As the author of the article and editor of the Pouch, allow me to reply to the Web Dev's accusations here.
jmo1121109 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:17 am
I wanted to take a moment to express my disappointment as an admin on 2 diplomacy sites with this issue of the Zine. Over the past few years all of the online diplomacy sites have made an effort to ensure our community is welcoming and non bigoted towards all groups of people. We do not allow sexism, racism, or any other type of bigotry based harassment or targeting of people. I have personally banned people for this because it is important to the community that any new members who are viewing our site for the first time see a welcoming atmosphere focused on the game. While there is obviously still work to do, the number of women on the various diplomacy sites has increased significantly over the past few years.
I'm glad to hear that. Our goals appear to be the same, so I'm pretty sure our differences are simply semantic. Let's examine what makes you irk and try to remedy that.
I am disappointed that the editors at the zine decided to hinder those efforts with a blatantly non welcoming image to all female players prevalent on this issue's main page.
"Feminism and the patriarchy duked it out in a match that crossed over into other publications. Or why you can't just skip the Princess stage on your way to becoming an Overlord."
This is highly misleading. What you've done is give someone a platform to defend themselves for being sexist in their questions and framing of how a female member of the community was able to place highly in a tournament. Taking away from that person's skill, and instead attributing the victory to their gender. It's very simple, the answer to Mario's question here: "Do I owe feminism or the female race an apology?" is yes, he does owe women an apology.
Cut. So two things. The blob on the issue's index page and the apparent lack of a formal apology.
The only purpose of a blob is to attract eyeballs. In no way is there an obligation to summarize the whole article or even hint at the direction it will take. Usually the title would give away the topic, but as this happened to be a generic column, you're left somewhat in the dark.
That said, I'm cutting out the second part, because if read as a conclusion, it appears to make a judgement on just one half of society, whereas it should have critiqued both. The first part however is pretty run-of-the-mill. A bit cheeky perhaps. Not all appreciate my particular humor, but I hear some do.
As for an apology, that's for me to decide, isn't it? Up to that point I had enraged one person. I apologized for my poor analogy and dropped it altogether, but kept the theme in the published interview. There was no outcry. Now I wrote an article to explain in detail the construction of the unpublished analogy and the intention behind it. Why would I need to apologize when you're presented the full picture? That makes little sense to me.
I've reworded the paragraph to clarify that I apologized to that one person. Let it no longer detract from the message that I do support an equal and inclusive society. Just like I hope my readers do.
As does Conrad for his admittance of targeting women in face to face diplomacy. If he had a user account on this site and said he deliberately targeted female players then he would be banned for metagaming. If the Face to Face community is wondering why there are so few women participating in their games compared to the number of women playing online they need only look at quotes like that.
Here's where I think you're going overboard. Conrad is not going after female players in everyone of his games because they're female. He targets them in
some games because of the perceived effect they make (by their playing style, by their presence perhaps) on the
other players. This might be an economical decision. If just one player is completely wrapped, it might be easier to go after that one player. In other games he might side with the female player, because she's being shunned or because it just makes sense. At all times he's making an estimate on how it will serve his goals in the framework of the game.
And yes, presence does make an impact in face-to-face games. Unlike Internet Diplomacy people judge each other not only on their words, but also on their behavior and body language. FTF Diplomacy is a social interaction and as such prejudices will come into play. If a kid approaches you, you might automatically think that they're new to the game and treat them differently than the grandpa who looks like he's one of the regulars. If a person with a strange accent is seen talking to another player in his own language, you might assume that they're going to work together and start looking for your own peers. Likewise if you're dealing with women, you might try to appeal to their mother instinct in an attempt to keep your sorry self in the game. Whether it works is another question. All that is natural, and to say that all that should be strictly ignored because it might present a barrier to play is just not realistic.
So I would ask the editors at the Zine to think long and hard about the type of image they want to offer back to the community at large, and if they are really happy with how that "match" represents the community to any first time viewers who happen to be female. Giving people a platform to defend sexist views and sexist diplomacy targeting in games isn't what I expect from this community. Please do better.
Thanks,
WebDip Dev and VDip Admin
Well, here you have it. By the way, if you want a reaction from a specific author or editor, why don't you contact them directly? Every article contains the author's email address, either at the bottom or, in the case of a Pouch Deposit, in the post heading. Or if you knew my handler, you can just PM me.
Mario Huys
Editor and contributor to The Diplomatic Pouch Zine