Kate Welch is WotC's New D&D Designer

WotC has a brand new D&D designer, and it's Kate Welch! She plays Rosie Beestinger, the Lightfoot Halfing Monk in Acquisitions Inc's "C Team". She starts work on February 2nd. That's all I know for the moment, but more info if I hear it!

[video=youtube;fRsURJf4SjQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRsURJf4SjQ[/video]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT]​

 

[OB1]

Conflating affirmative action with quotas is a great way to muddy the debate. Most people can understand why a company that is all white and all male might make an affirmative effort to look for qualified candidates who are not white or male. Most people also bristle at the ideas of quotas, because with quotas, you are potentially advancing less qualified candidates over more qualified ones.

But it's a myth that business who have affirmative action hiring protocols hire less qualified individuals for open positions. Primarily, the additional effort to expand the job applicant pool results in finding a more qualified applicant than would otherwise have applied. In the case of finding equally qualified individuals, the final decision likely comes down to how the company feels the person will fit into the overall culture of the company

As a real world example, the Rooney Rule in the NFL is illuminating. This rule did not carry any quota, it was simply an affirmative action to ensure that at least one minority candidate was interviewed for each head coaching vacancy in the NFL. 5 Black head coaches were hired in the 40 years prior to the 2003 implementation of this rule, 15 have been hired in the 15 years since. This is not a coincidence. It's not because suddenly black assistant coaches learned how to coach. It's that prior to 2003, they weren't even being interviewed.

And for the less qualified people who didn't get hired because of the Rooney Rule? Too bad, now you have to compete with everyone. And that's what this is really about. People whining because they suddenly have more competition for positions. Fortunately for consumers, this process leads to a better product and will continue to grow in practice as businesses realize that the best way to compete in the marketplace is to make sure they hire the best people.

 

[Slit518]

Dear everyone bugging out about Kate Welch being hired on the D&D team,

Stop acting like children. Stop bugging out over it.
If she isn't able to do the job, help contribute to a good product that will have good sales, she will be fired.
OR
If she doesn't get fired, it's because she is good at the job, knows what she is doing, and was the right candidate for the position.

~Slit518

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Conflating affirmative action with quotas is a great way to muddy the debate. Most people can understand why a company that is all white and all male might make an affirmative effort to look for qualified candidates who are not white or male. Most people also bristle at the ideas of quotas, because with quotas, you are potentially advancing less qualified candidates over more qualified ones.

In many international organizations (which is where I have experience) that is exactly how it works in order to continue receiving UN/EU/USAID funding for major projects. If the minority quotes are not met, funding denied.

And for the less qualified people who didn't get hired because of the Rooney Rule? Too bad, now you have to compete with everyone. And that's what this is really about. People whining because they suddenly have more competition for positions. Fortunately for consumers, this process leads to a better product and will continue to grow in practice as businesses realize that the best way to compete in the marketplace is to make sure they hire the best people.

I don't think anyone here is complaining about that.

 

[OB1]

No. I question is because of a combination of adding the phrase, "Affirmative Action," and hiring a women. Furthermore, nowhere have I said anywhere that WotC hired the wrong person. Only have I argued that because of affirmative action we will never know if Ms. Welch was the best candidate for the job.

This type of conflation between Affirmative Action and quotas is exactly what I'm talking about. Affirmative action ENSURES that Ms. Welch was the best candidate for the job. It's not a quota, its a means to ensure that qualified candidates are found and interviewed. If you believe that WoTC hired a less qualified applicant because she was a woman, you don't understand a thing about the way business actually works.

 

[OB1]

In many international organizations (which is where I have experience) that is exactly how it works in order to continue receiving UN/EU/USAID funding for major projects. If the minority quotes are not met, funding denied.

We are not talking about an international organization receiving UN/EU/USAID funding. We are talking about a private US business that used Affirmative Action to find the best qualified individual.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

This type of conflation between Affirmative Action and quotas is exactly what I'm talking about. Affirmative action ENSURES that Ms. Welch was the best candidate for the job. It's not a quota, its a means to ensure that qualified candidates are found and interviewed. If you believe that WoTC hired a less qualified applicant because she was a woman, you don't understand a thing about the way business actually works.

No. I believe WotC hired the candidate they wanted in an attempt to appear more diverse and progressive in order to draw in a larger audience of female gamers, grow the hobby, and cash in on more sales. Furthermore, WotC probably made the right move and will attract that audience, but only because a large section of western society is overly obsessed with artificially enforcing equality a benevolent (though, in my opinion, methodologically inconsistent) attempt to combat cosmic injustice.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I explained how each of those statements (except one) are incorrect.

They aren't incorrect. They are all true. And in case it isn't obvious, I'm using "you' in the general term to represent white men

*you are assured that when you find a gaming group, there will be several people part of that group like you (same gender and ethnicity) TRUE
* every time you turn on the TV, or open a newspaper, you are assured someone like you is on the front cover or plays the major role in the show TRUE
* minorities convicted of the same offenses (from traffic tickets to murder) as a white person suffer much harsher penalties than white people do. This is a a fact. TRUE (not only do we have actual numbers that support this, but we have people like John Ehrlichman (Nixon's top aide) who came right out and admitted to specifically targeting minority communities with harsher penalties.)
* you are assured that you can enter pretty much any town in America and find a church of your faith (for those who are religious) TRUE
* You have never done something right and immediately had someone say you're a credit to your race/gender TRUE
* no one questions a promotion you may have gotten TRUE
* you've never had people stare at you or follow you around because they think you're gonna steal something TRUE
* you've never had people cross the street just to avoid you on a daily basis TRUE
* you're probably able to walk down a busy street without people harassing you on a daily basis TRUE

So when I say you missed the point, it's because you said "well, one of those things did happen to me". Congratulations. But one exception doesn't make those statement untrue because those things happen to almost every minority almost every day. That's the point. And quite frankly, I'm getting really tired of white people saying "well, one time I experienced this, so we have it the same." No. No you don't. Not unless all of those things happen to you every freaking day, to every freaking white man.

Either you are now calling me a liar or are supposing that my identity as a white man supersedes my personal identity as a human being with a unique collection of experiences (just like everyone else).
.

No, what I'm saying is that you're either being deliberately obtuse because despite the evidence presented in front of you, you refuse to admit it and instead try to counter with some reasoning that has nothing to do with what I was saying, or you're being deliberately dishonest, or you just don't have the first understanding about how affirmative action and privilege work. Right now, I'm leaning on the latter.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

We are not talking about an international organization receiving UN/EU/USAID funding. We are talking about a private US business that used Affirmative Action to find the best qualified individual.

Not really. I'm discussing how the existence of affirmative action clouds our perceptions of a candidate's qualifications and causes me to be skeptical of a woman/minority's qualifications when I otherwise wouldn't be.

I have no problem with the outcome (WotC hiring Ms. Welch), only the methodology.

 

[OB1]

Not really. I'm discussing how the existence of affirmative action clouds our perceptions of a candidate's qualifications and causes me to be skeptical of a woman/minority's qualifications when I otherwise wouldn't be.

I have no problem with the outcome (WotC hiring Ms. Welch), only the methodology.

I am 100% positive that WoTC has 0 concern with how you feel about their hiring process.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

They aren't incorrect. They are all true. And in case it isn't obvious, I'm using "you' in the general term to represent white men

*you are assured that when you find a gaming group, there will be several people part of that group like you (same gender and ethnicity) TRUE
* every time you turn on the TV, or open a newspaper, you are assured someone like you is on the front cover or plays the major role in the show TRUE
* minorities convicted of the same offenses (from traffic tickets to murder) as a white person suffer much harsher penalties than white people do. This is a a fact. TRUE (not only do we have actual numbers that support this, but we have people like John Ehrlichman (Nixon's top aide) who came right out and admitted to specifically targeting minority communities with harsher penalties.)
* you are assured that you can enter pretty much any town in America and find a church of your faith (for those who are religious) TRUE
* You have never done something right and immediately had someone say you're a credit to your race/gender TRUE
* no one questions a promotion you may have gotten TRUE
* you've never had people stare at you or follow you around because they think you're gonna steal something TRUE
* you've never had people cross the street just to avoid you on a daily basis TRUE
* you're probably able to walk down a busy street without people harassing you on a daily basis TRUE

So when I say you missed the point, it's because you said "well, one of those things did happen to me". Congratulations. But one exception doesn't make those statement untrue because those things happen to almost every minority almost every day. That's the point. And quite frankly, I'm getting really tired of white people saying "well, one time I experienced this, so we have it the same." No. No you don't. Not unless all of those things happen to you every freaking day, to every freaking white man.

In other words, my membership to certain groups (group "white" and group "male") outweighs my experiences as an individual. Instead of using the word "you" to refer to be as a individual, you refer to me in terms of a group identify, thereby disallowing my any individual experience outside of the norm of those two groups. How is that not racism?

Just to make sure, let's look at the definition of that word, racism.

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

2. the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.


Since neither of us hold the position that any one race is superior to another, let's more on to the second definition. By seeing me as only a member of my race (and gender) instead of an individual with a unique collection of experiences and opinions you have glided dreadfully close to the second definition, my position remains to banish all notion of identify groups completely.

No, what I'm saying is that you're either being deliberately obtuse because despite the evidence presented in front of you, you refuse to admit it and instead try to counter with some reasoning that has nothing to do with what I was saying, or you're being deliberately dishonest, or you just don't have the first understanding about how affirmative action and privilege work. Right now, I'm leaning on the latter.

What are you trying to get me to admit? That I have advantages because I'm a white male. Sure in some places (Atlanta, Georgia perhaps). In other places I don't (Turkmenistan, for example). In either case, that discrimination is equally disgusting and the thoughts of those who hold either of those opinions should be regarded with equal contempt.

In either case, however, my identity as part of a specific group is overshadowed by my identity as an individual. The sooner we all stop seeing the word in terms of race the better. Affirmative action, whose very existence supports the notion of placing group identity in competition with the identify and experiences of the individual, should be abolished.