Some time ago I published an interview with D&D Kids author Uri Kurlianchik on this blog to find out more about what happened when his articles got removed from the homepage of WotC. In the meantime I tried to get some answers from “Kynn”. There is no proof that Kynn took part in the actions that led to the removal (except for writing a negative article about Uri’s “Girls at the table”), but frequently seems to be the cause of insults against Uri. My efforts were not successful. I didn’t get any answer, not even Kynn’s gender. My wishes for the interview got genetic to snotty answers and I was blamed of asking partial questions. I surely did ask somewhat brisky, but I think, I was not partial. If some of you like to check themselves (especially native speakers or better English speakers than I am), you can take a look at my questions. I’ll add them at the end of this article.
I found many statements about Kynn, mostly not verifiable. But all agree in blaming Kynn to be some kind of sexism and racism troll, who heavily insults anybody of whom he thinks he’s a sexist or racist. And you fall easily into those categories, because he interprets statements as worst as possible regarding this matter. I was not able to find any description that judges Kynn differently. If you sum this up, it leads to certain conclusions, but from my point of view all of this is notreally verifiable.
I also received a mail from WotC that is roughly as fruitfully as Kynn’s, but at least very clear:
Hello,
Thank you for contacting us. Unfortunately, we are not able to accommodate your request at this time.
Best,
Wizards of the Coast PR Team
I guess they’ll not be able to accommodate my request at any other point in time. Seems like there is no will to clarify this matter from their side, too. That’s sad, but I’m not in the position to change it, unless we’ll have enough readers to be a significant voice in the rpg scene (so spread the word!).
What remains is a storm of outcries on the Internet, to which WotC deferred. Whether they did this too lightheartedly or not remains a mystery. But those outcries have been to harsh in my opinion, though I was irritated I read Uris statements the first time, too. But it was by far not enough to write to WotC. I follow Uris statements on G+ and it’s obvious that he is of the provoking kind and seems to do this intentionally — I guess, he definitely is. You can’t blame authors for this. And I can’t blame him of sexism or racism either. When reading the outcries and Uri’s statements at that time, I was surprised and did react even to harshly with my article. Many things are relativized once you look at them more closely and consider the circumstances. I definitely think the removal of Uri’s articles from the WotC homepage was an overreaction as well as reproaching Uri in this way.
And as a final note, Uri found an article that survived the “cleansing” of the WotC pages.
The questions I sent to Kynn:
Hello Kynn,
I am still trying to get some kind of response from WotC, but they didn’t send me any so far. I am aware of the fact that you are not working for WotC or anything, but I’ll include that in my questions below, just to make it clear to our readers. I also have to ask, though it feels awkward, whether you are female. No offense meant, I just have to be sure for writing the articles and I didn’t find a clear hint on your blog.
I will publish the interview unedited on our German blog (www.herzliches-rollenspiel.de) soon and afterwards also on our English blog (www.herzliches-rollenspiel.de/teutonicblogging).
- Please give our readers a summary of who you are and what your livejournal is about.
- Are you affiliated with Wizards of the Coast or have taken part in the decision process of removing the article “Girls at the Table” or the whole “D&D Kids” article series?
- Did you have direct contact with Uri since the publishing of his article until now?
- Can you describe how you see your role in the removal of the article or whether you had one at all?
- Uri stated in his interview (http://www.herzliches-rollenspiel.de/blog/?p=2856) that you have “attacked” him several times. Did you write articles on your blog or other communities on the Internet about Uri or his articles prior to the one concerning “Girls at the Table”? If so, what was the topic of your writings?
- Did you mean to attack Uri or his articles with what you wrote? What was your intention when publishing them?
- The removal of the articles and the series from the WotC homepage was accompanied by a “shitstorm”. As I understand it your article was part of it or its cause, intended or not. Did you take part in the “shitstorm” any further or wrote mails to WotC criticizing Uri or his articles?
- What is your opinion about the removal of the article and the whole series from the WotC homepage?
- Have you received or perceived reactions from the Internet community regarding your role in the articles’ removal?
- Wizards only gave a brief statement on twitter: “We’ve removed the article. The opinions of the author don’t reflect the views of Wizards of the Coast.” Do you know more about what finally led to the decision of removing the articles?
- Are you going to write articles in a similar tone again? Have those events had a lasting effect on your writing style or publishing policy?
- How do you feel about the events in retrospective, now that some month have passed?
- Is there anything else you’d like to tell our audience?
Thanks for your time and answers.
Regards,
Jan
No related posts.


FWIW, determining Kynn’s gender is no mean feat. He/she is in the process of a sex change (I’m not sure what stage), and works very deliberately to challenge conceptions that gender is strictly either/or. I *think* she identifies primarily as female.
She works very deliberately to challenge lots of things. She loves to either promote discussion or stir up trouble, depending on what you think of her.
I do think it’s a shame that she wouldn’t answer your questions. I would have been interested to see her response, after this much time has passed. For the record, I think she meant “partial” as in biased or laced with an agenda, rather than incomplete. That is, my guess would be that she thought you wanted to paint her as a villain in what happened.
Yep, (s)he meant that. The word “partial” is from me. I’m not sure anymore how the worded it, but (s)he meant exactly what you are saying. And I’m not sure how she came to that conclusion, at least until anybody who should know it tells me that the questions listed above sound like that. I did not communicate with her/him much more than that mail prior to being confronted with the charge of following an agenda.