[The Prefect]

Can you provide a source for anyone who proposed to "scrap everything sight unseen"? I certainly didn't make that proposal, and I haven't seen anything to indicate that's on the table.

John Corbett has advocated for exactly this proposal repeatedly, here and in The Dojo, in threads in which you have also posted when discussing reactions to the current set. I think as recently as in the last two weeks. Brian has also expressed some support for some version of the idea. I am curious if you share their view. May I assume from your answers that you do not support that view?

I don't think you're advocating for mediocre work - but I do think that it's not unreasonable to expect that my idea of quality or goodness or whatever other rubric we're using to judge cards and sets will be different from my predecessor (otherwise, what's the point?) and because of that, it will be necessary to revisit sets in the pipeline with that in mind. I think if you want assurances that nothing will change, I'm not willing to give those, and I think any director who does may as well not bother.

Here's what I am seeking assurances of. That no work will be thrown out for reasons other than concerns related to production, such as quality or time. And, I want to know in pain language whether or not each candidate feels that they are the appropriate sole determiner of what constitutes quality work, even that means they disagree with testers from various playgroups among two different continents.

Let me also give you three actual examples of things that actually happened in the last 16 months or so, not hypothetical scenarios. Perhaps you can tell me if you agree with these decisions that were made.

• When John was relieved of his duties as 2e Design Director, he was allowed to finish work on sets that he had already started. Some of this work was not in-keeping with the next Design Director's vision, but that incoming DD chose to extend a bit of volunteer courtesy. Should he have done otherwise?
• When Nick assumed the post of 2eDirector, he decreed that no set would be larger than 27 cards for the "foreseeable future." He did not seek any volunteer input for this, and in fact every designer that expressed an opinion on the matter said they thought such a hard limit was a bad idea. He ignored that feedback. He admitted to me multiple times that he had not even looked at the sets before making that decision. Indeed, there was no way he could have because he didn't have access to UP while he was running for the position. Was that the right way to make that decision?
• Even though Nick said he liked the cards in Clark, and had good feelings about them and was confident they'd be good, he chose to split the set anyway to comply with the above 27-card limit. This delayed not only the second half of Clark but also all the other sets that were scheduled to come after it. Was that the right decision?

More or less insulting than assuming that I'll capriciously throw out everything without looking at it?

As I said, this has been advocated before. You can either believe me when I tel you I have reasons to be concerned about this, or you can choose not to. That's entirely up to you.

Well, it happened in the past, so we have different players now. I have no idea how the previous feedback was collected. What percentage of active players contributed to it? Was it statistically significant? Was it collected anonymously, or just by whomever felt strongly enough to comment? Did it look at people who stopped playing? There are *lots* of reasons why that feedback should potentially be superseded or ignored. Also, I don't think the path from feedback to the implementation of changes driven by that feedback is necessarily above reproach either - are the changes being implemented addressing the feedback? Namely, do the players who provided the original critique feel that the current set fixes that? Or is it purely an assumption? These are all things in a real feedback process would be easy to know. I have no idea if that was the case when you collected feedback before, so I can't speak to that. All I can say is that when I institute a feedback process, it will be significantly more rigorous and tie directly to accountability.

So, would it be your contention that work on a set can't begin unless you have that robust level of feedback? So, are you saying that regardless of quality, all sets currently in production will be paused until you have this level of feedback?

I'm not going to speak to hypotheticals about a set I haven't seen. I'm not going to commit to throwing out or not throwing out a set without knowing what's in it, and what the goals for that set are. In general, I think it's ridiculous to think that we can't change the direction of a set if it doesn't meet our stated goals in testing.

That's not a hypothetical. There is actually a set in the pipeline now that has actually been very well-received by testers. Again, you can either choose to believe I am telling you the truth or you can choose not to.

[sandy]

Can you provide a source for anyone who proposed to "scrap everything sight unseen"? I certainly didn't make that proposal, and I haven't seen anything to indicate that's on the table.

John Corbett has advocated for exactly this proposal repeatedly, here and in The Dojo, in threads in which you have also posted when discussing reactions to the current set. I think as recently as in the last two weeks. Brian has also expressed some support for some version of the idea. I am curious if you share their view. May I assume from your answers that you do not support that view?

Sorry, I thought you meant that a candidate for 2e director had that view. I'm not sure how John or Brian's point of view is relevant to the discussion. I think it's fair to say that I don't share that view (or any view that I haven't explicitly said).

I don't think you're advocating for mediocre work - but I do think that it's not unreasonable to expect that my idea of quality or goodness or whatever other rubric we're using to judge cards and sets will be different from my predecessor (otherwise, what's the point?) and because of that, it will be necessary to revisit sets in the pipeline with that in mind. I think if you want assurances that nothing will change, I'm not willing to give those, and I think any director who does may as well not bother.

Here's what I am seeking assurances of. That no work will be thrown out for reasons other than concerns related to production, such as quality or time. And, I want to know in pain language whether or not each candidate feels that they are the appropriate sole determiner of what constitutes quality work, even that means they disagree with testers from various playgroups among two different continents.

I won't make any assurances without looking at the cards. I do feel that I am the appropriate sole determiner of what constitutes quality work, since at the end of the day, the 2e director has to explicitly approve everything that comes out for 2e. If the director doesn't have the authority to make those determinations, then why have one? Why not leave the post vacant and let design just release cards based on playtesting? I hope that my determination won't disagree with testers, and I think it's disingenuous to imply that every executive doesn't have ultimate control over what comes out under their purview - part of what makes a good leader is to look at all data available.

Let me also give you three actual examples of things that actually happened in the last 16 months or so, not hypothetical scenarios. Perhaps you can tell me if you agree with these decisions that were made.

• When John was relieved of his duties as 2e Design Director, he was allowed to finish work on sets that he had already started. Some of this work was not in-keeping with the next Design Director's vision, but that incoming DD chose to extend a bit of volunteer courtesy. Should he have done otherwise?
• When Nick assumed the post of 2eDirector, he decreed that no set would be larger than 27 cards for the "foreseeable future." He did not seek any volunteer input for this, and in fact every designer that expressed an opinion on the matter said they thought such a hard limit was a bad idea. He ignored that feedback. He admitted to me multiple times that he had not even looked at the sets before making that decision. Indeed, there was no way he could have because he didn't have access to UP while he was running for the position. Was that the right way to make that decision?
• Even though Nick said he liked the cards in Clark, and had good feelings about them and was confident they'd be good, he chose to split the set anyway to comply with the above 27-card limit. This delayed not only the second half of Clark but also all the other sets that were scheduled to come after it. Was that the right decision?

Well, I'm not Nick, so I don't know his reasons for doing what he did. It was certainly within his authority, but if you're asking if I'd make the same decisions, I would not. In each of those scenarios, I would have done the opposite thing.

More or less insulting than assuming that I'll capriciously throw out everything without looking at it?

As I said, this has been advocated before. You can either believe me when I tel you I have reasons to be concerned about this, or you can choose not to. That's entirely up to you.

I'm sure you have reasons to be concerned, but I don't think they're relevant to me, and I'm not really willing to be the scapegoat for all past directors' bad decisions any more than you are willing to justify every historical design mistake.

Well, it happened in the past, so we have different players now. I have no idea how the previous feedback was collected. What percentage of active players contributed to it? Was it statistically significant? Was it collected anonymously, or just by whomever felt strongly enough to comment? Did it look at people who stopped playing? There are *lots* of reasons why that feedback should potentially be superseded or ignored. Also, I don't think the path from feedback to the implementation of changes driven by that feedback is necessarily above reproach either - are the changes being implemented addressing the feedback? Namely, do the players who provided the original critique feel that the current set fixes that? Or is it purely an assumption? These are all things in a real feedback process would be easy to know. I have no idea if that was the case when you collected feedback before, so I can't speak to that. All I can say is that when I institute a feedback process, it will be significantly more rigorous and tie directly to accountability.

So, would it be your contention that work on a set can't begin unless you have that robust level of feedback? So, are you saying that regardless of quality, all sets currently in production will be paused until you have this level of feedback?

Yes. I think "quality" in this context cannot exist without feedback. I'm curious what your definition of quality is that you think it can exist in a vacuum rather than being a reflection of what the players want to see.

I'm not going to speak to hypotheticals about a set I haven't seen. I'm not going to commit to throwing out or not throwing out a set without knowing what's in it, and what the goals for that set are. In general, I think it's ridiculous to think that we can't change the direction of a set if it doesn't meet our stated goals in testing.

That's not a hypothetical. There is actually a set in the pipeline now that has actually been very well-received by testers. Again, you can either choose to believe I am telling you the truth or you can choose not to.

That doesn't change the fact that I haven't seen the set. I have your word that it's been "well-received", but see above for my criteria on evaluating feedback.

[Armus]

Speaking as a non-candidate, I would hope that the new 2e Director wouldn't pre-judge anything without seeing it, so I'm not sure yours is a fair question given the lack of inside information.

This exact proposal - throwing out work without seeing it - has been made repeatedly, and there have been some that have voiced support for exactly that. You are well aware of that fact, as you've participated in discussions around that idea. You're also assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that no candidate has proposed this or something similar or is thinking of doing so. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to hear directly from the candidates on this one and let them tell me they are or are not going to act without seeing the work.

Ok, so we're doing the thing where you try to bait me into airing staff board discussions in public again? That's cute. Yes, I was part of that conversation, but it was in more of a "let's examine this question" posture than taking a firm position. Any more detailed response I can provide would require divulging others' comments and I'm not willing to do that.

And you're right, I'm not specifically aware of any proposals that you're referring to, as I'm neither a candidate, nor a member of the selection panel. Congratulations, you have informational advantage over me. But what I AM able to bring to the discussion, and what you, the other selection panel members, and - perhaps most importantly - the candidates don't possess is how I view the role of 2E Director as a member of this community. I think it's an important piece of feedback and information for everyone to have, not because I'm that important (I'm not), but because I care enough to state publicy my criteria for voting to retain or dismiss the candidate that the selection process yields at the next PoR. As a member of the selection panel, I would hope that you would want to set your criteria by which you judge a candidate in a way that at some fundamental level aligns with how the community will judge them. Without that alignment, the candidates really do become beholden to the desires of the panel over the desires of the community. Hardly a tenable situation for them and one that possibly - if those desires are grossly misaligned (I'm not saying they are) - sets them up for failure, which after the last two 2E Director flameouts is the absolute last thing that anyone from any part of this community needs.

As for the dismissive last sentence, does me responding preclude any candidates from responding as well? I'm not aware of any such power that I have. At the same time, wouldn't it interest you to know how these candidates will be ultimately judged by the larger community, if for no other reason than you can take that into account during the selection process and plan accordingly?

Also, while we're on the subject, what constitutes "seeing the work"? Since it's safe to assume no set is production-ready on Version A, do you think it would be fair to decide a set gets made or no before it even goes to testing? Also, if the 2eD's opinion on "what's good" or "what's bad" is the sole determiner of what stays and what gets thrown out, doesn't 2e design just become a personal extension of the 2eD's own design philosophy? Is that what we want? And, if so, what's the point of even having design teams or a Design Director or a pitch process? The 2eD could just say, "this is what I want to see, now who wants to do it."

I would hope that upon selection, the new 2ED would be given access to all of the relevant work products, staff forums, etc. If that's NOT the case then it's an even bigger problem.

But assuming that access is given, I would expect the new 2ED to make decisions based on their vision for the game. How that vision is formulated, who all is consulted, what feedback is accepted or rejected is, at the end of the day, the sole discretion of the 2ED.

Let me flip it around on you. Do you think the Designers should have veto power over the 2ED if they think their work is "good enough" but the 2ED disagrees? If so, then by extension, doesn't that mean that the staff level Designers, and NOT the 2ED have the ultimate authority over what gets released? Is THAT what we want?

At the same time, I would hope that the new 2e Director would come in with a clear (and for the selection panel, clearly articulated) vision for the game and would start implementing it as soon as possible - I mean, isn't that vision a big part of why that person was selected?

Presumably, part of that vision would include making cards. So, unless the incoming 2eD has already decided what cards he wants to see made, it doesn't follow that cards already in production would necessarily conflict with any vision a 2eD could come in with, short of predetermined and very specific design priorities.

You could be correct. And as with all of these hypotheticals, the case where vision lines up with current production isn't really at issue. It's the case where it DOESN'T line up where the challenges arise and need to be resolved. So it really depends on what the 2ED's vision IS. But if the 2ED happens to have design priorities that aren't in the current pipeline, and things in the pipeline that aren't priorities, who's decision should it be to make a change? I know what my answer would be: The guy who has to stand up and be accountable to the community for the work that gets produced on his watch.

To the extent keeping the status quo feeds into that vision, all good, but at the same time, if the new vision is fundamentally at odds with parts of the status quo, then I would expect the Director to make the necessary changes, to include "scrapping" any conflicting previous work.

See above.

Same.

I say this because, as a member in good standing with a PoR vote, I'm going to hold the new Director, not the staff, solely accountable for the state of the game when their time comes up. "It was already in the pipeline" or "the staff worked hard" aren't going to be acceptable excuses if the game isn't improving.

Presumably, work which is objectively bad, or so widely received as bad so as to be clearly a bad idea to make, would get eliminated during the testing process. See my note in how I defined, "thrown out", "Also, to avoid any potential confusion, I'm not referring to cards that might get cut as part of the normal production process because they don't test well." If a design team has a pattern of refusing to take negative testing feedback into account, then the 2eD can intervene by working through the Design Director.

So is it your position that the 2ED doesn't have the authority to act directly in the Design space and must work through middle management? If so, that's fascinating...

Total authority, total responsibility. That's the only way this can effectively work.

That's the problem with bumper sticker slogans. They're emotionally appealing but often don't reflect the complexities of reality. In my experience, good managers work less like dictators and more like facilitators. "Total authority, total responsibility" is great if you think the incoming 2eD can make cards all by himself. Since he needs the cooperation and effort of others to get cards made, it's probably best to treat those others as if their efforts are appreciated and valued.

You're confusing concept with execution. In concept, the 2ED is ultimately responsible for the state of the game, and in concept the 2ED has all of the authority to make changes to the game in accordance with whatever vision he comes up with. Now, your point, *HOW* he goes about doing that, is all well and good. It probably is too much for one person, and a one-man show is probably suboptimal if for no other reason than no one person has all of the skills and views for everything, so I actually agree with you insofar as I hope the 2ED solicits input and delegates both authority and tasks to the staff level for execution.

But I think it's important to remember one thing:

"One of the benefits of being in command is being able to ask for advice without necessarily having to take it."

The 2ED is in the captain's chair. That should not be lost an anyone at any point in this process.

[The Guardian]

The 2ED is in the captain's chair. That should not be lost an anyone at any point in this process.

I disagree. That has the potential to make a lot of people very unhappy and not willing to put in effort. In fact, the job of the 2E Director is to promote the game and aide work flow. I like that everyone seems to think the 2E Director will have a huge influence on Design. But that's Nathan's job right now. Nick never seemed to realize this. And if we have candidates that seem to think that they could ax the decisions of the departments under their care, they should re-evaluate their involvement in this process. I believe that to be disqualifying. Sure, set a standard with points that can be evaluated, even add input and voice concerns, but as long as that box is played in, the 2E Director has no authority to dictate anything.

I honestly don't understand people not being able to work within their roles.

[sandy]

The 2ED is in the captain's chair. That should not be lost an anyone at any point in this process.

I disagree. That has the potential to make a lot of people very unhappy and not willing to put in effort. In fact, the job of the 2E Director is to promote the game and aide work flow. I like that everyone seems to think the 2E Director will have a huge influence on Design. But that's Nathan's job right now. Nick never seemed to realize this. And if we have candidates that seem to think that they could ax the decisions of the departments under their care, they should re-evaluate their involvement in this process. I believe that to be disqualifying. Sure, set a standard with points that can be evaluated, even add input and voice concerns, but as long as that box is played in, the 2E Director has no authority to dictate anything.

I honestly don't understand people not being able to work within their roles.

This is exactly why I asked what the exact role of the 2e director is.
The response I got seemed to indicate that the 2e director had authority to do whatever they felt needed to be done for 2e.

If the 2e director has no authority, why have one?

[The Guardian]

I'd like to know what OTHER games the candidates play.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that's relevant?

Because, Brian, they're being asked to consider the welfare of the game as a whole. It is, in my view, obvious that someone doing that task be fluent in games. Other games. How games work. Have had played bad games and know why they're bad. Have played good games and know what they did right. Have played games from multiple points of view and not just from one perspective. I want the shepherd of our game to be someone that doesn't think there's one way this game works, because that's the type of person that can only envision one type of card and design that can only benefit one type of deck, instead of seeing something and saying, "That's not my cup of tea, but someone will enjoy that. Good job." That's important. Especially to enticing new players. And the answer to this question will shed light on that ability.

Card Games - Game of Thrones LCG (both original and 2.0), Legend of the Five Rings, Hearthstone (occasionally), Magic (almost exclusively draft)
I don't actually play any of them much anymore, my star trek projects have consumed my free time.

Board Games - Recently, a lot of Wingspan. I also enjoy Spirit Island and cooperative games in general, especially Pandemic Legacy. I've gotten a little into Villainous and Marvel Villainous, but hardly competitively.

I used to play a lot of video games, as my steam library will attest, but these days I stick to playing Civ 6 every couple of weeks when I need a break while my kids play most of the other video games.

Thank you. I love Wingspan. Great pick. There are some games you mentioned that are on my list and I haven't gotten to yet. (Stupid COVID.) As for video games, I'm taking my 5-year-old son through the Arkham Batman games. As such, I know what you mean about not having time to play myself.

Besides of 1E, 2E and Tribbles I play good old Vampire and my collection of around 160 card and /or board games. So I have various of experience with different kind of games and game mechanics...

Nice. I'm afraid I'm not familiar; did you mean this Vampire? 160 seems like too many to name or even pick favorites, but I'd still be curious.

I'd be interested in other candidate answers too.

[The Guardian]

This is exactly why I asked what the exact role of the 2e director is.
The response I got seemed to indicate that the 2e director had authority to do whatever they felt needed to be done for 2e.

Could you point me to that? Because the website says "Brand Managers will guide expansions through their workflow cycles, ensuring that deadlines are being met and that the resources required for the expansion's release are available at the right times. However, the primary work of the Brand Managers will be in managing information about the expansion leading to its release: developing spoiler schedules, coordinating with Marketing to advertise the expansion, etc."

If the 2e director has no authority, why have one?

I didn't say they had no authority at all. I would ask, if they are micromanaging every other role, why have those? This isn't an attack on anyone. During Nick's tenure, I just seriously wondered what Nathan's job even was. The 2E Director sets the guidelines and coordinates between departments. That's it. They can hire the next 2E Design Manager or dictate the process, but that Design Manager runs their team. Same for Rules or Errata or Playtesting or any of the others. We're not picking a captain, or we should be limiting the search to those that have risen through the ranks and have experience.

Why? What am I missing?

[Marquetry]

The Brand Manager role was different than what the 2E Director position has become. The director is the one going through the POR; they can guide toward a goal/vision without being a dictator of all decisions.

[The Guardian]

The Brand Manager role was different than what the 2E Director position has become. The director is the one going through the POR; they can guide toward a goal/vision without being a dictator of all decisions.

Yeah. The title needs to be updated. Otherwise, I think we're in agreement.

[Marquetry]

I think they need to have more ability to direct and manage than your post suggests... there's a wide gap between the old description and the worst-case dictator/micro-managing scenario.

[Armus]

The 2ED is in the captain's chair. That should not be lost an anyone at any point in this process.

I disagree. That has the potential to make a lot of people very unhappy and not willing to put in effort. In fact, the job of the 2E Director is to promote the game and aide work flow. I like that everyone seems to think the 2E Director will have a huge influence on Design. But that's Nathan's job right now. Nick never seemed to realize this. And if we have candidates that seem to think that they could ax the decisions of the departments under their care, they should re-evaluate their involvement in this process. I believe that to be disqualifying. Sure, set a standard with points that can be evaluated, even add input and voice concerns, but as long as that box is played in, the 2E Director has no authority to dictate anything.

I honestly don't understand people not being able to work within their roles.

Ok just so everyone is on the same page, here's what the bylaws say:

5.3.6 Director of Second Edition.
The Director of Second Edition oversees the Department of Second Edition, including Design
teams, the Rules Committee, the Creative Team and Errata Team. They shall guide Second
Edition expansions through their workflow cycles, ensuring that deadlines are being met and
that the resources required for an expansion's release are available at the right times. However,
the primary work of the Director of Second Edition will be in managing information about the
expansion leading to its release: developing spoiler schedules, coordinating with the
Department of Communications to advertise the expansion, etc. They will oversee the
department staffing, filling vacancies as needed, and serve as arbiter for all internal disputes.

Emphasis mine. In short, Nathan, and all of the staff level designers, work for the Director.

And to further support that, here's some more bylaw fun, under the Directors' powers section:

5.1.1
To appoint and remove all officers of the Corporation subject to such limitations as may appear
in the Bylaws, and to prescribe such powers and duties for officers as may not be inconsistent
with law, with the Articles of Incorporation, or the Bylaws.

If that's not the captain's chair, I'm not sure what is.

And again I ask: if the Director doesn't have the authority to set the strategic direction for the game, who does?

[The Guardian]

I think they need to have more ability to direct and manage than your post suggests... there's a wide gap between the old description and the worst-case dictator/micro-managing scenario.

Agreed.

As for the "old description," this is from the bylaws:

The Director of Second Edition oversees the Department of Second Edition. They shall form sub-committees and teams to meet the responsibilities of the Department. They shall guide Second Edition expansions through their workflow cycles, ensuring that deadlines are being met and that the resources required for an expansion's release are available at the right times. However, the primary work of the Director of Second Edition will be in managing information about the expansion leading to its release: developing spoiler schedules, coordinating with the Department of Communications to advertise the expansion, etc. They will oversee the department sub-committee and team staffing, filling vacancies as needed, and serve as arbiter for all internal disputes.

A lot of the same language. I think the most telling aspect is the "oversee," "...form sub-committees and teams to meet the responsibilities of the Department," and "arbiter" parts. It doesn't say they do the work themselves. They hire the people to do the work.

And here's the thing: I'm not trying to knock anyone down. I'm not trying to stick out my tongue and say that nobody can tell me what to do. I'm saying that I would like them to consider themself my partner, and a partner to everyone else that is volunteering for this organization. You don't want someone dictating how Rules interprets a situation any more than I want someone saying we can't experiment in some game space. I'm looking for someone who wants to see what we can do, not what they can do. Any candidate willing to stand up and say that they can buy into that?

[The Guardian]

And again I ask: if the Director doesn't have the authority to set the strategic direction for the game, who does?

Then we're in agreement too? They set the vision and then their teams bring it fruition. They make the sandbox, not tell anyone what trucks to play with. Not a captain.

[Armus]

And again I ask: if the Director doesn't have the authority to set the strategic direction for the game, who does?

Then we're in agreement too? They set the vision and then their teams bring it fruition. They make the sandbox, not tell anyone what trucks to play with. Not a captain.

Do you know what a Captain is?

Based on that response I'm not so sure you do.

[The Guardian]

And again I ask: if the Director doesn't have the authority to set the strategic direction for the game, who does?

Then we're in agreement too? They set the vision and then their teams bring it fruition. They make the sandbox, not tell anyone what trucks to play with. Not a captain.

Do you know what a Captain is?

Based on that response I'm not so sure you do.

Yes. You ever serve in the military? I have.