Encouraging diversity and USC

1. Encouraging Diversity
and USC
Matt Crocker

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

4. What’s the big problem?

5. What’s the big problem?
38%(Source: MaRo on Blogatog)

6. What’s the big problem?
Sanctioned events aren’t always the nicest
Geeks/nerds not traditionally good at watching
what they say and do
This comes from defending ourselves
Weird behaviour is preserved - good and bad
Bad behaviours make it hard to get involved

7. Why should we care?

8. Why should we care - Policy
IPG CoC

9. Diversity and the IPG
USC Minor and USC Major
An oversimplification:
USC Minor = bad language around people
USC Major = bad language at people OR
harassing behaviour

10. Diversity and the CoC
Where 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

11. 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 jerks
Also, we expect them to do what they can to promote
inclusiveness and address problematic behaviour

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Why should we care - Philosophy
The philosophy is pretty simple
More players = better
Poor/discriminatory behaviour = fewer players

15. Why should we care - Philosophy
Creating a positive player experience
Challenging players is a small negative to PE
This can be seen as a political correctness
“invasion”
A more approachable tournament is a large
positive to PE
#worth

16. What should we be
looking for?

17. What should we be looking for?
Language
Known: homophobic/racist slurs
Not so well known: ableist/transphobic slurs
Also - “gay”, “rape”
This is not a full list!

18. What should we be looking for?
Swearing
Inclusiveness includes the young!
The parent/college teacher rule

19. What should we be looking for?
Largely focused on words, not actions
Actions are mostly USC - Aggressive
Behaviour / Serious Problems
Casual discrimination

20. How’s best to handle it?

21. How’s best to handle it? - Reg REL
Regular REL = educational!
Option 1: just call them on it
Pros: Strongly indicates that this isn’t
acceptable to the whole event
Cons: Very public, players may get defensive

22. How’s best to handle it? - Reg REL
Option 2: quiet word away from table/after
match/after tournament
Opposite pros and cons

23. How’s best to handle it? - Reg REL
Players react in 2 ways:
“I know that’s wrong” - friendly apology,
improvement
“I don’t get the big deal” - argumentative,
resistant to change

24. How’s best to handle it? - Reg REL
Treat these outcomes differently if it happens
again
Accepting players: remind, not reprimand
Argumentative players: last warnings
Persistent/unrepentant behaviour is a serious
problem!
For more information...

25. How’s best to handle it? - Comp REL
Issue the appropriate USC infraction
That’s pretty much it
Players may push back - be resolute
Tournaments are not Debate Club
USC Minor has an upgrade path

26. Conclusion

31. Open Forum