WotC WotC is hiring Senior Manager for Diversity, equity and inclusion.

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, "unfortunate" is a better word for it than "meaningful." Coincidences are, by definition, non-meaningful.

I don't feel like anyone should be criticized for not catching the reference earlier. It doesn't reflect badly on WotC staff that they don't recognize the secret handshakes of neo-Nazis! However, once it was brought to their attention, it would have been negligent on their part to ignore it.

negligent to ignore an unfortunate coincidence? Really?

 

[Oofta]

Because I can't read the minds of everyone who has ever had thoughts about the card's numbering...?

My understanding is that people don't assign a number. It gets put into the system and the next available number is assigned. When someone reviewed the proof they didn't recognize any significance to the number, I know I wouldn't have.

If the artist was told the next card they worked on would be 1488 then the artist may have understood the significance. Very few others would have.

The card has other issues, the number was just a coincidence.

 

[Mort]

it was a sequence number for the card. There’s literally no way it was intentionally assigned.

Then it was one amazing coincidence and still somewhat worthy of note because of the card and the artist.

Edit: Regardless of the number, as stated above - the card has serious other issues, which were clearly intentional and tied to the views of the artist.

 

[Eric V]

so you don’t dispute the statement. You just dispute my ability to know that. How about finding me 1 example that believes as a counter example - that’s all it would actually take to dispute my statement.

LOL. That's not how these things work, silly. It's up to you, as the statement maker, to show it is true.

I mean, yeesh, look at it again: You are saying NO ONE believes or HAS EVER believed it might be intentional. Talk about an un-provable statement. You'd have to have access to the thoughts and opinions of everyone who has ever had thoughts about the card.

 

[Dausuul]

negligent to ignore an unfortunate coincidence? Really?

Yes. Just because something happened by accident, doesn't mean it's okay to ignore it.

If somebody is painting a cross on a church sign, and the paint runs down the wood in such a way that the cross ends up looking like a swastika*, that's an unfortunate coincidence. The church didn't do it on purpose. But the church still has a swastika out front and they darn well need to do something about it.

*Don't ask how. Maybe the sign was laid flat and the wood grain is weird. It's a hypothetical.

 

[FrogReaver]

LOL. That's not how these things work, silly. It's up to you, as the statement maker, to show it is true.

I mean, yeesh, look at it again: You are saying NO ONE believes or HAS EVER believed it might be intentional. Talk about an un-provable statement. You'd have to have access to the thoughts and opinions of everyone who has ever had thoughts about the card.

I am allowed to make an unprovable statement. Saying I can’t possible know that doesn’t impact the truth or falseness of my claim.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. Just because something happened by accident, doesn't mean it's okay to ignore it.

If somebody is painting a cross on a church sign, and the paint runs down the wood in such a way that the cross ends up looking like a swastika, that's an unfortunate coincidence. The church didn't do it on purpose. But the church still has a swastika out front and they darn well need to do something about it.

apples and oranges

that would be an error. There was no error in assigning this card that number. Pure coincidence with no error.

 

[Eric V]

My understanding is that people don't assign a number. It gets put into the system and the next available number is assigned. When someone reviewed the proof they didn't recognize any significance to the number, I know I wouldn't have.

If the artist was told the next card they worked on would be 1488 then the artist may have understood the significance. Very few others would have.

The card has other issues, the number was just a coincidence.

Note: This is the first I hear of this, and I also don't play the game.

Having said that, when we say "it gets put into the system and gets the next available number", is it really beyond the realm of possibility that someone inserted it at a specific time to get this result?

Not saying that's what happened, of course, only that it's possible. When people who understood the significance of 1) the number and 2) the card and 3) the artist put it all together...well, we couldn't blame them if they wondered if there was some intentionality at work, could we?

 

[Eric V]

I am allowed to make an unprovable statement. Saying I can’t possible know that doesn’t impact the truth or falseness of my claim.

Sure! But it isn't "beneficial for discussion" and I know how important that is to you...

 

[Mistwell]

This ad will pull in candidates with actual experience initiating changes revolving around diversity, equity, and inclusion goals in areas of recruitment, training, and employee relations which is exactly what they're looking for.

Wanna bet it doesn't? It will pull candidates with 7 years HR experience who are good at bs'ing that they "enacted change" by spinning some hiring numbers and some corporate project background lecturing about diversity, with no follow-up to see if that meant actual change happened at their prior companies beyond shuffling some deck chairs between a handful of similar companies. I don't think it will pull anyone who is actually good at enacting real change.

I even think "7 years experience in HR" might be a bad way to go on this. 7 years experience as a professional, yes. But in HR specifically? I am not so sure.

If what they're trying to address is making a fundamental change in their company, then probably the best recruit to do that is outside of the standard human resources field.

If I were to recruit for this position and intend to really make a fundamental change in the company, the first thing I would do is find out what other company has successfully changed their corporate culture in a similar way, and ask them how they did it. I wouldn't put an ad out through the same channels I've always used, using the same kind of language I've always used, and the same internal sources putting the word out to their friends and on social media like they've always used. I would want to go well outside of all of that language and channels.

The comparison I used for DC Comics is a good one, though it's not the same. They had an issue with marketing. For decades they used the same marketing corporate-speak in their recruiting language, hired the same types of people for their marketing from the same group of colleges and the same experience levels in marketing at related companies and fields (or else hired from within). And for years they just got more of the same, which was slowly spiraling in the wrong direction.

So they finally went to something completely different. Someone who was not internal, not the same background, and not traditional marketing. A guy who ran his own company who was the lead editor on a major news source which was sometimes an ally and sometimes a critic of their company who knew everyone in the industry but was not directly part of the industry itself. And that guy enacted real change at the company, after decades of the same stuff being cycled through over and over again.

That kind of thing is probably what WOTC needs. But I don't think they are getting the best odds of finding that kind of person using this kind of ad. I think this ad is more targeted at getting more of what they've always had at the company. It will likely be a lateral hire from a related field who will feel comfortable to them and not want to shake things up but will instead integrate nicely into what they already have and then make only incremental small surface-level changes to be able to say change might happen but who doesn't really change much of anything.