Our Mission Statement - Ratification proposition

[Chaos Turtle]

First off...just so I can be on-topic...
I also doubt that we have had a major impact on WotC as of yet, but we have made a differnce I'm sure.
We are at least creating awareness that there are casual players who do care about the environment and bannings, etc.
Even if we never send a report to them, they know we are here, and that we represent a huge number of players, regardless of how many actual members we have. They realize perfectly well, that we are but a small sampling of a much larger population, and understand that many more of the 'silent majority' feel as many of us do.

As far as the mission statement goes, I'll wait to see Baron's new version before I 'officially' cast a vote.

NOW.......

A bit of advice, pursuant to Magic Jackal's statement here...

http://www.magic-singles.com/cpa/forums/showthread.php?threadid=3
Tag Guards have to go in the post body and not in the message header...
It's too late for me, but maybe I can do some good by 'blocking' for people who forget their tag guards!

Hah-hah! I will cause trouble, even if you are trying to get killed, I will block for you and save your arse!

That's why they call me...

 

[Spiderman]

Tag Guard

CT: Oooooh, you're sneaky!!

Gizmo: Define "defend". What does that mean? What does that entail?

 

[Gizmo]

I guess I meant it as a catch-all term for stuff outside the other two points. I`m not suggesting that whenever somebody gets combo-killed once too often the CPA should all grab baseball bats and go and give his opponent a sound thrashing (although it does sound like a scheme that would quickly stop people abusing Replenish and Bargain).

Defend?
I dunno - make a stink if something happens?
Delete it if you don`t like it - I had nothing specific in mind, simply an open-ended term.

What I was careful NOT to include was the word 'promote', which was in my original draft. Promote is an advancement, defend is a consolidation. The omission of the latter in place of the former suggests that the CPA would oppose things getting worse for casual players, but does not see the need to take a pro-active stance.

 

[Spiderman]

Tag Guard

Well, the reason I asked was because it seemed that the original intent in forming the CPA was "defending casual interests" by reacting to the Waylay ruling and 6th rules and trying to raise a stink about it to WOTC. However, the "raising the stink" part is a decidedly sticky point with members now; some want to do it and others don't.

To me, "defend" means doing the above (reacting to past decisions) and "pro-active" means trying to anticipate events (cards on the watch list, upcoming sets). So going by those definitions, your wording's fine. However, as I said above, the sticky point is how involved does the CPA get with interacting with WOTC? Do we spam-bomb them with our decisions? Do we just talk on the boards and "hope" someone from WOTC notices? Or somewhere in between by establishing a spokesperson to present our thoughts to them in a calm, lucid manner? That's what I'd like to see nailed down.

 

[Gizmo]

"Do we spam-bomb them with our decisions? Do we just talk on the boards and "hope" someone from WOTC notices? Or somewhere in between by establishing a spokesperson to present our thoughts to them in a calm, lucid manner?"

My personal opinion?

At the current stage of the CPA`s evolution interaction with WotC is probably irrelevent at best, and will illicit a negative reaction at worst. Either way the CPA will NOT be the deciding factor in any decision WotC makes.
Spam-Bombing would achieve nothing except alienate every CPA member opposed to it. Appointing a spokesperson is equally unlikely to work because that spokesperson would have only a few more voices behind him than any other random charlie who was ringing in to complain about some random thing that they don`t like.

Welcome to the wonderful world of WotC Public Relations Dept:

"Then my friend played a Phantom Warrior and it says 'cannot be blocked' so I died - Phantom Warrior is so unfair and I`ll never play Magic again until you ban the card!"

"The artwork on <Card X> is entirely unsuitable for my eight-year old to play with, as it quite blatantly shows two monkeys doing it like they do on the Discovery Channel. My TV comes with a blocker so I can stop young Ronnie from watching the Discovery Channel, but I cannot stop him looking at your cards - please withdraw <Card X> from sale immediately!"

"The Casual Players Alliance think that there are too many sets released each year. We understand that if you were to move to a slower release schedule it would cost you approximately $5,000,000 per annum, but we think many players have had trouble keeping up and would be grateful if you would act on this matter."

"Would you give me a Rishadan Port, because I want to complete my collection but they are selling for so much money that I cannt afford one."
(They get this one ALL the time, I know for a fact, because I know people who work there)

Did you spot the odd one out? Or was there an odd one out at all?

WotC have a VERY hard job - and by and large they are VERY good at it.
You can be relatively sure that WotC do currently notice, and were the CPA to become more visible that would certainly occur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In many ways I think the decision about how to approach WotC is not relevent to the CPA right now, as the CPA is too small to make it`s opinions mean anything anyway.
The priority should be growth of the CPA, anything else lies too far into the future to be discussed at this time. Sorry, of course that`s wrong, it`s never too early to begin discussion of an issue, but it should not be a point of contention this early, and should not be allowed to distract members from the short-term goal of increasing public awareness of the CPA.
In a year`s time, when the CPA is one of the largest sites, I believe the issue of the CPAs relationship with WotC will have been solved as a matter of course due to it`s newfound size, and therefore relevance.

 

[Almindhra]

I just bought the Top Deck today (Wizard's CCG Mag)...And they had some articles in there talking about Prophecy...And when talking about cards, they mentioned that it would be for the casual player...Or that it would be used in tournament and casual playing...so I really don't think they're forgetting the casual player

 

[TomB]

Gizmo,
This issue was brought up in response to your statement that we DO NOT speak for casual players everywhere, and your insinuation that they'd much rather we shut up about issues and just play. By voting to A) Ratify the Mission Statement, B) Revise it, or C) Denounce it, they are being given every opportunity to have input into the direction this site should take.

I think the whole idea behind the concept of having a Mission Statement is to give a voice to the "silent majority". Just by being a part of it do they make their feelings known, and I think they've been encouraged, not discouraged, to tell us what they think. Those who choose not to say anything, it seems to me, are basically giving us their approval in their silence.

I think we're all bright enough here to understand that the more people we have as members the more likely WotC is to take us seriously. Yet the point Chaos Turtle made cannot be denied, that we ARE a representative slice of the casual demographic WotC depends on to buy their product, and that by at least listening to what we have to say they lose nothing, and actually stand to gain a lot.

The strange thing is, the wording you suggested earlier in this thread seems to suggest one course, while your tone in this posting seems to say the opposite. Are you basically saying that we should say we stand for a more pro-active approach, but that we realize it would be futile to try and actually do something?

Are you suggesting we should blow smoke up our own a$$e$?

Personally, I am not in favor of such an approach. I think we should state out front what we stand for, and what our intentions are. Then, I think we should follow through on our plan, however futile it may seem at first. As long as our views are presented in a professional manner we won't turn the company off to the notion of hearing from us, and as our membership grows our influence will also grow. By being forthright, and by actually following through on the plans we make, we'll make ourselves more attractive to people of character, who will be committed to preserving this game.

I just don't see how that could be a bad thing.

[Edited by TomB on May 5th, 2000 at 04:32 AM]

 

[Gizmo]

"By voting to A) Ratify the Mission Statement, B) Revise it, or C) Denounce it, they are being given every opportunity to have input into the direction this site should take."

Interesting that they aren`t taking it then, isn`t it?
Look at who is replying on this thread - everybody is a veteran member and more likely a Founder, I think my 150-ish posts make me the newbie in this discussion.

"Those who choose not to say anything, it seems to me, are basically giving us their approval in their silence."

That`s a strange assumption to make.
It would seem more likely to assume that they simply don`t see the CPA`s activism as being anything to do with them. That is the way I would interpret their silence.

"Yet the point Chaos Turtle made cannot be denied, that we ARE a representative slice of the casual demographic WotC depends on to buy their product, and that by at least listening to what we have to say they lose nothing, and actually stand to gain a lot."

I really don`t think we are in any way representative. Even the CPA is getting a catchpool near the serious end of Magic. if yuo take Magic playing demographics from 0(beginner) to 10(pro) I think that sites like The Dojo and Starcity service the 9-10 range, the CPA is picking up members from 6-8, maybe an occasional 5 but they don`t stay long. The CPA isn`t picking up members from below that.

"Are you basically saying that we should say we stand for a more pro-active approach, but that we realize it would be futile to try and actually do something?"

No, I`m saying we should include the principle of representing casual players, but that we should not do anything with that principle because it IS NOT a mandate. People signing on to the CPA are not casting their vote in favour of action - they just want to chat about Magic.
In the short term, action is both futile and unwarranted.
In the long term the question resolves itself.

"By being forthright, and by actually following through on the plans we make, we'll make ourselves more attractive to people of character, who will be committed to preserving this game.
I just don't see how that could be a bad thing."

Yes, you`ll be attractive to all ten of you, and everybody else will leave.
The CPA obviously doesn`t want people 'without character' to join them - if you aren`t a committed activist then you have no role to play in the CPA, isn`t that what you just said?

(Gizmo ducks and covers)

 

[Spiderman]

Tag Guard

Hmm, a lot of thoughts...

Gizmo: I can see what you're saying; heck, the lack of CPA effectiveness due to its current small size is what I've been saying all along. I was just trying to see what you thought "defend" meant since it can mean different things to different people and thus it and similar wording should be closely examined.

BTW, I think we all agree spam-bombing is not the way to go

I can also see TomB's point in saying CPA should try to make themselved be heard now, small size or not. That way one can point to CPA's "being on record" and if they're not effective merely to the size, then as they grow and become more representative they still have a history.

Both sides of "the silent majority" are also valid, I think. One can argue that those who come here should pretty much know what it stands for (the survey that ChasDen proposed a while back would help greatly in nailing why or how people come/found their way here) and despite not agreeing with all decisions the CPA makes (like me! ), generally support the organization. One can also argue that the silent majority is in fact silent, and who knows what the heck they're thinking and if they really do support/approve the CPA.

Just so Almindhra's post is not forgotten, probably all sets have the casual player in mind. Some cards are obviously tourney worthy, but some are probably too slow in such an environment but still worthy and interesting enough to be played in a casual deck. And some are just a waste or cardboard... I think those cards that have been starting to say "all players do this" are the ones most noticeable, but casual does not exclusively mean multiplayer.

Basically, I agree with Almindhra but am trying to say that casualness has always been part of sets.

 

[Almindhra]

An interesting response by the Editor of TopDeck, Will McDermott, to a comment posted on the Duelist mailing list. Explaining why TopDeck is not Duelist.


"So, you will see that our Magic content is different from the content in the Duelist. It is more for the casual player who wants to play Magic as well as he or she can, but only ever plays for a few hours at a time. It is not intended for high-level tournament players who devote 40 hours a week to the game and play for 10-15 hours (or more) straight. These players are getting their info elsewhere anyway. "

 

[TomB]

Gizmo,
In order...

I think you've misunderstood me again. I believe this issue should be put up for a vote, either with the Mission Statement in it's original form, or, as it seems it will be, in a somewhat altered form. It is there, in the VOTING BOOTH, that our "Silent Majority" can make their presence felt, if they choose not to contribute here.

Face it. Forums like this one are for goofs like us to hash this stuff out.

You are right though, in that I was wrong to assume the reason why the majority of our members aren't jumping in here. I actually have no clue WHAT they are thinking. I believe that's the reason we need to have a vote on the subject, so we can find out just how committed our people are, or if maybe extremists like me are just barking into the breeze.

In terms of seriousness about the game, I happen to think we have members who range all the way between 1 and 10, with the mean average at around 5. I believe it's that diversity that makes us representative of players everywhere, and it makes our opinions about the game valuable to WotC. Again, though, there is no real way to guage this, so let's just agree to disagree on this point.

And I believe it would be wrong to say we stand for principles that we have no intention to act upon. It would be better, I think, to just scrap the whole idea of having a Mission Statement than it would be to lie about it.

In the end, though, either way, the proof will be in the polling. I think that if there's an issue most of us care about, the turnout will tell us if we have a mandate. Same thing applies if it's something we do not care about, as a group. I'm just saying that I'm in favor of giving our people an opportunity to have their say.

If they choose to ignore it, it's their choice.

And no, I wasn't trying to insinuate that only committed activists would be welcome here. Are you trying to say our people have no character?

 

[Spiderman]

Tag Guard

Almindhra: I have to disagree with Will there about TopDeck. (Un)fortunately I get it as my subscription to the Duelist wears down, and I have to say almost all of the Magic section is tourney-oriented. There's some stuff that both can relate (From the latest issue, "Getting the Bugs Out" = 'Deck Clinic", "Dirty Trix" = "WOTC Picks", and the puzzle) but others ("Setting the Standard", "Deck Deconstruction") are definitely tourney stuff. The only one casual-oriented would probably be "Hell Freezes Over". Plus most of the articles are written by Pro players... so though I like Top Deck for the most part, I don't think it really has casual players in mind for the bulk of its material.

 

[TomB]

If no one else has anything to add, Dune, I think this ish is ready for the Voting Booth too. Please let us know when it's been updated. Thanks.

 

[Dune Echo]

TAG GUARD

Okay, it's up to Mike then to get this into the Voting Booth. Unfortunately, I think he's busy trying to rewrite the back-end of the site (I know that's not technically correct, Mike, don't flame me), so getting this into the Voting Booth may take a while. I'd email Ed on that. There's also three Voting topics that need to be added out there as well.

 

[TomB]

when I tried to do it off of the Member's list I got the bodies@rocketmail.com address. Isn't that a dead account? If so, please email me Mike's new address. Thanks.

 

[Ed Sullivan]

Nope, that's my email - it's not dead. The casual_players_alliance@hotmail.com is the dead one

 

[TomB]

But I never got around to it. Sorry. I've an update: I posted the Ratification issue in the Voting Booth a few days ago (as most of you have probably already heard ), so please let us all know what you think there.

BTW, Dune, about the 3 topics you mentioned in this thread, I was thinking that I'd post all 3 as a block once we're done voting on the Ratification issue. Would that be OK with you, or would you prefer that I post them now? Please let me know.