Last updated on October 17, 2024
Sign in Blood | Illustration by Howard Lyon
Prospective members of the upcoming “Commander Panel,” an advisory board to Wizards of the Coast now that they have full control of the format, have revealed that their contracts allegedly include a lifetime non-disparagement clause that limits their speech regarding the company forever— even if the contract is over.
This may or may not come as a shock after Wizards of the Coast have taken control of the Commander format from the once community-ran Rules Committee. WotC specifically mentioned that they would create a “Commander Panel” of community members and ex-Rules Committee members to help advise them on the ban list, product creation, and other aspects pertaining to the format.
However, this lifetime non-disparagement clause means that they could limit what those members are allowed to say publically… forever.
What Does a Non-Disparagement Clause Mean?
A non-disparagement clause prevents speech that would disparage or be negative towards the company. It is a “surviving” clause, which means that it doesn't end, even if the contract does. It continues into perpetuity.
That means that an ex-panel member, who has an expired contract, can still be faced with action from Wizards of the Coast if they say negative things regarding the company. I.e., “The commander format is in bad shape,” or “I disagree with these bans.”
This is a bombshell reveal, especially when you put it in the context of the community not trusting WotC to begin with. One of the biggest concerns the community has had over the last few weeks is that WotC's control will be much more centered around profit and sales rather than the community's interest. This wasn't a worry previously, as the Commander Rules Committee was an independent volunteer organization that didn't have any financial interest.
Saffron Olive, a pillar of the Magic community and vocal voice of Commander has called this contract “over the top” and that “the need for independent and critical voices is going to be more important than ever if this is how Wizards sets things up.”
And Olive is exactly right. If those on the Commander Panel cannot be trusted to give their true and real opinion, which will be no fault of their own, there will remain no trustworthy and official voice for the format.
Looking Ahead
Contract from Below | Illustration by Douglas Shuler
This is a step in the wrong direction for the format, without question. The Commander Panel was a bastion of hope in the community that Commander, a format built upon community interest, support, and love, would retain its core values and ‘soul' after the transfer of power to WotC.
If panelists cannot be trusted to give their true and honest thoughts, especially the negative ones, their public-facing comments will hold no value. Even if they truly think the format is in a good spot, the knowledge that they are prevented from giving any negative opinion will prevent the community from having any trust in their voice in the first place.
This is a dangerous step forward for Commander, and we'll have to see how Wizards of the Coast responds to this reveal to know the full gravity of the situation.
Follow Draftsim for awesome articles and set updates:
1 Comment
The article seems somewhat deceptive. I’m finding it hard to see the point of having a panel if the members can undermine the feedback from the community at any time. I honestly believe this issue is being blown out of proportion. It appears to be problematic because certain content creators seem more interested in using their access to Wizards of the Coast (WOTC) for personal gain. If this were purely about feedback, I’d support it. Feedback is important and can be critical, but it should happen within the panel, professionally and cooperatively.
It’s surprising that those causing a stir might lack experience in giving or receiving critical feedback in a professional setting. To succeed as a true “community format,” we need to ensure the integrity of our representatives. We can’t have key community members stepping outside the panel and influencing public discourse, distorting the feedback.
I understand we might not have the full picture of the agreement, and it might not be easy to trigger a violation with WOTC. Nonetheless, this is a significant opportunity to collaborate with the creative minds behind the game we cherish. We’ve seen what happens when feedback is left to the community—it can be raw, biased, and sometimes hostile. I want my feedback to reach someone who understands their duty as a bridge between the community and WOTC.
We need representatives who can put personal interests aside and be the voice the community requires. Ultimately, what’s the point of having a panel to represent the community if its members focus on their issues?
Add Comment