Encouraging Diversity and USCMatt Crocker

Encouraging DiversityWhat’s the big problem?Why should we care?What should we be looking for?How should we handle it?

What’s the big problem?

What’s the big problem?

38%(Source: MaRo on Blogatog)

What’s the big problem?Sanctioned events aren’t always the nicestGeeks/nerds not traditionally good at watching

what they say and doThis comes from defending ourselvesWeird behaviour is preserved - good and badBad behaviours make it hard to get involved

Why should we care?

Why should we care - Policy

IPG CoC

Diversity and the IPGUSC Minor and USC MajorAn oversimplification:USC Minor = bad language around peopleUSC Major = bad language at people OR

harassing behaviour

Diversity and the CoCWhere most of our responsibility lies“Judges have the same responsibilities as all members of

the Magic community to avoid actions which could reasonably be expected to cause someone else to feel harassed, threatened, bullied, or stalked”

We expect players to not be jerks and we expect judges to not be jerks

Diversity and the CoC“They have additional responsibility to act positively to

create environments where these behaviors are not accepted and all members of the Magic community can feel welcome.”

We REALLY expect judges to not be jerksAlso, we expect them to do what they can to promote

inclusiveness and address problematic behaviour

Diversity and the CoC“Judges should not allow others to create a

bad environment by inaction”Stand up. Be heard. Challenge players on

their unwanted behaviour.

Diversity and the CoC“Judges should not express views that would make other

members of the Magic community feel unsafe or unwilling to attend an event where that judge was on staff.“

Seriously, don’t be a jerk.

Why should we care - PhilosophyThe philosophy is pretty simpleMore players = betterPoor/discriminatory behaviour = fewer players

Why should we care - PhilosophyCreating a positive player experienceChallenging players is a small negative to PEThis can be seen as a political correctness

“invasion”A more approachable tournament is a large

positive to PE#worth

What should we be looking for?

What should we be looking for?LanguageKnown: homophobic/racist slursNot so well known: ableist/transphobic slursAlso - “gay”, “rape”This is not a full list!

What should we be looking for?SwearingInclusiveness includes the young!The parent/college teacher rule

What should we be looking for?Largely focused on words, not actionsActions are mostly USC - Aggressive

Behaviour / Serious ProblemsCasual discrimination

How’s best to handle it?

How’s best to handle it? - Reg RELRegular REL = educational!Option 1: just call them on itPros: Strongly indicates that this isn’t

acceptable to the whole eventCons: Very public, players may get defensive

How’s best to handle it? - Reg RELOption 2: quiet word away from table/after

match/after tournamentOpposite pros and cons

How’s best to handle it? - Reg RELPlayers react in 2 ways:“I know that’s wrong” - friendly apology,

improvement“I don’t get the big deal” - argumentative,

resistant to change

How’s best to handle it? - Reg RELTreat these outcomes differently if it happens

againAccepting players: remind, not reprimandArgumentative players: last warningsPersistent/unrepentant behaviour is a serious

problem!For more information...

How’s best to handle it? - Comp RELIssue the appropriate USC infractionThat’s pretty much itPlayers may push back - be resoluteTournaments are not Debate ClubUSC Minor has an upgrade path

Conclusion

Open Forum