Timeline for What is offensive about the card "Stone-Throwing Devils"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 10, 2022 at 23:55 | comment | added | Andrey | Is there a source for this outside of MTG? | |
| Mar 4, 2021 at 15:41 | comment | added | Purple P | I decided to unaccept this answer because its only sources are two forums. The other answer is much better researched. | |
| Mar 3, 2021 at 20:57 | comment | added | ilkkachu | Sure, you would need for the card to be searchable, but you could still hide the rules text, or even the card names from search results unless the user explicitly wants to see them. Also, it's amusing to note, that the gatherer pages for those cards don't seem to have any note on them being consider offensive in the text content. The notice is only text in the image, so hard to read programmatically, by search engines etc. | |
| Mar 3, 2021 at 20:52 | comment | added | ilkkachu | @KodosJohnson, to my eye, most of the cards banned that way, are problematic just through the card name being too close to real-world concepts, and in two, the name plus how the effects consider a particular color "good", and another "bad". Maybe in two of the seven I can see that the image could be the worst part. With that in mind, leaving the rules text visible and not e.g. hiding the whole card page under a notice (like scryfall does for the graphic) seems a bit odd. | |
| Mar 3, 2021 at 20:33 | comment | added | ilkkachu | @Arthur, that's exactly what scryfall does. | |
| Mar 3, 2021 at 20:31 | comment | added | Cave Johnson | @ilkkachu I would assume the card removal mechanism doesn't care if the image is offensive or the name is offensive. And the name is important so you can at least identify the card that was removed, plus the image could be more offensive than the name. | |
| Mar 3, 2021 at 18:36 | comment | added | Arthur | I kinda wanted to see for myself what this was about, but Wizards have made it more difficult than necessary. to see what the card looks like. Of course, I could always do an image search elsewhere, but removing it from Gatherer directly diminishes Gatherer's value as a card database and reference. Why not hide it behind a warning, but let me see it if I insisted? | |
| Mar 3, 2021 at 17:45 | comment | added | ilkkachu | And of course if the reason is in the card name (only), it doesn't really make much sense that just the image is redacted from the Gatherer page, but not the name of the card. (The same as with Jihad) | |
| Mar 3, 2021 at 15:36 | vote | accept | Purple P | ||
| Mar 4, 2021 at 15:41 | |||||
| Mar 3, 2021 at 15:09 | comment | added | Kevin | It might be relevant that it came from the "Arabian Nights" set | |
| Mar 3, 2021 at 13:52 | comment | added | StrangerToKindness | @PhilipKendall Googling the name, I see creatures with a blueish tint to their light skin? | |
| Mar 3, 2021 at 10:27 | comment | added | Philip Kendall | This, combined with the fact that the characters in the art are dark-skinned. | |
| Mar 3, 2021 at 5:45 | history | answered | GendoIkari | CC BY-SA 4.0 |