Re: StarCity takes sides?

[sin_plague]

a short thank you to raph or whoever stepped in to edit jeff's posts

[MagicRage]

It's understandable for some people to have a sympathetic view of WotC's decisions, especially someone like Rich who has worked with them even if it is only on a freelance basis.

The biggest problem with the article was the negative light in which he portrayed the Players Union. But at the same time, there are surely a fair number of forum users out there on places like SCG or MTGSal who think the Players Union is stupid and/or worthless. You can argue Rich's opinion is incorrect (and I think it is) but he's not alone in having that viewpoint.

Evan was probably the most noteable forum poster to set Rich's article straight and I hope the The Magic Show this week or next addresses some of Rich's comments from his article, particular his negative view of the Union.

[Shadowhunter483]

I personally liked the way rich stated his opinion on the union. I don't agree with him, but I liked the way that he stated his opinion and was civil about it. I will admit that his article was angled against the union, but I liked the way he explained his point of view and again was civil about it.

[janos_wuryon]

Those who think the formation of a group ( union if you will) to represent the opinions of any large group is absolutley the right thing to do when members of the group feel they are suffering due to the decisions of those who disregard them. I have never been to a pro tour, I rarely play in PTQ's, I do travel to GP's and I signed up to voice my opinion and contribute to the "union" because it is what every tournament player should do. A bunch of stray emails from individuals don't carry much wieght but a goup 1000 people all saying the same thing will make business stop and take notice.

on to point 2 Places like SCG have an obligation to post content relevent to Games they promote/support. They are not taking sides, no matter how ignorantly slanted an article they print may be. If SCG decided to side against either interest it would be business suicide. The entire secondary magic market is fueled by sub pro tournament players. Casual people dont spend 60 a piece on Goyf's but the guy going to the extended GP sure will. They cant side against us any more than they could risk trashing WOTC exclusivley.

[TobiH]

Okay, let's go:

First of all, Rich's article is absolutely great! … Well, it desperately needs to be because it is plain wrong on quite a few topics.

Following, I will list five things Rich got wrong and compare them with the actual views of the Union – as far as the Union does have something even resembling one official position (and Rich is dead right on the problems regarding unity and intelligence).

1) As opposed to what Rich writes, the Union wants gimmicks, exciting locations, and certainly doesn't want to exchange those for a little bit of extra prize money. To quote the document Frank Karsten has prepared for the meeting in Kuala Lumpur:

An interesting matter is the one of exotic locations. Some players have voiced that they don’t care where they are playing; some pros seem to prefer more prize money rather than a more extravagant site in a capital city. Others (the majority, it seems) have voiced that they want more excitement in events, with better experiences, and cool, interesting exiting locations. For example, Hawaii or Okinawa. Having the Pro Tours in exotic locations really adds to the dream, the glory, of attending one and entices PTAs [Pro Tour aspirants] more. Memphis is not exactly attractive for a prestigious event like Worlds. The location matters especially for the PTAs, as their main goal is to have fun going to exotic locations with a bunch of friends (and secondly having the chance of winning some money). In other words, the whole "play the game, see the world" thing. Lastly, people are much more receptive about the game if you can tell them about tournaments in exiting places like Hawaii or Okinawa; it simply makes for much better informal advertisement. Therefore, there should be a preference for exotic locations, while at the same time they shouldn’t cost much, so perhaps exotic locations in developing countries with cheap venues could be pursued.

Please note that representatives of the Union will – at times, especially for purposes of discussion – voice their personal (sometimes differing) opinion, but will represent the views of the majority of its members when acting as spokesman for the Union. I believe Rich has confused one and the other quite a bit when writing his article.

2) A buy-in system has been suggested, but, as of now, it's only that – a suggestion that is still being discussed. It is not really part of the Union's "charta" or agenda.

3) The Union wants to achieve a fair payout system – not the top-heavy monstrosity that Rich discusses. Again, citation needed?

A system with Pro Player Club levels should stick, but with 5-step levels instead of 10-step levels (i.e., 35 points and 45 points should also constitute a level-up). This way, the differences are not that large and players will have more to play for at Worlds.

4) The Union does not consider WotC its enemy and…

5) …the Union encourages every player to join and take part in constructive discussion. It is not at all a lobby of the "super pros" to bully for their own selfish interests! Or even more official, again from Frank Karsten's text:

The players and WotC have the same goal: we all love the game, we are personally invested in it, we try to do what we think is best for the game, and want it to be as enjoyable as possible for everyone. […] We are scared that players become less competitive and less willing to spend both time and money on the game because there is less to aim for. The union wants to explain - hopefully working together with WotC - to Hasbro why we think cutting a PT and announcing these changes unprofessionally does affect the image of the game in the long run and will negatively impact their profits.

[BurnBait]

Here's a fact of life, friends. If you burn down everyone with a different opinion than yourself, when it comes time for you to be the dissenter, your ideas won't survive three minutes with a heat shield. Even if the majority of you -us- think rich is wrong, consider everything he's said. Don't take for granted that just because you don't agree, he's the pinnacle of misinformed sentiments. If for no other reason than to think up witty comebacks, read his article again. Consider each point he makes, and how he may be right. And if you still see no flaw in what he perceives to be broken, know, at least, WHY he said its stability is in doubt. On the other hand, if you think he may have a point (and it's certainly possible- no one and no organization are perfect), work to fix the problem. Even those you consider to be your opponents in beliefs may teach you something.

[rickiep00h]

I also noticed in this weeks article, Rich came very close to writing that he made an oops and didn't really do his homework. He's not necessarily on our side, but he's probably more neutral and informed of both positions now than when he wrote the initial article.

[Ragette]

Firstly, i would just like to tell reindeercards that it is physically impossible for SCG to take sides as it is a business, not a sentient being, all this article proves is that the writers of SCG have different opinions to one another and to ourselves.

Secondly, alot of what TobiH said was true with regards to his points being wrong or mis-informed. casual players and pro's are invested into the game as much as each other, and i dare say that we need each other for the game.