives as passionately as you do about these games? I'd have thought will all the frothing I did about the First Amendment, the Freedom of Expression and the Constitution, that would be obvious. > A Trade In? You tell us how much it will cost and > otherwise justify why it makes good business sense, > beyond the foaming rantings of your own tribal unit, > and I will gladly withdraw and retract my rant. Already have, Rob. It makes excellent business sense for WotC to do a card exchange for two main reasons: customer happines and customer support. Doing the exchange means that those customers who are unhappy with the change can have collections with the new card backs at minimal expense (I'd have to pay postage on my collection) and they would buy more VtES cards and cards from further expansions. Doing the exchange also means that players see that WotC is dedicated to customer support which improves the image of WotC in the minds of their target audience, which makes those consumers more likely to buy WotC's products in the future. Yes, a card exchange will cost WotC money. The question for WotC is, "Which costs more: a card exchange or losing a segment of our customers (and all the customers they would have created)?" It seems like a simple question (and answer) to me. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

In article <3vncl5$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Yes, I'm quite aware that most of the >people on this group don't appear to give a hang about potential customers, Actually, the people on this group do want Jyhad to have more customers, because it means more opponents. However, what most of the people on this group don't appear to want is a good screwing over in a less-than- certain attempt to gain new customers. >but we have to consider both groups of people. Whatever decision was >ultimately made, *somebody* was going to lose. We made the decision that >we felt would have the best long-term impact on the game. This is only true once you narrowed your choices to "don't do anything" and "rename the game, change the card backs, and say that this won't affect games significantly". >We were very aware of the impact the change would have on the existing >customer base, and gave that due to consideration during the process. >Just because the decision didn't come down as the existing customer base >would have liked, doesn't mean that the customer base was ignored. This is just business doublespeak. Ignored, dismissed, pondered carefully and then dismissed, it's all the same. >Because focusing on the existing customer base is the best way to stagnate >a game. If we just cater to that customer base, and never make any allowances >for potential customers who have problems with the game, then the game >will stagnate as the existing customers move on to other things despite >our best efforts. Alienating your existing customer base in search of greener pastures isn't a great game advancement technique, either. Your options were not limited to "just" cater to the existing customer base and "just" cater to potential customers. You could have revamped your marketing attempts, packaging, etc. without changing the card backs ("Vampire: The Eternal Jyhad" has been suggested here, I believe) and tried to satisfy both. Once you decided not to do that, you could have at least bitten the bullet, acknowledged that game play would be affected, and set about implementing some equitable card-exchange program to make another attempt at satisfying your existing customers. Instead, WOTC ignored/dismissed/ pondered-then-dismissed the input from the existing customers, and then pretended that there was no problem. Hunter -- J. Hunter Johnson jhun...@io.com (Illuminati Online) GURPS Question of the Week: "If I made armor out of living eyeballs, would it provide DR2?" -- Rich Crosby

ro...@cray.com (Robert M Derrick) writes: >After the game was released but prior to even an inkling of a notion of a >name change was even suggested, even when I was still arguing that the name >was poor, one good friend of my ultimately refused to play the game precisely >because of the name, believing that it was potentially a conflict of >religious beliefs, be perceived as insulting by people who hold those beliefs. And why did he believe that? How can the mere name of this game conflict with anyone's religious beliefs or be insulting to anyone's religious beliefs? I suppose he could be a pacifist who felt the reference to "war" was bad. If so, he's likely to have problems with far more than just the name. >Case last: So the last suggestion is made that the way to make > it all right is: > >: ... a _responsible_ action by WotC: A trade-in... > > Have any of you even thought about, let alone > calculated, the potential expense of such a trade-in? > I have seen this suggestion bandied about as if > it were more than reasonble, and my same innate sense > that told me that Jyhad was a bad name tells me that > such a suggestion, at this point, is nuts. The ailment > in no way whatsoever justifies this cure, and the > cure is potentially more destructive than a simple > preemptive amputation. A suggestion to just drop > the game completely makes more sense, economically, > than to reprint and resupply all of the cards > printed so far. The ignorance of basic economics, > statistics, and just plain business sense displayed > by people here, and the selfish egocentric gimme-opinions > that proliferate on this and similir subjects indicate > to me that the primordial limbic functions are way > too uninhibited and the higher cortical functions are > way too suppressed, apparently caused by a combination > testosterone/silicon overload. Trade-ins are surely not intended as money-making endeavors. They are customer relations programs intended as good will gestures to customers who feel (rightly or wrongly) that they have been wronged. The question of whether they make sense or not is never going to have an obvious answer and depends on an executive's philosophy about such matters. Since you talk such a good game, I would be highly interested in seeing precisely to what "basic economics, statistics, and just plain business sense" you refer to. It's easy to suggest you know more than others about a given subject but I suspect you may have a more difficult time proving it. >Case Ultimate: Do any of you care about anything else in your > lives as passionately as you do about these games? This is a Usenet newsgroup about Jyhad. Common sense should tell you that you will read postings about Jyhad here by people who are passionate about the game. You will not likely get a sense of anyone's priorities vis-a-vis other parts of their lives from reading messages posted in this group. Nor would you get a sense for where bicycling ranks amongst people's priorities from reading a bicycling newsgroup nor where skiing ranks amongst people's priorities from reading a skiing newsgroup. So you should quit pretending you would. > A Trade In? You tell us how much it will cost Why should we (posters suggesting it) tell you (whoever you are) how much it will cost? We don't know what it is. A curious demand, indeed. >and otherwise justify why it makes good business sense, It could soothe the ill feelings of the core (read most interested/most likely to buy future products in this product line) first-wave customers of Jyhad who's interests have been damaged by this decision. That, in turn, is likely to have positive ramifications upon future sales, not just for the Jyhad/V:tES line but other WotC products (which are affected by WotC's general reputation as a company) as well. Whether the cost would be worth the gain depends on the cost (which few posters really know anything about) and the (undoubtably highly speculative) estimates about the gain. Fred

Robert M Derrick (ro...@cray.com) wrote: <bobbitt> : A Trade In? You tell us how much it will cost and : otherwise justify why it makes good business sense, : beyond the foaming rantings of your own tribal unit, : and I will gladly withdraw and retract my rant. A name change on an already-established game with a loyal customar base? Tell us how much it will cost, and otherwise justify why it is good business sense beyond the (possible and undocumented) foaming rantings of some far-away tribal unit and we will gladly withdraw and retract our protestations. Shane Travis | The stupid neither forgive nor forget; tra...@duke.usask.ca | The naive both forgive and forget; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | The wise forgive but do not forget. | -- Thomas Szasz

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > >Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote: >>>...but the point is that they are, and that we aren't in the business >>>of pissing people off. >>(BOGGLE!) This last sentence is positively amazing. >>Tom, what to think you're doing to your first wave Jyhad customers?!? > >It can't always be avoided. In this case, it was "piss off existing >customers" vs. "piss off potential customers". Basically, a no-win >situation where that is concerned. Then let's rephrase how we're explaining WotC's predicament. Explaining to people that the card backs had to change because you didn't want to "piss people off" is rather inaccurate, no? You had to make a judgement about pissing one group of poeple off vs. another. Your explaination makes it sound like you're waving your arms and explaining away the whole thing in terms of trying to please everyone. >Yes, I'm quite aware that most of the people on this group don't appear to >give a hang about potential customers, Not true - of course we'd like to see the game become more and more popular. Having more opponents who play the game is most certainly in our interests. It's just that - like WotC - we have other considerations, too. It's a bit ironic that I feel James McClure is off base when he says the "WotC doesn't care about it's customers" because I believe he's falling back into the the old habit of mistaking "WotC doesn't agree with us" with "WotC doesn't care about us". Now I see you making the same mistake in reverse. This is a complex issue and neither side is apparently going to convince the other of anything very readily. None the less, let's not second-guess each other's motives, here. Clearly I do get frustrated when people don't see something that looks brilliantly obvious to me but I try to avoid summing things up as "WotC is a bunch of jerks..." (as an extreme example) to explain why we don't agree. >but we have to consider both groups of people. Whatever decision was >ultimately made, *somebody* was going to lose. We made the decision that >we felt would have the best long-term impact on the game. This makes it sound as if you feel the card backs with the word "Jyhad" on them are actually going to result in significant lost sales. Now my understanding was that the whole thing was pretty much completely a morality issue and that even WotC was more or less conceding that (near term or long run, take your pick) more sales will ultimately be lost from changing the card backs than maintaining the "Jyhad" on them. If that's not WotC's "official" position, that represents a change in understanding for me and one that I a big problem with. It's difficult for me to imagine some vast, new, untapped market that's going to sputter out only because of "Jyhad" and that would more than make up for the damage that currently taking place. >We were very aware of the impact the change would have on the existing >customer base, and gave that due to consideration during the process. ... >We did make a value judgment. Our judgment disagrees with yours. That's >no reason to blow ours off, or to claim that we didn't make one at all. If that's true then you have not communicated the existance of any such process. I have never seen WotC at any time attempt to justify the statement "Jyhad is offensive". What you've said time and time again is "there exists people who _think_ Jyhad is offensive and we wouldn't want to question their judgement about it because we are not in a position to. This is not making a value judgement. This is accepting someone _else's_ value judgement, carte blanche, as gospel truth. >>Actually, while I agree that at the end of the day, WotC has the right to make >>whatever decision on this matter that they would, I would pick one nit: There >>is absolutely nothing whatsoever about the concept of Freedom of Speech... (I say some stuff about free Speech. Tom argues back. I could argue back some more but we're thoroughly digressing here. He just kind of pressed one or two of my buttons when he got into a debate about how free speech works. I should let it drop. It's really not that germane to my complaints at least.) >>One final point I'd like to make about WotC's position on this: if WotC has >>done such great research about this matter, why do you decline to present it >>to we gamers who are suffering the consequences of your decision? I note >>that as much as I've read about this issue, never once have I seen WotC >>present the case concerning _why_ anyone feels the use of the word "jihad" >>in the context of your game is offensive. I would think if you had truly >>researched this and come to the considered judgement that "jihad" is >>offensive, you should be quite willing and even eager to present this to >>your customers. > >As the letter from Peter said (paraphrasing), it came about as a result of >talking with distributors who work in the relevant parts of the world, and >who we trusted to have a good idea as to what the people living there do >and don't find acceptable. That's the point. You simply accepted your distrubutor's evaluation of how other people felt about it without question. That's not fair. To do likewise for Jyhad players, you should simply accept that we consider it a serious problem to mix card backs. But you don't - probably (correct me if I'm wrong) because you think you know a thing or two about how serious a problem mixing card backs is and because you can't accept both problems without question when someone has to lose. But that's not fair: one side goes unquestioned and unchallenged while the other is. The fair way to decide is actually evaluate the claims of both sides and do the best you can. This does _not_ involve simply "talking with distributors...who we trusted to have a good idea as to what people living there do and don't find acceptable". It involves trying to understand _why_ Jyhad is unacceptable and evaluating the complaint for yourselves. Then you should have a case to make for us, also. (We may not agree, of course, but that's a moot point at present...) Fred

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >We did make a value judgment. Our judgment disagrees with yours. That's >no reason to blow ours off, or to claim that we didn't make one at all. When your value judgement is that you don't value US, you shouldn't be surprised that we get upset. >Because focusing on the existing customer base is the best way to stagnate >a game. If we just cater to that customer base, and never make any allowances >for potential customers who have problems with the game, then the game >will stagnate as the existing customers move on to other things despite >our best efforts. Because of their social nature, CCGs sell like computer standards, not like toys. Your customer base is by far the most important thing in selling a CCG. We all know Magic would not be the leading game if any of a number of others had beaten it out. >Also, remember that we are trying to push games more into the mainstream >culture, and pasttimes. That includes pushing the entire line of products, >not just one or two projects here and there. Jyhad is a very complex game, suited for the hobby market, not the Anne Rice market (who would prefer a great book). A basic of marketing is design to your market. >What other CCGs? Magic is already tearing into the mainstream with no effort >on our part. V:TES is the only other deckmaster game we have. The longer >we wait to try to push another CCG, the harder it will be. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) writes: >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: Tom>Yes, I'm quite aware that most of the people on this group don't appear to Tom>give a hang about potential customers, Why yes, I DO give a hang. That's why I recommend they buy the Jyhad cards (for less money :-) and play by good rules (which I don't expect from V:tES after seeing the "Basic" rules). Of course, the final advanced rules may be better, in which case I'll recommend them. >This makes it sound as if you feel the card backs with the word "Jyhad" on >them are actually going to result in significant lost sales. Now my >understanding was that the whole thing was pretty much completely a morality >issue and that even WotC was more or less conceding that (near term or long >run, take your pick) more sales will ultimately be lost from changing the >card backs than maintaining the "Jyhad" on them. If that's not WotC's >"official" position, that represents a change in understanding for me and one >that I a big problem with. It's difficult for me to imagine some vast, new, >untapped market that's going to sputter out only because of "Jyhad" and that >would more than make up for the damage that currently taking place. The morality claim has always seemed quite fishy, what with the veiled references to the "Middle Eastern" distributor (actually only Israeli). WotC never actually said that the distributor really objected, even. For that matter they never said ANYBODY objected. Now they are demonstrating how offensive they believe the Jyhad cards are by giving them away by the millions. Actions speak louder than words. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <3vncl5$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > >We were very aware of the impact the change would have on the existing >customer base, and gave that due to consideration during the process. >Just because the decision didn't come down as the existing customer base >would have liked, doesn't mean that the customer base was ignored. > I see. You didn't unintentionally screw us over-- you very deliberately screwed us over, after carefully considering the issue. That makes me much, much, happier. I am so glad to know that WOTC values me as a customer so much that it will intentionally piss me off when given the opportunity. BTW, wasn't the original story WOTC pushed that their polls showed none of the current players cared if WOTC changed the card backs.... Ana Na'thraw Urthvas Bethut Dohi'er Vyende EZ

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >>>>...but the point is that they are, and that we aren't in the business >>>>of pissing people off. >Then let's rephrase how we're explaining WotC's predicament. Explaining to >people that the card backs had to change because you didn't want to "piss >people off" is rather inaccurate, no? You had to make a judgement about >pissing one group of poeple off vs. another. Your explaination makes it sound >like you're waving your arms and explaining away the whole thing in terms >of trying to please everyone. Hm, ok, I see your point. The situation was basically that we knew we were offending one group of customers, or potential customers, but that changing the game to correct that situation would offend another group of customers. So it came down to an analysis of a) what seemed to be the right thing to do, and b) what was best for the long-term survivability of the game. Part b) also included the marketing concerns which have been listed here frequently. >>but we have to consider both groups of people. Whatever decision was >>ultimately made, *somebody* was going to lose. We made the decision that >>we felt would have the best long-term impact on the game. >This makes it sound as if you feel the card backs with the word "Jyhad" on >them are actually going to result in significant lost sales. Now my >understanding was that the whole thing was pretty much completely a morality >issue and that even WotC was more or less conceding that (near term or long >run, take your pick) more sales will ultimately be lost from changing the >card backs than maintaining the "Jyhad" on them... We felt we had to take the risk that changing the name and card backs would hurt the game more than help in the long run, but that the risk was necessary. Maintaining "Jyhad" would have resulted in hidden lost sales, represented by lack of growth in the produce, particularly in regions that have a problem with the connotations of the word "Jyhad". >It's difficult for me to imagine some vast, new, >untapped market that's going to sputter out only because of "Jyhad" and that >would more than make up for the damage that currently taking place. Given that there was no real evidence of the market expanding significantly before the name or card back changes were announced, it's not all that difficult for me to imagine. >If that's true then you have not communicated the existance of any such >process. I have never seen WotC at any time attempt to justify the statement >"Jyhad is offensive". What you've said time and time again is "there exists >people who _think_ Jyhad is offensive and we wouldn't want to question their >judgement about it because we are not in a position to. This is not making >a value judgement. This is accepting someone _else's_ value judgement, carte >blanche, as gospel truth. The whole point was that the name was offensive *to those people*. We do not feel that we have the right to dictate to people what they will or won't find offensive. While one can argue that education might have been a better answer, it was not at all clear how we might go about solving the problem that way, and certainly didn't (and don't) have the resources to do so. The name Jyhad is not offensive to us. But it is offensive in certain regions, and that was the issue, not whether it's offensive to us. >That's the point. You simply accepted your distrubutor's evaluation of how >other people felt about it without question. That's not fair. >To do likewise for Jyhad players, you should simply accept that we consider >it a serious problem to mix card backs. But you don't - probably (correct me >if I'm wrong) because you think you know a thing or two about how serious >a problem mixing card backs is and because you can't accept both problems >without question when someone has to lose. But that's not fair: one side goes >unquestioned and unchallenged while the other is. The fair way to decide is >actually evaluate the claims of both sides and do the best you can. This does >_not_ involve simply "talking with distributors...who we trusted to have a >good idea as to what people living there do and don't find acceptable". It >involves trying to understand _why_ Jyhad is unacceptable and evaluating the >complaint for yourselves. Then you should have a case to make for us, also. >(We may not agree, of course, but that's a moot point at present...) It was not *simply* based on the distributor's evaluation, but I don't know how extensive the overall evaluation was. And I don't know that it's something I can talk about. I'm fairly certain that if Peter (or Matt) did want it discussed publicly, Peter would have said something about it in his letter. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3vsktr$s...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: First, let me say that I respect Mr. Wylie for his years of service answering questions regarding Deckmaster games. Its a hell of a job that I wouldn't want to do. What follows is a bitter disagreement with what he says. > >Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>...but the point is that they are, and that we aren't in the business >>>>>of pissing people off. >>Then let's rephrase how we're explaining WotC's predicament. Explaining to >>people that the card backs had to change because you didn't want to "piss >>people off" is rather inaccurate, no? You had to make a judgement about >>pissing one group of poeple off vs. another. Your explaination makes it sound >>like you're waving your arms and explaining away the whole thing in terms >>of trying to please everyone. > >Hm, ok, I see your point. The situation was basically that we knew we >were offending one group of customers, or potential customers, but that >changing the game to correct that situation would offend another group >of customers. So it came down to an analysis of a) what seemed to be >the right thing to do, and b) what was best for the long-term survivability >of the game. Part b) also included the marketing concerns which have >been listed here frequently. It is to be assumed that your responding to the people who are having difficulty with WotC's decision represents acknowledgment of the fact that there are quite reasonable objections to it. > >>>but we have to consider both groups of people. Whatever decision was >>>ultimately made, *somebody* was going to lose. We made the decision that >>>we felt would have the best long-term impact on the game. >>This makes it sound as if you feel the card backs with the word "Jyhad" on >>them are actually going to result in significant lost sales. Now my >>understanding was that the whole thing was pretty much completely a morality >>issue and that even WotC was more or less conceding that (near term or long >>run, take your pick) more sales will ultimately be lost from changing the >>card backs than maintaining the "Jyhad" on them... > >We felt we had to take the risk that changing the name and card backs >would hurt the game more than help in the long run, but that the risk >was necessary. Maintaining "Jyhad" would have resulted in hidden lost >sales, represented by lack of growth in the produce, particularly in regions >that have a problem with the connotations of the word "Jyhad". In that the company is willing to take what it considers a to be a position of conscience in spite of the liklihood of lost sales is worthy of praise; however, it is doing so in a terribly misguided fashion. There were better ways to increase the sales of the game. Consider the method in which 'Rage' has been advertised. A one word name that does not indicate that the game is about werewolves parallels Jyhad's not indicating it is about vampires. However, it is hard to miss the fact that Rage is about werewolves given that it is always presented with a werewolf somewhere nearby. The packaging of Jyhad could quite easily have been changed to accomplish this. That some regions will have a problem with the connotations of the word Jyhad can not be the sole factor in a name change, given that someone, somewhere, is going to have a problem with any name you choose. ("What?!?!? I'm not buying a game called 'Vampire' because I don't want my children exposed to such twisted ideas". . ."I find the choice of the name 'Stalkers' to be offensive to anyone who has ever been stalked". . . "I don't like the idea of the name. . .). What should be a factor is how reasonable the objections to a given name are. I certainly would be offended by a game called 'Nigger: The Enslavement', and would suspect that any sane person would find that such a name would be an insult to a rather substantial number of people. Now, the number of people insulted *should not* determine the correctness of changing the name. Calling a game 'Shakers: The Dying Breed' would be incorrect, even though there are less than 7 of them remaining. However, just because some people choose to be offended by a faulty chain of logic that follows from the name--and I have yet to hear anyone protest that the word itself is inherently offensive, but rather have heard thought that flows, "The game is called Jyhad. Jyhad is an islamic term, it is associated with a 'holy' (incorrectly I might add) war. [Some] Islamics are at war with Israel. Israelis must therefore be the [sole] target of all usages of the word 'jyhad'. Israelis would therefore be offended," (And there are similar twisted logics that make it offensive to Islamics, Christians, Republicans, Luddites, Patagonians. . . .)--does not mean that the objection is worthy of being dealt with. > >>It's difficult for me to imagine some vast, new, >>untapped market that's going to sputter out only because of "Jyhad" and that >>would more than make up for the damage that currently taking place. > >Given that there was no real evidence of the market expanding significantly >before the name or card back changes were announced, it's not all that >difficult for me to imagine. Advertising. You expand a market with advertising. > >>If that's true then you have not communicated the existance of any such >>process. I have never seen WotC at any time attempt to justify the statement >>"Jyhad is offensive". What you've said time and time again is "there exists >>people who _think_ Jyhad is offensive and we wouldn't want to question their >>judgement about it because we are not in a position to. This is not making >>a value judgement. This is accepting someone _else's_ value judgement, carte >>blanche, as gospel truth. > >The whole point was that the name was offensive *to those people*. We do >not feel that we have the right to dictate to people what they will or won't >find offensive. While one can argue that education might have been a better >answer, it was not at all clear how we might go about solving the problem >that way, and certainly didn't (and don't) have the resources to do so. > >The name Jyhad is not offensive to us. But it is offensive in certain regions, >and that was the issue, not whether it's offensive to us. Again, their offense is not necessarily worth of being acknowledged. And before you protest that any offense is worthy of acknowlegment, I'll warn you then that you have put yourself in an unresolvable position as you can plainly see that there are those who are going to be offended by the name change, and as they are as worthy of not offending as the group for which you are changing the name. . . . > >>That's the point. You simply accepted your distrubutor's evaluation of how >>other people felt about it without question. That's not fair. >>To do likewise for Jyhad players, you should simply accept that we consider >>it a serious problem to mix card backs. But you don't - probably (correct me >>if I'm wrong) because you think you know a thing or two about how serious >>a problem mixing card backs is and because you can't accept both problems >>without question when someone has to lose. But that's not fair: one side goes >>unquestioned and unchallenged while the other is. The fair way to decide is >>actually evaluate the claims of both sides and do the best you can. This does >>_not_ involve simply "talking with distributors...who we trusted to have a >>good idea as to what people living there do and don't find acceptable". It >>involves trying to understand _why_ Jyhad is unacceptable and evaluating the >>complaint for yourselves. Then you should have a case to make for us, also. >>(We may not agree, of course, but that's a moot point at present...) > >It was not *simply* based on the distributor's evaluation, but I don't know >how extensive the overall evaluation was. And I don't know that it's something >I can talk about. I'm fairly certain that if Peter (or Matt) did want it >discussed publicly, Peter would have said something about it in his letter. At this point I doubt those responsible for making the evaluation really want to step forward and explain how the evaluation was made. I know of no Islamic or Jewish group that was offended by the name. (As an aside, I am more offended by the secularization of Christianity witnessed by the industry that has grown up to sell Christianized nick-nacks (Redemption, the Chistian CCG, t-shirts with all manners of tongue-in-cheek biblical statements, Christ doing push-ups on t-shirts, with a cross on his back. . .). > > >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. > Donald A. Bachman | Support English as the 'Lingua Franca' of the modern world. -- Donald A. Bachman | Support English as the 'Lingua Franca' of the modern world.

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >>This makes it sound as if you feel the card backs with the word "Jyhad" on >>them are actually going to result in significant lost sales. Now my >>understanding was that the whole thing was pretty much completely a morality >>issue and that even WotC was more or less conceding that (near term or long >>run, take your pick) more sales will ultimately be lost from changing the >>card backs than maintaining the "Jyhad" on them... > >We felt we had to take the risk that changing the name and card backs >would hurt the game more than help in the long run, but that the risk >was necessary. Maintaining "Jyhad" would have resulted in hidden lost >sales, represented by lack of growth in the produce, particularly in regions >that have a problem with the connotations of the word "Jyhad". ... >Given that there was no real evidence of the market expanding significantly >before the name or card back changes were announced, it's not all that >difficult for me to imagine. My point is that this issue (card backs as opposed to the name V:tES vs. Jyhad) really isn't a practical "business sales" issue as you seemed to suggesting. True, there _might_ be some growth potential garnered by avoiding offending the irrational (or arguably rational) bias against a word that sounds like "jihad" of certain people somewhere on the earth just as there _might_ be some additional sales in Magic by elminating the word "Demon" from the main card set. However, given that you acknowledge that on balance it's probably a loser in business terms, it doesn't make sense for you to argue that we should accept the card back change as something that will be bring in more new players. ("Potential customers" were your words; it amounts to the same thing.) Changing the name may have that effect. Changing the card backs likely will not. >>If that's true then you have not communicated the existance of any such >>process. I have never seen WotC at any time attempt to justify the statement >>"Jyhad is offensive". What you've said time and time again is "there exists >>people who _think_ Jyhad is offensive and we wouldn't want to question their >>judgement about it because we are not in a position to. This is not making >>a value judgement. This is accepting someone _else's_ value judgement, carte >>blanche, as gospel truth. > >The whole point was that the name was offensive *to those people*. We do >not feel that we have the right to dictate to people what they will or won't >find offensive. Then, likewise, how can possibly argue that your first wave customers shouldn't care about the card backs or that our feelings need not be respected? This is not the least bit consistent. If you get into a mode where you simply react to a given group's irrational feelings about something, how and where do you get out of it? Where's the distinction between the purported feelings of the Middle Easterers and those of your first wave Jyhad customers? Why pick on us? As I said before, that mode of thinking is fine for when there's no other solid, tangible, material considerations to weigh against it. But when there is, you have to step in and decide whether they have a point or not. In fact, I don't even care if WotC _does_ want to kowtow to every conceivable ethnic, social, racial, national, religious, or sexually-oriented group in creation as long as you do it on your own nickle. (I think you're being silly to, but that's your business...) But when you start affecting your customer's material interests, that's a different thing. >It was not *simply* based on the distributor's evaluation, but I don't know >how extensive the overall evaluation was. And I don't know that it's something >I can talk about. I'm fairly certain that if Peter (or Matt) did want it >discussed publicly, Peter would have said something about it in his letter. Peter _did_ discuss it in his letter. He said essentially the same thing you're saying and I found it equally unsatisfactory. I'm not questioning how certain you are that people are offended (although it's also a pertinent question) but the fact that the standard ends at "people are offended..." and not "people are offended BECAUSE OF (reason/reasons given)". Fred

In article <3vs4hr$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) writes: > >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > > Tom>Yes, I'm quite aware that most of the people on this group don't > appear to > Tom>give a hang about potential customers, > > Why yes, I DO give a hang. That's why I recommend they buy the Jyhad > cards (for less money :-) and play by good rules (which I don't expect > from V:tES after seeing the "Basic" rules). Of course, the final advanced > rules may be better, in which case I'll recommend them. > [mess 'o deletions] > The morality claim has always seemed quite fishy, what with the veiled > references to the "Middle Eastern" distributor (actually only Israeli). > WotC never actually said that the distributor really objected, even. For > that matter they never said ANYBODY objected. > > Now they are demonstrating how offensive they believe the Jyhad cards are > by giving them away by the millions. Actions speak louder than words. > > Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) **** Have you also noted the selective replies to only *certain* issues over here. No reply on why it is just peachy to send out millions of the "now-offensive" cards to unsuspecting readers. Let's face it... they just don't care. They made a $ decision and they are going to stick with it. It will probably fail anyways as this IS a one product company. And that must be a souce of frustration for them. If they hadn't hooked up with Garfield then they would *still* be working out of someone's garage. So their lack of finesse with customers is probably expected. Sure they can pump out Garfield's product but virtually nothing else has panned out for them - product or customer-wise. -Andy

In a previous posting, Adrian Sullivan (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) said: > It's hard not to tell what Rage is about with a seven-foot tall > werewolf holding the cards. :) The only problem with trying this for Jyhad is that Vampires aren't that special looking. Werewolves are all fur, claws and teeth, but vampires are just pale humans with long canines (externally at least). One could make a cardboard vampire holding cards, but it would take your average non-Jyhad/non-VTM player several seconds to see that it was a vampire, thereby lessening the effect. This is one argument in support of the name change, although I'm still as pissed off as the next guy. (However, your average salesperson is more than happy to tell you what Jyhad is all about, if you just ask.) Santiago * Reporter: Mr. Ghandi, what do you think of e-mail: * western civilization? ia...@mail.utexas.edu * Ghandi: I think it would be a very good idea.

James R. McClure Jr. (jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu) wrote: : ro...@cray.com (Robert M Derrick) wrote: : >Someone wrote: : >: ... a _responsible_ action by WotC: A trade-in... : Peace Rob, Mir, Shanti, Salaam, Hey Wa, James. I won't belabour your entire response, suffice it to say that we view self-control and offense at differing points along the grey continuum of behaviour. : ... I even asked how many cards and what percentage of the whole : print run had been exchanged during the two previous card exchanges (Legends : and Antiquities). And those numbers are? : ... I have checked on what percentage of Antiquities and Legends cards : were exchanged and expect that a similar percentage of Jyhad cards would be : exchanged. I do not know what kind of exchange was made in Antiquities, so I cannot comment on that (and I'd be glad to be enlightened). But I do know about Legends, and it is clear that there is no reasonable comparison, even without knowing all of the numbered details. Even if more Legends cards were printed than Jyhad, there is still no comparison. The Legends' exchange was only for uncommons, and at the most WotC only had to expect that at worst half of the uncommons printed would need to be exchanged, and that the cards sent in for exchange would in turn be used to provide the other half of the exchange. And, there was no identical card exchange, but the returned cards were likely to be randomly chosen from the opposite set (tho' due to the small numbers involved, I understand that WotC did attempt to fill some wish lists) On the other hand, a Jyhad exchange, at worst, consists of the entire print run of Jyhad from day one, and includes many peoples 2000+ cards collections, and while folks like me might not be as broken up about the "back change" as you, many of us would still be tempted to send ours in for replacement anyway -- nifty new cards with nifty new formats -- and the potential impact on WotC is likely even more than just a total wash on the entire Jyhad cost/profit to date, but the expense of reproducing the entire print run of Jyhad, and then sorting, by hand, millions of cards to provide everyone with the identical set they had before... : [unless, of course, WotC is wrong about how few of the current : players are angered by the changing of the card backs] So the real question comes down to, how many Jyhad players, that is, of the entire customer base of Jyhad since day one, are "angered by the changing of the card backs", plus those that, while not angry, would take advantage of a card exchange anyway? Above you indicate that you think this number is rather low, based on past numbers from Antiquities and Legends. You also hint above and elsewhere that you think this number is large, speaking of the "customer base", and how much damage this will cause to the game, since so many are angered. So, which is it? Of the 100% of all Jyhad buyers since day one, what percentage are angered by the change? If it's large, then a card exchange is not feasable, plus, that large percentage of the customer base is wiped out, and so WotC takes it in the pants either way. It's a no-win situation. Or, that number is small, or at least not significant enough to matter, economically, and WotC believes, with some justification, that there is also a whole new world of potential customers out there that will ultimately dwarf the current vocal curmudgeons and Rikinites. Life does go on, New Coke is a notable exception, of course, but since the analogy is poor enough already, let's not bring it up again. Now, you claim to have the numbers, so let's see them. My entire diatribe was to ask someone to justify what I considered to be an extraordinarily foolish suggestion. I challenged anyone to support it with data rather than invective. And other than your McCarthyesque content-free rhetoric, the response was thundering silence. How many Antiquities cards were printed, what were the terms of the exchange, and how many cards were exchanged? Did new cards have to be printed to replace the old, and at what cost? What were the labor costs involved? Who paid the postage, to and fro? How many Legends uncommon cards were printed, and how many cards were exchanged? What were the labor costs involved? Who paid the postage, to and fro? How many Jyhad cards were printed, and what terms of exchange are you proposing? What is the expected case scenario, and what is the worst case scenario? How many new cards will have to be printed for the exchange alone? What will the labor costs be, and who will pay the postage, to and fro? : The question for WotC is, "Which costs more: a card exchange or losing a segment : of our customers (and all the customers they would have created)?" It seems : like a simple question (and answer) to me. Me too, and I think the answer is not the one you think it is, and I think that WotC has come to the same painful conclusion. I have met my fair share of "alpha/beta magic" players who are insensed over [insert latest WotC move here] and who are never going to play again, and their impact on the game has been about the same as Arthur Dent's impact on the bulldozer. Of course, your numbers, James, could show me wrong... rob

ro...@cray.com (Robert M Derrick) wrote: >James R. McClure Jr. (jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu) wrote: >Mir, Shanti, Salaam, Hey Wa, James. ^^^^^^ Peace Rob, I'm not familiar with that one. >I won't belabour your entire response, suffice it to say that we >view self-control and offense at differing points along the >grey continuum of behaviour. ^^^^ Here's where we really disagree. I see everything as black or white. There are NO shades of grey. >: ... I even asked how many cards and what percentage of the whole >: print run had been exchanged during the two previous card exchanges (Legends >: and Antiquities). > >And those numbers are? I wasn't given specific numbers, just approximate percentages. I didn't save the emails; I have only my memory to go on. I was told that in the case of both AQ & LE the exchange percentage was very low (<2%). >: ... I have checked on what percentage of Antiquities and Legends cards >: were exchanged and expect that a similar percentage of Jyhad cards would be >: exchanged. > >I do not know what kind of exchange was made in Antiquities, so I cannot >comment on that (and I'd be glad to be enlightened). But I do know about >Legends, and it is clear that there is no reasonable comparison, even >without knowing all of the numbered details. Even if more Legends cards >were printed than Jyhad, there is still no comparison. The Legends' >exchange was only for uncommons, and at the most WotC only had to >expect that at worst half of the uncommons printed would need to >be exchanged, and that the cards sent in for exchange would in turn >be used to provide the other half of the exchange. And, there was >no identical card exchange, but the returned cards were likely to >be randomly chosen from the opposite set (tho' due to the small >numbers involved, I understand that WotC did attempt to fill some >wish lists) Valid points all. WotC did fill wish lists TTBOMK. I'm sure some unc cards were far more likely to be returned an others far more likely to be requested, so I'm not sure how successful they were at filling wish lists. >On the other hand, a Jyhad exchange, at worst, consists of the >entire print run of Jyhad from day one, and includes many peoples >2000+ cards collections, and while folks like me might not be as >broken up about the "back change" as you, many of us would still >be tempted to send ours in for replacement anyway -- nifty new cards >with nifty new formats -- and the potential impact on WotC is likely >even more than just a total wash on the entire Jyhad cost/profit >to date, but the expense of reproducing the entire print run of >Jyhad, and then sorting, by hand, millions of cards >to provide everyone with the identical set they had before... Given past card return/exchange rates, I'd say that the probability of a worst case scenario (or even a near-worst case) is zero. I'm sure the parts of WotC opposed to a card exchange would use this as a scare tactic to disuade the other parts of WotC from doing the right thing. >: [unless, of course, WotC is wrong about how few of the current >: players are angered by the changing of the card backs] > >So the real question comes down to, how many Jyhad players, that is, of >the entire customer base of Jyhad since day one, are "angered by the changing >of the card backs", plus those that, while not angry, would take advantage >of a card exchange anyway? Not exactly. It comes down to how many people would spend the time and effort to ship all their cards (regardless of reasoning). Given the attitudes of most Americans, even the annoyed ones will be unlikely to expend the effort to get all their cards replaced. >Above you indicate that you think this number is rather low, based on >past numbers from Antiquities and Legends. I'm working on a hypothesis based on the percentages that WotC provided me, which were quite low. >You also hint above and elsewhere that you think this number is large, >speaking of the "customer base", and how much damage this will cause to >the game, since so many are angered. I've stated that it appears to me, from talking to players local to me and from reading this newsgroup, that a large percentage of the established Jyhad customer base is angered by the decision by WotC to change the card backs. I've never said that a large number would exchange cards. >So, which is it? Of the 100% of all Jyhad buyers since day one, what >percentage are angered by the change? If it's large, then a card >exchange is not feasable, plus, that large percentage of the customer >base is wiped out, and so WotC takes it in the pants either way. >It's a no-win situation. Again, you are misconstruing what I said. I said most (>50%) of the established customer base was angry with the change. I said that past card trade-ins have been very small percentages of the print run. These are not contradictory statements. If a no-win scenario now exists for WotC (and I don't know if one does or not), then they have "painted themselves into a corner." The consumers didn't force WotC to publish a teriffic game, poorly market it, and then make further poor decisions on how to "save" that game. >Or, that number is small, or at least not significant enough to matter, >economically, and WotC believes, with some justification, that there >is also a whole new world of potential customers out there that will >ultimately dwarf the current vocal curmudgeons and Rikinites. Life >does go on, New Coke is a notable exception, of course, but since the >analogy is poor enough already, let's not bring it up again. These are your opinions. The idea that there is some vast, untapped customer pool out there is fanciful. Gamers as a whole are a small segment of the population. Complex strategy games, like Jyhad, are only interesting to a segment of the gamer population. Expecting to find an El-dorado of customers just by changing the games name is silly. >Now, you claim to have the numbers, so let's see them. >My entire diatribe was to ask someone to justify what I considered >to be an extraordinarily foolish suggestion. I challenged anyone >to support it with data rather than invective. And other than your >McCarthyesque content-free rhetoric, the response was thundering >silence. Nope, I don't have the actual numbers, just percentages. I don't consider a card exchange to be "foolish" and neither do most of the people that have responded to my initial suggestion for one. There are apparently enough "fools" working for WotC that they have seriously entertained the notion of doing a card exchange. Now, as far as my posts being "McCarthyesque [no relation] content-free rhetoric", well it seems that you and Tom Wylie agree on that. Fortunately, everyone else on this newsgroup seems to feel that I post useful and informative data. If I've misrepresented myself, I welcome corrections from other net.citizens. One more thing. Most posters will see a reply [like mine] to a challenge/question [like yours] and seeing that the reply is correct and that they mostly agree with it, they will chose not to waste time and bandwidth "me too"ing. That is what you are seeing, Rob. Again, if I'm making a mistake here, I welcome correction. >How many Antiquities cards were printed, what were the terms of the >exchange, and how many cards were exchanged? Did new cards have to >be printed to replace the old, and at what cost? What were the labor >costs involved? Who paid the postage, to and fro? I don't know. Send it cards, get cards back. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. The consumer (to) and WotC (fro). >How many Legends uncommon cards were printed, and how many cards were >exchanged? What were the labor costs involved? Who paid the postage, to >and fro? See above. >How many Jyhad cards were printed, and what terms of exchange are >you proposing? What is the expected case scenario, and what is the >worst case scenario? How many new cards will have to be printed >for the exchange alone? What will the labor costs be, and who will >pay the postage, to and fro? I believe the number bandied about is 130 million. Equal exchange is what I suggest. It is the only truely fair way. I expect a similar percentage of exchange to previous exchange (~2%). I don't have access to enough data to formulate a valid "worst case scenario". None as cards from the normal print run will do. I don't know what WotCs labor costs are. Consumer (to) and WotC (fro). >: The question for WotC is, "Which costs more: a card exchange or losing a segment >: of our customers (and all the customers they would have created)?" It seems >: like a simple question (and answer) to me. > >Me too, and I think the answer is not the one you think it is, and I >think that WotC has come to the same painful conclusion. I have met >my fair share of "alpha/beta magic" players who are insensed over >[insert latest WotC move here] and who are never going to play again, >and their impact on the game has been about the same as Arthur Dent's >impact on the bulldozer. Thanks for agreeing with me. Arthur Dent held the bulldozer effectively motionless until Ford convinced him to go to the pub. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on which is the bigger loss: the old customers (and all their progeny) or a card exchange. We can't disagree on which one is the conscientious thing for WotC to do. A company that claims to care about their customers (and potential customers) as much as WotC does only has one choice when it comes to fixing a mistake that that company has made (such as this one is). [ quoted text not captured ]

A good reply! Yes, we agree to disagree, but your reply answered every question I asked clearly and honestly, and on the internet, that's something worth pointing out. Thanks, James R. McClure Jr. (jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu) wrote: : ro...@cray.com (Robert M Derrick) wrote: : >Mir, Shanti, Salaam, Hey Wa, James. : ^^^^^^ : Peace Rob, : I'm not familiar with that one. Not sure exactly which Oriental language, but it likely a Chinese dialect (from the song, Letter To Adam, by Pete Seeger).