Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 05:22:42


Post by: Togusa


Okay, so....

A friend showed me a video this morning from some dude on YouTube who goes by the moniker "ArchWarhammer" and holy hell in a hand-basket is that guy off his rocker. Naturally it was about this Jeremy dude, which I've been following for the better part of two weeks now. For those not in the know, he's a YouTuber, and a Magic player who just got banned for life from Magic for comments he has made on different social media networks.

Here is the thing, and the purpose of this thread. I can't figure out what is true in this case and what isn't. Almost every single party involved is letting accusations fly, but hardly any of them are providing any hard evidence for their claims, including Jeremy himself. They're all just yelling at eachother, causing more problems to develop.

I was wondering if there are any MTG players on this forum who are more clued into what exactly is going on, and why this ArchWarhammer dude seems to be trying to inject it into the 40K community? Is it all just a massive case of he-said, she-said combined with a ton of *expletive deleted* stirring?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 05:26:19


Post by: LordofHats


Welcome to the internet friend. I see you’ve discovered a full out flame war


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 05:27:25


Post by: Peregrine


TFG was banned from the community. Not sure why this is news?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 05:28:04


Post by: Togusa


 LordofHats wrote:
Welcome to the internet friend. I see you’ve discovered a full out flame war


Is that all this is? Because if so, both sides are failing at it pretty badly. It's kind of sad to watch from the outside, actually.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
TFG was banned from the community. Not sure why this is news?


TFG?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Togusa wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
Welcome to the internet friend. I see you’ve discovered a full out flame war


Is that all this is? Because if so, both sides are failing at it pretty badly. It's kind of sad to watch from the outside, actually.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
TFG was banned from the community. Not sure why this is news?


TFG? Which guy?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 05:30:03


Post by: Peregrine




See the hover text. That ing Guy. AKA someone who is not capable of behaving like an adult, and is a toxic presence in the community.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 05:30:40


Post by: Togusa


 Peregrine wrote:


See the hover text. That ing Guy. AKA someone who is not capable of behaving like an adult, and is a toxic presence in the community.


Sorry, I didn't see it pop up. But, are you talking about the Magic Man, or the Warhammer dude? Or both?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 05:30:47


Post by: Peregrine


 Togusa wrote:
TFG? Which guy?


Jeremy Hambly.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 05:30:54


Post by: LordofHats


It has that feel to me. Someone who follows the guy probably knows more but I heard about it and registered the whole thing as a bunch of screaming woobies.

TFG = that f’ing guy a sort of short hand for obnoxious or unlikeable players in table top gaming.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 05:34:02


Post by: Peregrine


As for ArchWarhammer, it's harder to find any short summary of that issue without wasting time watching his videos, but when one of your top google results involves doing a video with Sargon of Akkad* it's not exactly a good sign. I suspect that his involvement in this has to do with the same tired old SJW FEMINAZIS ARE RUINING GAMING nonsense.

*Rather well-known MRA and general .


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 05:34:48


Post by: Togusa


 LordofHats wrote:
It has that feel to me. Someone who follows the guy probably knows more but I heard about it and registered the whole thing as a bunch of screaming woobies.

TFG = that f’ing guy a sort of short hand for obnoxious or unlikeable players in table top gaming.



What bothers me is the massive amount of "proof" being talked about, but never shown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
As for ArchWarhammer, it's harder to find any short summary of that issue without wasting time watching his videos, but when one of your top google results involves doing a video with Sargon of Akkad* it's not exactly a good sign. I suspect that his involvement in this has to do with the same tired old SJW FEMINAZIS ARE RUINING GAMING nonsense.

*Rather well-known MRA and general .


I can't watch Arch's videos due to his format, so I typically don't. I also don't find his content to be all that interesting. I don't really care that much about his MRA views, I'm more concerned with the fact that WoTC basically took 1000s of dollars from him, instead of paying it back when they revoked his MTGO account. IF and I do mean IF that actually happened, I am very disappointed with WoTC. I can see that the guy is a first class A1 troll, there is no way he can deny that, and too my knowledge, he actually embraces that. Which I find strange.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 05:41:26


Post by: Peregrine


 Togusa wrote:
I'm more concerned with the fact that WoTC basically took 1000s of dollars from him, instead of paying it back when they revoked his MTGO account.


WOTC did no such thing, because you don't own anything on MTGO. You merely gain access to the service, WOTC still owns all of the digital assets. People who believe otherwise about their online games because they don't read the TOS they agree to have only themselves to blame if they invest money in it and get banned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From the TOS for MTGO:

In the Game, you will receive access to a library of licensed digital objects that depict physical Magic: The Gathering trading cards ("Digital Objects"). By playing the Game, you receive a limited license for the right to use such Digital Objects solely for the purpose of playing the Game.

...

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this User Agreement, you acknowledge and agree that you currently do not and will not acquire ownership in your Accounts and/or Digital Objects, and you further acknowledge and agree that all rights in and to the same shall forever be owned by and inure to the benefit of Wizards (its successors and assigns).

...

Wizards does not recognize any purported transfers or sales of Digital Objects, event tickets or other virtual assets outside of the Software. Accordingly, you are strictly prohibited from selling, gifting (except as permitted herein) or exchanging Digital Objects, event tickets or other virtual Game items for currency or other value outside of the Game.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 05:45:09


Post by: Togusa


 Peregrine wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
I'm more concerned with the fact that WoTC basically took 1000s of dollars from him, instead of paying it back when they revoked his MTGO account.


WOTC did no such thing, because you don't own anything on MTGO. You merely gain access to the service, WOTC still owns all of the digital assets. People who believe otherwise about their online games because they don't read the TOS they agree to have only themselves to blame if they invest money in it and get banned.


I didn't mean the cards, supposedly he had actual money that had been made from selling cards that they absconded with. I don't play MTGO so I am unsure what that might mean or how "selling" digital cards would even work.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 05:47:12


Post by: Peregrine


 Togusa wrote:
I didn't mean the cards, supposedly he had actual money that had been made from selling cards that they absconded with. I don't play MTGO so I am unsure what that might mean or how "selling" digital cards would even work.


That is not possible, as any "sale" of digital cards for real-world money is against the TOS and only possible by going outside the game without involving WOTC at all. WOTC would never have access to any money he made, as any (illegal) buyer would have been sending the money directly to him. Closing his MTGO account would have nothing to do with this.

(Now, I suppose it could in theory be possible that WOTC reported his illegal activity to his bank/paypal/whatever, and the bank decided to seize the illegal funds, but again, he would have only himself to blame in that case.)


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 05:49:37


Post by: Togusa


 Peregrine wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
I didn't mean the cards, supposedly he had actual money that had been made from selling cards that they absconded with. I don't play MTGO so I am unsure what that might mean or how "selling" digital cards would even work.


That is not possible, as any "sale" of digital cards for real-world money is against the TOS and only possible by going outside the game without involving WOTC at all. WOTC would never have access to any money he made, as any (illegal) buyer would have been sending the money directly to him.


See this is helpful because it shows that one of his major points is BS. I quit playing magic three years ago due to how abusive the games core system is (It's basically legal gambling in my opinion) combined with a terrible community. And even back then, I never did the whole MTGO thing.

So, I guess a follow-up question is does anyone know what actual threats this guy made to that cosplayer, which is supposed to be what actually started this whole mess to begin with.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 10:50:37


Post by: soundwave591


watch jeremy's video on the evidence, it basically followed
shows him trolling,bullying, and targeting people.
next he says nothing of substance was there.
his banning led to nothing lost from the MTG community, he even defends michael woo's facebook group and post that got him the year ban.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 10:58:53


Post by: Galas


Toxic people gets banned for toxic behaviour all the time. I did watch some youtube videos of archwarhammer back in the day, about warhammer lore. He was funny, like reading 4chan wiki. But with the alt right movement his videos where more political, and even the fluff ones had a ton of political stuff, like caling the ogre kingdom gnoblars "house nig..." you know.
He saw a niche, I suppose, as the "leader" of the alt right in the warhammer community, and he has taken advantage of it.
But to be honest, he doesnt even know that much about lore,. Is obvious he just reads wikis. ProphetOfSotek or Milkandcookies, for example, those guys know their stuff, but more about fantasy than 40k.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 11:17:17


Post by: Turnip Jedi


Best I get figure Jeremy said some mean things on Twitter about a female cosplayer Christine Sprankles about six months ago

Ms Sprankles life recently hit a few bumps which she then tweeted this was Jeremy fault

Then a large proportion of WoTC's inner circle of YT shills dogpiled a witch-hunt onto Jeremy, then for some reason WoTC more or less sanctioned this by wading in and banning him from sanctioned events for life

It's now become a drama BBQ but Magic cards are still being printed like plop and there are convicted felons on the Pro-Tour so all is fine

PS I don't care which 'side' you are on but if we have any MTG lurkers please please e-mail WoTC directly and let your veiwpoint be known don't let a few Klaxons on either side warp WoTC idea of 'the community'


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/09 21:38:31


Post by: Togusa


 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Best I get figure Jeremy said some mean things on Twitter about a female cosplayer Christine Sprankles about six months ago

Ms Sprankles life recently hit a few bumps which she then tweeted this was Jeremy fault

Then a large proportion of WoTC's inner circle of YT shills dogpiled a witch-hunt onto Jeremy, then for some reason WoTC more or less sanctioned this by wading in and banning him from sanctioned events for life

It's now become a drama BBQ but Magic cards are still being printed like plop and there are convicted felons on the Pro-Tour so all is fine

PS I don't care which 'side' you are on but if we have any MTG lurkers please please e-mail WoTC directly and let your veiwpoint be known don't let a few Klaxons on either side warp WoTC idea of 'the community'


This is what I have heard as well. Finding actual evidence of harassment from either side has been hard though. A lot of the tweets I've seen, In my opinion are just silly. Sticks and stones, you know


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/10 10:55:24


Post by: Turnip Jedi


this is the Intertubes, evidence is irrelevant...


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/10 11:27:32


Post by: Ecclesiarch 616


The sad thing is that WoC can give lifetime bans when the comments are not made on official sites or venues. The evidence against Jeremy seems flimsy at best, I think at worst a warning should have been issued before the ban.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/10 11:47:00


Post by: Overread


I doubt Wizards of the Coast issues lifetime bans without any thought going into it; and whilst I don't expect a police level of enquiry (since they are just a card game manufacturer not the police with warrants and such), I do expect that there's likely more to this than just someone complaining and getting someone on a lifetime ban.

Also don't forget that with situations like this much of the evidence can be deleted after the effect. There's more than a few people who have gone on a huge insult spree, only to delete much of it from public view before it gains mass attention (normally after they get punished for it). Plus there's personal communications that we don't see either. It's why some forum groups operate time limits on editing posts in threads, in order to prevent people going back to change what they said to get out of trouble or save face in public (even though mods/admin can always see changes).


In general situations like this are always messy and when you moderate them you can often see that its all purely childish behaviour. You also get people who will push at insulting and at the boundaries of what they can get away with; often building up a long history of minor infractions and issues. So the item that breaks the camels back might not seem ban worthy enough, but if you then look at the persons history things change. We've also no idea about this persons real life behaviour at WotC events which might also have played a part.

In addition the comments regarding the sale of cards might also have been a factor; ergo the attention from this insult event made WotC look at this persons account and, if there wre activity against their ToS then that too would have factored into things. Heck if he has been trading when he shouldn't have that might have been what landed him the ban.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/10 12:07:37


Post by: Peregrine


 Ecclesiarch 616 wrote:
The sad thing is that WoC can give lifetime bans when the comments are not made on official sites or venues.


Why is it sad? The venue of inappropriate behavior doesn't matter, if someone is the sort of person who would do inappropriate things outside of official sites then there's no reason to allow them to participate in official events either.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/10 12:10:23


Post by: Turnip Jedi


Jeremy clearly sets out to push buttons but for WoTC to decide to play internet police is questionable at best, if this happened at an actual Magic event then no problem at all but on non-WoTC social media, thats one heck of an over-reach

The Magic Online issue is admittedly covered by the EULA/TOS but the uneven handed nature of their application of their own rules make it look a tad rubbing salt in, a quick google shows lots of 3rd partys selling MTGO cards and tickets (the in game currency) but no action ever appears to be taken as this would cost time and money and the sales income Wizards makes from these 3rd partys

Unfortunately WoTC do give undue preference to the views of the 'positive' parts of the community, they don't do this out of any sense of right or fairness but rather they think this drives sales, maybe they need to examine how well that went for GW and course correct


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/10 12:23:01


Post by: Overread


Thing is Wizards might well shut down many of those sale groups; but the groups just get new accounts and continue on - their off-site sales sites don't have to change names or anything; and like as not they already have a large legion of sub-accounts that they use to keep their business going.

Often as not its my experience that unless it relates directly to a person or toward a situation they are involved in; most users don't really see much moderation take place. They don't see the discussions with troublemakers; they don't see the spam removed (unless it gets past auto filters and lasts long enough to be spotted); they don't often as not see punishments handed out etc....


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/10 12:23:55


Post by: Peregrine


 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Jeremy clearly sets out to push buttons but for WoTC to decide to play internet police is questionable at best, if this happened at an actual Magic event then no problem at all but on non-WoTC social media, thats one heck of an over-reach


Why is it an over-reach? You said it yourself, he sets out to push buttons, and he succeeded in pushing the "we don't need people like that at our events" button. The fact that he didn't do it at an official WOTC event is trying to hide behind a loophole, not a genuine defense of his character.

The Magic Online issue is admittedly covered by the EULA/TOS but the uneven handed nature of their application of their own rules make it look a tad rubbing salt in, a quick google shows lots of 3rd partys selling MTGO cards and tickets (the in game currency) but no action ever appears to be taken as this would cost time and money and the sales income Wizards makes from these 3rd partys


Alternatively, MTGO suffers from the same third-party seller issue that every online game has. It's trivially easy to make new accounts to sell from faster than WOTC can ban them, so even the most determined game owner isn't going to ever stop the illegal market. And, again, "but they did it to" is not a compelling defense of his character. If he broke the rules he gets no sympathy for his "losses".

Unfortunately WoTC do give undue preference to the views of the 'positive' parts of the community, they don't do this out of any sense of right or fairness but rather they think this drives sales, maybe they need to examine how well that went for GW and course correct


There is a distinct difference between removing people who are guilty of harassment and other unacceptable behavior and removing people who are negative. This is a case of WOTC expecting people to behave like mature adults, not enforcing positivity. There are plenty of people who criticize WOTC without getting lifetime bans.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/10 12:32:49


Post by: Turnip Jedi


Fair points Mr P, I think its WoTC apparent inconsistencies in what is considered bannable that I find grump inducing, of course their house their rules, although this whole thing has sidetracked everyone from the card quality issue

As for MTGO its a terrible bit of trashware that should have had an MMO style sub service and cards locked to accounts but that would have been lots of moneys rather than all the moneys


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/11 19:42:56


Post by: Lord of Deeds


Saw a post about this on BoLS and read some of the comments posted there which got really heated with some stuff bordering on being actionable.

As several have said, it is hard to sort out the truth, but it seems there is enough "smoke" to conclude there is a fire.

Regardless, I sit in the camp that a business has the right to decide who they wish to conduct business with and in the case of WotC, they reinforced their right to unilaterally cease doing business with anyone with their TOS.

In short, if you want to have the privilege of participating in WotC events and using their products on their servers and at their events, then you have to play by their rules regardless of where you are at.

If I was running a business, and I learned that one of my customers was toxic everywhere else, I would probably look to "fire" that customer as I would not want to my business to be in anyway attached to that behavior or be seen to be passively accepting of that behavior because I continue to do business with that individual.

I think as individuals that we all have to realize that when we act in the public space, it is public, and that you can be held accountable for that. It is one of the long standing mechanisms that societies throughout the history of civilization have used to "correct" socially unacceptable behavior.

This of course assumes the accusation being made is legitimate and not someone's unscrupulous attempt to libel and/or slander someone as a way of striking out at that person for some perceived slight, to exercise power over that person, or gain an advantage by discrediting the individual and/or forcing their removal/withdrawal from a contested position. It is in these circumstances that businesses must be careful that they exercise their right to refuse to do business with someone less they do harm to their own reputation and lose the wider trust and respect of the majority of their customers.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/12 08:44:15


Post by: soundwave591


Honestly his twitter feed was likely a huge part against him. he still holds to the claim that they stole thousands from his, and even called the lawyers he talked to about suing uneducated (well he inferred). He seems to feel like he can do no wrong, MTG is better off without him imo


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/12 15:21:57


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Ah glad to see it go political from first page as it has been on every single reference and article of the event.

Lines are drawn evidence are irrelevant, precedents and worries about it are irrelevant.

First of all to clear a few things Arch Warhammer has done the biggest service to warhamer franchise than most in the recent years, he has indeed created magnificent lore videos that explained the warhammer lore (pre destruction) that was truly good but impossible to find and explains 40k lore in a consistent way that makes sense if nothing else he is the only one I have seen to explain how warp works and why the ridiculousness of GWs lore makes sense in their universe, sometimes I feel he has better grasp of the franchise than the recent GW authors do.

He also has political views, as does everybody in here and stands for what he perceives moral and right in his own view, you may agree with his political view, you may disagree, you do the same as he does, express your political views, ultimately all opinions are valid and should be respected as opinions and everybody has the right to accept them as a whole or in part or reject them as a whole or in part.

I have seen him been accused of many things especially "misogyny" but I have seen no evidence of it, the worse I can accuse him is been conscious that the segment that oppose him politically are enraged by references as the aforementioned phrase a few posts above (that makes sense and can be considered funny within the context of the entire video) and uses them to enrage people who oppose him ideologically.

Surely a non "politically correct" behavior, but who really should care about it?

So give the man some credit for his work, he has managed to make even a bitter, disenfranchised old veteran such as myself actually care again about warhammer and 40k lore.

Now who he befriends with should be irrelevant, we are judging people as individuals and their ideas and ideologies on per case basis as adults right?

Now on the MTG HQ VS WOTC is a murky situation at best that brings up so many issues at the same time that feels overwhelming

First of all is indeed the digital collection and a sudden resurface of who the digital goods belong to and what rights a person has ownership to, terms of service mean nothing if they are illegal and as steam has learned a few years ago saying the games belong to it even in the terms of service does not make it so.

I stand firmly on the side that digital goods should be covered by the same terms physical goods are and ownership belongs to the buyer. Yes, it is complicated and yes, it gets even more complicated for online products, but lawmakers are payed good money to fix these issues instead of leaving them in limbo a couple of decades now.

Second is indeed is at what extend does a private company have rights to limit access to individuals for their goods and services on the grounds of their ideology and behavior outside their premises. I can understand a repeated troublemaker on their events that causes problems is a valid reason to limit access or ask from the state to give a restrictive order to said individual, but banning an individual on the grounds of what they say or do in their private life? That is ideological racism and you really cannot paint it in any other colour.

Personally I do not believe companies can or should take the law in their hand and decide what behavior outside their premise is acceptable or not from individuals, what people do outside their venues is their personal life and companies should have no right pocking in the personal life of people.

On the subject I was under the impression under the protection of private information (sp) giving out the personal details of an individual is illegal.

Finally I think that regardless of the above a company should be consistent and I value consistency on people and entities, L3 judge caught to actually sexually harass a player? striped of judge status no ban can reapply for L1 if WOTC thinks sufficient time has passed and shows good behavior, top player caught cheating on an actual event? 6 months ban, top player hosting a private FB group were things are said in private 1 year ban, someone expressing harsh opinions about others again not in their venues? Lifetime ban.

I am troubled by people and gaming news sites such as spikey bits and BOLS jumping so freely to support such decision, the wider implications of applauding such decision is allowing a corporation to dictate what you think (especially in your private life) in order to allow you access to their goods. The though is at the very least troubling, it is discriminatory and sets an oppressive precedent allowing corporations to have power that should only be in the hands of justice.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/12 17:39:54


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 Turnip Jedi wrote:
this is the Intertubes, evidence is irrelevant...


Just to clarify for the sarcasm/irony impaired this was a joke, I find the whole 'listen and (dis)believe' meme redonkulus regardless of which side uses it


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/12 18:56:51


Post by: SnotlingPimpWagon


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Ah glad to see it go political from first page as it has been on every single reference and article of the event.


I have seen him been accused of many things especially "misogyny" but I have seen no evidence of it


It`s probably for one of his videos, where he is debunking the myth posted on some thread, that warhammer is sexist and is for misogynists.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/13 13:57:53


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
ultimately all opinions are valid and should be respected as opinions


Nope. If a KKK member shows up and starts stating their racist opinions I have no obligation to recognize them as valid or respect them. Nor do I have any obligation to respect the person holding those opinions.

Now who he befriends with should be irrelevant, we are judging people as individuals and their ideas and ideologies on per case basis as adults right?


Nope. If someone has Nazis as friends it's a clear statement that they are at least ok with Nazis, if not a Nazi themselves. If you don't want to be judged by the beliefs of your friends then don't be friends with people who hold morally appalling beliefs.

I stand firmly on the side that digital goods should be covered by the same terms physical goods are and ownership belongs to the buyer.


You may stand firmly, but you stand wrongly. This is not in any way a viable option. For example, what happens when a game is shut down and the "digital goods" cease to exist? Can you sue the owner of the game for the loss of your property? Is everyone who ever makes an online game obligated to keep the servers running forever, to avoid destroying anyone's property? If the developers make balance changes that nerf your items and make them less valuable can you sue them for the loss? If another player in a PvP game (such as EVE Online) kills you and takes your stuff should they be prosecuted and thrown in jail for it? The supposed "digital goods" in question do not function like physical property, and can not be treated like physical property.

Second is indeed is at what extend does a private company have rights to limit access to individuals for their goods and services on the grounds of their ideology and behavior outside their premises. I can understand a repeated troublemaker on their events that causes problems is a valid reason to limit access or ask from the state to give a restrictive order to said individual, but banning an individual on the grounds of what they say or do in their private life?


A private company has near-unlimited rights to limit that access, as long as they are not doing it on the basis of any protected class (race, religion, etc). And no, "people who behave badly" is not a protected class. There is no magic separation of "private life" and "MTG tournaments", the sort of person who can't behave outside of a MTG tournament is not someone who should be trusted to behave at the tournament. Attending MTG tournaments is a privilege, not a right, and WOTC has no obligation to offer that privilege to people they do not trust to use it properly.

That is ideological racism and you really cannot paint it in any other colour.


And "ideological racism" is meaningless word salad. It demonstrates your outrage, but it means nothing and adds nothing to the discussion.

Personally I do not believe companies can or should take the law in their hand and decide what behavior outside their premise is acceptable or not from individuals, what people do outside their venues is their personal life and companies should have no right pocking in the personal life of people.


No company is taking the law into their own hands and forcing you to do anything in your personal life. WOTC can not fine you or throw you in jail or in any way force you to comply with their opinions. But WOTC does not have an obligation to invite you onto their personal property and spend their time and effort running an event for you. After all, if you want to avoid being a hypocrite about this then you have no right to take the law into your own hands and tell WOTC how they have to run their events.

I am troubled by people and gaming news sites such as spikey bits and BOLS jumping so freely to support such decision, the wider implications of applauding such decision is allowing a corporation to dictate what you think (especially in your private life) in order to allow you access to their goods. The though is at the very least troubling, it is discriminatory and sets an oppressive precedent allowing corporations to have power that should only be in the hands of justice.


You seem to have a very low standard for what counts as "oppression". A person who is not invited to a MTG event is not suffering any meaningful oppression. They are not being deprived of food or shelter or anything else necessary for life. They are, at most, inconvenienced and annoyed. Nor are there any wider implications, because banning people from official events is a laughably weak punishment by which to compel behavior. Anyone who is banned by a company is free to organize their own events, and if the company bans too many people they will take themselves out of the market and cease to exist. Portraying this as "oppression" suggests that you've had a pretty comfortable and privileged life, for this to seem like anything other than a trivial issue when compared to genuine hardship.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/13 14:06:06


Post by: Turnip Jedi


Curious development of the story if Jeremy is telling true seems Ms Sprankles is going back to school/college/training to be a Nurse (CNA is a med thing right) and whilst as ever correlation is not causation am getting a mild aroma of bus-pushing


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/13 14:29:30


Post by: Overread


Turnip I think a tiny bit more detail/context is needed to makes sense of what you've just said there.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/13 17:16:16


Post by: Turnip Jedi


not sure YT links are allowed, just have a watch of TheQuarting post named 'The Truth comes out', from about the 5min mark,and whilst he like everyone in this drama BBQ, isnt above some hyperbole and conclusion jumping it's maybe something to ponder


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/13 18:11:24


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Turnip Jedi wrote:
not sure YT links are allowed, just have a watch of TheQuarting post named 'The Truth comes out', from about the 5min mark,and whilst he like everyone in this drama BBQ, isnt above some hyperbole and conclusion jumping it's maybe something to ponder


This makes even less sense.

No one is going to search on YouTube to make your case for you.

You are actively hurting your own arguments by making them obtuse to anyone not already in the know and on your side. Start at the beginning and explain with as little jargon and few references to other's discourse as possible. If you want to use someone else's argument, please present it here with all the context necessary to interpret it.


From the sidelines, it appears that MTG banned a toxic member of the public from their private event and now many other members of the public, either toxic themselves or toxic-friendly, are attempting to make an issue out of this.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/13 19:24:42


Post by: Turnip Jedi


Fair point was just thinking my take on his take on her post could have got a bit My best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with a girl who saw Ferris pass-out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it’s pretty serious.

It appears Ms Sprankle is taking up some form of vocational training in January, in a programme that has a lengthy waiting list or limited placements, this training would most likely preclude her from Cosplaying at Magic Events as much as she does (and I'll admit her gear is swishy good), the question being did she know about this prior to slapping a parting blow and unleashing the hounds on Jeremy in a get even for his rudeness, rather than just being honest and saying 'got school/whatever, wont be able to Cos as much'


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/13 19:56:02


Post by: Overread


It might have been the trigger that contributed to her outing him in this manner, but it doesn't actually have any influence on her standing in the situation. It has no influence on what he's said/done or what she's said/done in the past.

Heck chances are she just wanted this done with so that if/when she returned in the future it wasn't an issue since any attendance to cosplay events would be a bigger dedication of her time (since her time then would have far more demands on it from studies/work)


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/13 21:39:05


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Fair point was just thinking my take on his take on her post could have got a bit My best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with a girl who saw Ferris pass-out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it’s pretty serious.

It appears Ms Sprankle is taking up some form of vocational training in January, in a programme that has a lengthy waiting list or limited placements, this training would most likely preclude her from Cosplaying at Magic Events as much as she does (and I'll admit her gear is swishy good), the question being did she know about this prior to slapping a parting blow and unleashing the hounds on Jeremy in a get even for his rudeness, rather than just being honest and saying 'got school/whatever, wont be able to Cos as much'


I'm still not sure what your argument is. It sounds like the nursing thing is a red herring. Is the argument really "She probably wouldn't have reported his toxic behavior with so much haste if she wasn't about to be too busy to deal with it later"? Or is it "she would have left the community anyway, so she's a poor sport for reporting his toxic behavior"? I mean, I would like to know more specifically what he is accused of doing, but it sounds like his behavior is not the point of contention but rather whether she should have put up with it..?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/13 22:17:08


Post by: PsychoticStorm


@Peregrine
I see you skipped the only thing that did indeed "outrage" me WOTC double standards in banning people, a clear indication that it is a ban because of ideology and not a ban because "morality"

I think we fundamentally have different views on a few things, probably because we come from different countries, witch is quite normal really.

I will add language wall on the mix.

If you value free speech you have to recognise and respect other peoples ideas, not by any means their content, nor you have to embrace them, yes, fundamentally a fascist has the same right to speak as everybody else in a democracy that values free speech, blocking them means there is no free speech and maybe no democracy (depending on the definition of "democracy"). No such bad ideology, so contrary to democracy and free speech, takes root in a society that is well educated and free. if it does, in a democratic society, then that society as a whole has failed its first and most basic task.

Now a company that can determine if they want to have business with you based on spying on your private life, if that is not a bad precedent and a cool backdrop on many distopian novels, I do not know what is, Wotc is a private company, so is google and the grocery store, if you believe a company should have the right to spy on your private life and judge you for legal things you did outside their premises, well, I disagree.

Now on digital content, again I disagree the right of property is a right of property steam tried to enforce it a few years ago and rightly the court said the games people bought are their games and have the right to have them, yes it is murky and yes, I acknowledge it, but giving companies the "right" to not sell you but lend you goods is fundamentally not only flawed but easily abusable.

Finally I think I have to disagree on the notion of "protected groups", human rights are human rights not society group rights, everybody should be judged by his or her own actions, regardless of skin colour religion, place of birth or association with other humans.

Again sorry if I do not get across easy, its a difficult topic and some things are definitely lost because of customs, traditions, local logic and language barriers please accept my apology is the above sounds antagonistic it should not be.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/13 22:32:05


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Psychotic Storm, could you please elaborate on what the ideology in question is? I would really like to get a sense of what the drama is about without giving in to my own biases, but also without watching lengthy YouTube videos.


And are you suggesting a private company banning a customer is a violation of freedom of speech? Were they spying on his personal life or acting on complaints from their customers?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 00:08:21


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I see you skipped the only thing that did indeed "outrage" me WOTC double standards in banning people, a clear indication that it is a ban because of ideology and not a ban because "morality"


I skipped it because I have no disagreement with it. A judge that is guilty of sexual harassment should receive a lifetime ban as well. Cheaters should receive lifetime bans, or at least longer than 6 months unless it was an incredibly minor offense.

If you value free speech you have to recognise and respect other peoples ideas, not by any means their content, nor you have to embrace them, yes, fundamentally a fascist has the same right to speak as everybody else in a democracy that values free speech, blocking them means there is no free speech and maybe no democracy (depending on the definition of "democracy"). No such bad ideology, so contrary to democracy and free speech, takes root in a society that is well educated and free. if it does, in a democratic society, then that society as a whole has failed its first and most basic task.


I don't think you understand what freedom of speech means. It means that the government can not censor you or punish you for speaking, even when your speech is objectionable to some people. It does NOT mean that individuals must listen to you or respect you or give you a platform to speak from. WOTC is not using the power of the government to prevent anyone from speaking, they are simply declining to support someone they disagree with. This is not in any way a freedom of speech issue.

Now a company that can determine if they want to have business with you based on spying on your private life, if that is not a bad precedent and a cool backdrop on many distopian novels, I do not know what is, Wotc is a private company, so is google and the grocery store, if you believe a company should have the right to spy on your private life and judge you for legal things you did outside their premises, well, I disagree.


First of all, it's hardly "spying" when the content in question was proudly broadcast to the world. And of course a company has the right to judge you. For example, if a MTG player is caught cheating at a major third-party event (not sanctioned by WOTC, and therefore outside their premises) is WOTC obligated to allow them to participate in high-level official tournaments? Or are they allowed to make the obvious conclusion that a person who will cheat at a major third-party event is likely to cheat elsewhere if given the opportunity, and ban the person from their own events?

Now on digital content, again I disagree the right of property is a right of property steam tried to enforce it a few years ago and rightly the court said the games people bought are their games and have the right to have them, yes it is murky and yes, I acknowledge it, but giving companies the "right" to not sell you but lend you goods is fundamentally not only flawed but easily abusable.


Steam is a very different case because Steam is actually selling you a game, an item that exists outside of a fictional world. MTGO, like other online games, is selling you a 30-day subscription to the game. Any digital items exist only as character attributes within the game world, and WOTC makes no promises that they will continue to exist. Nor does WOTC allow you to sell those character attributes legally, any sales occur illegally outside the game. The most you could argue for is a prorated refund of any subscription fees that are already paid.

Finally I think I have to disagree on the notion of "protected groups", human rights are human rights not society group rights, everybody should be judged by his or her own actions, regardless of skin colour religion, place of birth or association with other humans.


You can disagree, but you are wrong. Protected classes exist because we acknowledge that not all groups are treated equally in society. Discrimination based on race exists and has, in the past, seriously hurt people, therefore we don't allow it. Discrimination based on being a in a game does not exist in society, therefore we don't provide any special protection for people who are s in games. It is irrational zealotry to demand that we pretend that these things do not happen for the sake of ideological purity.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 00:19:32


Post by: PsychoticStorm


I will try!

The situation is a proper train wreak and at the moment it still explodes with everybody's skeletons out of the closet.

From what I gather there are many underground tensions between the youtube combatants and their fans had drawn the line, Christine maybe intentionally, maybe not, put a spark in the powder storage and it exploded.

The ones that called about his ban called for "politically correctness" and "Inclusivity", he and his supporters were banned or warned on such grounds, I support it by the ban inconsistencies I illustrated above.

I can see a company addressing customer complains for things that happen within their premises, their forum, their FB group, their online game, their tournaments.

This is not what happened, Wotc banned or warned people that were reported by "customers" reporting things that happened outside Wotc premises, in one case the banning happened for things that happened in a closed FB group, that is way too much overreach.

Given that the campaign against Unsleeved Media from all accounts was coordinated not only by youtube rivals but also magic employees, it seems like a typical ideological power struggle and that is a violation of freedom of speech.

As I said above I would understand it completely if said individual had done something objectionable within Wotc premises, but by all accounts it seems he was banned for expressing his opinions outside their premises, given a L3 Judge was caught sexually harassing players in a tournament and got just demoted from been a judge, no ban, and Unsleeved Mediagot a lifetime ban for nothing done inside Wotc premises it seems an ideological based purge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Peregrine
I kinda understand what the laws in the USA say about freedom of speech and about protected groups and why they are written given the historical context and culture, fact is I am not from there, we have other laws and ideology on some matters.

Freedom of speech, taken outside of strict law of USA defines it, is a philosophy and ideology "I may disagree with you but I will defend your right to express your opinion" is the baseline and much has been build on it, likewise any ideology that instead of trying to make people individuals hurls them in groups increases and not decreases discrimination.

I can understand were we differ in opinion and this is perfectly acceptable, I am sorry if I do not grasp the special nuances, American culture is quite complex to the outsider who cares to take a closer look and not brush it with wide stereotypes.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 05:38:04


Post by: Voss


American culture is quite complex to the outsider who cares to take a closer look and not brush it with wide stereotypes

Ah. There is your mistake. Take the American stereotypes and run with them. They'll rarely if ever fail you.

---
The thing you're missing about these incidents/people is their behavior does reflect on the company by association. If they're horrible little monsters that people come to associate with WotC (or whomever), that can cause problems for WotC as a business. Cutting them out becomes a business imperative as it could affect the bottom line or their reputation.

It's merely good business, and has little to do with ideology or freedom.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 05:48:42


Post by: nateprati


You have a complete grasp psychoticstorm. You are being reasonable. Peregrine does not understand the base principles of the matter.

Wotc decieded that jeremy was a bully and they revoked his access to his purchased online material, they banned him from events to the roar of a crowd knowing that he makes his living off of his knowledge of thier product. It is not a matter of thinking if jeremy is "toxic".it is that wotc decided he was. Arch is afraid of being labled "toxic" as well and it is unclear what that means for content creators moving forward.

How many times have we seen the word "toxic" thrown around here on dakka? People get down right rude with eachother in heated conversations all the time. On this thread someone declared arch alt right? MRA? Are you kidding? Arch never endorsed an ethno-state or special privilages for men. How is that accusation not toxic? But asking to truly look into the content and context of both sides is too much to ask? The same people still think pewdiepie is a nazi

What if enough people on dakka say you are a toxic bully peregrine? I have felt bullied by you in the past, i saw your post on some kids thread today saying all of his ideas were terrible when he wasnt even asking for critique (just new ideas)Should you be banned from any tournement backed by gw because we say so? Obviously not.

Arch did not even disagree with spikey bitz on a ban list. he just critisized the prerequisites of being placed on that list and he did it with a little edgy attitude. I know people from spikey bitz they are good people, and i have liked arch's content for years. No one needs to choose one over the other

No one controls the actions of others, i expect peregrines friends on dakka to dog pile me for this post but that doesnt make it peregrines fault if it happens. Itz not jeremys fault sprankle got talked mean to online, we all take that risk when we present ourselves online. Jeremy got tons of death threats, tons of mean comments, wrongfully flagged content. Are we going to ban everyone that took part in that? Or is it ok because he started it?

The real question is should wotc have stepped in? should gw step in if we start insaulting eachother?

Of course not.

We arent debating racism, sexism, free speach; we are debating if an umbrella company should get involved BEFORE independent organizers do.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 06:50:51


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Freedom of speech, taken outside of strict law of USA defines it, is a philosophy and ideology "I may disagree with you but I will defend your right to express your opinion" is the baseline and much has been build on it


Even outside the laws of the US the concept of freedom of speech has never meant "I can say whatever I want without any consequences". You have a right to say whatever you want, but I don't have an obligation to invite you into my home and listen to you.

likewise any ideology that instead of trying to make people individuals hurls them in groups increases and not decreases discrimination.


The point you're missing is that the discrimination based on groups already exists. The concept of protected classes is an acknowledgement that people are discriminating against those particular groups, and an attempt to stop it. Burying your head in the sand and pretending that the group-based discrimination doesn't exist, simply because it conflicts with your belief in treating people as individuals, is not the solution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nateprati wrote:
they revoked his access to his purchased online material


No they didn't, because no such purchased online material exists. He did not own anything in MTGO. The only thing he purchased was a subscription to access the game, and the only case he could possibly have is for a prorated refund of any monthly subscription cost that he had already paid. But even that's a weak case, because the TOS explicitly gives WOTC the power to ban players.

Arch is afraid of being labled "toxic" as well and it is unclear what that means for content creators moving forward.


If he's afraid then perhaps he should try behaving properly. And what it means is that you should think very carefully about building your business on someone else's work. If your continued success depends on someone else having a favorable opinion of you and granting you access to their products/services then you are willingly putting yourself in a position where that person/company can say "nope, I don't like you" and revoke the access you want. You can either accept that you have to comply with their wishes and keep them happy, or make your own content independent of someone else's work and have full control over everything.

On this thread someone declared arch alt right? MRA? Are you kidding? Arch never endorsed an ethno-state or special privilages for men. How is that accusation not toxic?


If you're referring to me, I didn't accuse him of being part of the alt-right, I (100% correctly) accused Sargon of Akkad of that. I simply pointed out that it's a major red flag when your top google search results include doing a friendly video with Sargon of Akkad, as in the case of ArchWarhammer. I haven't watched his videos to determine if he's an alt-rightist/MRA/etc himself, or if he was unaware of who he was dealing with. But if I had to place a bet I know which one I'd think is more likely.

What if enough people on dakka say you are a toxic bully peregrine? I have felt bullied by you in the past, i saw your post on some kids thread today saying all of his ideas were terrible when he wasnt even asking for critique (just new ideas)


Then I don't think you understand what "bullying" means. Posting criticism, even harsh criticism, of someone's ideas is not bullying.

Should you be banned from any tournement backed by gw because we say so? Obviously not.


No, because any ban policy that included me would be incredibly broad and be really stupid for GW from a financial point of view. Banning half your customers is committing suicide as a business. Which is why this is a non-issue, it's an entirely self-regulating problem. A company that bans more than a small number of the worst elements of the community will destroy its own sales, and too much of its money will go elsewhere.

Of course we don't even need to make a hypothetical question about it, I've been banned (apparently) by the local GW store for leaving negative reviews online. Did I whine about it being a free speech issue? Of course not. I said you and took my money elsewhere.

Itz not jeremys fault sprankle got talked mean to online


It really is, given that the accusation is that Jeremy himself made some of the comments in question, and posted her real name/address/etc. That's an implicit invitation to harass someone.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 07:38:33


Post by: nateprati


You are completly wrong if you think sargon is alt right. The dude openly debates and deprograms alt right thinkers. He is one of the only people who tears down alt right racism along side extreme left racism for hundreds of thousands to see and make thier own judgment.

Your point about jeremy's expensive "subscription" holds no wieght the only reason it doesnt apply to 40k players is because we own the physical models instead of an end user agreement. Your argument is based on a court case that declared nintendo 64 cartrages physical property but downloaded computer content as "software" in the 90s allowing blockbuster to legally rent out nintendo games without paying developers. That is why arcades die under the pressure of commercial end user agreement subscriotions in the modern day.

you saying that people who felt bullied by you "dont understand what bullying is" is bs.

And if "misbehaving" is declaired by disagreeing with your opinions than i guess i am "misbehaving" online right now and i am not afraid.

I have never seen jeremy post sprankles adress. I did see him say sprankles wasnt that hot, that she was just an internet begger, that cosplay is closer to porn than it is to mtg. The worst things he did were joke about teasing a pannelist (which amounted to nothing) he declaired a wotc emplyee a member of antifa (his worst offence by far) and he rated some women out of 10 in a private facebook group. he activly prefaces all his content with "DO NOT CONTACT THESE PEOPLE" how can that be misunderstood? And if the same thing happens to him you say that wotc shouldnt ban others because then its "too broad" its already too broad if it can be applied to the other side.

Your own definition of "harsh critisim" can be applied to arch and jeremy and even sargon but its bullying when they do it because you dont like them.

The difference between me and you is that i can see that you have more in common with all of them then you think.



Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 07:57:09


Post by: soundwave591


wait are people really arguing that wizards should refund money that Jeremy spent at third party companies?
I mean surely people understand that literal can of worms right?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 08:01:09


Post by: Peregrine


nateprati wrote:
You are completly wrong if you think sargon is alt right. The dude openly debates and deprograms alt right thinkers. He is one of the only people who tears down alt right racism along side extreme left racism for hundreds of thousands to see and make thier own judgment.


Correction acknowledged, he isn't technically part of the alt-right. He's an anti-feminist MRA who supported Trump, making him close to the alt-right ideologically, but he isn't a member. But the point stands that he's a pretty awful person, and associating with him is a red flag.

Your point about jeremy's expensive "subscription" holds no wieght the only reason it doesnt apply to 40k players is because we own the physical models instead of an end user agreement. Your argument is based on a court case that declared nintendo 64 cartrages physical property but downloaded computer content as "software" in the 90s allowing blockbuster to legally rent out nintendo games without paying developers. That is why arcades die under the pressure of commercial end user agreement subscriotions in the modern day.


Uh, no, the reason it doesn't apply to 40k players is that you actually buy individual models from GW. The unit of purchase is a plastic model kit or a rulebook, and those things are clearly your property. In MTGO (or other online games) you buy a monthly subscription to play the game, you don't buy individual cards. The cards have no existence outside of the game world (and cannot have any independent existence) and can not be bought or sold through official means. They're the equivalent of, say, your D&D character having a strength value of 18. And, as I've already pointed out, attempting to apply physical property rules to the in-game attributes of your video game character results in absurd and dysfunctional conclusions. For example, if your MTGO cards are legally considered your property then you could sue WOTC for shutting down the game and destroying "your" property, forcing them (and every other company that ever makes an online game) to keep the game running forever regardless of whether it makes sense from a business point of view. Or, in a game with PvP (like EVE Online) you could be prosecuted and imprisoned for killing someone and taking their stuff.

you saying that people who felt bullied by you "dont understand what bullying is" is bs.


No, it's truth. Bullying requires a difference in power which is not present here, and a continued pattern which is also not present. Saying "your idea sucks" is not bullying.

And if "misbehaving" is declaired by disagreeing with your opinions than i guess i am "misbehaving" online right now and i am not afraid.


Don't play ignorant like this, you know perfectly well that the accusations involved here go far beyond mere disagreement with opinions. Harassment and (implicitly or explicitly) encouraging harassment is not disagreement.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 08:15:40


Post by: nateprati


The account is what is worth somthing and i dont think there is anything legally stopping people from selling already ranked up or tricked out gaming accounts like how warcraft accounts sell.

Me play ignorant? Its people like you who cast out the entire republican party as hateful or "close to the alt right" that are making real racism harder to detect, destroying our democratic party and ensuring that trump wins again.

If you act so agressivly that people do not want to come back to a not very competative space where you are then your probably a bully. For example:threads online or cosplay competitions

Heres one by your metric: your arguments here are terrible, can not be applied equally to all and asume some kind of moral high ground over people who think differently than you



Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 08:21:39


Post by: Peregrine


nateprati wrote:
The account is what is worth somthing and i dont think there is anything legally stopping people from selling already ranked up or tricked out gaming accounts like how warcraft accounts sell.


No, the account is not worth anything because it can't legally be transferred to a different owner. And you do not buy an account, you buy the ability to log in and play the game for 30 days. The fact that stupid people pay money for something that isn't the seller's property to sell doesn't mean that the owner of the game has to recognize the value of the sale, or that they can't ban the subscriber.

Me play ignorant? Its people like you who cast out the entire republican party as hateful or "close to the alt right" that are making real racism harder to detect, destroying our democratic party and ensuring that trump wins again.


It's not my fault that the republican party has put awful and alt-right-leaning elements into its platform, and any decent members of the party are clearly too small of a minority to change its official policy positions. But that's US politics, and a banned subject here, so I'm not going to continue this discussion.

If you act so agressivly that people do not want to come back to a not very competative space where you are then your probably a bully. For example:threads online or cosplay competitions


Uh, no, that's not what bullying means, at all. Please stop trying to redefine words to suit your argument.

Heres one by your metric: your arguments here are terrible, can not be applied equally to all and asume some kind of moral high ground over people who think differently than you


What? I honestly have no idea what your point here is.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 08:37:12


Post by: nateprati


Define bully then my dude. Some bs about power, you dont need power to bully

Heres mine:peregrine


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 08:39:57


Post by: Peregrine


nateprati wrote:
Some bs about power, you dont need power to bully


Bullying: : abuse and mistreatment of someone vulnerable by someone stronger, more powerful, etc. : the actions and behavior of a bully


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 08:48:18


Post by: nateprati


bul·ly1
ˈbo͝olē/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: bullying
use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants

Used in a sentence: eirlier tonight peregrine and others influenced (bullied) some kid to not post anymore ideas about his narrative campaign on dakkadakka that he doesnt like


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 08:49:46


Post by: Peregrine


You: "Bullying doesn't require power."
You: *copy/pastes definition of 'bullying' that requires power*

Whatever you say...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the "kid" you're talking about is 33 years old.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 08:59:06


Post by: nateprati


Yea even you across that keyboard with no real power are capable of bullying

And that is the whole point. "power" is subjective as is the world bullying, it can be applied to anything which is why this conversation is even relevent ti the subject of this thread.the terms of banning people over bullying are subjective and too broad.

And who cares how old he is, you and others would have responded the same way to a 13yo


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 09:10:27


Post by: Peregrine


nateprati wrote:
Yea even you across that keyboard with no real power are capable of bullying


Just going to keep ignoring that power element of the definition, I suppose.

And that is the whole point. "power" is subjective as is the world bullying, it can be applied to anything which is why this conversation is even relevent ti the subject of this thread.the terms of banning people over bullying are subjective and too broad.


Saying it's "subjective" is meaningless, because people are allowed to make policies based on subjective things. A private entity is not bound by the same rules as the legal system and can choose who to associate with for pretty much any reason they want. For example, dakka will ban you for being "rude", which is clearly a subjective thing. And yet I don't see you posting outrage threads about how this is a violation of your freedom of speech.

Also, you're ignoring very real differences in behavior and handwaving it all away with "it's subjective". There's a difference between posting "this sucks" and posting "this sucks" on everything a person does, telling them they're an awful person who should commit suicide to spare everyone the misery of seeing them, encouraging all their friends to join in, etc. The accusation is not that Jeremy Hambly said something negative once, it's that he engaged in continued harassment of particular people and encouraged his very large number of followers to do the same (apparently, quite successfully).

And who cares how old he is, you and others would have responded the same way to a 13yo


Well, it certainly makes it easier to criticize me when you invent your own fictional version of me that does whatever awful things you want me to be guilty of.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 09:21:50


Post by: nateprati


Sounds a lot like the fictional versions of jeremy, arch and sargon that you make up.

I explicitly said this was nit a freedom of speach / consiquence of your speach issue. It is about whether wotc or gw or any company should ban people for what they say on other platforms (like dakkadakka) again you missed jeremy exolicitly saying "do not contact these people" in any content he made about them.

You ignoring what people directly state seems to be a reoccuring theme.

I wrote all the bad things jermy did, i dont really even like the guy but atleast i heard both sides out.

You throw out that he doxed sprankle which i have not seen wotc, sprankle, the professor, jeremy, the mana source or anyone talk about.

Your entitled to your opinion but your opinion is wrong peregrine


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 09:45:13


Post by: Peregrine


nateprati wrote:
Sounds a lot like the fictional versions of jeremy, arch and sargon that you make up.


I've done no such thing. Sargon's words speak for themselves, he's exactly what I described. And I was quite clear that the accusations against Jeremy and ArchWarhammer are not proven to me (in the case of Jeremy because the posts/videos in question have been deleted). None of this is my own invention.

I explicitly said this was nit a freedom of speach / consiquence of your speach issue.


My apologies, I attributed that argument to the wrong person. But the basic point I was making there stands: saying "it's subjective" is meaningless because forums/tournaments/etc constantly make and enforce policies that involve subjective judgement.

It is about whether wotc or gw or any company should ban people for what they say on other platforms (like dakkadakka)


The answer is "yes, of course they should". Arguing that it technically didn't happen at a WOTC event is trying to find a loophole to get away with something, not a legitimate defense. People who behave badly in one situation are likely to do the same elsewhere, even if they haven't been caught yet in that particular setting. If Jeremy Hambly is guilty of the things he is accused of then he's a terrible person regardless of whose event he is participating in, he doesn't magically change just because he walks in the door at an official WOTC event. So yes, if a person is someone that a company does not want at their events then it is appropriate to ban them.

And I'll repost a question I asked earlier: if this had been a case of cheating would you feel the same way? If he had been caught cheating at a major third-party tournament would it still be unacceptable for WOTC to ban him? Or would you argue that WOTC must overlook the cheating and allow him to play until they can catch him doing it at a WOTC event?

again you missed jeremy exolicitly saying "do not contact these people" in any content he made about them.


No, I deliberately ignored it as an obvious attempt at protecting himself rather than a genuine desire to avoid subjecting them to harassment. If you post someone's real name and contact information along with criticism it's an implicit suggestion that everyone else should target them, and saying "do not contact them" is little more than a "kids, don't try this at home" disclaimer that covers you legally without containing any sincerity at all. At best it's a desperate attempt to shut down a disaster after realizing that things went too far, probably out of fear of consequences.

You throw out that he doxed sprankle which i have not seen wotc, sprankle, the professor, jeremy, the mana source or anyone talk about.


https://www.polygon.com/2017/11/29/16709796/magic-the-gathering-cosplayer-harassment-youtube mentions him posting personal information. And, again, it's hard to provide proof of anything when many of the posts/videos have been deleted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think it says a lot that the primary defense of Jeremy Hambly seems to be "he didn't technically do it at a WOTC event" rather than any legitimate defense of his innocence or general good character. If he's genuinely a good person and the accusations are false then there would be no need to resort to such a weak defense.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 10:04:16


Post by: nateprati


Here is where we fundimentally disagree

I do not think gw, wotc or any umbrella company should lifetime ban people with no possibility of appeal and or sieze the ability to use digital content provided by said company based on things said in private or other platforms such as threads, youtube, twitch or anyother comunication site. It is my opinion that, that choice is up to the organizations holding events on an individual basis

I think content creators can only tell thier subs to not interact with others online spaces because beyond not making thier (sometimes edgy) content, there is nothing left they can do. I can not support holding people accountable for the actions of others.

As for this polygon article, i watched that live stream before it was flagged by sprankle supporters. He insaulted her and critisized her online practise but i can not say that he posted her personal information beyond her cosplay name

As for polygon itself this was a well detailed and fairly unbiased article at a glance but after gamergate i do not trust big gaming media to report with integrity.

I think this whole thing (including the online personalities sargon, arch, jeremy) stems back to gamergate and i think we both know what side of the fence we are on


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 10:13:13


Post by: Peregrine


nateprati wrote:
I do not think gw, wotc or any umbrella company should lifetime ban people with no possibility of appeal and or sieze the ability to use digital content provided by said company based on things said in private or other platforms such as threads, youtube, twitch or anyother comunication site.


Why not? Why should they be obligated to give an invitation to someone they find objectionable? I mean, I get the selfish reason for not wanting to find yourself banned, but is there anything else besides simply stating that WOTC is obligated to provide tournaments for everyone? Why should WOTC (or any other private organization) be forced to ignore what they know about someone and pretend that none of it ever happened?

It is my opinion that, that choice is up to the organizations holding events on an individual basis


That's exactly how it works. The organization holding each individual event sets its own policies. It just happens to be the case that WOTC holds a lot of events, and a lifetime ban from WOTC-run events probably matters more to most people than a lifetime ban from their local store's FNM. Or were you under the mistaken assumption that a ban from WOTC has anything to do with third-party events, and people running non-WOTC-sanctioned events are obligated to follow WOTC's banned list?

I think content creators can only tell thier subs to not interact with others online spaces because beyond not making thier (sometimes edgy) content, there is nothing left they can do. I can not support holding people accountable for the actions of others.


It's not just for the actions of others, it's for the (supposed) encouragement of those actions. Obviously this is not sufficient to hold up in court and send him to prison, but private organizations setting membership policies are not obligated to follow such strict standards of evidence.

As for this polygon article, i watched that live stream before it was flagged by sprankle supporters. He insaulted her and critisized her online practise but i can not say that he posted her personal information beyond her cosplay name


Follow the links. It's not just about that one video, it's an accusation of a general trend involving multiple incidents and multiple targets. For example: https://twitter.com/_Elantris_/status/934247872316416000 is someone else reporting harassment after he posted her real name.

(And yes, this is an accusation without proof, and good luck finding proof either way when so much has been deleted. But WOTC seems to have found the accusation credible enough to act on it, and I'd bet they spent way more time and effort investigating it than either of us have.)

I think this while thing (including the online personalities sargon, arch, jeremy) stems back to gamergate and i think we both kniw what sidenof the fence we are on


I take it you're implying that you support the gamergate crowd in their nonsensical crusade? That's rather disappointing.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 10:58:14


Post by: nateprati


I dont think big companies should ban people they find objectionalble exactly because it is noninclusive. Jeremy has 20k people who side with him. Literally thousands of people who agree with him even if that is small to the massive mtg community and even cycle, that is not a small number of people that feel outcasted for enjoying his content or agreeing with him. How can we hope to improve this section of the community by segregating them? I just dont believe it is the right course of action. Wotc is not obligated to do anything, it is up to them butb i dont think preamptivley banning people is the way to endorse inclusivity. Wotc operates international proffesion gaming. They litteraly banned a carrer professional player (travis wu)for siding with jeremy.

The next point is more about what spikey bits is suggesting rather than wotc banning jeremy. The problem is with what gets you on that blacklist. Once again i will not hold peoples private communications or who they disagree with online or what they think about modern feminism or politics for if they will or wont break a code of conduct at a tournement or event like armies on parade or warhammerworld. I will not consider people guilty of acting out at an event until they act out at an event. Thats also what i took as arch's opinion.

As for content creaters and thier followings. Again no company is obligated to do anything and i dont think they should. They should let people argue it out online and let individuals decide for themselves where they think they fit. These are gaming companies not cyber police, it is simply not they're place. If someone thinks or says"i hope jeremy gets told off" and another person actually does it i still do not think anyone should be charged beyond the person who literally performed the action.

And for jeremys twiter. I dont even think posting her name was even that bad, he literally goes by his legal name. Spikey bitz posted arch's picture in that second article which was also in bad taste. A lifetime ban for that is really heavy. The real bad things jeremy did were to a wotc employee (claiming she was antifa) and actually suggesting someone troll some pannelist. These offences justify getting kicked out of an event sure but a lifetime ban is just heavy handed. And i do see that for what it is: a warning to others. I still would have prefered them kick him out of an event for a year after he actually did somthing.

Lastly gamergate was about journolistic integrety in gaming, it was about gaming journos being bribed by devlopers and vice versa to benifit eachother at the cost of the consumer. Bad business. It was also about blaming individuals for the actions of others. It was about journos literally all conspiring to release articles steriotyping gamers like us to be sexist and racist.

NBC literally put out a video article blaming gamers for charlottesville because the alt right usex gaming servers to comunicate. That is the kind of bs journolism gamergate was about.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 11:04:55


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


Please don't open the can of worms that is gamergate. Its just going to devolve into a back and forth of "they are bullying misogynists and literally hitler! rabble rabble rabble" and "nuh uh, they are about ethics in journalism and antisjw! rabble rabble rabble" and it will ultimately go nowhere productive.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 11:07:45


Post by: nateprati


I agree man its just hard getting insaulted like that


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 11:39:21


Post by: PsychoticStorm


I think he debunked the Polygon article in a video of his own, even showing the internal correspondence with the article writer, I would not hold Polygon or Kotaku as reputable news sources.

Lets touch some subjects.
Yes, first of all, groups are discriminated for many reasons and in varying degrees, some is silly to feel discriminated against, some are really serious, my point is "anti discriminatory" laws are by their nature discriminatory and only help to increase the feelings of discrimination on both sides and create a bigger rift, essentially failing greatly at their job on a fundamental level, I feel that it would have been better if we directed our energy in demolishing the notion of groups and promote the ideology of the human as individual instead of "you have X characteristics you belong to Y group and this needs or does not need protection" (that is racism by the way).

On digital content a theoretical example would be for lets say GW to ban you for something you said on Dakka and then remove your digital codex and book collection from the platform you have.

Yes, it can be more complicated and more murky I said it from the beginning, but paying for something should transfer ownership of said thing to you and by no means should a seller have the right to get it back on because reasons outside of not getting payed.

Now on deeper waters morality is subjective this is why the court of law decides what is and is not moral, we may agree or disagree on how good job they do, but what is moral should not be in the hands of any individual or company.

Wotc fundamentally decided who acted morally or not for events that happened outside their jurisdiction that is their premises and premises alone. I personally feel this is a really bad precedent and opens Pandora box for the future.

On top of that Wotc used double standards, Unsleeved Media actively by all evidence expressed harsh opinions, but did not called or supported bulling his detractors though not only actively called for bulling, doxing and harassment but participated in it, why after thanksgiving most prominent magic content creators and a few judges with Youtube channel and a few employees judges are not banned for life is beyond me.

I do not thing that anybody can shift me from my belief that this is an ideological purge.

As I said a company having the right to decide morality and restrict individuals for events outside their jurisdiction is a bad precedent that can only go worse.

Now, free speech does not mean you need to agree with anything said, it means you should not try to stop people who you do not agree with speak, enforcing consequences for expressing beliefs is discriminatory and yes, it is ideological racism, X group expresses X political ideology hence it is sanctioned for their beliefs, it is exactly the same as saying X group believes in X religion and it is sanctioned for their religion.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 11:47:30


Post by: Peregrine


nateprati wrote:
I dont think big companies should ban people they find objectionalble exactly because it is noninclusive.


Well yes, being noninclusive is the whole point. Get rid of the people who don't know how to behave, and the community is better off without them. There's way more to having a good game and a good community than maximizing the number of players.

Once again i will not hold peoples private communications or who they disagree with online or what they think about modern feminism or politics for if they will or wont break a code of conduct at a tournement or event like armies on parade or warhammerworld.


That's your choice. Some of us prefer not to associate with awful people, even if they can pretend to be polite at specific events. You're still an awful person even if nobody catches you doing something bad at a specific tournament.

Again no company is obligated to do anything and i dont think they should.


But that's exactly what you're arguing: that WOTC is obligated to allow Jeremy Hambly to play in their tournaments because WOTC hasn't satisfied your standard of reasons for banning him. If no company is obligated then WOTC has no obligation to follow your preferences, and can ban whoever they want.

Lastly gamergate was about journolistic integrety in gaming, it was about gaming journos being bribed by devlopers and vice versa to benifit eachother at the cost of the consumer. Bad business. It was also about blaming individuals for the actions of others. It was about journos literally all conspiring to release articles steriotyping gamers like us to be sexist and racist.


No, gamergate was not at all about journalistic integrity. None of the people involved were outraged about the close relationship between developers and "journalists" until it happened to align with their anti-SJW crusade, despite it being a well-known fact for decades that the game "journalism" industry was little more than a paid marketing department for the major publishers. It's the equivalent of posting a hysterical rant about "OMG GUYS PRO WRESTLING IS FAKE" and expecting anyone to take you seriously. Yeah, it's true, but if you don't care about it until it's people you dislike being caught then you aren't really concerned about the subject. You're just using it as a pretense for complaining about how SJWs/feminists/etc are ruining everything.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 11:57:16


Post by: nateprati


"Get rid of the people who dont know how to behave, and the community is better off without them" -peregrine

Me:wotc are not obligated to do anything
Peregrine: your saying wotc are obligated to do somthing!

Peregrine: "get rid of the people who dint know how to behave, and the community is better off without them" -peregrine on gamergate

God that sounded terrible





Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 11:59:37


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I feel that it would have been better if we directed our energy in demolishing the notion of groups and promote the ideology of the human as individual instead of "you have X characteristics you belong to Y group and this needs or does not need protection" (that is racism by the way).


That's a nice thought, but it doesn't work that way in the real world. Racists are going to be racist no matter what, the only question is whether you pretend that "groups don't exist, humans are individuals" or acknowledge that certain people are discriminated against in specific ways and work to oppose that discrimination. Maybe this is something that works differently outside the US, as you have stated that you don't really understand the US situation, but in the context of the US statements like yours are naive idealism and not realistic at all.

On digital content a theoretical example would be for lets say GW to ban you for something you said on Dakka and then remove your digital codex and book collection from the platform you have.


No it wouldn't, because in that case I am buying a digital book, not temporary access to a digital book paid on a monthly basis. The book files exist independently from anything GW does, if I simply disconnect my internet connection forever then GW can't do anything to remove them from my possession. MTGO cards, on the other hand, exist only as character attributes in a video game. There is no separate card object, physical or digital, that you can take out of the game and into your possession. And there is no reason at all to expect that MTGO cards will be available to you forever. If nothing else, at some point the game will become unprofitable and WOTC will shut down the servers. There is a massive functional difference between how the two things work, and applying laws and principles from one to the other does not work.

Yes, it can be more complicated and more murky I said it from the beginning, but paying for something should transfer ownership of said thing to you and by no means should a seller have the right to get it back on because reasons outside of not getting payed.


Except nobody pays for MTGO cards. You are not buying individual cards, any sales of cards are done illegally and outside of the game with no involvement from WOTC. The only thing you are buying from WOTC is 30 days of playing a video game, a service WOTC has provided. The strongest possible claim Hambly has is for a prorated refund of any subscription time that he had already paid for, and even that would be pretty weak (and worth far less than the cost of paying a lawyer to get the money).

Wotc fundamentally decided who acted morally or not for events that happened outside their jurisdiction that is their premises and premises alone.


So what? This happens all the time. If I find out that someone is a KKK member I am entirely free to decide that they are morally wrong and not invite them into my house. Are you seriously going to argue otherwise, that I am obligated to allow the KKK member into my house because they haven't lynched anyone on my property yet?

I do not thing that anybody can shift me from my belief that this is an ideological purge.


Even assuming it is, so what? WOTC, as a private organization, has a right to decide that people of certain beliefs are not welcome in their events.

Now, free speech does not mean you need to agree with anything said, it means you should not try to stop people who you do not agree with speak, enforcing consequences for expressing beliefs is discriminatory and yes, it is ideological racism, X group expresses X political ideology hence it is sanctioned for their beliefs, it is exactly the same as saying X group believes in X religion and it is sanctioned for their religion.


First of all, "ideological racism" is word salad, please stop using such a ridiculous term. You might as well talk about "purple oppression" or "pizza tyranny" or whatever.

Second, no, that's not how it works, at all. Freedom of speech means that the government can not do those things. It has never meant that I, as a private individual, can not say "wow, you're a " and refuse to play a game with you. It has never meant that I am obligated to treat you as a friend no matter what you say. And it has certainly never meant that everything, no matter how awful, is "just beliefs" and we can never object to anything anyone says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nateprati wrote:
Me:wotc are not obligated to do anything
Peregrine: your saying wotc are obligated to do somthing!


Yes, that's exactly what you're saying. You're saying that WOTC is obligated to let Jeremy Hambly play in their events because his (supposed) actions did not occur at a WOTC event, and they're doing something inappropriate by banning him.

Peregrine: "get rid of the people who dint know how to behave, and the community is better off without them" -peregrine on gamergate


Yep, exactly. The gamergate crowd is a toxic mess with no redeeming qualities, and the community would be better off without them.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 12:01:50


Post by: nateprati


Please stop using the absolutly rediculous comparasin of jeremy being a jerk online to a klans member spouting hate speach. You are entitled to hate racists lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No one is saying wotc didnt have the right to ban, we are saying they should not have banned because of the future implications


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 12:07:34


Post by: Peregrine


nateprati wrote:
Please stop using the absolutly rediculous comparasin of jeremy being a jerk online to a klans member spouting hate speach. You are entitled to hate racists lol


Oh, I see, your objection isn't some kind of principled moral stand on the concept of banning people you disagree with, it's simply that you don't think Jeremy Hambly is bad enough to ban. You're entitled to hate racists, because nateprati thinks that racists are bad, but you'd better not hate the wrong target. At least now we can ditch all the arguments about principles, and get on to the point that "being a jerk online" is still poor behavior and there's no reason that "jerks" (to describe what he's accused of in very generous terms) should be invited to events.

No one is saying wotc didnt have the right to ban, we are saying they should not have banned because of the future implications


And just what implications are those? Bans like this are a self-regulating system. If a company is too aggressive in banning people they will kill their own product and disappear. It's never going to be more than a rarely-used tool for dealing with especially objectionable people. And even in the worst-case scenario we aren't talking about some dystopian future as a result of this, the worst that can happen is that a particular game company goes out of business just like countless other game companies that have died.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 12:11:44


Post by: nateprati


Let me throw out a wacky idea for you because you love thinking of the situation where you meet a klansman.

If a literal klansman happens to be the best chess player in the world and he can keep his racist bs to himself and follow codes of conduct at an international tournement (intended to find out who is the greatest chess player in the world) should the organizers let him play and let you protest outside or kick him out and never find out if he can beat the winner because your offended at his beliefs?

Seriously its rediculous but think about it


And i really hate to have to point out to mods: am a latino and in no way supoort any racist idiology. It is just a scenario for peregrine


Automatically Appended Next Post:
........Implications like banning travis wu a professional mtg player for a year just for defending jeremy


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 12:15:16


Post by: Peregrine


nateprati wrote:
If a literal klansman happens to be the best chess player in the world and he can keep his racist bs to himself and follow codes of conduct at an international tournement (intended to find out who is the greatest chess player in the world) should the organizers let him play and let you protest outside or kick him out and never find out if he can beat the winner because your offended at his beliefs?


Nope, he's gone. I don't care if he could beat the winner, he's a disgusting person who does not deserve the privilege of participating in my event. He can be the "best chess player in the world" in his private white-only tournament that nobody cares about.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 12:17:22


Post by: nateprati


Right but its not your event is it? Its an international competition design to find a champion at the game, not designed to find out who would make a great world leader


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 12:18:07


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Please don't touch gamergate as people above said, if you want to there is the off topic subforum, gamergate was a massive political event that touched every aspect of the geek culture and far beyond discussing such a massive event will derail and eclipse this thread.

On topic "inclusivity" is a meaningless word, Wotc and every other company out there is not responsible for their customers actions especially outside their premises, inside their premises they have every right to enforce their policy and as long as that policy is not illegal (for example discriminatory) whoever wants to be in their premises must behave accordingly this is an option, at no point the company has a right to enforce their policy outside their premises and by no means should actions outside their premises that do not affect them (and no a customers behaviour does not affect them) should result on sanctions.

There is a legal system for that.

Now can somebody answer me a question from my first post, why a public list of banned people exists? this would be illegal here for many good reasons.



Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 12:19:48


Post by: Peregrine


nateprati wrote:
........Implications like banning travis wu a professional mtg player for a year just for defending jeremy


No, Travis Wu was banned for his involvement with a group posting offensive material and being a general . He had already been dropped by his sponsors and kicked off his team before WOTC took any action against him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nateprati wrote:
Right but its not your event is it? Its an international competition design to find a champion at the game, not designed to find out who would make a great world leader


The premise of the question is that I have control over the decision, and I answered that. If you're a KKK member then you're not invited, you forfeit your chance to become champion by being a thoroughly awful person.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 12:23:25


Post by: nateprati


It doesnt exist, spikey bitz suggested it should because of the wotc and jeremy thing. Arch made a video saying it was a dangerous path to go down and backhandedly insaulted spikey bitz in the process.

Inclusivity, i agree is a meaningless word but it is the reason people want to start banning anf making lists. One side says its more invlusive to shut out agressive voices so people dont get discouraged the other side says that is a paradox


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And no peregrine the question is what should the organizers do. Not what you would do


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 12:26:23


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Please don't touch gamergate as people above said, if you want to there is the off topic subforum, gamergate was a massive political event that touched every aspect of the geek culture and far beyond discussing such a massive event will derail and eclipse this thread.


It was massive, sure, but it was a massive sewer composed mostly of people with zero interest in the gaming community beyond how they can use it to advance their anti-SJW crusade. If you don't want to discuss it, fine, but I'm not going to pretend that the gamergate crowd is anything but a toxic mess, or that they had any legitimate points to make.

On topic "inclusivity" is a meaningless word, Wotc and every other company out there is not responsible for their customers actions especially outside their premises, inside their premises they have every right to enforce their policy and as long as that policy is not illegal (for example discriminatory) whoever wants to be in their premises must behave accordingly this is an option, at no point the company has a right to enforce their policy outside their premises and by no means should actions outside their premises that do not affect them (and no a customers behaviour does not affect them) should result on sanctions.


You were so close to being right, and then you failed. A company only has power over what happens on their premises, and that is the only place where WOTC is taking any actions. Jeremy Hambly is banned from WOTC's premises, but the ban has zero effect on anything happening outside those premises. He is still free to make his youtube videos, still free to play MTG everywhere outside of WOTC events, etc. In fact, even Jeremy Hambly himself has pointed out that the ban has little practical effect on him because he rarely participated in WOTC events.

And, again, a private organization has the right to consider whatever they want in determining the policies they will enforce on their premises. If they want to consider things happening elsewhere they can do so. If they want to consider a person's moral character they can do so. If they want to consider a person's favorite football team they can do so. As long as they aren't engaging in illegal discrimination they can set their rules based on anything they want.

Now can somebody answer me a question from my first post, why a public list of banned people exists? this would be illegal here for many good reasons.


Because WOTC-run events are a massive organization, and any ban list has to be made public so that all the people involved in running them are aware of a ban. It is not illegal at all under US law to publish a ban list like this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nateprati wrote:
And no peregrine the question is what should the organizers do. Not what you would do


The organizers should ban the KKK member, because KKK members are morally reprehensible people who do not deserve to participate in social events with decent people. Any event is better off without KKK members included, except for public executions. They're 100% invited to be included in those, to make the world a better place.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 12:36:10


Post by: nateprati


I think we can all see how far you would take things if you could. That right there are the implications if this line of thought.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 12:38:38


Post by: PsychoticStorm


I do not think I am so close to been right and then I failed, I express a ideology that differs to your own, there is no right ideology just ideologies that are compatible to our personal beliefs and moral values.

Hence why many seem to be compatible but fail on the details.

To put a really exaggerated example on why this sets a really bad precedent, lets assume there is only one grocery store in an area and the owner as a private company decides that he will not sell to individuals of X ideology and creates a ban list for such individuals if said individuals want to buy groceries need to either move to another area or live without groceries, how is that not oppressive and discriminatory.

Please allow me this question that may explain a few things to me, I have heard but never confirmed it that in the USA a companies space is legally considered a private place like a persons house while in Europe at least a companies space is considered a public space.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 12:43:41


Post by: Peregrine


nateprati wrote:
I think we can all see how far you would take things if you could. That right there are the implications if this line of thought.


What, that white supremacists and terrorists are not invited to social events? Yeah, what a dystopian world that would be...


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 12:47:02


Post by: nateprati


Peregrine: i dont care if they are non violent and following the social codes of conduct, EXECUTE THEM IN THE STREETS!

How can you not see the absurdity in this extremism

Its crazy man


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 12:47:39


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
To put a really exaggerated example on why this sets a really bad precedent, lets assume there is only one grocery store in an area and the owner as a private company decides that he will not sell to individuals of X ideology and creates a ban list for such individuals if said individuals want to buy groceries need to either move to another area or live without groceries, how is that not oppressive and discriminatory.


This analogy utterly fails because food is necessary for survival, while MTG is a frivolous entertainment thing and the WOTC ban only applies to a small subset of that hobby. There is massive harm done in forcing a person to either move (at great expense) or starve, there is negligible harm done by forcing someone to seek alternative entertainment.

Please allow me this question that may explain a few things to me, I have heard but never confirmed it that in the USA a companies space is legally considered a private place like a persons house while in Europe at least a companies space is considered a public space.


It is more complicated than that (a private person has even more freedom to keep people out, as anti-discrimination laws do not apply), but that's at least a rough approximation of the US situation. You can be banned from a store/tournament/etc for pretty much any reason as long as it doesn't involve protected classes (race, religion, etc). A large MTG tournament is effectively a private gathering of friends at an individual's house, just with a bigger guest list than usual.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nateprati wrote:
Peregrine: i dont care if they are non violent and following the social codes of conduct, EXECUTE THEM IN THE STREETS!

How can you not see the absurdity in this extremism

Its crazy man


KKK members are members of a terrorist organization with a clearly demonstrated history of murder and violence. Do you also object to killing members of ISIS? Do you, if a member of ISIS is killed, agonize over whether that particular person had murdered anyone yet, or merely belonged to a terrorist organization?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 12:53:59


Post by: nateprati


Hm somthing about justifyingg public executions on those who would commit public executions seems strange to me. Im glad we can see the world in black and white together


This is rediculous

Ive proven my point


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 12:57:40


Post by: Peregrine


nateprati wrote:
Hm somthing about justifyingg public executions on those who would commit public executions seems strange to me. Im glad we can see the world in black and white together


Yes, strange, almost like imprisoning people who imprison others. You know, like kidnappers going to jail for their crimes. It's almost like society uses violence against the violent on a regular basis...

But, this is completely off-topic. If you want to take a throwaway joke about KKK members voluntarily lining up to be executed as an important thing to argue about, that's your choice, but I don't really feel like discussing it anymore.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 13:00:39


Post by: nateprati


Drops mic


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 13:09:32


Post by: PsychoticStorm


I see so it is quite a different ideological basis, such fundamental ideological direction would explain many differences in opinions.

Edit
My example is hyperbolic as I already stated, but it illustrates the extremes this can go if allowed to legally take precedent, it is a thought experiment.

Out of pure curiosity is KKK really labelled legally as a terrorist organisation? if so their members and advocates should be arrested on sight.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 13:21:51


Post by: nateprati


Yea the kkk is labeled as a terror organization but unless you count charlottesville they havent killed anyone in a long time. They still exist and they are a scary thought but theybdo not exist in mass like they once did.

We have laws that protect them too like freedom of speach. Its kind of a grey area that allows our government to spy on them (they lost privacy rights) but until they trynto commit a terror attack or commit hate crimes they wont get arrested

Our government will also symbolically label groups like antifa or the black panthers terror organizations also so they can spy on/detain them


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 18:36:39


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Did Jeremy dox someone? Did he post her real life details during an online spat?

Regardless of anything else, if he did that and he is associated with WoTC (by making money reviewing their content or whatever), they would have to gakcan his donkey. At that point it's not just self preservation for the company but a liability issue, too.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 18:54:39


Post by: nateprati


To my knowledge he did not, he himself however was doxed, provided proof, and that he wants people who encouraged that to be banned along with him.

Thats why we arguing that the circumstances he got banned for are not being applied evenly to all parties, just him because more people dislike him.

See this is where we currently are, jeremy is claiming there is no proof that he doxxed or harassed beyond insulaults he broadcasted on youtube/twitter. Because his accuseres massdd flagged his content we can jo longer confirm any acusations. We can confirm however that tons of content creaters on the other side did everything he got banned for to him, and he is reporting them all to wotc expecting them to apply the same "rules and punishments" to them.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 21:18:34


Post by: Ahtman


This thread ... is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.




Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/14 22:03:14


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Ok, but who is who?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 00:53:09


Post by: Togusa


Okay, so wow this blew up.

While I read through 3+ pages of replies, let me state watching Jeremy's Hall of Fame hissy-fit has been amazing. The neck-beard is strong with little triggered one. I haven't laughed this hard since Dave Chapelle still had his show on CC.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 01:12:32


Post by: PsychoticStorm


I find the evidence he provided the last few days of people harassing him disturbing.

I know it is the internet and it explodes quite often, but it is a bit more cutthroat that usual.

I am guessing the 8 million players quitting MTG lately must have put some pressure on the monetary gains from the community.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 02:03:53


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


nateprati wrote:
To my knowledge he did not, he himself however was doxed, provided proof, and that he wants people who encouraged that to be banned along with him.

Thats why we arguing that the circumstances he got banned for are not being applied evenly to all parties, just him because more people dislike him.

See this is where we currently are, jeremy is claiming there is no proof that he doxxed or harassed beyond insulaults he broadcasted on youtube/twitter. Because his accuseres massdd flagged his content we can jo longer confirm any acusations. We can confirm however that tons of content creaters on the other side did everything he got banned for to him, and he is reporting them all to wotc expecting them to apply the same "rules and punishments" to them.


Everyone who doxes should be banned. I'm with you there.

So far, there isn't even agreement on the basic facts of the case, and it sounds like all the evidence has been deleted.

So, please tell me who the cosplayer is, why she's important, what his relationship was to her, and what role she played. I would also like to know what kinds of controversial material Jeremy has put out.


My natural bias (as someone who worked retail for 5 Christmases) is always against the customer proclaiming innocence. I think companies should ban more toxic people than hey do. However, I am unfamiliar with this debate and really don't want to make a gut reaction without knowing what's what. Unfortunately, this drama seems even more convoluted than Gamergate. I would love to see a straight forward, full account of each side's version of events. I also want to be prepared for when it spills over into Warhammer and the rest of the tabletop games as it almost certainly will.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 02:59:06


Post by: nateprati


Honestly man not making a harsh reaction is all anyone is concerned about.

the cosplayer is cristine sprankle and she is really good at cosplay. There is honestly no good recap of events, you had to have seen it before it got taken down. Which is another problem because we cannot tell how much jeremy deleated himself or got deleated because the content was flagged after the acusation or even if things like doxing occured. He got doxxed, kept a record, made police reports of threats. I dont care for his attitude but this whole thing is clearly not black and white.

Thats why arch and other gaming content creators are worried and sparked this whole thing with spikey bits.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 04:24:11


Post by: Crazyterran


A company should be allowed to deny service to whomever they please. It's obviously not good business practice to do it willy nilly, which WOTC has not done.

If you disapprove of this case, stop buying magic cards. Maybe email WOTC why you will no longer be buying magic cards. But saying that WOTC is not allowed to do what they've done is foolish.

I play Hearthstone. I'm perfectly aware if Hearthstone shuts down, or I do something that results in a ban of my Battle.net account, I will lose all of the money I've spent on WoW, Hearthstone, SC2, Overwatch, etc.

Anyone who Doxes, either Jeremy or Sprankle, should be banned as well.




Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 04:30:07


Post by: nateprati


Never said they are not allowed, just that they should not. If gw wanted to ban spikey bitz or arch for arguing online they would have the right to, but in my opinion they should not.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 04:37:37


Post by: Togusa


nateprati wrote:
Honestly man not making a harsh reaction is all anyone is concerned about.

the cosplayer is cristine sprankle and she is really good at cosplay. There is honestly no good recap of events, you had to have seen it before it got taken down. Which is another problem because we cannot tell how much jeremy deleated himself or got deleated because the content was flagged after the acusation or even if things like doxing occured. He got doxxed, kept a record, made police reports of threats. I dont care for his attitude but this whole thing is clearly not black and white.

Thats why arch and other gaming content creators are worried and sparked this whole thing with spikey bits.


I feel like Arch is poop-stirring on this one. There is no evidence that this stuff is coming to the 40K/Sigmar/Bolt-Action Communities. Watching some of his recent videos, I get the feeling he almost wants this drama to come into our community spaces. THAT scares me.

While WoTC might have overreached, especially with regards to not allowing an appeal-Which I have a new opinion on, I still feel like Jeremy is playing the drama on this one in order to gain support.

I won't debate that part because it's only a feeling, but what I do think is that WoTC has seen what a shitstorm GG was and decided to cut the head off the hydra on this one so to speak before it spirals out of control. IF, and I do mean IF, that is the truth, then I can understand why they did it. But, if he did indeed encourage harassment, after the original tweets and statements he made about her, I could care less about his ban then.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 04:53:07


Post by: nateprati


 Togusa wrote:
nateprati wrote:
Honestly man not making a harsh reaction is all anyone is concerned about.

the cosplayer is cristine sprankle and she is really good at cosplay. There is honestly no good recap of events, you had to have seen it before it got taken down. Which is another problem because we cannot tell how much jeremy deleated himself or got deleated because the content was flagged after the acusation or even if things like doxing occured. He got doxxed, kept a record, made police reports of threats. I dont care for his attitude but this whole thing is clearly not black and white.

Thats why arch and other gaming content creators are worried and sparked this whole thing with spikey bits.


I feel like Arch is poop-stirring on this one. There is no evidence that this stuff is coming to the 40K/Sigmar/Bolt-Action Communities. Watching some of his recent videos, I get the feeling he almost wants this drama to come into our community spaces. THAT scares me.

While WoTC might have overreached, especially with regards to not allowing an appeal-Which I have a new opinion on, I still feel like Jeremy is playing the drama on this one in order to gain support.

I won't debate that part because it's only a feeling, but what I do think is that WoTC has seen what a shitstorm GG was and decided to cut the head off the hydra on this one so to speak before it spirals out of control. IF, and I do mean IF, that is the truth, then I can understand why they did it. But, if he did indeed encourage harassment, after the original tweets and statements he made about her, I could care less about his ban then.


100% this i completely agree


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 06:04:07


Post by: Togusa


nateprati wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
nateprati wrote:
Honestly man not making a harsh reaction is all anyone is concerned about.

the cosplayer is cristine sprankle and she is really good at cosplay. There is honestly no good recap of events, you had to have seen it before it got taken down. Which is another problem because we cannot tell how much jeremy deleated himself or got deleated because the content was flagged after the acusation or even if things like doxing occured. He got doxxed, kept a record, made police reports of threats. I dont care for his attitude but this whole thing is clearly not black and white.

Thats why arch and other gaming content creators are worried and sparked this whole thing with spikey bits.


I feel like Arch is poop-stirring on this one. There is no evidence that this stuff is coming to the 40K/Sigmar/Bolt-Action Communities. Watching some of his recent videos, I get the feeling he almost wants this drama to come into our community spaces. THAT scares me.

While WoTC might have overreached, especially with regards to not allowing an appeal-Which I have a new opinion on, I still feel like Jeremy is playing the drama on this one in order to gain support.

I won't debate that part because it's only a feeling, but what I do think is that WoTC has seen what a shitstorm GG was and decided to cut the head off the hydra on this one so to speak before it spirals out of control. IF, and I do mean IF, that is the truth, then I can understand why they did it. But, if he did indeed encourage harassment, after the original tweets and statements he made about her, I could care less about his ban then.


100% this i completely agree


But, I do want to be 100% clear, I'm not accusing him of doing this. I don't know what his motives might be. I just get that feeling from the tone of his videos.

Also, something I wanted to comment on. Earlier someone mentioned how great his "lore" videos are. I wondered if that person realizes that Arch literally just reads the 40K wiki for his videos. I found a lot of his lore interpretations to be very misleading and off when it comes to what actually appears in the BL books...

Nothing super important, it just rubbed me the wrong way when I realized he was doing this.

Now Hambly on the other hand, he's become just absolutely vindictive. His last two videos really strike me as the ravings of someone who is not in full command of their faculties, and he as an almost impulsive need to be as mean spirited towards those who he believes have harassed him. His comment section on most of his videos related to this matter have just become pits of extremely toxic behavior. I'm talking Competitive Overwatch levels of toxicity. I feel like these videos are only going to hurt him in the long run. I mean, even if he does get the ban reversed, does he think that the community is going to want to have anything to do with him after this mess?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 08:31:45


Post by: Peregrine


nateprati wrote:
Thats why arch and other gaming content creators are worried and sparked this whole thing with spikey bits.


No, they're most likely "worried" because it fits their ideology to play the victim, much as gamergate had nothing to do with ethics in game journalism. There is literally nothing GW can do to hurt ArchWarhammer. I mean, what are they going to do, ban him from their stores that nobody should want to go to anyway? Ban him from the events at GW HQ that the vast majority of players are unable to attend? GW doesn't host WOTC-style sanctioned events where any hypothetical ban list could apply, and the third-party store events and private gaming clubs that host the majority of 40k/AoS have zero obligation to pay attention to what GW thinks of someone.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 09:50:14


Post by: PsychoticStorm


 Peregrine wrote:

No, they're most likely "worried" because it fits their ideology to play the victim, much as gamergate had nothing to do with ethics in game journalism. There is literally nothing GW can do to hurt ArchWarhammer. I mean, what are they going to do, ban him from their stores that nobody should want to go to anyway? Ban him from the events at GW HQ that the vast majority of players are unable to attend? GW doesn't host WOTC-style sanctioned events where any hypothetical ban list could apply, and the third-party store events and private gaming clubs that host the majority of 40k/AoS have zero obligation to pay attention to what GW thinks of someone.


Oh please seen both articles, the one by Feminist 40k on BOLS and this one on spikey bits, how were these articles not playing victim and not calling for ideological control over the community more so when they were faced with neutral valid concerns in the comments the reaction was to censor and delete anything challenging the article until they could not do so and closed the comments section.

Oh the comments section was mean, well yes, it was, as it is on many of the articles there that they did not close the comments section, regardless, they could have followed up with a new article addressing such concerns but this never happened and they could have done it because they swiftly followed up the second article with a hit article against Arch warhammer, I am sorry but if one calls for fundamental changes in the wargaming community, then they must be prepared for a big debate, have all their opinions challenged and be ready to accept some of them may be wrong and most of all communicate with everyone.

I would really love to see a debate about it.

Arch is worried about ideological power politics invading his hobby and frankly he is right because it happens and it happens in many hobbies at this time, I guess even hobbies are not safe from the ambient political struggle any more, oh well... Contrasting his stance with the people who oppose him he is quite more moderate and logical in what he says. seriously in less than a month we have moved from "lets change fundamental lore so it fits to our political view" to "lets ban people for extreme thinking" what on earth extreme thinking even means?

Also who said Arch Warhammer reads lore from wiki? sorry this is absurd, he even references when his lore comes from rogue trader era material or when the references were retconned or there are multiple sources referring to the same event with different narrative, he does way more work than simply reading the wiki article.

Now how on earth was gamergate not about, among many other things, game journalism representing one and only one political ideology and attacking all who opposed it, gamergate is well documented by all the sides that participated and a few neutral sources making a one dimensional cardboard cutout from such a massive multidimensional beast and try to sweep it under the rag with simplistic explanations of what happened is a disservice to what happened and how the gaming community and other communities can benefit from what happened.

As I said before directly discussing about gamergate s a political discussion that does not directly fit here but I dislike seen it represented with such simplistic approach.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 10:17:54


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
the one by Feminist 40k on BOLS


Nope. I don't generally pay attention to sites with such a poor signal to noise ratio as BOLS. TBH it's a miracle that they actually posted relevant content for once, regardless of its political alignment. But unfortunately you'll have to provide screenshots or something, if you want me to respond to this point. I can't answer something where the comments in question have been deleted, and honestly I can't say I'd care about digging through BOLS comments even if they still existed.

As for the article itself, are you referring to this one (the top google search result for feminist 40k)? I don't know about the comments, but the article itself doesn't seem objectionable at all.

seriously in less than a month we have moved from "lets change fundamental lore so it fits to our political view" to "lets ban people for extreme thinking" what on earth extreme thinking even means?


First of all, you seem to have missed a key point of that article: that GW changes "fundamental lore" all the time. Primaris marines are just as much of a lore change as female marines would have been, especially when GW has all of the other chapters immediately acknowledge the wisdom and superiority of the Ultramarines' new toy instead of slaughtering them all as foulest blasphemy against the Emperor's creation.

Second, what on earth does banning even mean? There is no 40k authority to ban people, so what exactly are people going to be banned from? The comments section on BOLS? I'd hardly consider that a loss...

Now how on earth was gamergate not about, among many other things, game journalism representing one and only one political ideology and attacking all who opposed it, gamergate is well documented by all the sides that participated and a few neutral sources making a one dimensional cardboard cutout from such a massive multidimensional beast and try to sweep it under the rag with simplistic explanations of what happened is a disservice to what happened and how the gaming community and other communities can benefit from what happened.


Gamergate was not about game journalism because it was a well-known fact for decades that game journalists were little more than a paid marketing department for the major publishers, with a promise (implicit or explicit) of favorable reviews in exchange for the early access to games that the journalists needed if they wanted to publish anything on time. Everyone knew that the reviews were a joke, that even badly flawed games would get a "B+, good game that will be even better once a minor issue is patched" review. None of the factual claims made about the industry were in any way new or interesting. And yet where was the outrage over it, over the past 20-30 years? Virtually nonexistent until they found a target that aligned with their existing anti-SJW crusade. Then suddenly "ethics in game journalism" was a very important subject that needed immediate attention. And suddenly people who admitted to having zero interest in gaming, or even viewing gamers with contempt, embraced the issue as a way to continue their crusade. It was such a blatant ideological campaign that I can't believe that anyone could possibly think that its supposed claims were in any way honest.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 10:56:10


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Who said primaris lore was a good thing? primaris are what normal space marines should have been from the start and their lore should have never existed, regardless of that, changing the lore to sell bigger marines is quite different from changing the lore because a certain political view demands it.

As to what extreme thinking is, I don't know I asked because Spikey bits editor invoked it on his follow up article as if everybody knows what extreme thinking is.

I never said gamergate was about game journalism selling out, I think most people acknowledge that if it had stopped at reporting that game scores are fixed it would have died out, but attacking gamers the way it did attracted most normal people who would not have bothered otherwise, an you are either 100% with us or against us mentality never wins anybody especially in a fantastical multi shaded grey world we live in, nothing is black or white and of course the majority of unaligned people will side with the side that does not attack them directly, right or wrong.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 12:02:47


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Who said primaris lore was a good thing? primaris are what normal space marines should have been from the start and their lore should have never existed, regardless of that, changing the lore to sell bigger marines is quite different from changing the lore because a certain political view demands it.


The point is that people reject the idea of female marines because "the lore is sacred, GW can't change the lore", when in reality GW views the lore as nothing more than a marketing tool to be changed whenever they need to sell a new box.

I never said gamergate was about game journalism selling out, I think most people acknowledge that if it had stopped at reporting that game scores are fixed it would have died out, but attacking gamers the way it did attracted most normal people who would not have bothered otherwise, an you are either 100% with us or against us mentality never wins anybody especially in a fantastical multi shaded grey world we live in, nothing is black or white and of course the majority of unaligned people will side with the side that does not attack them directly, right or wrong.


It really says something about the gamergate crowd that "people who can't behave like decent adults should not be tolerated" is considered an attack on them. I'm a gamer and I didn't see anything even remotely resembling an attack on me in the stuff that the gamergaters were outraged about. But that's probably because I'm not a mysoginistic who thinks that "free speech" means I'm entitled to harass people I consider "SJWs" without any consequences.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 12:51:36


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Lore is an interesting part of any and every IP, some parts are malleable, some parts are fundamental, some parts can change some cannot and companies have learned the hard way how messing with basic can create massive economical damage.

40k lore states clearly there are no female marines and frankly not many took an issue to that back then and now, changing it only to push an agenda for "representation" risks disenfranchising the fans of the lore and that can be of great economic impact.

The main question is why change the lore? why change marines? simply because they are the iconic pieces? one can create new lore they do not need to change already established lore, look at stormcasts, that is a nice subtle organic change and nobody really cared when stormcasts started to have female warriors.

Even Primaris are better organic integration to the lore that simply making female marines and Primaris are a really bad lore integration.

On Gamergate, I am sorry you are wrong, there was never a simple "behave like decent adults", the written articles were aggressive and pushed hard against every gamer here lies a problem with moral ideology, its entirely subjective and no one is superior, what the journalist pushed clearly was not what the majority believed to be request to behave as a decent human but as an attack on their persons, and clearly the writing did not changed the minds and remember Gamergate was fuelled by the neutrals, they did not push an agenda they reacted, not convincing them, worse making them stand against the ideology means there are flaws if not in the ideology, definitely in the communication.

Lastly free speech is not a free pass to "harass" it is a freedom to express ideas and ideology and criticism on somebody's ideas event he fundamental ones, however harsh, is neither an attack nor harassment.

Everybody has the right to their ideas and to express them, however wrong they may seem to some or many and everybody else has the right to criticise however harsh said ideas.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 13:37:38


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
40k lore states clearly there are no female marines and frankly not many took an issue to that back then and now, changing it only to push an agenda for "representation" risks disenfranchising the fans of the lore and that can be of great economic impact.


40k lore also clearly stated that the primarchs were dead or missing. 40k lore also stated that marine geneseed was the peak of humanity, and tampering it would be unforgivable heresy, until GW wanted to sell new space marine kits. If GW can change the lore to add primaris marines then changing the lore to add female marines would be no more of a change. In fact, it would be almost exactly the same sort of change as primaris marines: alteration of the geneseed to create a new form of space marine.

The main question is why change the lore? why change marines? simply because they are the iconic pieces? one can create new lore they do not need to change already established lore, look at stormcasts, that is a nice subtle organic change and nobody really cared when stormcasts started to have female warriors.


Why change the lore to include primaris marines? Why change the lore to bring primarchs back? Why change the lore with all that awful fall of Cadia nonsense? It's ridiculous that people accept lore change after lore change after lore change from GW, but suddenly when it's a hypothetical lore change that goes against their anti-SJW opinions the lore is sacred and can't be changed.

On Gamergate, I am sorry you are wrong, there was never a simple "behave like decent adults", the written articles were aggressive and pushed hard against every gamer here lies a problem with moral ideology, its entirely subjective and no one is superior, what the journalist pushed clearly was not what the majority believed to be request to behave as a decent human but as an attack on their persons, and clearly the writing did not changed the minds and remember Gamergate was fuelled by the neutrals, they did not push an agenda they reacted, not convincing them, worse making them stand against the ideology means there are flaws if not in the ideology, definitely in the communication.


Again, if you saw yourself as a target by the writing in question then you have only yourself to blame, and you should take a long hard look at yourself and your moral principles. I am a gamer and I didn't see myself as a target at all, because I am not guilty of the behavior that was being criticized. I mean, FFS, this is the community that came up with the concept of "TFG" and uses is constantly, are you really going to suggest that there is no poor behavior to criticize? Or that it's impossible to say that TFG needs to be removed from the community without everyone else feeling persecuted?

Lastly free speech is not a free pass to "harass" it is a freedom to express ideas and ideology and criticism on somebody's ideas event he fundamental ones, however harsh, is neither an attack nor harassment.


You're ignoring the fact that part of the behavior being criticized was actual harassment of "SJWs" that certain people didn't like, not just disagreement. If you read "don't harass people" as "don't criticize them" instead of "don't send death threats to people you disagree with" then that's 100% your problem.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 16:00:29


Post by: nateprati


 Peregrine wrote:
nateprati wrote:
Thats why arch and other gaming content creators are worried and sparked this whole thing with spikey bits.


No, they're most likely "worried" because it fits their ideology to play the victim, much as gamergate had nothing to do with ethics in game journalism. There is literally nothing GW can do to hurt ArchWarhammer. I mean, what are they going to do, ban him from their stores that nobody should want to go to anyway? Ban him from the events at GW HQ that the vast majority of players are unable to attend? GW doesn't host WOTC-style sanctioned events where any hypothetical ban list could apply, and the third-party store events and private gaming clubs that host the majority of 40k/AoS have zero obligation to pay attention to what GW thinks of someone.


Omg back to this hyperbolic bs. If a ban list for gw acomplished nothing, why make one then? And at this point "purge them in the strees!" Peregrine i dont care what you think about lore, others, gaming, gamergate and i hope gw never does either. We agree on nothing, you cant drop things, be bothered to look into them, empathize with others or critically think about anything rational. I fear the day any company conciders your opinions for policy

-and since i wish not to see you again, to you i say goodbye


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 16:13:35


Post by: Galas


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Who said primaris lore was a good thing? primaris are what normal space marines should have been from the start and their lore should have never existed, regardless of that, changing the lore to sell bigger marines is quite different from changing the lore because a certain political view demands it.


This is where you have it wrong. They don't change lore for political views. When they change lore "following" a political view, is just because they think that way they will win more money. At the end of the day is all about money, thats why GW has said that they want more female representation in their universes without "alienating their present player base".

So personally, for me, theres only two options: Or you oppose lore changes, or you don't. But opposing ones that you think are made for political reasons but accepting the ones made for economical reasons is just hypocrisy, because, theres not a political interpretation behind everything?


And Arch-Warhammer for me is just the other half of the problem of politics invading hobbies. "Omg he is fighting agaisn't the feminids that are invading us!" Ehm... no. As the say goes "Two will not discuss if one does not want to". If all that politic is invading the hobby is because theres two halfs that love to push their personals agendas on everyone else. Most of the people just don't even bother with that. Thats what most people in this political discussion fail to realise. The "casuals" are the biggest part of the player base. They don't care about "politics". They follow something if they like it, and they'll stop if it stops appealing to them.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 20:23:32


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
nateprati wrote:
To my knowledge he did not, he himself however was doxed, provided proof, and that he wants people who encouraged that to be banned along with him.

Thats why we arguing that the circumstances he got banned for are not being applied evenly to all parties, just him because more people dislike him.

See this is where we currently are, jeremy is claiming there is no proof that he doxxed or harassed beyond insulaults he broadcasted on youtube/twitter. Because his accuseres massdd flagged his content we can jo longer confirm any acusations. We can confirm however that tons of content creaters on the other side did everything he got banned for to him, and he is reporting them all to wotc expecting them to apply the same "rules and punishments" to them.


Everyone who doxes should be banned. I'm with you there.

So far, there isn't even agreement on the basic facts of the case, and it sounds like all the evidence has been deleted.

So, please tell me who the cosplayer is, why she's important, what his relationship was to her, and what role she played. I would also like to know what kinds of controversial material Jeremy has put out.


My natural bias (as someone who worked retail for 5 Christmases) is always against the customer proclaiming innocence. I think companies should ban more toxic people than hey do. However, I am unfamiliar with this debate and really don't want to make a gut reaction without knowing what's what. Unfortunately, this drama seems even more convoluted than Gamergate. I would love to see a straight forward, full account of each side's version of events. I also want to be prepared for when it spills over into Warhammer and the rest of the tabletop games as it almost certainly will.


Sprankle is a Cos-player and like I previously said her costumes are well made and clearly labours of love , she generally turned up at larger Magic events dressed as characters from the Magic fluff, this obviously draws attention to the game and she's regarded by WoTC as a valuable asset / rolemodel/ whatever. However all the time and materials along with travel costs meant she runs a Patreon to fund it, which is fine having done live-action roleplayd the amount of time kit takes to make is a serious commitment

About 6 months ago on a live-stream Jeremy said, in his usual blunt fashion, said he felt she was exploiting the younger male demographic and her efforts were essentially training wheels porn, rude and incorrect and maybe more a dig at those funding her, he's touched or referred to it a few more times on YT, he also bashes a fair few other MTG content createors and cultivates a somewhat abrasive persona largely to bait his 'opposition'

Recently she's quit the cosplay, and cited Jeremy as the reason due to his ongoing harassment (note neither side has really come with 'the smoking gun' either way), and the internet being what it is it snowballed, helpfully a distraction from the ongoing card misprinting debacle and WoTC banned him from their organized play programme (not touching the MTGO issues its a terrible bit of crap-ware and anyone throwing money at it is daft)



Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 22:13:14


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Shaming cosplayers is a huge red flag, though. His training wheels porn comment would have gotten him kicked out of any sci fi, comics or anime convention around here no matter how much he paid for admission.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 22:40:55


Post by: Peregrine


nateprati wrote:
If a ban list for gw acomplished nothing, why make one then?


I don't know. I'm probably not the best person to answer that question, given the fact that I haven't advocated for GW making a ban list. I'm just pointing out that, if GW decided to do so, it would be laughably ineffective and anyone worrying about it is either paranoid or merely pretending to worry for the sake of promoting their political agenda.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/15 22:57:57


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Shaming cosplayers is a huge red flag, though. His training wheels porn comment would have gotten him kicked out of any sci fi, comics or anime convention around here no matter how much he paid for admission.


that wasn't the exact quote but broadly the gist, and the stream was from his home, which incidentally the anti lobby have stuck details and pics of on the intertubes seems only fair bans all round for anyone involved in that, doesn't really change the discussion just clearing that up, he looks like a sizable chap but suspect we'd be discussing 'contentious MTG Youtuber vanishes after Cosplay spat' if it was F2F


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/16 01:05:55


Post by: PsychoticStorm


 Galas wrote:


So personally, for me, theres only two options: Or you oppose lore changes, or you don't. But opposing ones that you think are made for political reasons but accepting the ones made for economical reasons is just hypocrisy, because, theres not a political interpretation behind everything?


I oppose lore changes I am for lore progression, 40k lost me with necron's introduction in 4th edition, the only retcon I ever liked was their retcon because they put them again in line with the rest of the 40k universe and removed the "chaos gods in real space" powerful Ctan.
given the recent story-line primarchs reemergence and the fall of cadia are story progressions and are... not that great but acceptable, primaris is a "soft retcon" that in my opinion is unacceptable, I understand they wanted an excuse to finally update the space marine figures to the stature they should always have been but were afraid of the backlash this would create, I would rather have them man up and say these are the new sculpts of the marines and never had done the Primaris storyline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Turnip Jedi wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Shaming cosplayers is a huge red flag, though. His training wheels porn comment would have gotten him kicked out of any sci fi, comics or anime convention around here no matter how much he paid for admission.


that wasn't the exact quote but broadly the gist, and the stream was from his home, which incidentally the anti lobby have stuck details and pics of on the intertubes seems only fair bans all round for anyone involved in that, doesn't really change the discussion just clearing that up, he looks like a sizable chap but suspect we'd be discussing 'contentious MTG Youtuber vanishes after Cosplay spat' if it was F2F


Well to be entirely fair it was on a Youtube video that was taken down by mass flagging, he did not attack her directly (though I would say it is fair to say she was implied) essentially what he said is that cosplayers who use their body to fund their patreon are not to his liking and that young males should not spend their money on them, his comment was that this cosplay is (akin to) lingerie, admittedly there are many photos of said cosplayer out there with quite a lot of flesh showing, but the video was never against that cosplayer or any cosplayer who does that, it was his opinion that people should not pay patreon for such cosplayers.

Personally I find more objectionable that he advised people to not pay patreon than his argument of why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:

Why change the lore to include primaris marines? Why change the lore to bring primarchs back? Why change the lore with all that awful fall of Cadia nonsense? It's ridiculous that people accept lore change after lore change after lore change from GW, but suddenly when it's a hypothetical lore change that goes against their anti-SJW opinions the lore is sacred and can't be changed.


Because some lore is not lore change but lore advancement, witch is fine primarchs coming back was always hinted, I remember saying that quiliman would be the first to come back when I was 12-13, the events of the fall of cadia are really not that great story telling, but again it is a lore progression not a lore change, Primaris? I have yet to see anybody that cares with the lore be ok with them, I don't like them Arch does not like them nobody really likes them, but changing the lore just for changing it, lets face it female marines push only excuse is for "better representation" I am sorry, Primaris are really bad and their excuse was "we want to sell bigger marines without been lynched by the owners of all the marine armies we invalidated their models"

 Peregrine wrote:

Again, if you saw yourself as a target by the writing in question then you have only yourself to blame, and you should take a long hard look at yourself and your moral principles. I am a gamer and I didn't see myself as a target at all, because I am not guilty of the behavior that was being criticized. I mean, FFS, this is the community that came up with the concept of "TFG" and uses is constantly, are you really going to suggest that there is no poor behavior to criticize? Or that it's impossible to say that TFG needs to be removed from the community without everyone else feeling persecuted?

Actually it says only what you think about me and anybody who does not share your world view about the subject, it says nothing about me, thank you for your concern though, my moral principles are fine and in line with my subjective view, some maybe not aligned with your subjective view?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/16 02:52:47


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Turnip Jedi wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Shaming cosplayers is a huge red flag, though. His training wheels porn comment would have gotten him kicked out of any sci fi, comics or anime convention around here no matter how much he paid for admission.


that wasn't the exact quote but broadly the gist, and the stream was from his home, which incidentally the anti lobby have stuck details and pics of on the intertubes seems only fair bans all round for anyone involved in that, doesn't really change the discussion just clearing that up, he looks like a sizable chap but suspect we'd be discussing 'contentious MTG Youtuber vanishes after Cosplay spat' if it was F2F


I don't understand like half of what you said, but I agree that anyone who does should be banned and shunned from the community. If Jeremy posted a video to be seen by the community, I feel it doesn't matter where he posted it from. He has indicated that he is going to cause problems in the community and his actions affect customers.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/16 09:38:34


Post by: PsychoticStorm


I do not see why he should be banned or shunned for it, he expressed a valid opinion in a non insulting way not targeted at any cosplayer in particular.

He believes that coslayers who post half nude pictures of themselves in costume to their patreon use their good looks to raise money and that young adults should not throw money at them.

A valid opinion and criticism, definitely not a harassment, I guess he has issues with people using their good looks to raise money, fine I do not see any issue with that, I am assuming he also feels coslayers should not ask for money for their work at patreon? I do not see why not? free market, supply and demand and all that, but as an opinion it is perfectly valid, again I cannot see it as harassment.

What I would object on principle is a patreon creator saying some activities on patreon are not valid for patreon support, but again it is an opinion, not a harassment,


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/16 17:57:26


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Not knowing exactly what he said--the other comment was a paraphrase?--it still sounds to me like the cosplay flavor of slut shaming.

Why should people not use an advantage to raise money? Should smart people not use their brains? Should we shackle all the Harrison Bergerons?

If he is using Patreon himself, what does he bring to the table that we can shame him for?


Granted, if all he did was express one stupid opinion the reaction seems way overboard. Was this a single incident or a running theme in his work?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/16 18:24:02


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Not knowing exactly what he said--the other comment was a paraphrase?--it still sounds to me like the cosplay flavor of slut shaming.

Why should people not use an advantage to raise money? Should smart people not use their brains? Should we shackle all the Harrison Bergerons?

If he is using Patreon himself, what does he bring to the table that we can shame him for?


Granted, if all he did was express one stupid opinion the reaction seems way overboard. Was this a single incident or a running theme in his work?


Yep was a paraphase, I'm getting on and my memory isn't what it was once well as best I recall anyway

His comment was crass and ill-advised and yes he does go out of his way to stir things up, and whilst I do disagree with many of his viewpoints he is a much needed voice of dissent in the MTG world as many of the other MTG pundits are pro-WoTC all the time about everything to company does.

Of course the extreme tin-foil hat think is that he, Ms Sprankle and other YT folks are all in cahoots for the moneys, as other than the card printing problems there isn't much going on in MTG at the mo.



Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/16 19:27:36


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


So, is this controversy still blowing up? It seems like it's deflating here and the attempts to pull in Warhammer-related personalities haven't paid off.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/16 19:58:54


Post by: Turnip Jedi


It's still grinding a long, fairly low quality YT content from all sides and the bandwagon jumpers, like I said next to nothing else happening in the MTG world at the moment so it's keeping the views and clicks coming if nothing else.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/16 20:44:28


Post by: PsychoticStorm


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Not knowing exactly what he said--the other comment was a paraphrase?--it still sounds to me like the cosplay flavor of slut shaming.

Why should people not use an advantage to raise money? Should smart people not use their brains? Should we shackle all the Harrison Bergerons?

If he is using Patreon himself, what does he bring to the table that we can shame him for?


Granted, if all he did was express one stupid opinion the reaction seems way overboard. Was this a single incident or a running theme in his work?


well the complicated part in his opinion and how he expressed it and were I think he shows he is quite a clever guy is he is not shaming the cosplayer, he is addressing the patreons or would be patreons and advises them as an adult to not so adult to not spend money on such things.

He is quite crafty in what he said and how he said it, I still maintain that on principle one using patreon should not advice someone to not patreon somebody else.

I would not really try to find dirt to shame anybody or principle first and foremost and secondly its a futile endeavour, if you dig dirt you first of all get dirty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Turnip Jedi wrote:
It's still grinding a long, fairly low quality YT content from all sides and the bandwagon jumpers, like I said next to nothing else happening in the MTG world at the moment so it's keeping the views and clicks coming if nothing else.


Really low card quality and bad card rules from what I see been reported and 8 million players leaving are the big stories, or should have been but are not reported that much, otherwise its a constant push for and against Wotc "inclusiveity and representation agenda".

This came out of nowhere and blew up extremely well and many things got out in the public from it, I am guessing now its the boiling phase were the big and medium combatants look for the next push while the supporters throw dirt at each other with content without much effort given to their content.

I was compiling a "story so far" for BobtheInquisitor and realised how old the feuds are and how deep the hatred goes between these channels I would add that I feel there is an economic pressure underlying the event because so many people have left, Wotc try's to find an excuse were they are and their policies are not the issue, the other channels probably feel their patreon support, clicks, views, ad revenue, dropping.

What I find troubling is that after two and a half weeks, no evidence has surfaced for the accusations raised against Unsleeved media.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/16 21:40:13


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Yeah, I didn't mean we should literally shame him. More like what beam is in his eye while he talks about others' motes.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
So this issue is mainly being blown out of proportion on all sides because it is a convenient distraction?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/16 22:54:04


Post by: Turnip Jedi


I'm honestly not sure about that player dip 20m seemed somewhat spun out of thin air as is the 12m as the metrics used are guesstimates at best

In a Hasboro's 2016 earning report, they stated there are around 1 million registered DCI players. I can only think the assumption of somewhere between 10 to 20 casual non-registered players for every serious registered players, putting the prior estimates in the 15-21 million range, maybe this estimate has been revised downwards of late to say 9-14 unregistered to 1 registered, or maybe its based on assumed average spend rates per customer and MTG income, again shaky as players could stop purchasing but carry on playing, especially the more casual players but do they still 'count', ?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/16 23:09:21


Post by: PsychoticStorm


I have no clue on the numbers that is what everybody cites.

I think that MtG is indeed in decline first time in a long time and everybody looks for an answer to why but also blame it to their opposition.

Its probably a good mix of everything as it usually is.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/16 23:23:27


Post by: Luciferian


WoTC is, of course, entitled to deny service to whomever they wish for whatever reason. I didn't know anything about Hambly until hearing about all of this, so I don't know what his actual behavior was like, but at the least it does seem that he was sticking his neck out there and making himself a target. At this point there is basically no remaining evidence to corroborate the claims of one side or the other, but the tweets WoTC provided do seem like a pretty flimsy pretext for such a drastic measure. Not knowing what was actually said or done makes it hard to say whether or not I personally find the ban justified.

I do share the concern, however, that measures like this can be used as a way to enforce ideological purity. Hambly did not violate the WoTC terms of service per se, because the agreement only mentions what happens on WoTC websites, properties, or during sanctioned events. However, section 3 of their ToS is so broad as to apply to basically anything, which is obviously intentional on their part so that they can cut off anyone for any reason in order to protect their brand. The problem that I have is not with their corporate policy or how they've chosen to enforce it, though, it's that such broad definitions of what constitutes an offense can be easily exploited by anyone with the power to summon up a mob of the outraged and offended and target someone they deem "toxic" or an "awful person"; terms which are equally undefined and unqualified, and often mean simply that someone dared to publicly express that they are not a progressive.

In all of the progressive/third-wave feminist writing on 40k so far, we see that, once again, these kinds of terms are used without any kind of qualification whatsoever. We are implored to purge the community of its "toxic" elements (BoLS), create a blacklist of people guilty of "extreme thought" (Spikey Bits), accept changes to the lore which are more palatable to progressive ideology (Mary Sue) and more, all without clearly defining what exactly constitutes toxic behavior or extreme thought. As a side note, the latter is literally advocating ostracizing people for thought crime.

I am personally highly suspect of such calls to action for precisely that reason. If the goal were clearly stated as being rid of people who are openly racist or misogynistic, or who clearly harass others or create a literally unsafe environment, I would have no problem jumping on board. Thing is, the people advocating for this kind of "community purge" are in lockstep (goose step) agreement that "toxic behavior" and "extreme thought" go far beyond what a reasonable person would define as actual harassment, to include political disagreement or even minor differences in progressive ideology amongst themselves.

We need look no further than our own dear Peregrine in this thread, whose definition of an "awful" or "toxic" person worthy of being ostracized is someone who associates with the wrong person, exercises their right to vote, or is even in the center of the political spectrum, regardless of how they actually conduct themselves. You will frequently see such people hold a double standard for their own behavior, where it is justified for them to treat people with disrespect or even clear harassment, as long as their target is guilty of wrongthink or otherwise not making the proper in-group signaling. They will of course bring to bear ill-defined terms such as "toxic", "awful" or "hateful" to describe such targets, and will usually fail to nail down exactly what that means in context. They will also define their own behavior as merely "harsh" or "critical" and play the old game of "if you're offended by it then it must be true", even when their own behavior is objectively worse than that of their target.

For all of the talk about "toxic" elements of the gaming community that are creating a pervasively uncomfortable and unsafe environment for women and minorities, no one has ever, to my knowledge, provided some kind of evidence to corroborate claims that such an environment is prevalent in this hobby. I have personally never even seen or heard a first-hand account provided by a woman or person of color about some kind of systematic discrimination or harassment they've experienced playing 40k at a FLGS, tournament or GW store. I have, however, heard plenty of straight white males provide second-hand accounts about something their significant others, relatives or friends have supposedly experienced. I have also spoken with and heard opinions from women and people of color who feel perfectly welcome in the community and have no problems.

Contrast this to the #MeToo movement, where women are not simply alleging an all-pervasive environment of sexism and abuse without defining it, they are making specific, corroborated allegations of instances of real harassment and abuse that they have experienced first-hand. In some cases, criminal investigations have been opened and charges sought. In most of the reported instances, there exists an actually imbalanced power dynamic between employers and employees, not some kind of ill-defined, conspiratorial and post-modern tyrannical hierarchy of self-identity. In light of such real-life cases of abuse of power and systemic sexism, it seems especially dangerous and opportunistic to me to conflate such issues with nebulous claims of "toxic behavior" which often boil down to honest, if tactless, criticism or disagreement.

For all of the reasons stated above, I will always be skeptical of the "purge first, ask questions later" mentality of internet outrage mobs and their attempts to make it uncomfortable at best to openly express anything but their brand of ideology. Where real harassment and abuse happens, by all means, let's root it out. But harassment and abuse are not the same as dissent, and they certainly aren't the same thing as simply holding opinions other than what is proscribed by progressivism.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/16 23:34:30


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I have no clue on the numbers that is what everybody cites.

I think that MtG is indeed in decline first time in a long time and everybody looks for an answer to why but also blame it to their opposition.

Its probably a good mix of everything as it usually is.


The figures cited are usually based on various WoTC figures have thrown about over the years, usually as asides the other things but latched onto as gospel

I'd agree its popularity is waning, and whilst its never really acknowledged officially I'd wager Hearthstone has stung them a fair bit

My personal takes are;
a) way too much product (that may have led to the print issues) so people feel overloaded and give up
b) repeated tinkering with how long card sets remained legal in the most commonly played format
c) some oversights in card development, leading to 5 or 6 cards getting banned from official events,these cards were usually expensive to buy and a ban wrecks their value, why buy 'good' cards if they might become worthless overnight
d) Jeremy or Wedge depending on your tastes, I've made it a personal goal to lick both of them to determine their toxicity once and for all (joke)


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/17 02:42:17


Post by: The Warp Forge


Reading this thread I have to actually agree with Peregrine 99% on the issue.

Now I'm no SJW, or White Knight, etc. I have friends on both the left and right (thankfully not on the extremes) and I do make a ton of 'controversial' jokes, but there is a time and a place. I usually said jokes with friends in a trusting environment where we laugh at them, we find said jokes funny not because we agree with those points but because of the opposite, we laugh at the sheer ludicrous of them, we laugh at stereotypes because how how untrue they are to real life. I make this example because I believe people on the internet don't realise who they are talking too, even if they are on private servers and such, you have to really know who you are talking too to trust them with what your saying, other wise it's all about careful phrasing. I wouldn't dare go to a bar mitzvah and spread a load of Anne Frank jokes because I don't know all the people there so they would probably think I maybe sincere in intentions of harming and upsetting them, and so the consequence would be that I would probably be escorted out of the vicinity very quickly with a black eye and a cracked rib. The Internet is no different in that regard. I've seen some of the posts this Jeremy Hambly has said and tbh would this guy actually go up to this cosplayer in real life and say those things to her face in a very public space like a convention? Probably not. It really does not surprise me that he got such a reaction from some of the really crude things he said.

I also notice a lot of statements saying that Mr.Hamberly was remarking her cosplays to essentially soft porn for the MTG costumes, if so isn't that making more of a statement on the game than the cosplayer? I used to play ages ago (Around the Greek era with Rakdos Bloodwitches and Minotaur decks) and the amount of skimpy dresses females wore on the artworks as opposed to males and armoured females was a significant amount... If there were any armoured females. Should the Cosplayer get any flak for dressing up as accurately as the characters or should MTG make a better ratio of armoured females as well as skimpy ones? Question to consider before spewing out assumptions I suppose.

As for Arch, I don't really watch him. I enjoyed his lore vid on Konrad Curze and that was it. All I know is that many of the 40k YouTube Creators crowd really do not like him for backstage reasons.

Will this spill out on the 40k community? I don't think so tbh, I find we are a very open community in that regard, I've played against female wargamers and there are quite a few who come into stores all over the place. None of them appear to have problems about gender representation in lore as well tbh.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/17 03:26:11


Post by: Luciferian


Even I can agree that if you can't stand the heat you shouldn't step foot in the kitchen. If you regularly make videos that are controversial within your "professional" community then you should expect for your behavior to have repercussions, whether you're wrong or right. I have been doing some more digging on this topic and let's be frank, Hambly is a jerk.

However, I also found the original video which Sprankle claims is the cause of her decision to leave MTG cosplay, and it is pretty tame. He uses her as an example to talk about cosplay in general and how it objectifies women, even as women claim that they are underrepresented and objectified. He does present it in a boorish and crass manner, but it's not even directed solely at Sprankle. It is instead directed at young males who pay cosplayers on the premise that it will get them into the cosplayers' pants. I have also looked at the evidence WoTC, Sprankle and others in the MTG YouTube community presented to show that there were months of targeted harassment, which is composed almost entirely of tweets that aren't directed at anyone in particular and have nothing to do with Sprankle at all.

The guy talked a lot of gak in general and the rest of his peers in the MTG YouTube community clearly despised him. He certainly didn't have many friends there. So if you want to make the argument that he made himself vulnerable by alienating himself, and it's his fault that he ended up getting pushed out because of it, I'd say that's totally fair. I'd also say that based on everything I've seen, Sprankle's claims of months of targeted harassment against her are patently false.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/17 04:50:23


Post by: Togusa


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, is this controversy still blowing up? It seems like it's deflating here and the attempts to pull in Warhammer-related personalities haven't paid off.


He is trying desperately to keep the flames going, but I'm not sure how much longer this will go on. Many of the people at my local FLGS want Hambly to go away. They feel like he is bringing a lot of negative attention to the hobby, and frankly I can't blame them for that.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/17 10:19:50


Post by: PsychoticStorm


See, wishing people out because you disagree with them, is the base of a totalitarian ideology.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/17 10:52:16


Post by: Turnip Jedi


I suspect it'll die down if Jeremy manages to take a few lesser scalps down for their doxxing antics, I think he knows it's unlikely WoTC will do anything much public to their favoured shills beyond getting a lady staffer to write a puff 'be excellent to each other' article on the Magic homepage

The new expansion spoilers will most likely start rolling out in earnest soon giving people something else to prevaricate about


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/17 11:11:08


Post by: PsychoticStorm


It should, his opponents banned him for life so it is a done deal for them, he got his petition with quite good numbers and made his reports on the people who attacked him and proven there were no real accusations about him.

I am suspecting he waits for the official answers before he pushes for round two.

On the 40k/ wargaming front I have seen no new articles about enforcing ban lists and corporate thought policing so hopefully that front has been pacified, the reaction to these articles was overtly against and highly critical so the authors might got the message.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/17 12:25:47


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
See, wishing people out because you disagree with them, is the base of a totalitarian ideology.


Uh, what? No. Not at all. Wishing to remove people you disagree with sufficiently from the community is normal. Everyone does it. It isn't totalitarian just because it happens to be aimed at people that you don't want removed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
On the 40k/ wargaming front I have seen no new articles about enforcing ban lists and corporate thought policing so hopefully that front has been pacified, the reaction to these articles was overtly against and highly critical so the authors might got the message.


Alternatively, the rather weak attempt by the gamergate types to bring pointless drama into 40k failed because people realized both that it was a weak attempt, and that there's no possible way to enforce any kind of ban or "thought policing" or whatever and therefore there's no reason to worry about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Luciferian wrote:
I'd also say that based on everything I've seen, Sprankle's claims of months of targeted harassment against her are patently false.


Remember that a lot of stuff has been deleted and is no longer available to find, and/or happened in private messages. Trying to reconstruct everything long after it has been removed is a hopeless cause, the current absence of evidence doesn't prove anything and you have to decide how much you trust the people saying that it did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Luciferian wrote:
We need look no further than our own dear Peregrine in this thread, whose definition of an "awful" or "toxic" person worthy of being ostracized is someone who associates with the wrong person, exercises their right to vote, or is even in the center of the political spectrum, regardless of how they actually conduct themselves.


Please don't lie about what I did and did not say. Nowhere did I say that people who vote or are in the center of the political spectrum should be shunned, or even state any disagreement with those things. The people I have targeted are NOT reasonable centrists, they're fringe lunatics and general s.

And yes, people who associate with the wrong people should be judged for that association and kicked out. If you are friends with a Nazi it means that you are either a Nazi yourself, or willing to accept Nazis. And if your moral standards allow you to do that then you are not the sort of person that I want anywhere near my life. Obviously the person in the real situation is not a literal Nazi, but the same principle is true. If you don't want to be judged for who you associate with then don't associate with horrible people.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/17 13:09:21


Post by: PsychoticStorm


 Peregrine wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
See, wishing people out because you disagree with them, is the base of a totalitarian ideology.


Uh, what? No. Not at all. Wishing to remove people you disagree with sufficiently from the community is normal. Everyone does it. It isn't totalitarian just because it happens to be aimed at people that you don't want removed.


It is not normal, normal is to either ignore people you do not like, or debate them until you reach the point to agree to disagree and move on with your life, actively trying to force somebody out of a community (except been bullying) is not normal it is a totalitarian ideology expressed at its purest form, "I don't like you I will erase you from existence".

If you find this normal, I am afraid to learn what else you find normal...

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
On the 40k/ wargaming front I have seen no new articles about enforcing ban lists and corporate thought policing so hopefully that front has been pacified, the reaction to these articles was overtly against and highly critical so the authors might got the message.


Alternatively, the rather weak attempt by the gamergate types to bring pointless drama into 40k failed because people realized both that it was a weak attempt, and that there's no possible way to enforce any kind of ban or "thought policing" or whatever and therefore there's no reason to worry about it.


I think you mess a lot of things here, first of all the response on Spikey Bits was not about the MTG incident, but against the articles pushing for similar policies on the 40k community and beyond, the mass of the response indicates that people thought it was a significant threat and their opposition about it, given the second push for it from Spikey Bits got similar response the sentiment has not died out on the subject, what else do you want to do start calling for heads? normal people do not work like that, they see a bad idea that can be massively abused? they respond expressing their opinion, no new article pushing such idea is published, there is nothing to do about it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Luciferian wrote:
I'd also say that based on everything I've seen, Sprankle's claims of months of targeted harassment against her are patently false.


Remember that a lot of stuff has been deleted and is no longer available to find, and/or happened in private messages. Trying to reconstruct everything long after it has been removed is a hopeless cause, the current absence of evidence doesn't prove anything and you have to decide how much you trust the people saying that it did.


Em no, I don't buy it, things get archived, screenshot and videos and articles are done for them with said archives and screenshots, if there were evidence about the incident somebody would have them, I do not subscribe to "guilty until proven innocent" ideology, there was no legitimate proof provided (logical because it it existed it would go to the Police, not Wotc) I do not trust people claiming stuff without providing any evidence for it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Luciferian wrote:
We need look no further than our own dear Peregrine in this thread, whose definition of an "awful" or "toxic" person worthy of being ostracized is someone who associates with the wrong person, exercises their right to vote, or is even in the center of the political spectrum, regardless of how they actually conduct themselves.


Please don't lie about what I did and did not say. Nowhere did I say that people who vote or are in the center of the political spectrum should be shunned, or even state any disagreement with those things. The people I have targeted are NOT reasonable centrists, they're fringe lunatics and general s.

And yes, people who associate with the wrong people should be judged for that association and kicked out. If you are friends with a Nazi it means that you are either a Nazi yourself, or willing to accept Nazis. And if your moral standards allow you to do that then you are not the sort of person that I want anywhere near my life. Obviously the person in the real situation is not a literal Nazi, but the same principle is true. If you don't want to be judged for who you associate with then don't associate with horrible people.


Why exactly are your moral above anybody else and allows you to judge whose morals are right or wrong and more importantly when guild by association was a thing of democratic free willed society, because every time I see it enforced in history, it is by intolerant, totalitarian, fascist and racist ideological governments.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/17 13:22:16


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
It is not normal, normal is to either ignore people you do not like, or debate them until you reach the point to agree to disagree and move on with your life, actively trying to force somebody out of a community (except been bullying) is not normal it is a totalitarian ideology expressed at its purest form, "I don't like you I will erase you from existence".

If you find this normal, I am afraid to learn what else you find normal...


Being told that you aren't welcome in a group is hardly "erased from existence". And yes, it absolutely is normal. If someone keeps being TFG in your gaming group you don't invite them back every week, you tell them they aren't welcome anymore and stop playing with them.

I think you mess a lot of things here, first of all the response on Spikey Bits was not about the MTG incident, but against the articles pushing for similar policies on the 40k community and beyond, the mass of the response indicates that people thought it was a significant threat and their opposition about it, given the second push for it from Spikey Bits got similar response the sentiment has not died out on the subject, what else do you want to do start calling for heads? normal people do not work like that, they see a bad idea that can be massively abused? they respond expressing their opinion, no new article pushing such idea is published, there is nothing to do about it.


Normal people don't look at this and see an idea that can be massively abused, they see internet drama over something completely irrelevant. It is not possible to have a ban list in 40k because there is no central authority to enforce one. So the more likely explanation is that the minority of people who cared about the internet drama only had enough outrage for a short time, after which there was nobody left to care.

Em no, I don't buy it, things get archived, screenshot and videos and articles are done for them with said archives and screenshots, if there were evidence about the incident somebody would have them, I do not subscribe to "guilty until proven innocent" ideology, there was no legitimate proof provided (logical because it it existed it would go to the Police, not Wotc) I do not trust people claiming stuff without providing any evidence for it.


On the other hand, whatever proof there was seems to have been enough to satisfy WOTC, and I'd bet that WOTC spent more time on this than the vast majority of people arguing about it. But if screenshots and archives always exist then why hasn't Hambly provided a copy of one of the videos in question, instead of coming up with excuses for why nobody has a copy and telling everyone to trust him that he didn't say anything inappropriate in it?

And no, it wouldn't necessarily go to the police, because there is a wide range of behavior that is unacceptable but not illegal.

Why exactly are your moral above anybody else and allows you to judge whose morals are right or wrong


Everyone judges people. It's part of life. Why are you asking such a ridiculous question?

and more importantly when guild by association was a thing of democratic free willed society


Since democratic free willed societies have existed.

because every time I see it enforced in history, it is by intolerant, totalitarian, fascist and racist ideological governments.


And nope. You don't get to pull a bait and switch like this. The subject of discussion was guilt by association in the context of private individuals making choices about their social activities. This has nothing to do with actions by the government, where guilt by association is an unacceptable legal principle. The standards for proof of guilt in court have always been much higher than the standards for proof of guilt when deciding who you want to be friends with.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/17 14:27:56


Post by: PsychoticStorm


We are not talking about your private gaming group are we? we talk about demanding somebody to be removed from the community, so that is one "bait and switch" by you.

Moving on, normal people, admittedly adults, when see a demand that is overreaching, think how it can be abused and how it can affect them, most of us have experience at least one overreaching legislation that was abused and needed a costly and lengthy battle to be overturned and since most people value their personal freedom in their life and their hobbies are part of their life they will react to such calls for power that are so abusable, whether it can or cannot be enforced is irrelevant when you debate on principle and allowing a bad thing to take root is never a good idea.

Moreover as I said, what more you want from people to do about it? demand Spikey bits and BOLS heads for the articles? dox them and try to shut them down? that is lunacy! People responded to these articles and since no more push was made for such ideas nothing more is needed to be done.

I am not sure were you got that? can you please provide evidence of him saying that? because his supporters use that video to defend him, I am not sure if Wotc spend any time debating about the evidence, they probably did spend time trying to find something better than what they presented that was laughable at best, especially for a lifetime ban, but I think their decision was set in stone from the start.

Clearly what evidence Wotc provided is seen as insufficient by those opposing the ban, but also for many of us that view it as observers.

I think I need to stay a bit on this comment though.


And no, it wouldn't necessarily go to the police, because there is a wide range of behavior that is unacceptable but not illegal.


If it is not illegal it is deemed acceptable by the laws of your country and by extension by the majority of your countries population, laws exist because morality is subjective and a clear definition of what is and is not moral needs to exist.

Who in his or her right mind would put a company or an individual above law to decide what is and is not acceptable.


Everyone judges people. It's part of life. Why are you asking such a ridiculous question?

Please don't try to change the subject, I am not asking why you judge me, that would be ridiculous, I judge you, you have every right to judge me, I asked why exactly are your morals higher than everybody else and you have the right to judge what morals are right or wrong, I can accept judgement that I do not align with your morals, fair enouph, I do not accept you decreeing what my morals should be and if they are right or wrong.

Now on the important subject you either subscribe to "guilty until proven innocent" philosophy were "guilt by association" is part of and the burden of proof lies to the accused or you subscribe to "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy were quilt cannot be assigned by association and the burden of proof lies to the accuser, the later is the foundation of the western legal system and our legal system collectively is regarded as the least oppressive and most just, can you guess why?

I do not think I made a bait and switch with this one the best example of how guild by association is all I said above is expressed by governments who used or use it to hunt down individuals making choices about their social activities that they do not like.

The fact that it is not a government that enforces thought policing but a corporation changes nothing, regardless of scale and impact the principle is the same.



Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/17 15:31:41


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
See, wishing people out because you disagree with them, is the base of a totalitarian ideology.


There is a difference between civil disagreement and trolling, though. It might be totalitarian, or it might be a community who has had enough of some jerk. To me, it sounds like the disagreement is where along the line Hambly falls, with some people having a higher tolerance for jerks.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/17 15:42:31


Post by: Crazyterran


Wizards of the Coast made the right call in this case, and they are free to remove him from their higher level scene.

If he wants to continue playing in his local level events and tournaments, run independently by shop owners, that is on him and them. Dont act like WotC has to let this guy play in their sanctioned events.

Forcing WotC to let him do as he pleases and disallow them to remove what they view as a toxic element is just as totalitarian as what you claim Peregrine advocates. He freely made his choices to act like a jerk, and they used their freedom to disassociate with him in the clearest possible manner.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/17 16:16:30


Post by: Galas


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
See, wishing people out because you disagree with them, is the base of a totalitarian ideology.


Disagreein with someone and disagreein with his manners is totally different. For example I agree with most of Peregrine opinions, but if he express them in real life like here in dakkadakka, I wouldn't want him in my gaming group, because he is too harsh and we are a bunch of softy casual snowflakes and people will get upset. I have friends and family from all parts of the political expectrum. What I don't have as friends are toxic and violent trolls without emphaty for others. I have no time to espend with that kind of people.
You are using "wishing people out" like you want them dead or something, when it isn't like that. Thats a straw man.

And about the "In a free democratic society we should respect totalitarians like radical communists, statits and nazis"; I have only this to say:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
If you wan't to respect nazis, then don't complain about muslims discriminating womans in our countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:

If it is not illegal it is deemed acceptable by the laws of your country and by extension by the majority of your countries population, laws exist because morality is subjective and a clear definition of what is and is not moral needs to exist.


Ehm what? One simple example, in Spain you can kill your dog for whatever reason you want because is a property. Most people thing killing your dog without any reason (He's sick for example) is inmoral, but is totally legal.
For all human history theres have been a TON of unhetic inmoral and unetic laws. And not by our modern standards, but even for the time they had a ton of social backlash.

But to be honest I don't see the problem with all of this. A ton of people has been banned from videogames for example. Top-End Streamers and competitive players, for things like a twitter comment or insulting people ingame. And nobody bats an eye, if you are toxic, you deserve it. Good luck, go play other game.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/17 18:15:09


Post by: Fifty


I've been watching this thread and it is really quite absurd. 90% of what has been argued about could have been answered based on one paragraph from Psychotic Storm on page 1; (My underlining)

Second is indeed is at what extend does a private company have rights to limit access to individuals for their goods and services on the grounds of their ideology and behavior outside their premises. I can understand a repeated troublemaker on their events that causes problems is a valid reason to limit access or ask from the state to give a restrictive order to said individual, but banning an individual on the grounds of what they say or do in their private life? That is ideological racism and you really cannot paint it in any other colour.

As you said, it is a private company. They are not a public service, they are a private company. They are free, under the law of most western democracies, and certainly including the UK and US, to decline service for any reason they like, or even for no reason at all, unless their reasons are racist, sexist or homophobic. Peregrine further made the point that they provide an entertainment service, not an essential service. It isn't like he has had his electricity cut off, nor even his internet access. Still further again, it seems part of this ban involves an online game? It is in their terms of service that you buy access to the game not ownership of things within it. However much one dislikes that simple fact, it is currently a legal fact. Someone feeling as if they own the items and believing they are entitled to make profit from it is not the same as actually having that legal right. Someone is welcome to challenge that in court, but until they do, and win, in this case and/or a very wide-ranging precedent is set, that is how things are.

Secondly it is not his private life. Much of what has apparently taken place was not "behind closed doors". At least some of it was in public, and it seems much of what was not "out in the open" was actually directed at someone who did not welcome that contact and is therefore entitled to make it public.

Now, finally, Peregrine is often very blunt. He can even be quite rude about ideas. However, I don't recall him ever making direct personal attacks on the members of this website, and certainly no threats. Comparing him to those who do is non-sensical. Similarly, I disagree with the points Psychotic Storm and natepreti are making, but you've not threatened or insulted people here, so I would not suggest you are on par with those who do. This website has a code of conduct that, in my opinion, you have not broken. Again though, if the owners of this site wanted to, they can ban you without reason being given. Ultimately, they could ban Peregrine or me too. If they took that approach, their site would probably not last long. If WotC take this approach too often, their business might suffer, but it is still their legal right to do so. Frankly, it is their moral right to do so, or you are forcing them to deal with someone they choose not to, which is far worse infringement on an entity's rights than not being allowed to play a game.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/17 22:56:49


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Well the disagreement about this case is on many levels by many people.

Personally I disagree that a company has the right to poke on an individuals behaviour outside their premises and act as a moral judge for peoples behaviour outside their premises. Lets not forget that beside the main ban they banned a pro player just because he was an admin in a closed FB group, that was behind closed doors and he was not even participating on the discussion that "theoretically" banned him (the fact said player defended Unsleeved media may be relevant).

I also argue that given the recent other grand stories, the Canadian L3 judge sexually harassing people and the pro player who cheated again in grand prix, getting just a demotion and a six months ban respectively the bans the other two people received seem extremely disproportional and based on ideological reasons, something showcasing double standards and an ideological purge instead of an effort to remove "toxic" elements from the community.

I also disagree on digital content ownership and if certain EULAs hold any legal validity but that is not really the argument here.

It has also been pointed out that the initial accusations that started this incident have never been proven and a few prominent members opposing unsleeved media has done to unsleeved media what they accused him of doing without any repercussions so far.

Outside the banning we discussed about the concept of freedom of speech especially outside the narrow definition of the US law, the validity of guilt by association, how morality is subjective and why we invented laws to decide such things because of how morality is subjective and why people participating on the wargaming community have valid reasons to worry and raise their voice against calls for similar bans from other companies.

Is this a good summary?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/17 23:45:28


Post by: Luciferian


 Peregrine wrote:


Remember that a lot of stuff has been deleted and is no longer available to find, and/or happened in private messages. Trying to reconstruct everything long after it has been removed is a hopeless cause, the current absence of evidence doesn't prove anything and you have to decide how much you trust the people saying that it did.

So you're asking me to believe that the entire MTG YouTube community as well as WoTC conveniently forgot to screenshot, archive or otherwise preserve anything which could directly prove that Hambly directed months of targeted abuse at Sprankle?

Nope, it's all still there, you just have to dig for it because his videos got mass flagged and taken down. The evidence that WoTC, Sprankle and her allies provided is readily available. The original video only targets Sprankle in the sense that it's her Patreon he's using as an example for how naive, socially inept young men and teenagers think that being a "nice guy" to an attractive cosplayer who is showing some skin will buy you a ticket into her pants. Other than that, the evidence provided to support WoTC's decision consists entirely of tweets and social media posts, not a single one of which has anything at all to do with Sprankle. If anything, he talked more gak about some guy named Wedge. At no point in time, however, did he directly address someone with harassment or incite others to do so. At worst, he is guilty of making crude jokes and ill-advised responses to people who were directly engaging him.

Really, what he said at his worst is so tame compared to even things you'll see here on Dakka that it's a wonder anyone batted an eye about it at all. This is not meant as a personal attack on you, but just for perspective, you are regularly much more abrasive and "abusive" than he was. WoTC clearly had a team of lawyers dig through Hambly's entire life on the internet and that's all they could come up with. And if anyone disbelieves any of that, I implore you to look into it for yourselves. It is very clear to me that WoTC and Hambly's peers were looking for any pretext to be rid of him, and Sprankle's claim in and of itself was enough.

Again, yes, WoTC is a private company and they can associate with whomever they wish. They can deny service to whomever they wish. Hambly was making noise and he made himself a target. That doesn't change the fact that the pretext for his ban is a lie, and that the community of MTG "influencers" including WoTC staff singled him out pretty much for not being PC enough for their tastes. Again, my problem is not that WoTC is exercising their right as a private company to not associate with someone. It's that, first of all, they are clearly being dishonest and conflating mildly insensitive comments with months of targeted harassment, which is actually kind of a disgusting affront to people who experience real harassment and abuse. And secondly, that his marginalization from the MTG community was merely one example among many of politically motivated people trying to purge anyone who is not publicly 100% on board with their specific brand of ideology.

If anyone thinks that kind of movement can't come to 40k, think again. It's already here. At least two of the largest and most prominent 40k news blogs have published articles in the past few months which demand the 40k community do the same thing, except with no standard of evidence, no definition of what exactly constitutes actionable behavior, and no valid premise. Just that they say so, and you better believe them or else. Apparently the MTG community sheepishly went along with their own ideological purge, and that is not something I see happening in 40k. I will not sheepishly go along with it, anyway. I know who I am and the standard of behavior and respect that I hold myself to, and I will not be told that I am a bad person who shouldn't be involved in a hobby simply because I'm not a hard-core progressive.



Please don't lie about what I did and did not say. Nowhere did I say that people who vote or are in the center of the political spectrum should be shunned, or even state any disagreement with those things. The people I have targeted are NOT reasonable centrists, they're fringe lunatics and general s.

And yes, people who associate with the wrong people should be judged for that association and kicked out. If you are friends with a Nazi it means that you are either a Nazi yourself, or willing to accept Nazis. And if your moral standards allow you to do that then you are not the sort of person that I want anywhere near my life. Obviously the person in the real situation is not a literal Nazi, but the same principle is true. If you don't want to be judged for who you associate with then don't associate with horrible people.


My interpretation of what you said is not that much of an exaggeration. No one mentioned in this thread is anywhere near a Nazi. You may not agree with the ideas of people like Sargon, but it is absolute fact that he has never advocated genocide, the overthrow of democracy, or the supremacy of one race or gender above another. Conflating people with Nazis who are not Nazis is, again, dangerous and disrespectful to the victims of actual Nazis. If I knew someone was an actual Nazi, I wouldn't want to be around them either. I would choose not to play games with them or associate with them. I would also not associate with people who harass or assault women or who are openly racist. However, all of those things are very clear distinctions. Not everyone who disagrees with you politically is a racist, misogynist or Nazi, and casting those kinds of aspersions around for the purpose of political gain is an extremely short-sighted and selfish thing to do.

Also, how do you propose to enforce such a policy? Are you going to check the social media accounts of every person you ever play with to make sure they've never associated with someone you disprove of? Are you going to bring a questionnaire with you to the local gaming store and require that people disclose their political beliefs before they can get a game? If you run a gaming club and you want to enact that kind of policy, go for it. It's your right to associate with whomever you wish. However, that is not what people who write articles like the ones recently published on BoLS and Spikey Bits demand. They are literally advocating for a blacklist of people who are not part of the progressive movement to be made and enforced by GW and the community. I agree that is unlikely in 40k. Still, if you can't see why it's problematic that there is an increasingly vocal faction of people who want to enforce a proscribed political ideology on the players of games like 40k and MTG, based on an unproven premise which is not allowed to be questioned or debated, then I don't know what else to say.

Edit:
I just want to add as a final note that I have an extreme amount of respect for everyone here, including Peregrine and the moderators, for the fact that we can even have this type of discussion.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 10:31:42


Post by: Turnip Jedi


@ Luciferian

Wedge is another MTG YT'er, his content is fairly decent but by Mork is he a pro-WoTC fanatic


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 12:15:01


Post by: Peregrine


 Luciferian wrote:
If anyone thinks that kind of movement can't come to 40k, think again. It's already here. At least two of the largest and most prominent 40k news blogs have published articles in the past few months which demand the 40k community do the same thing, except with no standard of evidence, no definition of what exactly constitutes actionable behavior, and no valid premise. Just that they say so, and you better believe them or else. Apparently the MTG community sheepishly went along with their own ideological purge, and that is not something I see happening in 40k. I will not sheepishly go along with it, anyway. I know who I am and the standard of behavior and respect that I hold myself to, and I will not be told that I am a bad person who shouldn't be involved in a hobby simply because I'm not a hard-core progressive.


Two of the largest by total number of clicks, perhaps, but hardly prominent. BOLS is a clickbait sewer with minimal value, and from what little I've seen of Spiky Bits they aren't much better. TBH I wouldn't be surprised if BOLS had no genuine ideological opinion on the subject, and just posted about it because they knew it would generate clicks and advertising revenue. You know, just like all their various "news" posts on every random 40k rumor, no matter how obviously ridiculous and lacking in credibility.

And you know what sums up this supposed threat quite nicely? If you have good taste and don't read BOLS you'd never know it existed. Because, unlike MTG, 40k has no central authority to issue bans, and any calls for banning are completely irrelevant.

No one mentioned in this thread is anywhere near a Nazi. You may not agree with the ideas of people like Sargon, but it is absolute fact that he has never advocated genocide, the overthrow of democracy, or the supremacy of one race or gender above another. Conflating people with Nazis who are not Nazis is, again, dangerous and disrespectful to the victims of actual Nazis. If I knew someone was an actual Nazi, I wouldn't want to be around them either. I would choose not to play games with them or associate with them. I would also not associate with people who harass or assault women or who are openly racist. However, all of those things are very clear distinctions. Not everyone who disagrees with you politically is a racist, misogynist or Nazi, and casting those kinds of aspersions around for the purpose of political gain is an extremely short-sighted and selfish thing to do.


You're completely missing the point of that statement. Obviously nobody involved here is a literal Nazi, the point is to destroy the idea that banning people is somehow immoral and totalitarianism and such. By agreeing that you would ban the literal Nazi you admit that banning people for their beliefs is ok, and that your sole point of disagreement is that you don't think that Jeremy Hambly specifically should have been banned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Personally I disagree that a company has the right to poke on an individuals behaviour outside their premises and act as a moral judge for peoples behaviour outside their premises.


You can disagree, but you are wrong both legally and morally. Individuals and private clubs are indisputably free to decide who they want to be friends with and invite to their social events, based on pretty much anything they want. They can do so, and regularly do so. Please do not pretend that this situation is in any way exceptional. And please do not pretend that individuals are bound by the same restrictions as the government when it comes to things like judging people for their behavior or associations.

Lets not forget that beside the main ban they banned a pro player just because he was an admin in a closed FB group, that was behind closed doors and he was not even participating on the discussion that "theoretically" banned him (the fact said player defended Unsleeved media may be relevant).


He was an admin of a group specifically created to share offensive (racist, misogynist, etc) MTG memes. You don't get to be an admin of something like that without approving of it, and if you approve of that kind of trash then you don't belong in the community. It amazes me that people can look at this situation and say that he didn't deserve to be banned.

PS: it's also worth noting that, before WOTC acted, the player in question had already been dumped by his sponsors and kicked off his team. It's not just WOTC deciding that he's a and wanting to have nothing to do with him.

I also argue that given the recent other grand stories, the Canadian L3 judge sexually harassing people and the pro player who cheated again in grand prix, getting just a demotion and a six months ban respectively the bans the other two people received seem extremely disproportional and based on ideological reasons, something showcasing double standards and an ideological purge instead of an effort to remove "toxic" elements from the community.


No, you have that backwards. The judge getting a light punishment for sexual harassment is a strong argument that it isn't about ideological reasons. The same progressives that are supposedly being pandered to by banning Hambly also tend to be very loudly against sexual harassment. If WOTC is actually doing this for ideological reasons then giving a lifetime ban to the harasser would be an easy way to give them a win. It satisfies the leftists, and does so in a way that nobody can argue with. After all, who is going to defend someone who is guilty of sexual harassment? The fact that they passed on this perfect opportunity very strongly suggests that Hambly's ban is because he was genuinely that obnoxious and everyone wanted him gone.

I also disagree on digital content ownership and if certain EULAs hold any legal validity but that is not really the argument here.


This is not something where disagreement is possible. Applying conventional property ownership concepts to video game character stats does not work, period. The fundamental concepts of property involved completely fail when you attempt to apply them to in-game items, on a purely functional level regardless of your ideological opinions on the subject. All you have as an argument is a vague sense of entitlement to your character stats, and handwaving that someone will magically solve the problems and make it work.

PS: you really don't want this to happen. If the legal system changes to treat MTGO cards as a player's property it would instantly result in every online game shutting down, and none ever being developed again. The liability issues would be impossible to overcome, and the entire business concept would die.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 12:45:02


Post by: Galas


Imagine EVE with legal digital property ownership It would be insane.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 12:52:40


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
We are not talking about your private gaming group are we?


No, but we are talking about WOTC's private gaming group, which runs according to the same principle as mine (and everyone else's): that the organizer of the group gets to decide who they invite to their private social event. The fact that WOTC's private club contains more members than my kitchen table MTG game doesn't change the basic situation here.

Who in his or her right mind would put a company or an individual above law to decide what is and is not acceptable.


Uh, everyone? Companies do this all the time. For example, cheating in a game of MTG is not a crime, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that WOTC shouldn't have the ability to go beyond what the law covers and ban cheaters from their events. The company or individual doesn't get to be above the law and impose legal consequences on you (jail time, fines, etc), but they can certainly decide who they want to invite to their private events based on more than just what is or isn't legal.

The fact that it is not a government that enforces thought policing but a corporation changes nothing, regardless of scale and impact the principle is the same.


The fact that it is a private organization changes everything. Thought policing by the government is wrong and terrifying because the government can strip you of your property and imprison you, and even kill you in some situations. A private organization has far less power over you, and can only decline to invite you to their private club. Essentially what you're saying here is that the principle is the same between "I don't want to be friends with you" and "I'm going to lock you in this cage forever, and if you try to escape I will kill you", and that's absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
Imagine EVE with legal digital property ownership It would be insane.


Exactly. You'd be prosecuted and imprisoned for killing someone in EVE and taking the loot they drop.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 14:38:59


Post by: PsychoticStorm


EVE is not a stellar example of game design for sure, definitely not a good example of what we discussed, but a good distraction for somebody who do not wishes to debate.

It is clear to me that you do not want to establish a debate, you have your opinion set in stone and cannot see the precedents set by such actions.

And to be entirely honest yes, the fact they did not ban a person for conducting a criminal act inside their premises, but banned a person for life for expressing ideas and criticism they do not like outside their premises is a definite sign of political and ideological reasons behind such bans, nothing else.

To use your ideology, since Wotc did not ban a judge who if nothing else is also closely related to them for conducting a criminal act inside their premises, Wotc fully supports sexual harassment.

Guilty by association.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 14:53:04


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
EVE is not a stellar example of game design for sure, definitely not a good example of what we discussed, but a good distraction for somebody who do not wishes to debate.


No, EVE is actually a great example of game design. The permanent item loss, full PvP, etc, are mechanics that do an excellent job of accomplishing its goals, goals that have made it unique and successful over the past decade or more while its competition has failed and died. It just isn't a game that is compatible with your proposed rules for owning your video game character's stats.

It is clear to me that you do not want to establish a debate, you have your opinion set in stone and cannot see the precedents set by such actions.


No, I simply reject your attempts at handwaving away explanations of fatal flaws in your digital property ideas. I don't care what your ideological beliefs on the subject are, your proposed legal system for digital property ownership does not work. It's like accusing people of not wanting to have a debate because they reject your proposal for mandatory ownership of square circles.

And to be entirely honest yes, the fact they did not ban a person for conducting a criminal act inside their premises, but banned a person for life for expressing ideas and criticism they do not like outside their premises is a definite sign of political and ideological reasons behind such bans, nothing else.


Sigh. Did you even read the response I gave to this? It's the exact opposite, because a lifetime ban for the harasser would be an act that would be celebrated by the leftists/SJWs/whatever. If WOTC's goal is to advance a socially-progressive agenda and please people of that political alignment then the obvious, even mandatory, action is to ban the guy forever and not just give him a temporary suspension. And the fact that sexual harassment is one of those things that most people agree is awful and grounds for removal from a group means that it's a controversy-free way to score those points. So if WOTC is acting for the reasons that you claim we would expect to see at least as harsh a punishment for the harasser as for Hambly. But that's not what we see. We see a limited punishment for the harasser, and maximum punishment for the more difficult case. The obvious conclusion is that WOTC is not acting for the reasons you claim, and the Hambly ban is for other reasons: either WOTC finds the accusations against him credible on their own merits, independent of any ideological agenda, or people are just sick of his and told him to GTFO.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 15:10:59


Post by: PsychoticStorm


EVE is a bad game design, but as service, they do not ban you and close your account with all the stuff you cannot loose from PvP because of something you said out of the game/ forums.

Likewise I do not accept as an answer what amounts to "don't worry be just and fear not" on valid concerns about freedom of speech and impact of companies on private life.

The surprising lack of complains about the judge case from the parties you mentioned may be an indication of connection? regardless that does not change the fact that by your logic Wotc is definitely supporting his actions.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 15:13:02


Post by: Peregrine


Also, it's one of those "details are hard to find, protect the victim's privacy, etc" situations, but from what I can find about the judge incident it looks like it was a case of inappropriate flirting and making someone uncomfortable, not assault or obvious malicious intent. That's not behavior that should be accepted, but there's a major difference between unprofessional behavior and maliciously harassing someone over an extended period of time (as Hambly is accused of).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
EVE is a bad game design, but as service, they do not ban you and close your account with all the stuff you cannot loose from PvP because of something you said out of the game/ forums.


We'll just have to disagree on this, since you don't provide any reasons why EVE is bad game design other than simply asserting that it must be true.

And no, EVE does not (AFAIK) ban people over that, but you're ignoring the context in which I mentioned EVE. EVE has full PvP, and when your ship is destroyed your gear (at least whatever isn't destroyed when your ship explodes) drops and anyone can take it. That means that I can kill you and take your stuff. In a legal system in which video game character attributes are not the player's property this is fine, we're just playing a game, no exchange of real-world property has occurred when digital items in the game world move between characters. In a legal system in which video game character attributes are the player's property this is a case of theft, and the player taking the stuff would be prosecuted and imprisoned for it.

Likewise I do not accept as an answer what amounts to "don't worry be just and fear not" on valid concerns about freedom of speech and impact of companies on private life.


Obviously you don't accept it, because you are paranoid about something that can not happen because of structural differences between MTG and 40k. It is completely irrational to worry about a ban list in 40k when there is no central authority that could enforce a ban list. In the absence of such a central authority the most anyone can do with a hypothetical ban list is publish a "HAY GUYS THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT MY FRIEND" statement that everyone else ignores. So no, I'm not going to accept that it's a reasonable fear to have when you're talking about freedom of speech threats and authoritarianism because some random person on the internet might refuse to play a game with you. Regardless of what you think about the WOTC case worrying about a ban list in 40k is not reasonable.

The surprising lack of complains about the judge case from the parties you mentioned may be an indication of connection?


I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here, or what it has to do with the post you seem to be responding to.

regardless that does not change the fact that by your logic Wotc is definitely supporting his actions.


Uh, no, it really doesn't. WOTC explicitly stated that they do NOT support his actions because they stripped him of his judge credentials.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 16:58:25


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Unsleeved media was accused and never proven, so until such evidence surface he was falsely accused, the burden of proof falls to the accuser, not to the accused, the judge on the other hand was both accused and proven.

We can debate for eternity if his behaviour was as bad as the law makes it be and if the sexual harassment laws are fair, we better not do that.

EVE online is a bad game design for many reasons it never delivered the consequences for player actions it promises, it is a lawless framework that fails to deliver any tools for law and order or any form consequences for "destructive" player actions, essentially in EVE you are penalised for been "constructive" that been said it caters to a certain type of player base and as long as the costs do not exceed their player base they are safe, it is really difficult to gain and retain new players though.

That been said despite EVE been a PVP online game and clearly sold as a game were you are going to loose your stuff while playing it, there are fundamental parts you are not going to loose like the characters, the real money cosmetics ectr, this brings EVE and MTGO on the same place were player has input money for microtransactions, the items bought are or should be owned by the player, covered by the usual trade laws, I guess more or less they are the same in all western countries give or take some details. setting aside the morality and legality of banning somebody for things outside the companies jurisdiction, the company that chooses to sever ties with their costumer should give the customer at least their money back, since they took back their payed product.

Yes I said from the start it is a messy situation but the trade laws should apply to digital products, Valve tried to pull a similar thing in the past and it was ruled against them.

I do not accept a company invading my private life and morally judging me on principle, it is irrelevant if this can or cannot happen in 40k, its a precedent that should not exist and can have big consequences in the future, been concerned about giving easily abuseable power to anybody is not paranoia, it is logic.

My reference to complains is that the ideological parties that you mentioned in your post that would be overjoyed if the judge was banned did not raise any complains that he was not banned but merely demoted, nor raised any complains that Wotc are quite happy to accept him back , given the complains they made against a guy that has so far been falsely accused, not complaining about such a clear cut case as you said is suspect.

Finally Wotc did not ban him just demoted him and reporting on the situation they say they are happy to accept him back, I am not sure how that means they are not ok with his actions...

In any case I used your logic and beliefs to illustrate my point, you are the one proposing guilt by association, not me and you are now defending Wotc from your logic, not me, I do not think Wotc should be held responsible for his actions or the actions of their employees who harassed unsleeved media in the false flag campaign, they should do something about it, but they are not responsible for their actions as that Pro Player is not responsible for whatever idiocy people in his closed group do.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 17:30:25


Post by: Galas


Companies don't invade peoples privates lifes and morally judges them based on their ideology. At least, sucesfull ones don't.

Theres only one reason a company will act agaisn't someone: The guy/girl in question generates bad reputation and a loss of money.

All the people that try to put this as some kind of "Ideological" attack are just delusional about their own perception of the divided political american enviroment.
If this guy was more leftists than Marx, but had done something to gather bad rep for WoTC and Magic, they would have banned him if the noise was big enough.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 17:49:01


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 Galas wrote:


Theres only one reason a company will act agaisn't someone: The guy/girl in question generates bad reputation and a loss of money.



Galas wins this thread...common sensibility





Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 17:56:39


Post by: PsychoticStorm


I would believe that if they acted equally harsh against people that do equally bad damage to the company's reputation.

Or you suggest he was banned with the weakest excuse just because he was big enouph?

I can see that, beyond his attitude that is edgy and acceptable/ unacceptable depending on were you stand on the subject, he is the biggest (and only) critic about Wotc from the big 3 channels.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 18:19:49


Post by: Galas


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I would believe that if they acted equally harsh against people that do equally bad damage to the company's reputation.

Or you suggest he was banned with the weakest excuse just because he was big enouph?

I can see that, beyond his attitude that is edgy and acceptable/ unacceptable depending on were you stand on the subject, he is the biggest (and only) critic about Wotc from the big 3 channels.


I believe this is a case of bad luck. He did upset the wrong people, and that people, with more or less reasons did enough noise for the company to notice and take action. Many, many people will and would have done worse than this Jeremy guy, but they have been lucky, or just didn't where a "public" figure like Hambly, so WoTC didn't do anything agaisn't them.

When the theacher yells at you because you where talking, it doesn't matter that you said "But others where talking too!". You just had bad luck to be the one to receive the reprimand that time.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 19:54:20


Post by: Fifty


 Galas wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I would believe that if they acted equally harsh against people that do equally bad damage to the company's reputation.

Or you suggest he was banned with the weakest excuse just because he was big enouph?

I can see that, beyond his attitude that is edgy and acceptable/ unacceptable depending on were you stand on the subject, he is the biggest (and only) critic about Wotc from the big 3 channels.


I believe this is a case of bad luck. He did upset the wrong people, and that people, with more or less reasons did enough noise for the company to notice and take action. Many, many people will and would have done worse than this Jeremy guy, but they have been lucky, or just didn't where a "public" figure like Hambly, so WoTC didn't do anything agaisn't them.

When the teacher yells at you because you where talking, it doesn't matter that you said "But others where talking too!". You just had bad luck to be the one to receive the reprimand that time.


Actually, speaking as an experienced teacher, it is normally because you were talking louder, with more animation, or for longer. At the very least it will be because you have a habit of talking more regularly, so they already have their eye on you. In fact, often it is a combination of all of the above.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 20:14:12


Post by: Galas


I think all those apply to the case of Jeremy Hambly compared with other guys that also do things that could generate bad rep to WoTC, but don't receive as much attention from the public.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 20:56:45


Post by: Luciferian


 Galas wrote:


Theres only one reason a company will act agaisn't someone: The guy/girl in question generates bad reputation and a loss of money.


That's exactly the point, though. Where do you think that noise was coming from? The average MtG player?

MtG has a very closed-off media environment by design. You have to have the official support of WotC in order to get previews, event coverage etc. This creates a network of content creators, and I don't think it beggars belief that such a network would share a common alignment. I don't even really have to argue for it, because it's true. Hell, I'll let one of them say it in his own words:

“This is not the opening salvo in a long campaign. This is not intended to change the minds of these awful people. This is setting the boundaries of who I want in my game store, in my cube drafts, in my Twitter feed, in my group of friends who play Magic.

It is our duty, as longtime Magic players, to throw out people who don’t belong. If I go to a PTQ and my first round opponent is a known hateful piece of gak, I don’t have to grace them with my presence and treat them like a human being playing a game. I’m standing up and walking out, because they have no business playing a game with me… feth you. I might catch more flies with honey, but I’m not trying to catch them. I’m trying to force them out.” – Jesse Mason


I think you may also find some of the language familiar.

The noise came from a specific group of ideologically motivated people who, by their own words, leverage any kind of influence they can. Including PR incidents like this one. That's all I've been saying this whole time. It gives me the creeps, to be honest.

Edit: Also creepy; a vast majority of these people are straight white males.





Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 21:02:43


Post by: PsychoticStorm


I do not believe in luck, so I think I will go with the Fifty's explanation witch is more or less what I said from the beginning.

He was the 3rd biggest channel, critical to Wotc for the things they did bad and critical to the other two big channels that did not mention the critical issues present in the MtG community so he was terminated with the slightest excuse because they did not like him, some of it was ideological, some because he talked things they wished nobody talked about.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 21:06:44


Post by: Galas


People trying to keep away other people that they don't like because how they think, how they play, etc... has been a constant ever in any kind of group.
Is not a phylosophy that I personally share, but lets not pretend this is something new or something specific to any political alignement, as many people has tryed to paint this over. Heck, I remember when in my young days some dudes talked gak to me because I was speaking galician in a warhammer store (In Galicia, so you can imagine). When I was 14 years old I ended walking away, of course. The store owner didn't did anything about that
This is more about personal values and how willing are you to accept the behaviour of others that you don't like.

For example, I know many people that have no problems playing with people that stink, that cheat, or that is rude in a non comical way. Personally, my time is precious, I have no time with that kind of people, and is not the first time I have banned someone from my gaming club.
I remember two that I banned. One because started talking gak about one dude with an Iphone (Typical communist propaganda), and other said a highly sexual and inapropiate joke to a 16 years old girl (He was something like 26-28). The first one was rude when I banned him, the second one and his friends called me SJW, because he was obviously "Joking". I didn't cared.
I love black humour. I do mysoginistic, mysandric, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic jokes all the time towards literally everything (My own racial, social, geographic and sexual groups too) with my brothers and friends, but I have the inteligence to do those in a private enviroment and where people that could be hurt about that kind of thing isn't present. Is called respect. But many people forgot what is that on the internet, and then they get angry when they are punished for being disrespectfull.

At the end of the day this is all about playing with cards. If WoTC don't want him anymore maybe he can try with Yu-Gi-Oh or other card games (To be honest I have no idea about other card games besides digital ones)


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 21:13:21


Post by: Luciferian


It is true that this is not a new occurrence; I would say it's similar to any other moral panic such as the antics of the religious right in the 90's. But I also criticized that for the same reasons.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 21:45:23


Post by: PsychoticStorm


In his case it is quite clear there is an ideological conflict between him and at least some of his opponents since nobody was trying to hide it, some of the people who wrote articles against him were Wotc employees, so even if the company was ideologically neutral, its employees were not.

In the demands for public ban lists for the other hobbies it was again clearly ideological, buzzwords such as toxic and extreme thinking hold no meaning as they are undefinable one can address virtually anything as "toxic" or "extreme thinking".

Personally since I watched much of his content because of the story I find him a very harsh critic, with heavy language, but nowhere near what others described him.

He really does call Wotc on many subjects of their business though, card quality, print runs, bad cutting and misalignment of foils, maybe they the incident in hopes they removed their most prominent critic from the scene.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 21:52:42


Post by: Galas


 Luciferian wrote:
It is true that this is not a new occurrence; I would say it's similar to any other moral panic such as the antics of the religious right in the 90's. But I also criticized that for the same reasons.


This is exactly my view about this. I hate hipocrisy, and all this "Omg PC freedom of speech!" crown, to me, are a bunch of hipocrits (Talking general here), because I have known enough people in my life to know that most of them (People, not right or left here) doesn't like to confront different opinions than their own. Most of those "freedom figthers", if they where the ones in "social power"; would do exactly the same they are critizisim right now. As they have done in the past.

Social standards and morals change, what its ok to say now, it wasn't 30 years ago, and probably it will not be 30 years in the future.
I can totally respect people that has stood agaisn't repression in the past, and now. But thats a minority.


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
In his case it is quite clear there is an ideological conflict between him and at least some of his opponents since nobody was trying to hide it, some of the people who wrote articles against him were Wotc employees, so even if the company was ideologically neutral, its employees were not.

In the demands for public ban lists for the other hobbies it was again clearly ideological, buzzwords such as toxic and extreme thinking hold no meaning as they are undefinable one can address virtually anything as "toxic" or "extreme thinking".

Personally since I watched much of his content because of the story I find him a very harsh critic, with heavy language, but nowhere near what others described him.

He really does call Wotc on many subjects of their business though, card quality, print runs, bad cutting and misalignment of foils, maybe they the incident in hopes they removed their most prominent critic from the scene.


So he was basically your average DakkaDakka poster? Well. As Peregrine said, in 40k is impossible to do what they have done to him in Magic because theres not organised play by the companny. One can't enforce "bans" at a general level.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/18 22:40:42


Post by: Luciferian


Sadly I do have to agree that most people seem to skew authoritarian. Which is something I'm a bit anxious about, to be honest with you. Still, I'd no rather have a skeezy televangelist trying to meddle in art that I enjoy than a council of tumblr fanatics. They're the same kind of people from what I can see. But that's also why I feel so passionately about things like this.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/19 01:43:19


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Unsleeved media was accused and never proven, so until such evidence surface he was falsely accused, the burden of proof falls to the accuser, not to the accused, the judge on the other hand was both accused and proven.


Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle, not a social one. You don't have to have absolute proof of an accusation before deciding that you don't want to be friends with someone, and WOTC clearly found the accusation credible enough to take action based on it. But there's a reason I've been talking about this as the things that Hambly has been accused of, not the things that he has been proven to have done.

EVE online is a bad game design for many reasons it never delivered the consequences for player actions it promises, it is a lawless framework that fails to deliver any tools for law and order or any form consequences for "destructive" player actions, essentially in EVE you are penalised for been "constructive" that been said it caters to a certain type of player base and as long as the costs do not exceed their player base they are safe, it is really difficult to gain and retain new players though.


On the other hand, there's the demonstrated fact that EVE has survived for ~15 years in a market where large numbers of other games have tried and failed. And it does deliver tools for law and order: players being free to create law and order, and to punish other players for their actions. EVE gives you the freedom to decide how things are going to be, if there is no law and order it's because the players trying to build it are weak and fail. Ultimately that is what makes EVE a successful game, unlike all those games where "winning" is largely a matter of grinding for enough hours, EVE puts success and failure entirely in your own hands.

Now, you are clearly not the kind of player that EVE is aimed at, but that doesn't make it bad design.

That been said despite EVE been a PVP online game and clearly sold as a game were you are going to loose your stuff while playing it, there are fundamental parts you are not going to loose like the characters, the real money cosmetics ectr, this brings EVE and MTGO on the same place were player has input money for microtransactions, the items bought are or should be owned by the player, covered by the usual trade laws, I guess more or less they are the same in all western countries give or take some details. setting aside the morality and legality of banning somebody for things outside the companies jurisdiction, the company that chooses to sever ties with their costumer should give the customer at least their money back, since they took back their payed product.


No, that's not how it works. If video game character attributes are property then all video game character attributes are property. You can't say "well, your laser cannon was stolen, but you still have your skill points so no crime was committed". Each attribute of the character, items included, is property, and taking any of it from another player would be a crime. This is the fundamental problem with your argument: you want video game character attributes to function like property in one particular way ("WOTC can't take your cards!"), but not all of the other ways which lead to undesirable outcomes.

And I agree, if a company takes back the product they should issue a refund. Hambly has a legitimate claim to a prorated refund of any subscription fees that were paid for the remaining time on his MTGO subscription. But whether or not WOTC refunded his $5 is hardly an issue to get outraged about.

Yes I said from the start it is a messy situation but the trade laws should apply to digital products, Valve tried to pull a similar thing in the past and it was ruled against them.


The difference is that Valve is actually selling you a product. A game you buy on Steam is a digital object that can have its own independent existence, and you can meaningfully take possession of it. MTGO cards and other in-game character attributes do not have that independent existence. There is nothing where you can say "this is my property" and take it into your possession. Even if you demand that WOTC give you the digital files for your account those files would be useless and worthless. Where Steam games can only be taken from you because of EULA abuse MTGO cards are entirely dependent on WOTC continuing to run MTGO as it is now. The two situations are entirely different from a functional point of view, and the legal reasoning that applies to one does not apply to the other.

I do not accept a company invading my private life and morally judging me on principle, it is irrelevant if this can or cannot happen in 40k, its a precedent that should not exist and can have big consequences in the future, been concerned about giving easily abuseable power to anybody is not paranoia, it is logic.


Ok, fine, you don't accept it. Don't participate in MTG and WOTC will not "invade your private life". That's the difference you keep overlooking between a private organization and the government. When the government judges you they can put you in prison, or even kill you. When a private organization judges you all you have to do to end the consequences is stop doing business with them.

And yes, it is paranoia. You keep talking about "easily abuseable power" and ignoring the fact that no such power even theoretically exists in 40k. There is no central authority that could have the power, so there's certainly no way to abuse nonexistent power. For anything like the WOTC situation to be possible in 40k, regardless of your opinions on whether bans like this should happen, GW would have to do a complete 180 in their business practices and create a WOTC-style tournament structure that drives out all of the third-party events and leaves GW with control over the majority of 40k games. Then GW could ban someone and it would have meaningful consequences. But that is not happening now, and there is no credible reason to believe that it will happen.

Finally Wotc did not ban him just demoted him and reporting on the situation they say they are happy to accept him back, I am not sure how that means they are not ok with his actions...


That's a pretty dishonest way to present this. They didn't just demote him, they stripped him of his judge powers entirely. He is not able to act as a MTG judge until WOTC allows him to re-apply and start working his way back up to his former position. That's a major punishment. And WOTC has not said they'd be happy to have him back, they have said they'd consider taking him back sometime in the future if he demonstrates that he has learned from his punishment and can be trusted to behave. Allowing someone to return once they have served their punishment does not negate the fact that the punishment was imposed, nor does it mean that you approve of someone's actions.

that Pro Player is not responsible for whatever idiocy people in his closed group do.


Of course he is. He is/was an admin of the group, with the power to shut down the offensive material. And it was a group created specifically to share offensive material. Don't act like he was innocent in this, he didn't just accidentally find himself added to the group without his consent. His participation as an admin is endorsement of its content, and a statement that he is a TFG who does not belong in the community.

And, again, I'll point out that it's not just WOTC punishing him. Before WOTC did anything his sponsors had already dumped him, and he had been kicked off his team.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/19 16:16:58


Post by: Sqorgar


First, I just want to say how refreshing it was to read this thread. Most of the gaming communities I belong to are to the point where disagreement leads to ostracization. Even mentioning GamerGate is a permaban in some places. It's refreshing to see a discussion like this have some room to breathe. Dakka has a lot of older posters, and I think it shows in discussions like this.

The one thing I wanted to add is that this isn't just about Wizards and the youtuber. The Magic Reddit group's moderators took it upon themselves to start banning people from their subreddit, not just for sticking up for the youtuber, but even taking a moderate position on it (or even posting on other subreddits the Magic group deem toxic, like the GamerGate one or The_Donald). This has led to a bunch of them moving over to their own new subreddit, /r/freemagic, which has about a 1,000 subscribers now. These guys are hanging on to their fandom by a thread, and I don't think it would take much for them to bail.

This event has been a catalyst for a split in the Magic community, and I think the people who have been kicked out are trying to create a separate but equal group. Unfortunately, in the past, these things have happened in other communities and the ones with the power and ear of WotC will use it to paint this second community as a bunch of Nazi sympathizers and work towards preventing them from playing at tournaments, unable to comment in official settings, and generally kept away from any position to affect or comment on the nature of the game. After this, the progressives will use their unquestioned power to then become much worse in how their rule their fiefdom, becoming more ban happy, and generally pushing Wizards to mirror their ideals even more, to the point where most fans of Magic will find themselves having a line in the sand that they have to decide which side to stand on.

In my opinion, we're looking at the beginning of the end of the Magic community. It's not a community that I'm familiar with, but I started playing miniature games because the video game community became so mean and awful. I've seen it happen with comic books too. I used to be a big Marvel fan, unfortunately. Watching the reactions to The Last Jedi makes me think Star Wars is next. The miniatures community has largely resisted attempts to divide the community, but after those editorials on BolS and SpikeyBits, it looks like it is inevitable. They didn't work, but each time editorials like that are posted, the community gets more frustrated by it, and people who act in a frustrated manner become easy targets for claiming they are acting out because they are misogynists or white supremacists.

So, I don't think this discussion is just about how Wizards done this guy dirty. It is bs. They shouldn't have done it. Perhaps worse though is that they set an example for the various Magic communities everywhere that ideology matters, and that Wizards has chosen a particularly divisive one to enforce. Some power hungry moderators will use to seek ideological purity, destroying these communities in the process.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/19 21:56:03


Post by: PsychoticStorm


I was watching on Youtube a lawyer by trade explaining the case of the MTGO cards, unfortunately the case falls apart for Wotc on EULA so he did not delve much on the laws about digital products been purchased with real money and having a real world value.

His legal advice in the end was that while Unsleeved media is wronged under EULA and can win the case, it is not economically advisable.

Otherwise I came across a report on a (FB?) post from the ex lead artist of magic, claiming that Magic was not designed for people holding a certain ideology claiming that anybody having such ideology is an "interloper and needs to go"

I think that this is one more person associated with Wotc, admittedly not with them anymore, putting the ban in an ideological (and political) level, instead of a "company protection perspective".


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/19 22:03:16


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 Turnip Jedi wrote:
I suspect it'll die down if Jeremy manages to take a few lesser scalps down for their doxxing antics, I think he knows it's unlikely WoTC will do anything much public to their favoured shills beyond getting a lady staffer to write a puff 'be excellent to each other' article on the Magic homepage

The new expansion spoilers will most likely start rolling out in earnest soon giving people something else to prevaricate about


https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/commitment-each-other-building-community-together-2017-12-19

haha called it (okay so they didn't use a Lady staffer but still giving myself 7.5/ 10


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/19 22:52:37


Post by: PsychoticStorm


...

This is for real?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 00:00:24


Post by: Turnip Jedi


not sure but there are Magic judge guidelines addressing it under section H.4. Failure to Agree on Reality (which I previously assumed were to stop some players stalling matchs by engaging in Philosophical debates)


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 00:11:58


Post by: Sqorgar


 Turnip Jedi wrote:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/commitment-each-other-building-community-together-2017-12-19
This is what I was talking about. Wizards isn't just going after this one guy. They are going after everyone similar to this guy, and they are setting the example they expect the Magic communities to follow. The moderators of these communities will not exercise constraint when enforcing these vague and nebulous rules - not now that they have the blessing of WotC - and will use it to purge the communities of anyone they ideologically disagree with. It's not too late to save Magic, but it doesn't seem like anybody is actually interested in doing so.

Edit: A mod posted this in the magictcg subreddit:
Yeah, we must be lazy. Let's look at the modlog!

In the past 12 hours 617 comments have been removed in /r/magictcg.
In the past 12 hours 49 posts have been removed in /r/magictcg.
In the past 12 hours 79 users have been banned in /r/magictcg.

That's an average of one comment removed every 1.16 minutes, one post removed every 14 minutes and one user banned every 9.1 minutes. Continuously, for twelve hours.

I used to run a forum that had about ten thousand daily visitors, with a team of about a dozen moderators, and those numbers are nuts to me, especially if those numbers are worse for the previous 4-5 days as suggested elsewhere. Even a coordinated brigading attempt won't yield around 800 bans in a single week. Then, in another post by a moderator:

We think that having anyone who speaks out against harassment immediately be mobbed by a bunch of "devil's advocates" and "just saying..." and "well technically..." and "well I need you to post proof and citations and do it again separately for me and then again separately for the next guy and then again separately for the next guy while we all nit-pick your exact terminology" causes people to not want to speak out against harassment.

We think the users who do that stuff know this. And we think causing people to leave the community and not feel welcome or like they can engage here is exactly the goal of those users. And we're not OK with that.

If you don't like the resulting moderation, which includes removing a lot of comments, issuing a lot of bans and removing or locking a lot of posts either because they're obvious trolls or because we need to keep the subreddit manageable, well, you don't like it. But if your overriding goal is to enable all the stuff I listed above? Your goals and ours don't match up. And let's make no mistake: "open discussion" and "letting all viewpoints be heard" is just letting people do the stuff I listed above.

He basically says that asking for proof or playing devil's advocate is bad for the community and will get you banned. This may have started as a lifetime ban for one player, but a lot of players (hundreds) are being exiled from their community for it. This isn't just about one youtuber anymore.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 02:17:02


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


eh, I happen to see the moderator's point. If a community values inclusiveness, it needs to work to keep cliques from forming and taking over to the detriment of the larger community. That technique in the last quote of his is dead on what killed our US Politics threads, so more power to him.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 02:28:45


Post by: Luciferian


Wouldn't want anyone asking any of those pesky questions or engaging in "open discussion" now would we? Questions are dangerous, and anyone who asks them can't be trusted!


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 03:40:48


Post by: Peregrine


There is a difference between sincerely asking questions and playing devil's advocate (or just trolling and hiding behind "devil's advocate" or "just asking questions"). The behavior being declared worthy of a ban is not constructive and adds nothing to a discussion.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 04:15:43


Post by: Luciferian


Call me crazy, but when someone tells me right off the bat that asking for proof or clarification is off limits, I brace myself for a con. It's an instinct that has kept me out of joining any cults so far, so I think I'll continue to heed it.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 06:00:45


Post by: Sqorgar


BobtheInquisitor wrote:eh, I happen to see the moderator's point. If a community values inclusiveness, it needs to work to keep cliques from forming and taking over to the detriment of the larger community. That technique in the last quote of his is dead on what killed our US Politics threads, so more power to him.

Moderating is not an easy or fun job (I HATED it), but banning users doesn't result in them simply going away. They come back with a different name or simply just become a serial harasser for your forums and the moderators. More than once, I was woken up in the middle of the night because my forum had been attacked by users I had banned and was filling up with goatse pictures and what have you - these posters were bad before, but banning gave them a purpose.

When you ban a lot of people in one go, they end up going somewhere else - their own new community that exists antithetical to the one they were just banned from. And if one user can be a pain in the ass, even after banning, imagine what it is like having an entire community that exists just to hate yours (and this is happening with the Magic reddit groups, and it is essentially the origin of GamerGate and Sad Puppies).

My guess is that the group handled the moderation of the initial situation poorly, creating ill will and resulting in a few unfair bannings. That likely led to brigading (see previous paragraph), and the moderators had their hands full defending against it. As such, anything which even remotely looks like brigading (like being your first post in that group, you also post on verboten forums) just gets lumped in and banned. This created more ill will and had even more unfair bannings, which led to even more brigading. It's a self perpetuating cycle of resentment.

The second thing is that they are instilling an ideological litmus test, and anything that fails that test (questioning harassment, being skeptical, not thinking things are "toxic" and "gross") gets banned as well. It's a bit like a serial killer using a war to cover up his crimes. When the body count is that high, who is going to look too closely at a few more?

Peregrine wrote:There is a difference between sincerely asking questions and playing devil's advocate (or just trolling and hiding behind "devil's advocate" or "just asking questions"). The behavior being declared worthy of a ban is not constructive and adds nothing to a discussion.

"Where's the proof of harassment?" "Asking questions is trolling!" Well, you've convinced me.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 09:03:58


Post by: PsychoticStorm


If a moderator brags about his ban list... that is never a good sign, banning is a final solution.

Now banning for asking for proof as trolling......

Especially since all the things said are subjective.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 12:09:08


Post by: Peregrine


 Sqorgar wrote:
"Where's the proof of harassment?" "Asking questions is trolling!" Well, you've convinced me.


That's a rather dishonest misrepresentation of what I actually said. I explicitly said that there is a difference between legitimate questions and playing dumb with "just asking questions". The problem behavior the moderator is talking about is when trolls toss a grenade into a forum and then try to hide behind "I was just asking a question" when it inevitably starts the conflict they want to see. For example, posting "what if everyone who defends Jeremy Hambly enjoys performing sexual acts on sheep", and then whining about how it's "just a question" when people accurately criticize you for it. There is no good-faith effort to find the answer to a genuine question, only an attempt to avoid getting banned for obvious trolling.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Now banning for asking for proof as trolling......


That's not what was suggested. The ban-worthy behavior is tedious and repetitive demands for proof. To quote:

and "well I need you to post proof and citations and do it again separately for me and then again separately for the next guy and then again separately for the next guy while we all nit-pick your exact terminology"

That isn't a good-faith desire to see proof, it's spamming "GIVE ME PROOF" in the hope that people get tired of providing the same answers after the 15th cycle of demanding them and let you "win".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sqorgar wrote:
The moderators of these communities will not exercise constraint when enforcing these vague and nebulous rules - not now that they have the blessing of WotC - and will use it to purge the communities of anyone they ideologically disagree with.


At which point nobody is left to post there, the communities become ghost towns, and alternative communities with a less-strict ban policy become the focus of the hobby. As I said before, this is a self-regulating problem. If you go beyond banning the worst outliers you destroy your own product, and your former customers go elsewhere. It's true for games, and it's especially true for forums/blogs/etc given how easy it is to set up a new online community. If dakka bans 90% of its members most of those people aren't going to leave the hobby, they're just going to move to a different forum and keep going on with business as usual.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 15:47:50


Post by: Sqorgar


 Peregrine wrote:
I explicitly said that there is a difference between legitimate questions and playing dumb with "just asking questions".
And there's a difference between a legitimate answer and deflecting so you don't have to give one.

The problem behavior the moderator is talking about is when trolls toss a grenade into a forum and then try to hide behind "I was just asking a question" when it inevitably starts the conflict they want to see. For example, posting "what if everyone who defends Jeremy Hambly enjoys performing sexual acts on sheep", and then whining about how it's "just a question" when people accurately criticize you for it. There is no good-faith effort to find the answer to a genuine question, only an attempt to avoid getting banned for obvious trolling.

That has got to be the worst example I've ever seen anyone give. Some of the people getting banned were asking for proof of harassment, not insulting anybody. By asking that question, they are implicating that the accuser is being dishonest (or could be), and that's why they got banned.

That's not what was suggested. The ban-worthy behavior is tedious and repetitive demands for proof. To quote:

and "well I need you to post proof and citations and do it again separately for me and then again separately for the next guy and then again separately for the next guy while we all nit-pick your exact terminology"

That isn't a good-faith desire to see proof, it's spamming "GIVE ME PROOF" in the hope that people get tired of providing the same answers after the 15th cycle of demanding them and let you "win".
You write one post in glorious detail, with every shred of evidence you can find, hotlinked and crossreferenced, and then when anybody asks for proof and citations, you link to that post. Sticky it. Of course, you have to be honest when you write it. I've seen sticky posts which literally say "If you're here to tell us we are wrong, overreacting, or to dismiss our opinions, then please don't bother." - that's an actual quote. I'm not paraphrasing.

The problem is, they weren't honest. I've seen the things they considered proof and it was circumstantial and unprovable, and even then, it was still nothing worthy of a lifetime ban from Magic. But in their heads, that was all the proof anyone should ever need. So when someone goes, "Uh, guys. That's not evidence.", he gets banned - in their heads, the proof is sufficient and if he is doubting it, he must be trolling. They never once, themselves, questioned the motivations or veracity of the cosplayer's claims.

At which point nobody is left to post there, the communities become ghost towns, and alternative communities with a less-strict ban policy become the focus of the hobby. As I said before, this is a self-regulating problem. If you go beyond banning the worst outliers you destroy your own product, and your former customers go elsewhere. It's true for games, and it's especially true for forums/blogs/etc given how easy it is to set up a new online community. If dakka bans 90% of its members most of those people aren't going to leave the hobby, they're just going to move to a different forum and keep going on with business as usual.

And that's exactly what happened to the video game forum NeoGAF. It used to be the biggest video game forum by a wide margin - one of the biggest online communities in the world, actually. A few years ago, they got some real nutjobs as mods who started banning people by the THOUSANDS over ideological grounds (and usually really petty stuff). NeoGAF started shrinking, many of their banned users went and joined other anti-NeoGAF communities (The Bore, NeoF*G, the GamerGate community), and their Alexa ranking dropped like a rock. After the site owner was accused of sexual harassment, all the nutjob mods and the nutjob posters (the only ones left not banned) fled en masse and started ResetEra. The last couple days of that exodus involved a bunch of brigading, where people filled the forum with gay porn and spam. NeoGAF is a ghost town now. It went from thousands of post an hour to dozens.

It has happened before and it is happening right now in Magic - largely with the blessing and support of WotC. Demanding ideological purity will end up destroying the community and ultimately the game, but it doesn't mean they won't do it anyway. I've seen it real time, and it's why I get worried every time I see a boob armor thread on Dakka.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 16:00:14


Post by: Galas


 Sqorgar wrote:


At which point nobody is left to post there, the communities become ghost towns, and alternative communities with a less-strict ban policy become the focus of the hobby. As I said before, this is a self-regulating problem. If you go beyond banning the worst outliers you destroy your own product, and your former customers go elsewhere. It's true for games, and it's especially true for forums/blogs/etc given how easy it is to set up a new online community. If dakka bans 90% of its members most of those people aren't going to leave the hobby, they're just going to move to a different forum and keep going on with business as usual.

And that's exactly what happened to the video game forum NeoGAF. It used to be the biggest video game forum by a wide margin - one of the biggest online communities in the world, actually. A few years ago, they got some real nutjobs as mods who started banning people by the THOUSANDS over ideological grounds (and usually really petty stuff). NeoGAF started shrinking, many of their banned users went and joined other anti-NeoGAF communities (The Bore, NeoF*G, the GamerGate community), and their Alexa ranking dropped like a rock. After the site owner was accused of sexual harassment, all the nutjob mods and the nutjob posters (the only ones left not banned) fled en masse and started ResetEra. The last couple days of that exodus involved a bunch of brigading, where people filled the forum with gay porn and spam. NeoGAF is a ghost town now. It went from thousands of post an hour to dozens.

It has happened before and it is happening right now in Magic - largely with the blessing and support of WotC. Demanding ideological purity will end up destroying the community and ultimately the game, but it doesn't mean they won't do it anyway. I've seen it real time, and it's why I get worried every time I see a boob armor thread on Dakka.


I'll quote myself:

 Galas wrote:
Companies don't invade peoples privates lifes and morally judges them based on their ideology. At least, sucesfull ones don't.


This is a free market of luxury products. WoTC are free to do what they want. People is free to give them feedback. WoTC is free to ignore that feedback and bann people that give that kind of feedback. In some years, we'll know if that was a good move.
Of course I have no horse on this race so I can understand people that his emotional about this issue. Blizzard pushed me away from World of Warcraft after butchering the lore (I know, very different from "ideological" purge, but whatever). I was SO invested in that game and universe. After that I have learn to not become "fan" of anything. I enjoy products as long as they appeal to me. Companies don't deserve to be emotionally invested in them and their products. Thats a life of suffering.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 16:38:52


Post by: Sqorgar


 Galas wrote:
I'll quote myself:

 Galas wrote:
Companies don't invade peoples privates lifes and morally judges them based on their ideology. At least, sucesfull ones don't.

?

That image was taken from the /r/freemagic group. I didn't underline anything personally.

This is a free market of luxury products. WoTC are free to do what they want. People is free to give them feedback. WoTC is free to ignore that feedback and bann people that give that kind of feedback. In some years, we'll know if that was a good move.
You have an interesting definition of "free" if you think being banned for giving feedback qualifies.

Of course I have no horse on this race so I can understand people that his emotional about this issue. Blizzard pushed me away from World of Warcraft after butchering the lore (I know, very different from "ideological" purge, but whatever). I was SO invested in that game and universe. After that I have learn to not become "fan" of anything. I enjoy products as long as they appeal to me. Companies don't deserve to be emotionally invested in them and their products. Thats a life of suffering.
It's not the product itself which is suffering. People are getting kicked out of their communities for asking reasonable questions. WotC is working with gaming stores to pretty much ensure that they will get kicked out of their gaming stores too. This isn't about the game. This is about their friends, the people they play with, the hobby that they love. They are getting excluding from the very environment that currently defines part of their personality and character, with no hope of appeal. In many of these geeky hobbies, there's a lot of overlap. Do you think that getting publicly banned from playing Magic will resort in you being able to easily switch to playing Legend of the 5 Rings instead? That community won't accept you either.

A counterpoint would be Marvel, which simply started making terrible products. They didn't start banning people from attending Comic Con. People were more than happy to leave Marvel. They could still go to comic book stores and still chat with their friends about different comics. The product sucking doesn't start branding people with a scarlet M that will follow them to new hobbies.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 16:57:41


Post by: Galas


 Sqorgar wrote:


This is a free market of luxury products. WoTC are free to do what they want. People is free to give them feedback. WoTC is free to ignore that feedback and bann people that give that kind of feedback. In some years, we'll know if that was a good move.
You have an interesting definition of "free" if you think being banned for giving feedback qualifies.



I believe companies are free to negate to have relations to anyone they want for whatever motive they want. Even for sexist, racist and/or reasons related to sexuality. Society will make the business more open to customers success, so is a natural evolution towards inclusivity.

Obviously, as I have said first, I don't believe in discriminating people for ideological reasons, but that doesn't mean I'm opposed for other people, groups or companies to have that right of free of association.
I agree with you, marginalizing people for their ideas is a dick move, but even if I think is a bad thing to do, I believe they should be free to do it.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 18:01:08


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


So they state that MTG was created by members of the LGBT crowd and that they don't want the "Pepe crowd", I.e. the most obnoxious, toxic trolls in a movement of hate towards minorities including those who invented the game itself and their loved ones? You really consider the Pepe crowd to be an ideological movement?

You call that an ideological purge??

It's preventing a hostile work environment.

You are literally saying that MTg wanting to ban donkey-caves who are proud to be donkey-caves is an ideological movement.

It would be like telling a business owned by black people that refusing to serve the Klan is an ideological purge.

Do you think MtG should allow Klan members to post freely on their servers? If not, how do you differentiate between the Klan and the Pepe crowd?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 18:30:51


Post by: Sqorgar


 Galas wrote:
I believe companies are free to negate to have relations to anyone they want for whatever motive they want. Even for sexist, racist and/or reasons related to sexuality. Society will make the business more open to customers success, so is a natural evolution towards inclusivity.

Obviously, as I have said first, I don't believe in discriminating people for ideological reasons, but that doesn't mean I'm opposed for other people, groups or companies to have that right of free of association.
I agree with you, marginalizing people for their ideas is a dick move, but even if I think is a bad thing to do, I believe they should be free to do it.

WotC sells their product to a distributor. The distributor sells the product to a comic book store. The comic book store sells the product to a customer. Does Wizards of the Coast have the right to tell the comic book store who they can sell Magic cards to? Can WotC dictate what sort of players a comic book shop allows to play Magic in their store? Maybe create little signs that they intend to hang in the shop about who is welcome there?

WotC has a Magic tournament. A Magic tournament player creates a youtube video about how he is opposed to the destruction of Civil War monuments. Does Wizards of the Coast have the right to ban this player from tournaments because of an opinion he expressed outside of the tournament, that is unrelated to any product that Wizards sells? Can they ban him from a digital version of the game that he already owns and has invested thousands of dollars into, despite him not having violated any terms of service or code of conduct? To justify their banning, does Wizards have the right to go through this player's youtube and twitter history to find additional material they object to?

Whether you think Wizards has the right do any of these things, I think you'll agree that they are overstepping that right in this case and setting a particularly dangerous precedent if other companies would follow. What if someone posted an opinion about Civil War monuments and was suddenly banned from accessing his entire Steam library? Or had their cell phone service disconnected? Or had their kid's private school expel his child? Or had a restaurant decide to not serve him? Or had a doctor refuse to treat him? Where do you think a person's right to free speech is trumped by a corporation's right to choose who they do business with?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 18:42:44


Post by: Luciferian


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So they state that MTG was created by members of the LGBT crowd and that they don't want the "Pepe crowd", I.e. the most obnoxious, toxic trolls in a movement of hate towards minorities including those who invented the game itself and their loved ones? You really consider the Pepe crowd to be an ideological movement?

You call that an ideological purge??

It's preventing a hostile work environment.

You are literally saying that MTg wanting to ban donkey-caves who are proud to be donkey-caves is an ideological movement.

It would be like telling a business owned by black people that refusing to serve the Klan is an ideological purge.

Do you think MtG should allow Klan members to post freely on their servers? If not, how do you differentiate between the Klan and the Pepe crowd?


It sounds good, until you realize that they can just call someone a Pepe troll and cast them out even when that's not true. And if anyone says, "wait a second, I know you told me that person was bad, but how do you know? What did you base your decision on?" then they label THAT person a troll and get rid of them as well. That's not how an open, inclusive community works, it's how a cult works.

People like this will hide behind moral authority and say that what they want to do is help. Really what they do is use that moral authority to impose control and to instantly tar the name of anyone who disagrees with the way they're running things. They say they only want to get rid of bigots and trolls, but the language they've used basically states as plain fact that doing anything other than unquestioningly accepting whatever they say makes you a bigot and a troll. What they do, they do in bad faith. Again. that's not how you create a safe and welcoming environment, that's how you create an environment of paranoid, repressed informants. I really do believe that you will find the same psychological principles of control and authority at work in religious fanatics and cults.

A reputable organization doesn't come right out and say that asking questions or seeking proof is grounds to be labeled a non-person. Someone with true moral authority will embrace transparency, honesty and clarity, because those are the things that are necessary to create a safe and welcoming environment. From what I've seen, people who do otherwise do it because they have something to hide, or they know that their actions and ideas are indefensible so they can't suffer having them questioned. Couple that with the fact that a vast majority of these people are straight white males using nebulous threats against women and minorities as a pretext for social control, and alarm bells should be going off.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 18:47:42


Post by: reds8n



but banning users doesn't result in them simply going away. They come back with a different name or simply just become a serial harasser for your forums and the moderators. More than once, I was woken up in the middle of the night because my forum had been attacked by users I had banned and was filling up with goatse pictures and what have you - these posters were bad before, but banning gave them a purpose.


I can assure you there are ways to make bans work.



Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 18:50:41


Post by: Sqorgar


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Do you think MtG should allow Klan members to post freely on their servers? If not, how do you differentiate between the Klan and the Pepe crowd?
It would go off topic to address the seething contempt displayed in this post, but to answer your question: if they didn't violate any rules, then I think they should be allowed to post freely on their servers - and the difference between the KKK and the Pepe crowd is that the KKK employs violence, threats, and murder towards their ends, while the Pepe crowd employs a cartoon frog. This isn't the first time in this thread that someone has compared their ideological opposites to the KKK or Nazis. Do you really believe that?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 18:52:00


Post by: Galas


 Sqorgar wrote:
 Galas wrote:
I believe companies are free to negate to have relations to anyone they want for whatever motive they want. Even for sexist, racist and/or reasons related to sexuality. Society will make the business more open to customers success, so is a natural evolution towards inclusivity.

Obviously, as I have said first, I don't believe in discriminating people for ideological reasons, but that doesn't mean I'm opposed for other people, groups or companies to have that right of free of association.
I agree with you, marginalizing people for their ideas is a dick move, but even if I think is a bad thing to do, I believe they should be free to do it.

WotC sells their product to a distributor. The distributor sells the product to a comic book store. The comic book store sells the product to a customer. Does Wizards of the Coast have the right to tell the comic book store who they can sell Magic cards to? Can WotC dictate what sort of players a comic book shop allows to play Magic in their store? Maybe create little signs that they intend to hang in the shop about who is welcome there?

WotC has a Magic tournament. A Magic tournament player creates a youtube video about how he is opposed to the destruction of Civil War monuments. Does Wizards of the Coast have the right to ban this player from tournaments because of an opinion he expressed outside of the tournament, that is unrelated to any product that Wizards sells? Can they ban him from a digital version of the game that he already owns and has invested thousands of dollars into, despite him not having violated any terms of service or code of conduct? To justify their banning, does Wizards have the right to go through this player's youtube and twitter history to find additional material they object to?

Whether you think Wizards has the right do any of these things, I think you'll agree that they are overstepping that right in this case and setting a particularly dangerous precedent if other companies would follow. What if someone posted an opinion about Civil War monuments and was suddenly banned from accessing his entire Steam library? Or had their cell phone service disconnected? Or had their kid's private school expel his child? Or had a restaurant decide to not serve him? Or had a doctor refuse to treat him? Where do you think a person's right to free speech is trumped by a corporation's right to choose who they do business with?


I agree that WoTC should give him a compensation for banning him from the digital version of the game if he hasn't broken any kind rule of that game service.
I disagree with your last pharagraph. The right to free speech is the right to say whatever you want without the goverment punishing you. But theres too the freedom of association, and people is free to don't want to associate with people they disagree with for whatever reason they may have.
In all of your examples, I'll say yes, those companies have rights to negate services to whatever they want for whatever reason they want. In examples like the Steam or the School one I'll say too that the user has a right for compensation if those business broke their own terms of service, and the user has paid in advance for services that have been denied to him.
The doctor example one is a tricky one. I believe live or die jobs like those (Policemen, Firemen, etc...) should be exempt from the right of free asociation. They should to their job without any kind of personal bias if they are public. If they are private? Is a different matter.

Now, I'll add, that even if I believe in those rights, I choose to not spent my time in echo-chambers. Theres a reason Dakkadakka is the forum where I'm more active. But if people want to stay in echo-chambers, more power to them.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 18:52:27


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Luciferian wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So they state that MTG was created by members of the LGBT crowd and that they don't want the "Pepe crowd", I.e. the most obnoxious, toxic trolls in a movement of hate towards minorities including those who invented the game itself and their loved ones? You really consider the Pepe crowd to be an ideological movement?

You call that an ideological purge??

It's preventing a hostile work environment.

You are literally saying that MTg wanting to ban donkey-caves who are proud to be donkey-caves is an ideological movement.

It would be like telling a business owned by black people that refusing to serve the Klan is an ideological purge.

Do you think MtG should allow Klan members to post freely on their servers? If not, how do you differentiate between the Klan and the Pepe crowd?


It sounds good, until you realize that they can just call someone a Pepe troll and cast them out even when that's not true. And if anyone says, "wait a second, I know you told me that person was bad, but how do you know? What did you base your decision on?" then they label THAT person a troll and get rid of them as well. That's not how an open, inclusive community works, it's how a cult works.

People like this will hide behind moral authority and say that what they want to do is help. Really what they do is use that moral authority to impose control and to instantly tar the name of anyone who disagrees with the way they're running things. They say they only want to get rid of bigots and trolls, but the language they've used basically states as plain fact that doing anything other than unquestioningly accepting whatever they say makes you a bigot and a troll. What they do, they do in bad faith. Again. that's not how you create a safe and welcoming environment, that's how you create an environment of paranoid, repressed informants. I really do believe that you will find the same psychological principles of control and authority at work in religious fanatics and cults.

A reputable organization doesn't come right out and say that asking questions or seeking proof is grounds to be labeled a non-person. Someone with true moral authority will embrace transparency, honesty and clarity, because those are the things that are necessary to create a safe and welcoming environment. From what I've seen, people who do otherwise do it because they have something to hide, or they know that their actions and ideas are indefensible so they can't suffer having them questioned. Couple that with the fact that a vast majority of these people are straight white males using nebulous threats against women and minorities as a pretext for social control, and alarm bells should be going off.


You have some good points, but if Magic does behave that way they soon have no customers. However, you also have to consider that maybe they do have reason to ban the people they've banned, and those people, being trolls, are stirring up drama. There is a middle ground here, and it probably isn't the slippery slope you think it is.

Also, stop with the asking questions straw man. We both know that's not what they were talking about. They perfectly described the "just asking questions" strategy, a specific troll tactic.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 19:08:34


Post by: Luciferian


Sorry, but that's a bit too convenient.

"Why are you asking so many questions? Are you a non-believer trying to stir up doubt in our faith?"

They are literally setting up a way for anyone who questions them to be branded as a heretic.

"Where is the proof for this specific claim you've made?"

"It's stickied at the top, this is a warning not to ask for more proof."

"I've seen that and it doesn't actually prove anything, don't you have any more information?"

"We have spoken. 'Just asking questions' is a strategy that bigots and trolls use. WITCH! WE'VE GOT A WITCH OVER HERE!"

It's just not how any decent community or organization is run.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 19:18:24


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


And if you don't have any filter against Just Asking Questions, you get Dakka US politics threads.

It's just not how any decent community or organization is run.




I assure you there is a middle ground between anarchy and tyranny.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 19:30:32


Post by: Luciferian


Sure there's a middle ground. Here on Dakka, there are entire subjects which are subject to censorship. No debate, no discussion.

BUT, the difference is, that you can go over to the Nuts & Bolts forum and ASK the mods about their thought process, and they will patiently explain it to you in detail. They may not change the policy, but they're at least transparent and open about it, and they don't simply ban anyone who brings it up.

There's this weird way to deal with questions: answer them. It should be easy if you have the slightest bit of confidence behind your principles and actions; confidence which can be bolstered by real evidence, experience, and a transparent record of behavior.

If it's easier to simply shut someone up than it is to answer their questions, it's pretty likely that you don't have a way to answer their questions without harming your own position.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 20:02:18


Post by: Turnip Jedi


I'm not entirely sure WoTC going all Dolores Umbridge is really going to take off in many FLGS games,yes MTG is the lifeblood for many of these stores but given the WoTC's benign neglect of those stores they aren't going to be sticking up Edicts of Inanities and damaging their business' for someone else's Crusade, obviously bad behaviour needs to dealt with but that's the business' owners call.

I was baffled by the Pepe thing, I wasn't sure how the chicken bird pet from Warcraft had got hi-jacked without Blizzard taking action, goggle tells me its not the same Pepe


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 20:57:03


Post by: Spinner


I don't think saying 'we don't want bullies in our community' really equates your behavior with someone who literally tortures a teenage boy for trying to tell people that a magical racist terrorist has come back to life.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 21:01:22


Post by: Sqorgar


 Turnip Jedi wrote:
I'm not entirely sure WoTC going all Dolores Umbridge is really going to take off in many FLGS games,yes MTG is the lifeblood for many of these stores but given the WoTC's benign neglect of those stores they aren't going to be sticking up Edicts of Inanities and damaging their business' for someone else's Crusade, obviously bad behaviour needs to dealt with but that's the business' owners call.
My hope is that the pledge itself is a half assed attempt to placate the community and not the opening salvo in a war for control - but if Wizards wants to push its purity pledge, most comic book stores aren't in a position to fight back.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 0011/12/03 21:09:00


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 Spinner wrote:
I don't think saying 'we don't want bullies in our community' really equates your behavior with someone who literally tortures a teenage boy for trying to tell people that a magical racist terrorist has come back to life.


true at least Tom Riddle was real as opposed the non-existent toxic player tsunami threat we all need saving from...


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 21:18:25


Post by: Luciferian


 Spinner wrote:
I don't think saying 'we don't want bullies in our community' really equates your behavior with someone who literally tortures a teenage boy for trying to tell people that a magical racist terrorist has come back to life.


It sure does when you use "fighting bullies" as a pretext to set up a system of coercive social pressure, with a proscribed system of beliefs which conveniently cast anyone who questions them as a "bully".

Just because they're using nice words that give you the warm and fuzzies doesn't mean they're nice people. That's usually where the whole proof and transparency thing comes in. "Good guys" don't demand that you take their word as truth and threaten you with punitive action when you ask them to ante up. That is, in fact, what bullies do. Even if they do have good intentions, they are creating an entrenched power structure of the type that is prone to abuse because it's inherently authoritarian and opaque. And who is in charge of that power structure? Again, it is almost entirely the exact type of people they themselves have singled out as the most dangerous and over-represented in positions of authority.

They have created an unsafe environment that is vulnerable to abuse of power, which by design silences anyone who speaks against it. Is that what you would do if you wanted to stop things like sexual harassment or provide a safe environment free of bullying?

Also, all of that is abstract. This specific community has already proven beyond a doubt that it has absolutely no problem with bullying, doxing, or making threats, and that they will cover for the bad behavior of some within their own ranks (to include cases of literal sexual harassment and assault) while excommunicating others sight unseen. If you are concerned about bullying and sexual harassment, you should be pretty skeptical of guys like this, even if they're speaking words you want to hear.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 21:37:53


Post by: Galas


But if we don't bann potentiall bullies from our forums and FLGS, how will we win the war agaisn't Eastasia?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 21:59:06


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 Galas wrote:
But if we don't bann potentiall bullies from our forums and FLGS, how will we win the war agaisn't Eastasia?


but Winston told me we was at war with Eurasia


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 22:07:32


Post by: Sqorgar


Breitbart picked up the story. This is going to make the situation blow up, I think. Now, Wizards will be standing firm against the Alt-Right, and everybody they ban will be labeled as white supremacists.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 22:21:46


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 Sqorgar wrote:
Breitbart picked up the story. This is going to make the situation blow up, I think. Now, Wizards will be standing firm against the Alt-Right, and everybody they ban will be labeled as white supremacists.


White ? I think you'll find the main problem is them counterspelling Blue supremacists devote as they are to unfun...


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 22:22:13


Post by: Luciferian


And make no mistake, they will now most certainly find themselves under siege from people who actually are members of the alt-right or white supremacists. They've made themselves a target.

So, have they been effective at keeping their community safe from bullies and alt-right trolls? Obviously not. They've turned it into a front for a culture war.

Is this an easier way to deal with things than by being transparent and accountable? Would their actual political enemies have an argument against them and be able to drum up that kind of support if they were demonstrably effective at what they claim their goal is? If they were, at this point they could simply point to their documented record of behavior and say, "Go ahead, take you best shot. Everything we've done has been honest and it's all here in black and white, because that's how we operate." Problem solved. Alt-right silenced.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 22:22:18


Post by: Galas


Omg, if this becomes other "gate" I'm out. I'll let the vultures fest in the corpse of the "debate" they will create for the sweet sweet dolar dolaridos.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 22:30:41


Post by: Luciferian


Too late, it's already done.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 22:36:01


Post by: Galas


It has been fun boys! I avoided Gamergate (I was so good at that, that I didn't even known it happened until months after it has ended) and I'll do the same here.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 22:40:24


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 Luciferian wrote:
Too late, it's already done.


but on the upside the article got them 8 million players back


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 22:43:27


Post by: Luciferian


 Galas wrote:
It has been fun boys! I avoided Gamergate (I was so good at that, that I didn't even known it happened until months after it has ended) and I'll do the same here.


Probably the wiser path to take. I've pretty much said my peace as well, and now unfortunately for questions of my own impartiality outlets like Breitbart will probably make nearly the exact same arguments. So not much point in going on for me, either.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 23:02:32


Post by: PsychoticStorm


I don't like politics been involved, I understand politics and ideology can related, but politics means you have to accept an ideological "package deal" and you may disagree on many of them.

Also if a subject such as this becomes political, it will create the same issue Gamergate had, it draws a line and people are then assigned to the two major political opponents even if this is completely false.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 23:08:18


Post by: Luciferian


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I don't like politics been involved, I understand politics and ideology can related, but politics means you have to accept an ideological "package deal" and you may disagree on many of them.

Also if a subject such as this becomes political, it will create the same issue Gamergate had, it draws a line and people are then assigned to the two major political opponents even if this is completely false.


Which is exactly what culture warriors want on both sides. Their entire game plan is to foster situations like this and then chase everyone out of the middle onto one side or the other. Enemies are worth just as much as allies in their game because they give you a fight and a purpose. feth the fringes!


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 23:09:40


Post by: Turnip Jedi


Gamergate could have all been avoided if Ms Quinn had just put lootboxes in her games...fact

(think i might have over-stepped here, have asked for deleting )


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/20 23:23:12


Post by: PsychoticStorm


The thing I hate most is that both extremes absorb the unaligned, everyone was claimed from the two sides regardless of were they really stood and this is how gamergate is remembered, not as a mutiaspect event were many diverse things got mixed in, but as an US vs THEM story.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/21 00:30:49


Post by: Sqorgar


I feel like whatever chance there was for middle ground got erased the moment Breitbart got involved. I think we all know where it is heading now, and at this point, I don't think even Wizards can change that.

I'm not really a Magic player, but there's enough overlap with the miniatures community (at least as far as gaming spaces go - where I play Warmachine is primarily a Magic store) that I'm concerned that the oncoming culture war will suck us into it as well. I know BoLS and SpikeyBits are very eager. Lots of clicks in it. It's basically my nightmare scenario and I think the clock ticked one minute closer to doomsday.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/21 06:24:16


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


This kind of thing is happening in every facet of public life, from Starbucks cups to...Magic. Sooner or later people will just tune it out. Only the really invested will keep on it.

At least, I hope.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/21 07:34:14


Post by: Crazyterran


The guy chose to represent the mtg brand when he decided he was going to make a living making youtube content about their products. Anything he says and does, even unrelated to MTG and WotC, could reflect upon them.

The situation devolved to the point where WotC had to pick between their more positive youtube/content creators and someone who was universally reviled by the rest of the content creating community. So that they banned him because of this situation is undoubtedly true, it was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back, since he undoubtedly had some black marks beside his name before.

There might of been some turning it around if Hambly hadnt turned it into a huge internet gak show. His actions no doubt have only reinforced their decision.

This guy isnt some random bloke who happens to play magic and make controversial comments about cosplayers and their supporters (not even mentioning the hypocrisy of someone gaking on people supporting other peoples patreons when he is on patreon being supported). This is a guy that makes content for MTG, whom has also been making controversial statements for years, made verbal attacks against a fellow content creators income stream, and then kicked over the can and is blaming everyone but himself when the consequences come home.

He decided to push the limits of what WotC could put up with when he is making his living off their content. Im pretty sure
Blizzard would deal with any of the twitch streamers for Hearthstone that made a youtube video gaking on people who support female streamers.

Hell, Wizards still cant technically stop him from continuing to make lore videos or rating cards. Though I doubt anyone would bother with it anymore since he has been shown to have a huge chip on his shoulder.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/21 10:15:03


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Em, no, he chose to make a business reporting and commenting on MtG and Wotc, at no point to my knowledge he signed a contract with Wotc to represent them.

So no he is not representing them, the same way article writers do not represent the subject they write for.

MtG Judges, they represent Wotc, Pro Players? they represent Wotc, their CEO posting an article about enforcing a "safe Space" sign on businesses they do not own? they represent Wotc.

Maybe Wotc should do something about people representing them and not people who do not.

I disagree with not mentioning the Hypocrisy of a patreon calling another patreon, I called it from the start and I will keep calling it, it is a matter of principle.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/21 13:43:03


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Em, no, he chose to make a business reporting and commenting on MtG and Wotc, at no point to my knowledge he signed a contract with Wotc to represent them.


He doesn't contractually represent him, but he is (apparently) a prominent part of the community and someone that people would see if they go looking for information about MTG. WOTC can not directly control his content, like they could with a paid employee, but they have every right to say "hey, this isn't part of our community, ignore him".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The thing I hate most is that both extremes absorb the unaligned, everyone was claimed from the two sides regardless of were they really stood and this is how gamergate is remembered, not as a mutiaspect event were many diverse things got mixed in, but as an US vs THEM story.


Gamergate is remembered as US vs. THEM because that's how it was started, right from day one. It was started by people as part of their broader anti-SJW crusade, any legitimate issues that happened to get added in at some point were a minor and coincidental part of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sqorgar wrote:
WotC sells their product to a distributor. The distributor sells the product to a comic book store. The comic book store sells the product to a customer. Does Wizards of the Coast have the right to tell the comic book store who they can sell Magic cards to? Can WotC dictate what sort of players a comic book shop allows to play Magic in their store? Maybe create little signs that they intend to hang in the shop about who is welcome there?


Legally, yes, they have the right to do so. They can put sales restrictions in the agreement you sign at every step of the distribution chain (much like companies already do stuff like enforcing a maximum discount policy), and if you violate the agreement they can refuse to allow you to buy more of their product. They can't keep you from getting inventory elsewhere, but they aren't required to help you get it at a price that allows you to sell at MSRP or below and still make a profit.

In practical terms, this is not what WOTC is doing, or even threatening to do. WOTC is not stopping any store from selling to particular people, allowing them into their stores, or even allowing them into their non-sanctioned tournaments. Stores are free to ignore WOTC's policies/ban lists/etc and run their own non-sanctioned events under whatever rules they want, with whatever players they want. WOTC just doesn't have an obligation to sanction the event and send the TO prizes to give away. If you want the prizes and WOTC recognition and all that you get to follow WOTC's rules.

Does Wizards of the Coast have the right to ban this player from tournaments because of an opinion he expressed outside of the tournament, that is unrelated to any product that Wizards sells?


Yep. They can also ban someone because they're a fan of a particular sports team, and the CEO of Hasbro is a fan of their rival.

Can they ban him from a digital version of the game that he already owns and has invested thousands of dollars into, despite him not having violated any terms of service or code of conduct?


Yep. The EULA allows them broad powers to ban people. At best he could make a case for a prorated refund of any subscription payments that had already been made, but the fact that he was an idiot and spent thousands of dollars on illegal "sales" of video game character attributes that neither he nor the seller own is not WOTC's problem.

To justify their banning, does Wizards have the right to go through this player's youtube and twitter history to find additional material they object to?


Yep. Though I should point out that they have the right to do so, but not the obligation to do so. They can just ban him because they feel like it, without bothering to find any additional material to object to.

What if someone posted an opinion about Civil War monuments and was suddenly banned from accessing his entire Steam library?


That person would have a legitimate case against EULA abuse, since Steam games are actually property that you buy and can only be denied because of an abusive EULA saying essentially "we grant ourselves immunity to the law, and can do whatever we want". Though this has nothing to do with Steam's reason for the ban, pretty much any reason for banning would not be legitimate.

Or had their cell phone service disconnected? Or had their kid's private school expel his child? Or had a restaurant decide to not serve him? Or had a doctor refuse to treat him? Where do you think a person's right to free speech is trumped by a corporation's right to choose who they do business with?


The answer is everywhere. Corporations have the right to choose who they do business with, and your right to free speech does not mean that people are obligated to like you and do business with you no matter what you say.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/21 19:42:39


Post by: Cyvash


This isn't going to mean too much, just tossing my opinion on him here, as a former subscriber. I started actively following him around last summer when I got back into mtg for a time. On one side I find the whole ban from mtgo funny ironic because he made a couple videos stating how he was giving up on the program and how no one should spend the amount he did on it. And I know people are allowed to change their mind.free will and all.

Also from what I recall around that time the community was already trying to excommunicated him from the last year because of the background drama that occurred from a Facebook group that the big content creator names where tied to and they all triedied to put it behind them. He even apologized and said he would stop doing these kinds of stunts. He did on his main channel that's when he created the quatering.

And one last note that should be brought up here at least he did solicit quite a sum of money for a failed app, gamefinder.

Side note had to finish this after I accidentally pressed the post option.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/30 14:38:01


Post by: cuda1179


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW__i06XtAQ&t=913s

While I generally find Jeremy Hambly to be a troll, in this case it looks like he brings up a decent point. Why doesn't WotC do background checks on their judges?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/30 14:45:44


Post by: Lord Damocles


 cuda1179 wrote:
Why doesn't WotC do background checks on their judges?

Child protection or Pepe memes - you have to prioritize!



Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 0002/12/30 15:15:35


Post by: Peregrine


 cuda1179 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW__i06XtAQ&t=913s

While I generally find Jeremy Hambly to be a troll, in this case it looks like he brings up a decent point. Why doesn't WotC do background checks on their judges?


Which judges are we talking about? The rare few judges that work closely with WOTC at major events, or the countless low-level judges who took a basic test to be able to run their local 4-person FNM? It's important to remember that the majority of MTG judges are not WOTC employees, and WOTC only endorses their rules knowledge. Things like background checks would be the responsibility of their actual employer, which is usually whoever is hosting the event.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 0001/02/04 04:14:53


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 Peregrine wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW__i06XtAQ&t=913s

While I generally find Jeremy Hambly to be a troll, in this case it looks like he brings up a decent point. Why doesn't WotC do background checks on their judges?


Which judges are we talking about? The rare few judges that work closely with WOTC at major events, or the countless low-level judges who took a basic test to be able to run their local 4-person FNM? It's important to remember that the majority of MTG judges are not WOTC employees, and WOTC only endorses their rules knowledge. Things like background checks would be the responsibility of their actual employer, which is usually whoever is hosting the event.


It's a bit of a sticky mess, it's a truly horrid thing to have to consider, but Peregrine makes a fair point they aren't WoTC employees (is that case regarding that still pending) so really its down to the event holder to screen employees or volunteers per local laws, although WoTC should take firm action for any reported and verified convictions (yes they are free to apply their nebulous 'rules' as they wish but they really need to appear to act in these cases)


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/30 16:36:34


Post by: Overread


See WoTC is a big company with many years behind it, I can't imagine that they'd ignore important legislation like that and leave themselves open to not just criticism but also legal action. It makes me think that there is more to this than meets the eye and that it might well be as said just above; that this is organisers who are not employed by WoTC and are likely only organisers in that they buy tournament kits and perhaps have a bit of paper that proves they know how to play the game.


It should be something done and checked at the local level by those running the tournament.


However it depends how much of an employee those organisers are and how much involvement WoTC has with them. The legalities might actually swing round to say that WoTC has enough involvement to be liable or at least should be enforcing checks as best practice. However it might be a tricky point when one considers the scale and the potential costs involved.


Edit - also are there laws on who should pay for police checks? I seem to have some dim recollection that in the UK the payment has to be by the employer rather than the employee though I can't be certain. Ergo if that is the case in the USA then Wizards can't just offset the cost into a sign-up fee


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/30 17:40:24


Post by: PsychoticStorm


I don't know the situation seems to get messier and messier, the last videos and articles made by many give an interesting landscape.

I think the last article written, though big and kinda shocking on what the writer digged up for everybody makes an interesting point, Christine was made the face of Wotc, she promoted MtG more than most and Wotc in reality they did not pay her for using her image or made her en employee.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2017/12/30 20:52:37


Post by: cuda1179


I stopped playing Magic about 15 years ago (heroclix as well) when my free time started getting eaten up by real-world (adult) demands. I only learned of this fiasco a week ago when it popped up in my suggested videos on youtube.

Since that time I've been trying to dig hard into the backstory and reasoning of both sides. Since I'd never heard of anyone before, and been out of the hobby for a long time, I view myself as a relative impartial outsider.

Jeremy Hambly is a minor troll and donkey cave. He did say some nasty stuff, and I would have supported a non-permanent ban for a first time offense on this matter.

WotC have every right to ban anyone for any reason (outside of their race, religion, gender, etc.) Regardless of what anyone, myself included, thinks about it, they have this right.

Here are the problems I have with the matter:

I feel WotC came down pretty heavy-handed. While this is their right, it just looks a little bad to many people. I doubt this would have even come on the radar if it was a 6-month ban as a warning.

I applaud any company that has a well-defined non harassment policy if it is: 1. Clear and Concise 2. Implemented broadly and equally to everyone This is arguably not the case, as it has been proven that some organized harassment isn't being punished.

I also have a problem with WotC calling out all Pepe memes or Kekestan as hate speech. I mean, yeah, I'd agree with it if it was some kind of racist, harassment, etc. But using Pepe as tongue-in-cheek snarkiness shouldn't be a bannable offense. I view Pepe as less offensive than ANTIFA, and WotC don't seem interested the that at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW__i06XtAQ&t=913s

While I generally find Jeremy Hambly to be a troll, in this case it looks like he brings up a decent point. Why doesn't WotC do background checks on their judges?


Which judges are we talking about? The rare few judges that work closely with WOTC at major events, or the countless low-level judges who took a basic test to be able to run their local 4-person FNM? It's important to remember that the majority of MTG judges are not WOTC employees, and WOTC only endorses their rules knowledge. Things like background checks would be the responsibility of their actual employer, which is usually whoever is hosting the event.


Apparently a number of the Judges were Level 3 Judges working the Pro Tour. So, pretty high up. Also, Riki Hayashi, head of the Judge Program has had claims of spousal abuse against him. None of them have been banned by WotC (either online or from events), and WotC apparently knew of some of their transgressions.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/01 02:49:16


Post by: Togusa


Well this whole thing escalated again. Now we've got evidence of dozens of women beaters, child rapers, and general rapists in the Judge and Pro-Tour....

Why exactly can't they do background checks? And why won't WoTC respond?

Also, I'm now fully convinced that Jeremy did nothing wrong. I spent a lot of time looking at his evidence, screen shots, archived videos, listening to his discussions with other users.


Bottom line: They didn't like his opinion, so they banned him.

Now, they're going to have to deal with a consumer revolt over their hidden skeletons.

This whole thing is just so delicious.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/01 03:04:11


Post by: Crazyterran


All of that has nothing to do with him, so people digging all this unrelated stuff up is just going to stiffen WotC back when it comes to him. The fact that he's a raging douchebag isn't going to help the fact.

It's literally just a distraction tactic. "Hey, look at these other people who weren't causing problems, who have the same name as these sex offenders! Wizards are clearly the bad people here, not me!"

Wizards doesn't have to reveal any proof of whatever he did to deserve being banned, it could have simply been a large pile of complaints on hand and his latest antics broke the camels back. Hambly hasn't exactly been keeping his hands clean, he has plenty of videos he's deleted, isn't it mentioned earlier in the thread that his abusive stuff was deleted?

They might ask the company that does their pro tour to perform background checks, lest they find someone else. If they aren't paid and aren't employees, they aren't legally required to run background checks.

Wizards might lose a few sales from the neckbeards that are angry he got banned, but I know I personally have bought some more magic cards, and am considering playing in some FNMs/MNMs now that I know they will push a culture that excludes people like Hambly.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/01 04:22:13


Post by: Togusa


 Crazyterran wrote:
All of that has nothing to do with him, so people digging all this unrelated stuff up is just going to stiffen WotC back when it comes to him. The fact that he's a raging douchebag isn't going to help the fact.

It's literally just a distraction tactic. "Hey, look at these other people who weren't causing problems, who have the same name as these sex offenders! Wizards are clearly the bad people here, not me!"

Wizards doesn't have to reveal any proof of whatever he did to deserve being banned, it could have simply been a large pile of complaints on hand and his latest antics broke the camels back. Hambly hasn't exactly been keeping his hands clean, he has plenty of videos he's deleted, isn't it mentioned earlier in the thread that his abusive stuff was deleted?

They might ask the company that does their pro tour to perform background checks, lest they find someone else. If they aren't paid and aren't employees, they aren't legally required to run background checks.

Wizards might lose a few sales from the neckbeards that are angry he got banned, but I know I personally have bought some more magic cards, and am considering playing in some FNMs/MNMs now that I know they will push a culture that excludes people like Hambly.



The fact that you think that "because WoTC isn't paying them" then its not a big deal is frightening. If I am wrong here correct me so that I don't put words in your mouth, but Jesus dude it doesn't matter if he is a gakker or what. It matters that this has been uncovered, and it's real. These people have TONS of evidence and the community so far seems to be ignoring it all.



Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/01 06:45:13


Post by: Crazyterran


 Togusa wrote:
 Crazyterran wrote:
All of that has nothing to do with him, so people digging all this unrelated stuff up is just going to stiffen WotC back when it comes to him. The fact that he's a raging douchebag isn't going to help the fact.

It's literally just a distraction tactic. "Hey, look at these other people who weren't causing problems, who have the same name as these sex offenders! Wizards are clearly the bad people here, not me!"

Wizards doesn't have to reveal any proof of whatever he did to deserve being banned, it could have simply been a large pile of complaints on hand and his latest antics broke the camels back. Hambly hasn't exactly been keeping his hands clean, he has plenty of videos he's deleted, isn't it mentioned earlier in the thread that his abusive stuff was deleted?

They might ask the company that does their pro tour to perform background checks, lest they find someone else. If they aren't paid and aren't employees, they aren't legally required to run background checks.

Wizards might lose a few sales from the neckbeards that are angry he got banned, but I know I personally have bought some more magic cards, and am considering playing in some FNMs/MNMs now that I know they will push a culture that excludes people like Hambly.



The fact that you think that "because WoTC isn't paying them" then its not a big deal is frightening. If I am wrong here correct me so that I don't put words in your mouth, but Jesus dude it doesn't matter if he is a gakker or what. It matters that this has been uncovered, and it's real. These people have TONS of evidence and the community so far seems to be ignoring it all.



It all has nothing to do with him, and he should still be punished.

If these Judges are doing something criminal, hand it to the police. If the Judges have done something criminal in the past, and have paid their dues, perhaps it should be weighted, and WOTC should probably take a look at it. If they are the type of Sex Offender that is likely to re offend, they'd likely be going against their conditions of release if they went to something like a magic tournament, which has a high chance of kids and women being in attendance.

There's also the source/motivation of the work going into finding this evidence poisoning this a bit - what do people who are typically alt right trolls (the people rallying around Hambly) have on these people besides names that happen to match? There are thousands of John Smiths, I can assure you.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/01 11:10:26


Post by: PsychoticStorm


And why should it be the alt right? I have seen all political spectrum use such tactics its not a trademark tactic used only by a narrow political view.

I think the motivation is obvious, first it exposes bias and inconsistency on Wotc banning preferences and paints their decisions as politically driven and creates a scorched earth, he has nothing to lose so might as well drag them and others with him, "To a surrounded enemy you must leave a route to escape" Wotc did not and underestimated how willing he was to fight.

I do not think he puts the information he puts out without research, wrongfully exposing someone would put him at great legal risk and jeopardise his crusade, he claims he has double checked the facts and he probably has, there are probably many John Smiths out there, but not that many who are both from the same area, of the same age, teachers from the same school and play magic.

From what I understand he does not do the research himself, he opened a gmail for people to submit dirt about Wotc and he just exposes what he can verify from the submissions, a clever tactic, through him people who have an axe to grind can grind their axe anonymously and from what I see there is a lot of tension between MtG prominent figures so they also use his case to attack each other.

Brilliant strategy and tactic, he has only to gain from this.

It does not hurt that he has no problem promoting articles that do not paint him in any good colour like this http://nichegamer.com/2017/12/28/magic-manic-hypocrisy/ makes him look unbiased.

And no, Wotc must present the evidence of his banning at least to him and what they presented to him was laughable, for a lifetime ban, especially since there were no previous bans or warnings.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 0007/01/01 12:17:10


Post by: Peregrine


 Togusa wrote:
The fact that you think that "because WoTC isn't paying them" then its not a big deal is frightening.


Why is it frightening? If you send your children to daycare do you personally run a background check on every employee who could possibly interact with them or have access to them, or do you trust that the actual employer will handle all of the background checks? WOTC is not the employer, it's not reasonable to expect them to take on the responsibilities of an employer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
he has nothing to lose so might as well drag them and others with him


Yep, that about sums it up. None of this mattered to him until he needed something to use for revenge against the people he now hates. I don't know why anyone would believe in his sincerity or honesty or even good research here.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/01 12:42:33


Post by: PsychoticStorm


You see here we go in narrative territory, he either:

A He knew, didn't care about all that and now uses it as a revenge.

B He did not know and all these are finding their way to him because he started a campaign to illustrate how biased Wotc decision was and the campaign produced more than he expected, because people use him to put forward issues they have and are afraid to do it themselves or do not have his exposure.

I prefer facts than narrative, if he had reported false accusations there would have been some denial of accusations, or at the very least threat for legal action against him for defamation, so far we have persons mentioned silently been retired form the judges program, tweeter accounts going to private and returning cleaned to public and denial from the judges program and channel fireball to run background checks, I am not familiar to the USA way to do it, but to the bureaucratic hellhole that is my country, to get a paper stating your criminal record is clean, is relatively cheap under 5 EU and is ready within a week.

As for him, he believes he has been wronged, he believes Wotc has double standards, expects that what happened to him should have happened to all that doxed and harassed him and has nothing to lose from the situation.

I believe Wotc should have, on principle, handled everybody the same even if some of the problematic situations were their judges and employees.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/01 13:26:45


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
B He did not know and all these are finding their way to him because he started a campaign to illustrate how biased Wotc decision was and the campaign produced more than he expected, because people use him to put forward issues they have and are afraid to do it themselves or do not have his exposure.


But why does he care about exposing WOTC's flaws? If this was an issue he was genuinely concerned about why didn't he put up that email address earlier and ask for people to give him examples of injustice that he could use his influence to fight? It's just like the gamergate comparison that was made previously: none of the gamergate crowd cared one bit about ethics in game journalism, despite the fact that everyone knew that game journalists were little more than paid marketing staff for the major publishers, until the person committing an ethical offense was someone they disliked for ideological reasons.

if he had reported false accusations there would have been some denial of accusations, or at the very least threat for legal action against him for defamation


Not necessarily. Smart people, when taking legal action, don't handle it through twitter posts or whatever. The last thing you want to do is say something that puts your case in danger. It's quite possible that legal actions are being taken but not being made public right now. Of course it's also possible that the accusations are correct, but "if you were innocent you'd be putting up a better fight" is not credible evidence of anything.

I am not familiar to the USA way to do it, but to the bureaucratic hellhole that is my country, to get a paper stating your criminal record is clean, is relatively cheap under 5 EU and is ready within a week.


It's somewhat more expensive in the US, but the bigger problem is that an individual showing a piece of paper saying "see, I'm clean" is worthless. It's way too easy to falsify a clean result, so anyone who seriously wants a background check done is going to do their own and get the results directly. And doing that is the responsibility of the employer, not a customer of that employer. WOTC is a customer or business associate, not an employer, in the case of judges and therefore would not be expected to handle things like background checks (just like they wouldn't be expected to handle income taxes for the judges, keep track of working conditions/hours, etc). Their actual employer, the store or convention or whoever is running the MTG event, has the responsibility for background checks along with any liability for harm done by their employees as a result of failing to do background checks.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/01 13:34:56


Post by: Overread


One thing that confuses me is if other people had evidence of people of questionable/dangerous background working with children then why didn't they report it to their local police force? At the very least I'd have thought they'd report it to the store organising the event or to Wizards, but if both avenues didn't give a result then the police would likely be required to look into it and, if there was legal reason, take action.

So it surprises me a little that an issue like this would require a figure head to start a campaign against Wizards before it all gets "outed". It makes me question if there isn't something else going on that hasn't been said (on both sides).

In general though any mud slinging action tends to end up doing no side that takes part any favours. Wizards taking a more silent approach makes sense; you don't beat someone engaging in slander via social media by fighting back with social media; you take it to court.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 20072007/01/01 14:11:30


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Overread wrote:
One thing that confuses me is if other people had evidence of people of questionable/dangerous background working with children then why didn't they report it to their local police force? At the very least I'd have thought they'd report it to the store organising the event or to Wizards, but if both avenues didn't give a result then the police would likely be required to look into it and, if there was legal reason, take action.

So it surprises me a little that an issue like this would require a figure head to start a campaign against Wizards before it all gets "outed". It makes me question if there isn't something else going on that hasn't been said (on both sides).

In general though any mud slinging action tends to end up doing no side that takes part any favours. Wizards taking a more silent approach makes sense; you don't beat someone engaging in slander via social media by fighting back with social media; you take it to court.
They might take it to the cops as well as wanting it to be slightly more public knowledge to supposedly show hypocrisy in them banning whatsesname for whatever he did (if you can't tell I haven't really been following the story closely ) while simultaneously not actually paying attention to actual bad stuff done by other people involved in events.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/01 15:02:43


Post by: PsychoticStorm


I think a statement saying "the recent accusations against me are false" is not damaging in any way or form, but making your tweeter accounts private and when they are again public two days after all the tweets shown on the article concerning you are deleted, is a bit admitting.

A company can get background checks? on an employee? now that would be illegal here, no company has the right to invade private sensitive information of people, they can ask and do, to submit a record that you are all clean, but the individual must ask it for himself or herself.

We can theorise about motivations, my theory is Unsleeved Media started it because he felt outrage by what he perceived injustice against him (I do not fault him there, many did to him worse than he ever did in the days when the investigation was announced and Wotc should have banned/ terminated them all if they stayed up to their alleged principles) and hit a goldmine not necessarily directed towards the direction he was intending, but hey.

I can theorise about people not taking action, I am assuming here, bringing something to the police means your name is there for the accusation, likewise for store owner, Wotc, the Judges program, ectr ectr, who can be friends with the accused person, that can be a big problem especially if you need to interact with these people organisations again, moere so if they could be employees of Wotc (one accusation in particular seemed quite internal) I can assume that having Unsleeved willing to be the one to do it, makes it easier to do what they wanted to do through him, nothing I have not seen before in life.

Again we are assuming here for everything, the only facts we have is Wotc manages their policy inconsistent and as they please and unsleeved is on a warpath because he feels wronged and people through him bring out of the closet any skeletons they care to find.

Now since you insist on bringing gamergate, some did care about journalistic integrity (and still do) some were outraged about the blunt generic accusations against them, some joint to pick up a fight against SJW, some were just for the LOLs and some were pushing agendas, or using the publicity to expose other things.

The incident that started GG was just a catalyst and how it was handled just added napalm to the fire, I love how biased is now the GG article on wikipedia and how many restrains are put to not edit it, somehow other controversial pages have the controversy banner, this is almost unchangeable and is presented as fact, it was not a discriminatory campaign against female developers no mater how much people who wish it never happend want it to be, it was a huge mess and everybody in there was for their own reason.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 0001/01/01 15:25:00


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
A company can get background checks? on an employee? now that would be illegal here, no company has the right to invade private sensitive information of people, they can ask and do, to submit a record that you are all clean, but the individual must ask it for himself or herself.
I believe that's the case in most places. The employer has to ask the potential employee for permission to get a background check.

If you're going to have an employee in contact with kids it may be a requirement (depending on the location) to get a background check first. If it's a volunteer again it depends on the location, but it's often a good idea to get one if a volunteer will be working with kids to get a background check even if it's not a legal requirement because you don't want bad stuff happening under your company's banner.

At one stage when I was planning on doing some volunteer work that'd have me working with kids the organiser asked for a background check first.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/01 15:30:45


Post by: PsychoticStorm


No, I understand the importance and need for it, just here and I assume in the rest of the EU, the individual must go and submit the request for that and he has to take it and give it to the employer (or potential employer) himself, the employer cannot ask or be given permission to ask himself for individuals personal information.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/01 15:37:34


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
No, I understand the importance and need for it, just here and I assume in the rest of the EU, the individual must go and submit the request for that and he has to take it and give it to the employer (or potential employer) himself, the employer cannot ask or be given permission to ask himself for individuals personal information.
And as I said, that's the case in other places too, from what I've read that's the case in the US as well.

You might not employ someone without a background check, but to get said background check they still have to be the one giving you permission. If you tell them no you won't let them do a background check they just employ someone else.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/01 15:47:54


Post by: Overread


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
A company can get background checks? on an employee? now that would be illegal here, no company has the right to invade private sensitive information of people, they can ask and do, to submit a record that you are all clean, but the individual must ask it for himself or herself.
I believe that's the case in most places. The employer has to ask the potential employee for permission to get a background check.

If you're going to have an employee in contact with kids it may be a requirement (depending on the location) to get a background check first. If it's a volunteer again it depends on the location, but it's often a good idea to get one if a volunteer will be working with kids to get a background check even if it's not a legal requirement because you don't want bad stuff happening under your company's banner.

At one stage when I was planning on doing some volunteer work that'd have me working with kids the organiser asked for a background check first.


Far as I know the UK is the same, the employer can only request with employee permission; however most contracts will have a DBS (CRB) check pass as a mandated requirement. So if the employee refuses they won't be hired.

Interestingly with regard to the UK system if its related to children/vulnerable adults then the check not only includes convictions, but police reports and gathered information that might not have led to a conviction, but is still valid for concern.


That said I've no idea how it would regulate for local club/event situations. Especially when you consider that many clubs/societies develop in a very informal way. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the bigger groups that organise larger events are still run in rather an ad-hock manner since chances are most of the fees/payments go toward rental/prizes whilst those in charge are likely just organising events. In that light you can well see how easily people can slip through without any checks being performed at any stage

That said it would still not really be Wizards place to step in to perform those checks - depending on their relationship with those clubs.

Could be that this has the minor hallmarks of osmething that could seriously impact the ability for companies to support local play groups and organised play if those systems suddenly require such checks to be made by the company (and where the company isn't directly controlling/influencing). I never applied but do any of the schemes such as the old Privateer Press Ganger require checks?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/01 15:50:55


Post by: PsychoticStorm


I understood that, what I mean is the company is not allowed to ask from the police a background check for an individual even if the individual gives his permission, the individual must go request and take it himself with ID check.

Its a cultural think I assume, were the society thinks the risk should be taken, the individual falsifying submitted information or a company falsifying an individuals permission getting personal information.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/01 18:03:36


Post by: cuda1179


 Crazyterran wrote:
[ what do people who are typically alt right trolls have on these people besides names that happen to match? There are thousands of John Smiths, I can assure you.


Other than names? How about ages, locations, photos from the sex offender registry that match their personal/judges website photo, a public statement made by a wife, etc.? Their names are also A LOT less generic than John Smith.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:


If you send your children to daycare do you personally run a background check on every employee who could possibly interact with them or have access to them, or do you trust that the actual employer will handle all of the background checks? WOTC is not the employer, it's not reasonable to expect them to take on the responsibilities of an employer.

.


You're analogy is more than a little flawed. More like: I send my children to a nationally famous and recognized daycare chain. The kids are then entrusted by the daycare to be watched by a volunteer organization of parents from around the neighborhood. The volunteers aren't employees, and contain pedo's. Is the Daycare liable, in every state, yes they are.


Now if this was just some local-non affiliated tourney, I'd say WotC has no responsibility simply because their product is there. However, once you give legal rights to the performance of your product (and promotion of it) over to a third party you are at least morally obligated to see that they aren't doing something majorly disgusting to the community.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/01 23:26:21


Post by: Togusa


 Crazyterran wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
 Crazyterran wrote:
All of that has nothing to do with him, so people digging all this unrelated stuff up is just going to stiffen WotC back when it comes to him. The fact that he's a raging douchebag isn't going to help the fact.

It's literally just a distraction tactic. "Hey, look at these other people who weren't causing problems, who have the same name as these sex offenders! Wizards are clearly the bad people here, not me!"

Wizards doesn't have to reveal any proof of whatever he did to deserve being banned, it could have simply been a large pile of complaints on hand and his latest antics broke the camels back. Hambly hasn't exactly been keeping his hands clean, he has plenty of videos he's deleted, isn't it mentioned earlier in the thread that his abusive stuff was deleted?

They might ask the company that does their pro tour to perform background checks, lest they find someone else. If they aren't paid and aren't employees, they aren't legally required to run background checks.

Wizards might lose a few sales from the neckbeards that are angry he got banned, but I know I personally have bought some more magic cards, and am considering playing in some FNMs/MNMs now that I know they will push a culture that excludes people like Hambly.



The fact that you think that "because WoTC isn't paying them" then its not a big deal is frightening. If I am wrong here correct me so that I don't put words in your mouth, but Jesus dude it doesn't matter if he is a gakker or what. It matters that this has been uncovered, and it's real. These people have TONS of evidence and the community so far seems to be ignoring it all.



It all has nothing to do with him, and he should still be punished.

If these Judges are doing something criminal, hand it to the police. If the Judges have done something criminal in the past, and have paid their dues, perhaps it should be weighted, and WOTC should probably take a look at it. If they are the type of Sex Offender that is likely to re offend, they'd likely be going against their conditions of release if they went to something like a magic tournament, which has a high chance of kids and women being in attendance.

There's also the source/motivation of the work going into finding this evidence poisoning this a bit - what do people who are typically alt right trolls (the people rallying around Hambly) have on these people besides names that happen to match? There are thousands of John Smiths, I can assure you.


How do you know that his supporters are "altright?"

2017s new buzzword needs to die man. I'm not altright or right in any political stance and I support this fight of his.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
The fact that you think that "because WoTC isn't paying them" then its not a big deal is frightening.


Why is it frightening? If you send your children to daycare do you personally run a background check on every employee who could possibly interact with them or have access to them, or do you trust that the actual employer will handle all of the background checks? WOTC is not the employer, it's not reasonable to expect them to take on the responsibilities of an employer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
he has nothing to lose so might as well drag them and others with him


Yep, that about sums it up. None of this mattered to him until he needed something to use for revenge against the people he now hates. I don't know why anyone would believe in his sincerity or honesty or even good research here.


Wow. So it really is as he said. People are ignoring it because he is saying it.

My god what has this society become.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/02 13:08:42


Post by: Peregrine


 cuda1179 wrote:
You're analogy is more than a little flawed. More like: I send my children to a nationally famous and recognized daycare chain. The kids are then entrusted by the daycare to be watched by a volunteer organization of parents from around the neighborhood. The volunteers aren't employees, and contain pedo's. Is the Daycare liable, in every state, yes they are.


Except that's not how MTG events work. Most (all?) MTG tournaments are not WOTC events run by WOTC employees, they are run by third-party companies that organize all of the things like renting an event space, hiring any employees required for the event, etc. WOTC isn't picking the people that are hired to work at the event, so why should they be responsible for any necessary background checks?

However, once you give legal rights to the performance of your product (and promotion of it) over to a third party you are at least morally obligated to see that they aren't doing something majorly disgusting to the community.


Uh, no, you really aren't obligated. Sure, you might argue a moral obligation to cut ties with a group if it is discovered that they're doing something awful, but there's certainly no legal obligation to maintain control over a group just because you allow them to use your brand names. Nor is it really practical for WOTC to have any meaningful oversight over the countless events using the MTG brand. In fact, the whole point of the way WOTC handles events is that they don't have to invest resources in managing the details and can vastly increase the number of events for MTG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Togusa wrote:
Wow. So it really is as he said. People are ignoring it because he is saying it.

My god what has this society become.


That's not at all what I said. I questioned his sincerity and the idea of giving him any respect at all for his crusade, and pointed out that we should be skeptical of his claims because of his clear bias (at least until/unless credible proof of the accusations is provided), but nowhere did I say that we should ignore everything just because of who is saying it.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/02 13:33:40


Post by: PsychoticStorm


But by your logic, they had to ban an individual who had no connection with them nor a contract with them because it did bad to their brand.

On the other hand a company who runs exclusively their events by contract and enforces their DCI bans and an organisation that is the only official pool of referees for the official events again by contract, do nothing to their brand and they have no moral or legal obligation about them?

That is some massive double standard of thinking.

As for the crusade, I believe his sources are credible, he would have been hit by something if he was blaming innocents and at least the last reporter would not have written the article he did, if nothing else he seems to have gone beyond verification of his claims he expanded on them.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/02 13:53:48


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
But by your logic, they had to ban an individual who had no connection with them nor a contract with them because it did bad to their brand.


No, they didn't have to ban him, they were allowed to ban him. They could have done absolutely nothing about Hambly if that's what they had felt like doing. There was certainly a potential benefit to banning him, and it's a reason beyond mere spite or trying to suppress negative opinions, but that's just one factor to consider.

On the other hand a company who runs exclusively their events by contract and enforces their DCI bans and an organisation that is the only official pool of referees for the official events again by contract, do nothing to their brand and they have no moral or legal obligation about them?


I think you're missing how this works again. There is no single company running events, and WOTC has very little control over judges. A FNM might be run by a local game store, with 5-10 players every week and a "judge" who is really just the guy who bothered to read the entire rulebook once. WOTC's only interaction with them is through automated online forms, registering the event and submitting the results. Larger events mean more organization, but it's still individual companies doing all of the work under contract by WOTC. WOTC doesn't have any authority to hire or fire their employees, just like hiring a catering company for your wedding doesn't give you authority to make employee decisions for that company. They can certainly take action if an incident happens, and have a clear incentive to do so in defense of their brand, but it isn't really practical to expect them to do things like run background checks on every employee of every third-party company they do business with.

As for the crusade, I believe his sources are credible, he would have been hit by something if he was blaming innocents and at least the last reporter would not have written the article he did, if nothing else he seems to have gone beyond verification of his claims he expanded on them.


Again, absence of a lawsuit is not proof of accuracy, not this early in the process. It takes time for things like that to work themselves out. But, assuming he has credible sources, can you provide some sources outside of his youtube videos? Preferably in written form, with the evidence cited? Have any people not affiliated with Hambly picked up the accusations and verified them?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/02 14:55:30


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Since they had no reason to ban him as you said, or real evidence of his misbehaviour other than a few of their employees and a couple of affiliated people with them (a cosplayer, a few Youtube channels that never criticise them and a judge) lashing against him without any evidence of their claims presented.

One can assume since Wotc and their employees/ judges present and push a certain political view and Unsleeved media opposed their views the ban was because of spite or as some of the people accused him put it "toxic wrong thinking" than to protect the company brand or the community.

I think the evolution of the situation so far shows favouritism and bias from Wotc on certain political ideas, people who align with them get a free pass others get the rough end. Companies who like their longevity usually remain apolitical and their stuff keep their political ideologies to themselves and their private lives.

But hey, bad game design and card quality, pushing more products than the market can absorb are not important things printing and distributing a "safe space" sign for the stores is far more important.

Now correct me if I am wrong, from what all other Youtubers say all big tournaments in the US are run exclusively by a single company, channel fireball, so they are by contract tied with Wotc, their denial to run background checks means Wotc is ok with a direct partner of theirs not running them, the Judges program again is tied to Wotc directly since you cannot have an official tournament without them and the head of the judges program is responsible for everybody under him, what he says and does can be directly tied to Wotc, at least if they do not make a statement they disagree.

They are associated after all.

I never said I wanted to see lawsuits, I said nobody came out to deny their involvement, so far beyond the youtubers who stand with Unsleeved and a few others who are not in any way shape or form friends with him, but are alarmed with the situation, at least one real journalist has verified his sources and I think he mentioned he has the evidence on public space for people to verify them.

For some people their rush to erase their tweeter history says more about their guilt than a verification of the evidence though.

It has become quite more complex than I expected and we started debating just that a company should never have the ability to monitor and ban people on the basis of their ideology for legal things they did or say outside their premises.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/02 17:15:17


Post by: cuda1179


I was going to agree a bit with Peregrine on some things, however, it looks like there might be a legal precedence for WotC to have some legal liability even though they sublet out their judging program to Channel Fireball.

At this point it's basically a fact that the Judges for Fireball have a pedo problem (pics from the sex offender registry do match personal pics). State laws require Fireball to run background checks. Fireball states they don't want to run them. WotC now knows (and possibly has known for a while) about this problem.

Hypothetically, if there ever was an incident, WotC cold be held legally liable. Why? They consciously continued a legal relationship with another entity they knew was cutting corners to run their events and further their product, with WotC providing product as compensation (hence the current lawsuit claiming judges are employees). Those cut corners were likely to increase the chances of harm to the attendees. Legally speaking this is willful negligence resulting in harm.

Such situations have all ready played out in court, including the aforementioned daycare, local jails, and even temp workers.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 03:59:16


Post by: Togusa


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
But by your logic, they had to ban an individual who had no connection with them nor a contract with them because it did bad to their brand.

On the other hand a company who runs exclusively their events by contract and enforces their DCI bans and an organisation that is the only official pool of referees for the official events again by contract, do nothing to their brand and they have no moral or legal obligation about them?

That is some massive double standard of thinking.

As for the crusade, I believe his sources are credible, he would have been hit by something if he was blaming innocents and at least the last reporter would not have written the article he did, if nothing else he seems to have gone beyond verification of his claims he expanded on them.


His claims are valid, these people are LITERALLY on state predator lists maintained by Law Enforcement. CF has even been removing the names from their judge lists quietly.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 07:13:38


Post by: Crazyterran


Well, at least he cleaned up CF for Wizards, and now that they are being cleaned out, he can rest easy the community hes been banned from is a better place.

Edit: Wizards and everyone pretty much knows hes doing this out of petty spite, not moral outrage. He is not some kind of hero. He will still be banned at the end of this, as this was just the lever he found to hurt Wizards after weeks of petty gak leading up to this.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 11:34:08


Post by: cuda1179


I have no doubt that Hambly is doing this, at least partially, out of spite.

That being said, he's not only right about the predator judges, but he's also pointing out WotC's hypocrisy. Banning him from events and not any of these pedos does show this might not have been "moral outrage" from WotC. Or how about a person that made literal threats of violence and rape towards a female judge? It took twice as long to ban him, and his ban was quite quickly lifted.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 12:05:52


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Despite his motivation, he has managed to bring the most positive impact on the MTG community than his detractors ever did.

Motivations are subject to interpretation (though I think we can all agree his motivation of why he started it is more or less quite obvious) facts are not.

He probably is not a hero, likewise Wotc show with their actions they are not really worried about their customers safety as they drum about.

Wotc striking down many of the videos from all the content creators covering the scandal (his secondary channel been shut down is conflicting information on who did it) and the tweet of their vice president calling actual verifiable facts "recent misinformation" is an indication of how they would rather sweep it under the rag than acknowledge what happened and deal with it.

They do silently ban people involved in the allegations though, without statements or announcements.

Admittedly with the recent lawsuits against them from the judges, claiming they have no connection with the judges program is a tactic that they will do to not give the judges any further leverage in court.

It keeps escalating and escalating and more people join in, when it started I was not expecting this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cuda1179 wrote:
Or how about a person that made literal threats of violence and rape towards a female judge? It took twice as long to ban him, and his ban was quite quickly lifted.


Actually a Wotc employee not a judge, it is believed she was the director of organised play, he received a lifetime ban and then it was reversed without her approval.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 13:29:33


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


Didn't this guy get banned for a Pepe meme, according to the person who actually coordinated with him? Then they seized thousands of dollars worth of his online gaming stuff?

And apparently he gave some grief to a cosplayer. Pardon me if I don't really care about negative criticism toward people playing dress-up. You can't expect all your critique to be positive.

I'm glad GW doesn't have anything like this. The only people I've seen calling for bans in the 40k/AoS circuits have already revealed themselves to be psychologically unhinged.

 Crazyterran wrote:
...There's also the source/motivation of the work going into finding this evidence poisoning this a bit - what do people who are typically alt right trolls (the people rallying around Hambly)...


"Alt Right" is the "heretic" of 2017. Apparently if you dislike what someone says, you can call them 'alt right', a 'Nazi', or something like that. I swear, man, sometimes I wonder if people are just replicating the antics of insane religious fanatics we dealt with in the early 90's and late 80's.

If you think throwing labels on people is going to discredit an argument, you are mistaken. People are getting smarter and wising up to this tactic.

So what if they're "Alt right"? Are they wrong? If you saw a Nazi taking down a child rapist, would you side with the child rapist?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 13:57:59


Post by: Crazyterran


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Didn't this guy get banned for a Pepe meme, according to the person who actually coordinated with him? Then they seized thousands of dollars worth of his online gaming stuff?

And apparently he gave some grief to a cosplayer. Pardon me if I don't really care about negative criticism toward people playing dress-up. You can't expect all your critique to be positive.

I'm glad GW doesn't have anything like this. The only people I've seen calling for bans in the 40k/AoS circuits have already revealed themselves to be psychologically unhinged.

 Crazyterran wrote:
...There's also the source/motivation of the work going into finding this evidence poisoning this a bit - what do people who are typically alt right trolls (the people rallying around Hambly)...


"Alt Right" is the "heretic" of 2017. Apparently if you dislike what someone says, you can call them 'alt right', a 'Nazi', or something like that. I swear, man, sometimes I wonder if people are just replicating the antics of insane religious fanatics we dealt with in the early 90's and late 80's.

If you think throwing labels on people is going to discredit an argument, you are mistaken. People are getting smarter and wising up to this tactic.

So what if they're "Alt right"? Are they wrong? If you saw a Nazi taking down a child rapist, would you side with the child rapist?


Except it isnt a Nazi vs a Child Rapist, its a Nazi vs a company that subcontracts out to a group that takes volunteers that know a card game. You are complaining about me throwing labels and then edit in something like this? How hypocritical. Must have hit a nerve...

Should CF have done vetting? Yes. Wizards isnt at fault that CF didnt do vetting, and Wizards has undoubtedly been leaning on CF since this all started to kick the judges out, which they have. They havent made a big announcement about it, which is expected, since they dont want to trumpet to the world they had predators as judges. I'm sure there will be some serious contract talk between Wizards and CF after this to make sure it doesnt happen again.

As for the other stuff, the guy was abrasive to other mtg content creators, slammed on people who supported those creators, was generally reviled around the community, and I guess Wizards had enough and decided to get rid of him.

The pepe meme guy was a now banned pro player, though his team and sponsors had already dropped him like a rock.

As for mtgo, i imagine its just like Hearthstone where you sign a EULA saying none of it is your property, so they didnt seize anything that belonged to him. If I get my battle.net account banned being a troll on Starcraft, or for hacking in Overwatch, I cant really cry about losing the grand i have put into hearthstone.










Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 14:22:53


Post by: Peregrine


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Then they seized thousands of dollars worth of his online gaming stuff?


Nope. The account has zero cash value, and the video game character attributes that are part of the account are not his property. There was no "seizure" of property at all, WOTC simply declined to allow him to continue playing their game.

And apparently he gave some grief to a cosplayer. Pardon me if I don't really care about negative criticism toward people playing dress-up. You can't expect all your critique to be positive.


There's a difference between criticism and harassment. Hambly is accused of the second, not the first.

If you saw a Nazi taking down a child rapist, would you side with the child rapist?


Why do I have to pick one of the two? Let the Nazi take down the rapist, then shoot the Nazi.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 15:06:48


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 Peregrine wrote:


There's a difference between criticism and harassment. Hambly is accused of the second, not the first.


"Harassment" has a real meaning. Saying something mean to someone isn't 'harassment'. Legally, it's a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. The basic definition is 'aggressive pressure or intimidation'. Is there evidence he did any of this, or did he simply say "People like you only because you look good and show your boobs"? If saying mean things about someone is 'harassment', then I'm pretty sure they could string up 99% of the population.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do I have to pick one of the two? Let the Nazi take down the rapist, then shoot the Nazi.


Sure, kill a man for his beliefs even if they're deplorable. While we're at it, let's hang commies. Right? Are we doing this? Let's put some religious nuts against the wall?

I'm joking, of course. I don't believe in murdering a human being for their beliefs, I believe in using violence on in defense of others or myself. But I'm curious as to how arbitrary your definition of 'Nazi', is considering you probably hurl that label at everyone that's upset you in some way.

Do you read the stuff you type, or are you just comfortable being this way?

 Crazyterran wrote:
Except it isnt a Nazi vs a Child Rapist, its a Nazi vs a company that subcontracts out to a group that takes volunteers that know a card game. You are complaining about me throwing labels and then edit in something like this? How hypocritical. Must have hit a nerve...


Do you have proof he's a 'Nazi', or do you just dislike him? Show evidence he is a National Socialist or White Nationalist, or can this childishness.

Childish name-calling is a sign of toxicity. I do my best to purge people like this from the gaming community.

Yes, you struck a nerve. I dislike people who sling labels at people just to put them down. You've no evidence this man is a 'Nazi' or 'Alt-Right'. You're just hurling those words around because it's easier than being honest and having an honest assessment. It's a dog-whistle to make people take your side- and fortunately, people whose ears perk at these words and froth at the mouth aren't really good at thinking or critical analysis.

You would have done better to substantiate your argument with some real evidence, instead of just bleating out words that you know upset people. It cheapens your argument.

 Crazyterran wrote:
...since they dont want to trumpet to the world they had predators as judges...


While I understand this, the thing is if I'm going around with my pals condemning people for being sickos, and then I find out two of my buddies are the same type of sicko (or worse), it's morally right to openly dictate that I'm doing something to clean up my own backyard. You can't complain that people are calling them hypocritical.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 15:24:00


Post by: Peregrine


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
"Harassment" has a real meaning. Saying something mean to someone isn't 'harassment'. Legally, it's a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. The basic definition is 'aggressive pressure or intimidation'. Is there evidence he did any of this, or did he simply say "People like you only because you look good and show your boobs"? If saying mean things about someone is 'harassment', then I'm pretty sure they could string up 99% of the population.


Have you been reading any of this thread? The accusations were made. WOTC found them credible enough to ban him over it. Much of the content in question has been deleted since the original events, so it's difficult to impossible to verify the accuracy of anyone's claims here. That's why I said that he was accused of harassment, not that he has been convicted in court.

Also, note that "being a " is sufficient justification for WOTC to ban him, so nitpicking over whether or not the actions he is accused of are technically covered by the legal definition of harassment is not a very compelling defense. Even if all he said was "people like you only because you look good and show your boobs" that's enough of a reason for people to say "you're a " and stop inviting him to their party.

Sure, kill a man for his beliefs even if they're deplorable. While we're at it, let's hang commies. Right? Are we doing this? Let's put some religious nuts against the wall?


When the "beliefs" in question involve the industrialized extermination of entire races/cultures then yes, kill someone for it. We've already seen what happens when Nazis get their way, killing someone who can look at the horrors of what the Nazis did and say "yep, that's a great idea, let's do that again" is an act of self defense.

But I'm curious as to how arbitrary your definition of 'Nazi', is considering you probably hurl that label at everyone that's upset you in some way.


It must be nice to be able to make up whatever ridiculous lies you want, and then declare victory against your straw man. Do you have some examples of me labeling people "Nazis" for merely upsetting me? Or are you going to apologize for your blatant dishonesty and rudeness here?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 15:30:05


Post by: Crazyterran


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:


There's a difference between criticism and harassment. Hambly is accused of the second, not the first.


"Harassment" has a real meaning. Saying something mean to someone isn't 'harassment'. Legally, it's a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. The basic definition is 'aggressive pressure or intimidation'. Is there evidence he did any of this, or did he simply say "People like you only because you look good and show your boobs"? If saying mean things about someone is 'harassment', then I'm pretty sure they could string up 99% of the population.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do I have to pick one of the two? Let the Nazi take down the rapist, then shoot the Nazi.


Sure, kill a man for his beliefs even if they're deplorable. While we're at it, let's hang commies. Right? Are we doing this? Let's put some religious nuts against the wall?

I'm joking, of course. I don't believe in murdering a human being for their beliefs, I believe in using violence on in defense of others or myself. But I'm curious as to how arbitrary your definition of 'Nazi', is considering you probably hurl that label at everyone that's upset you in some way.

Do you read the stuff you type, or are you just comfortable being this way?

 Crazyterran wrote:
Except it isnt a Nazi vs a Child Rapist, its a Nazi vs a company that subcontracts out to a group that takes volunteers that know a card game. You are complaining about me throwing labels and then edit in something like this? How hypocritical. Must have hit a nerve...


Do you have proof he's a 'Nazi', or do you just dislike him? Show evidence he is a National Socialist or White Nationalist, or can this childishness.

Childish name-calling is a sign of toxicity. I do my best to purge people like this from the gaming community.

Yes, you struck a nerve. I dislike people who sling labels at people just to put them down. You've no evidence this man is a 'Nazi' or 'Alt-Right'. You're just hurling those words around because it's easier than being honest and having an honest assessment. It's a dog-whistle to make people take your side- and fortunately, people whose ears perk at these words and froth at the mouth aren't really good at thinking or critical analysis.

You would have done better to substantiate your argument with some real evidence, instead of just bleating out words that you know upset people. It cheapens your argument.

 Crazyterran wrote:
...since they dont want to trumpet to the world they had predators as judges...


While I understand this, the thing is if I'm going around with my pals condemning people for being sickos, and then I find out two of my buddies are the same type of sicko (or worse), it's morally right to openly dictate that I'm doing something to clean up my own backyard. You can't complain that people are calling them hypocritical.


You are the one who's compared him to a nazi, I just edited your example. Since, you know, you compared Wizards to child rapists. I mentioned the people defending him are alt right, since, you know, Breitbart defended him.

It's also funny that you are calling people toxic when you are asking people to make choices involving Nazis and Child Rapists.

I never complained about them being hypocritical or not. I simply stated this entire Crusade was started because he got banned, and it isn't going to unban him. He isn't some hero, and the spiteful lashing out before this proves this was all just an attempt to hurt wizards and he hit pay dirt.

Wizards publicly trumpeting there was Predators on their pro tour would be a pretty big PR blow to magic, since that is something that would hit the headlines, which it is not doing now. If it does, release a statement then. If not, what PR idiot would air their dirty laundry?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 15:31:51


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 Peregrine wrote:
[Have you been reading any of this thread? The accusations were made. WOTC found them credible enough to ban him over it. Much of the content in question has been deleted since the original events, so it's difficult to impossible to verify the accuracy of anyone's claims here. That's why I said that he was accused of harassment, not that he has been convicted in court.

Also, note that "being a " is sufficient justification for WOTC to ban him, so nitpicking over whether or not the actions he is accused of are technically covered by the legal definition of harassment is not a very compelling defense. Even if all he said was "people like you only because you look good and show your boobs" that's enough of a reason for people to say "you're a " and stop inviting him to their party.


So, because they have little to no evidence of this- he has every right to question their judgement and point out its unfairness. Imagine you being banned from Warhammer World for being a jerk on this forum. I'm fairly certain you'd want your case presented.

(Actuallly, let's be fair- you're not missing much at Warhammer World, as I understand. But you get the idea.)

 Peregrine wrote:
[When the "beliefs" in question involve the industrialized extermination of entire races/cultures then yes, kill someone for it. We've already seen what happens when Nazis get their way, killing someone who can look at the horrors of what the Nazis did and say "yep, that's a great idea, let's do that again" is an act of self defense.


Wrong. We do not assault people for their beliefs. We take action based on actions, not what they think. This sets a vile, horrible, and terrifying precedent. When people believe these things, we act like actual adults and challenge their beliefs. We shame them for their beliefs. We make those beliefs seem as absurd as they truly are. We do not act like a pack of animals and assault them.

Doing things like this is how you get shot, and the guy that pulls the trigger walks.

 Peregrine wrote:
It must be nice to be able to make up whatever ridiculous lies you want, and then declare victory against your straw man. Do you have some examples of me labeling people "Nazis" for merely upsetting me? Or are you going to apologize for your blatant dishonesty and rudeness here?


Says the man who advocates murdering other people on the forums. I'm not being rude, I'm being practical.

Do you apologize for advocating murder?

I think an Admin should take action against you. As I understand, it is illegal to harm another human being unless it is an immediate act of self-defense. It is against forum rules to advocate illegal activities.

Two can play your silly games, dude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Crazyterran wrote:
You are the one who's compared him to a nazi, I just edited your example. Since, you know, you compared Wizards to child rapists. I mentioned the people defending him are alt right, since, you know, Breitbart defended him.


I fail to see any connection to Breitbart and Nazis or the Alt-Right. Breitbart's style of news media precedes the days before the average internet slacktivist could mumble 'Alt-Right'. It's conservtive, a bit far-fetched at best, and still just as biased as any other news source in the United States.

If Breitbart defended a disabled veteran who stopped a pedophile, would the veteran and his family be Alt-Right? I'm not sure I understand your logic. It looks a lot like this 'Us vs. Them' tribalist childishness people were talking about earlier.

 Crazyterran wrote:
It's also funny that you are calling people toxic when you are asking people to make choices involving Nazis and Child Rapists.


It's even funnier that you think that an absurd example is any indication of 'toxicity'. It seems like you're really playing fast and loose with the labels you hurl at people. It's okay, it's easier than actually having an argument or thinking for yourself. Dog-whistle away, if it makes you feel better.

 Crazyterran wrote:
I never complained about them being hypocritical or not. I simply stated this entire Crusade was started because he got banned, and it isn't going to unban him. He isn't some hero, and the spiteful lashing out before this proves this was all just an attempt to hurt wizards and he hit pay dirt.


Well, yeah. I mean, I've never been a fan of card games but the whole fiasco kinda shows me exactly what sort of practices they have. And if I were interested, and this came to my attention, I might be less inclined. If nothing else, people need to see this and make their own judgements. A company isn't your pal or buddy- consumers need to be aware.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Wizards publicly trumpeting there was Predators on their pro tour would be a pretty big PR blow to magic, since that is something that would hit the headlines, which it is not doing now. If it does, release a statement then. If not, what PR idiot would air their dirty laundry?


The one that wants to show they're actually cleaning out their laundry, and show that they care less about politics than they do sexual predators.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 15:48:16


Post by: Peregrine


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
So, because they have little to no evidence of this- he has every right to question their judgement and point out its unfairness. Imagine you being banned from Warhammer World for being a jerk on this forum. I'm fairly certain you'd want your case presented.


Sure, he has a right to question their judgement and claim that it is unfair. That's why he hasn't been thrown in prison for criticizing WOTC, his youtube channel hasn't been shut down, etc. I don't know why you feel the need to point out that he has a right to complain, I don't see anyone disagreeing with this.

Wrong. We do not assault people for their beliefs. We take action based on actions, not what they think. This sets a vile, horrible, and terrifying precedent. When people believe these things, we act like actual adults and challenge their beliefs. We shame them for their beliefs. We make those beliefs seem as absurd as they truly are. We do not act like a pack of animals and assault them.


No, in the case of Nazis we shoot them. Remember what happened last time we decided that pacifism and negotiation was the proper solution to Nazis? We let them get even more power, slaughter millions in an industrialized extermination system, and start a war that killed even more millions. Imagine how much better off we would have been if, back in the 1930s, we had simply shot Hitler and his friends.

Do you apologize for advocating murder?


I advocate the use of violence in self defense, not murder. I trust you can see the difference.

Two can play your silly games, dude.


I take it this is your concession that your "you call everyone who upsets you a Nazi" accusation was a blatant lie, and you can't provide any examples of me doing that. Whether or not you apologize, we all know what you did.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 15:53:46


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 Peregrine wrote:

Sure, he has a right to question their judgement and claim that it is unfair. That's why he hasn't been thrown in prison for criticizing WOTC, his youtube channel hasn't been shut down, etc. I don't know why you feel the need to point out that he has a right to complain, I don't see anyone disagreeing with this.


And his argument has merit. Look, if this guy is actually out harassing people in the tournament circuit and industry- then let the tournament circuit handle it. WotC shouldn't be touching his online account over things that weren't related to his online account.

I say this based on a small fiasco a couple of years ago where an MMORPG banned several people on a witch-hunt, claiming they were harassing other players- but it took place outside the game or the forums and was on a private forum elsewhere. The accounts were returned, fortunately.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, in the case of Nazis we shoot them. Remember what happened last time we decided that pacifism and negotiation was the proper solution to Nazis? We let them get even more power, slaughter millions in an industrialized extermination system, and start a war that killed even more millions. Imagine how much better off we would have been if, back in the 1930s, we had simply shot Hitler and his friends.


No, we do not. We put them on trial for any real crimes they have committed. We don't just go around gunning people down. We didn't kill all the Nazis when we went to war with them. We released their Soldiers that weren't tied to war crimes. We released people who weren't aware of what was going on. We do not shoot people without real, legal, justifiable cause. That's why they aren't actively killing the W.A.R. and other elements of the Aryan Brotherhood. Because we're civilized people. Most of us, at least. I can see there are exceptions.

 Peregrine wrote:
I advocate the use of violence in self defense, not murder. I trust you can see the difference.


Killing someone for their beliefs is not self-defense. Ever.

 Peregrine wrote:
I take it this is your concession that your "you call everyone who upsets you a Nazi" accusation was a blatant lie, and you can't provide any examples of me doing that. Whether or not you apologize, we all know what you did.


Can you show me where I've stated you do this? I think it's humorous you're calling me a liar.

You don't have to admit to lying, either. You can just admit you're not good at reading.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 15:56:10


Post by: cuda1179


I too am surprised Peregrine hasn't gotten a talking to by the mods.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 15:59:55


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 cuda1179 wrote:
I too am surprised Peregrine hasn't gotten a talking to by the mods.


Yeah, I'm not keen on any "let's shoot people because they have bad beliefs". And I own guns. It's that kind of madness that gets people hurt. I dislike Nazis, Commies, Control Freaks, and people who put Ketchup on their eggs and meatloaf. But I don't believe they need to be shot or physically harmed. Just ridiculed.

One dude at a protest got his head smashed in because they said he was a 'Nazi'. He... was one of the protestors against racism and fascism.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 16:03:30


Post by: Peregrine


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Look, if this guy is actually out harassing people in the tournament circuit and industry- then let the tournament circuit handle it.


The tournament circuit did handle it: by telling him that he isn't welcome.

WotC shouldn't be touching his online account over things that weren't related to his online account.


Why not? Are you also going to argue that the (supposed) sex offender judges should not be banned from MTGO, because their actions did not occur within the game?

No, we do not. We put them on trial for any real crimes they have committed. We don't just go around gunning people down. We didn't kill all the Nazis when we went to war with them. We released their Soldiers that weren't tied to war crimes. We released people who weren't aware of what was going on. We do not shoot people without real, legal, justifiable cause. That's why they aren't actively killing the W.A.R. and other elements of the Aryan Brotherhood. Because we're civilized people. Most of us, at least. I can see there are exceptions.


Then we'll just have to disagree on this. You think that it would have been morally wrong to shoot Hitler and prevent WWII and the Nazi genocide, because he hadn't yet committed any crimes. I disagree and think that once someone has declared their intent to commit genocide killing them is an act of self defense that prevents a much greater evil. But this is not really relevant to the current topic.

Killing someone for their beliefs is not self-defense. Ever.


When their belief is "I'm going to murder you and everyone like you" it certainly is. Nazism is not merely a difference of political opinion, is is a clearly stated endorsement of and intent to commit the most horrifying evil humanity has ever seen. Please do not equate it to a mere "belief".

Can you show me where I've stated you do this? I think it's humorous you're calling me a liar.


But I'm curious as to how arbitrary your definition of 'Nazi', is considering you probably hurl that label at everyone that's upset you in some way.

In your own words. And don't try to weasel out of it over the "probably".


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 16:10:35


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 Peregrine wrote:
The tournament circuit did handle it: by telling him that he isn't welcome.


And did they cite him a reason for his ban, other than 'someone was upset with you'? He can still question this. But if there's proof he did, then so be it. I'm 100% in favor of businesses and organizations choosing to exclude people based on any reason they like. It's somewhat comforting to see you're on board with this.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why not? Are you also going to argue that the (supposed) sex offender judges should not be banned from MTGO, because their actions did not occur within the game?


The judges aren't in the online game, are they? They're at the tournament. Again, let the tournament organizers do that.

 Peregrine wrote:
Then we'll just have to disagree on this. You think that it would have been morally wrong to shoot Hitler and prevent WWII and the Nazi genocide, because he hadn't yet committed any crimes. I disagree and think that once someone has declared their intent to commit genocide killing them is an act of self defense that prevents a much greater evil. But this is not really relevant to the current topic.


You're either poor at reading or blatantly lying. At no point did I say it would be morally wrong to shoot Hitler. He was guilty of actual crimes. Up until he committed, conspired to, or attempted those crimes it would be morally wrong to kill him.

'Declaring intent' is irrelevant, but can be considered a threat- and you still can't shoot people for a verbal or written threat. It is still illegal and morally wrong to use lethal force until that person actually takes action.

 Peregrine wrote:
When their belief is "I'm going to murder you and everyone like you" it certainly is. Nazism is not merely a difference of political opinion, is is a clearly stated endorsement of and intent to commit the most horrifying evil humanity has ever seen. Please do not equate it to a mere "belief".


Incorrect. It is not an action. It is just a deplorable opinion. No more than someone saying they are a Communist is actual theft of my land, and allowing me to kill them. You, sir, are factually incorrect in this account. No matter how much you dislike this belief, you cannot kill them. You are wrong, and you know it, because I doubt you've got your Nazi-killin' gun on hand and a kill count to boast about.

 Peregrine wrote:
In your own words. And don't try to weasel out of it over the "probably".


That's why I used the word 'probably'. You seem to struggle with the English language. It's not an excuse to be wrong.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 16:17:34


Post by: Crazyterran


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
You are the one who's compared him to a nazi, I just edited your example. Since, you know, you compared Wizards to child rapists. I mentioned the people defending him are alt right, since, you know, Breitbart defended him.


I fail to see any connection to Breitbart and Nazis or the Alt-Right. Breitbart's style of news media precedes the days before the average internet slacktivist could mumble 'Alt-Right'. It's conservtive, a bit far-fetched at best, and still just as biased as any other news source in the United States.

If Breitbart defended a disabled veteran who stopped a pedophile, would the veteran and his family be Alt-Right? I'm not sure I understand your logic. It looks a lot like this 'Us vs. Them' tribalist childishness people were talking about earlier.


I said that the people defending him are the alt right, not that he himself is. Nice try! I guess when you construct my arguments for me it's easy to defeat them!

 Crazyterran wrote:
It's also funny that you are calling people toxic when you are asking people to make choices involving Nazis and Child Rapists.


It's even funnier that you think that an absurd example is any indication of 'toxicity'. It seems like you're really playing fast and loose with the labels you hurl at people. It's okay, it's easier than actually having an argument or thinking for yourself. Dog-whistle away, if it makes you feel better.


It is when you, in the context of this thread, are describing Hambly as a Nazi and Wizards as Child Rapists, rather than a toxic youtuber vs. a cooperation. You decided to escalate it to an absurd extreme, rather than looking at any nuance in this situation at all. I would like you to quote the exact part where I called Hambly himself a Nazi? Go ahead, I'll wait.

It's not directly Wizard's fault that Channel Fireball didn't do background checks, and as we can see how Judges are being removed from the rosters, that action is being taken.

Considering you are the one throwing labels like 'toxic' and saying people need to be 'purged from the gaming community'? You are calling other people childish?


 Crazyterran wrote:
Wizards publicly trumpeting there was Predators on their pro tour would be a pretty big PR blow to magic, since that is something that would hit the headlines, which it is not doing now. If it does, release a statement then. If not, what PR idiot would air their dirty laundry?


The one that wants to show they're actually cleaning out their laundry, and show that they care less about politics than they do sexual predators.


So... you are upset they aren't being idiots? Why would they ever tell people that there were sexual predators at the Pro Tour willingly? All you'd get is a deluge of angry mothers who's kids went to a FNM once, and the hysteria would explode. Anyone who cares enough about Magic can already see they are taking out the judges that are on these lists, which means the people who care know something is being done. Why kick the embers to create a fire where there isn't one, especially when you are already stamping them out?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 16:19:09


Post by: Peregrine


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
And did they cite him a reason for his ban, other than 'someone was upset with you'?


They cited the accusations of harassment and poor behavior. WOTC's opinion of the situation is that the accusations are credible enough to take actions.

The judges aren't in the online game, are they? They're at the tournament. Again, let the tournament organizers do that.


Yes or no. Do you think WOTC should ban those judges from MTGO?

No more than someone saying they are a Communist is actual theft of my land, and allowing me to kill them.


You do understand that there is a slight difference between a communist advocating for higher taxes and collective ownership of capital, and a Nazi advocating for the industrialized slaughter of entire races/cultures, right?

That's why I used the word 'probably'. You seem to struggle with the English language. It's not an excuse to be wrong.


So if I said "Adeptus Doritos probably s sheep" you'd have no problem with that statement? After all, I only said you probably do it, I didn't say it with 100% certainty.

(Feel free to insert an alternative accusation of you probably doing more credible offensive things, I intentionally picked a less plausible one because you and I both know that the moderators don't find that "probably" a compelling defense.)


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 16:27:00


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 Peregrine wrote:
They cited the accusations of harassment and poor behavior. WOTC's opinion of the situation is that the accusations are credible enough to take actions.


Now here we get into the meat of the argument:

"Accusations"

I can accuse a person of any number of things. I need evidence to substantiate this. You would be quite upset if I got you banned from your FLGS because of an 'accusation', especially if you were never shown evidence of this.

Now, if there's actual evidence of him harassing people, they made the right decision. But I mean 'Harassment'... not negative criticism, harsh critique of a product or playstyle, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes or no. Do you think WOTC should ban those judges from MTGO?


In all fairness, it isn't really their place to deny a product to someone if that person is being dealt with legally. It'd be like WoW banning ex-cons from their game.

 Peregrine wrote:
You do understand that there is a slight difference between a communist advocating for higher taxes and collective ownership of capital, and a Nazi advocating for the industrialized slaughter of entire races/cultures, right?


I do realize that 'slight difference' still ends up with people being shot and left in mass graves. I realize that advocating to steal my land from me by force and executing my family for wanting to keep our property is pretty damned awful. Gas chamber awful? Nope. But it's a stone's throw.

 Peregrine wrote:
So if I said "Adeptus Doritos probably s sheep" you'd have no problem with that statement? After all, I only said you probably do it, I didn't say it with 100% certainty.


Nope. Because it's typical Peregrine behavior. See, where I'm from we expect certain behaviors from certain people. We don't give them any credibility. I don't kick sheep, do you call people Nazis arbitrarily? If the shoe fits, lace it up and wear it. If not, shrug it off like an adult.

 Peregrine wrote:
(Feel free to insert an alternative accusation of you probably doing more credible offensive things, I intentionally picked a less plausible one because you and I both know that the moderators don't find that "probably" a compelling defense.)


I'm pretty sure they have a very specific stance on advocating illegal activities, namely murder.

Like I said, let's see how it all pans out.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 16:33:36


Post by: Peregrine


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Now, if there's actual evidence of him harassing people, they made the right decision. But I mean 'Harassment'... not negative criticism, harsh critique of a product or playstyle, etc.


And, again, the problem here is that a lot of the videos/tweets/etc have been deleted since the initial events, by people on all sides. It all comes down to a one person's word vs. another person's word, and you have to trust someone without proof no matter which side you come down on. WOTC clearly felt that the accusations were credible enough, other people might disagree.

But, as I've said before and apparently have to keep saying, it says a lot that so much of the defense of Hambly consists of arguing that he didn't technically commit the crime of harassment by the legal definition. IOW, not statements endorsing his behavior, or claiming that he's an awesome part of the community that everyone should respect. Just nitpicking whether or not he technically did something wrong by a certain definition. It's pretty clear that, regardless of whether or not a particular accusation is proven, a lot of people think that Jeremy Hambly is a in general and aren't going to miss him one bit.

In all fairness, it isn't really their place to deny a product to someone if that person is being dealt with legally. It'd be like WoW banning ex-cons from their game.


So your position is that WOTC should not ban the judges from MTGO, even if the sex offender accusations are proven to be true? They should be allowed to continue playing MTGO without any restrictions?

I don't kick sheep, do you call people Nazis arbitrarily? If the shoe fits, lace it up and wear it. If not, shrug it off like an adult.


IOW, "just let me make straw man arguments and shrug it off". No thanks. You made a dishonest straw man argument, you can either provide proof of your accusation or concede that it was a dishonest attempt at a straw man.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 16:47:48


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 Peregrine wrote:
It all comes down to a one person's word vs. another person's word, and you have to trust someone without proof no matter which side you come down on...


Uh, no. That's not how things work.

Dude. I'm going to be nicer to you than I've ever been before. At this point, take this as a plea.

I think you might be a good person, or try to be. I disagree with a lot of what you say, but I think deep down you are trying to be a good dude day to day. And I think it might be really, really hard for someone like you to grasp this, because you're actually a good person:

People lie.

They will lie about anything- even things you can't imagine someone lying about. Pretty, sweet girls will lie. Old kindly men will lie. Your mother will lie. Duncan has probably lied. They will lie about things that you can understand lying about, and things you can't imagine a person lying about- murder, molestation, rape, theft, cheating, etc.- people will lie.

We don't ask for evidence because we think they're liars, though- not really. We need to assume someone is innocent until proven not to be. We do this because we need to establish a standard of evidence before we take action. This is how we actually take bad people out of society. Most of the time, it works. But sometimes the bad person can be the accuser. I've seen it and so have you.

EDIT: To make it clear what I'm saying- I've spent some of my volunteer time helping various troubled youth and veterans. I've had them tell me about being abused, raped, threatened, seeing horrendous acts of violence in their homes, doing things that are terrifying, you name it. I hear a lot of things.

Very few things are as heartbreaking as finding out this person was lying.

A teenage girl told me about how her stepfather had sexually assaulted her, then forced her to miscarry. Her stepfather had never done such, she hadn't even seen the man since she was a small child (she was mentally disturbed). A boy told me about bullies at his school- come to find out, he started problems with people and they got sick of him. A veteran sat and told me about all these horrors of war he'd seen, and come to find out- he'd never even deployed outside Kuwait, he was just an abusive jerk to his family.

It's sad, but a lot of things cause it- the desire for attention. Maybe they are in a bad situation and need help, so they 'overdo the plea' to be sure it gets attention. Sometimes they have mental problems. Other times, they're vindictive people with an axe to grind. I've seen it all. Yes, you give them your support. But you confirm- or, in my case, hand it over to someone else to investigate and confirm.

I've wanted to take action, that's how we are as people. We want to fix things and make things better. But we have to be rational. I think of myself as rational, because I may have gone overboard if not for that.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's pretty clear that, regardless of whether or not a particular accusation is proven, a lot of people think that Jeremy Hambly is a in general and aren't going to miss him one bit.


Sorry, it's not a popularity contest. It's actual action taken against someone. A lot of people on this forum think you're a 'bleep', but that doesn't mean you need to be banned.

 Peregrine wrote:
So your position is that WOTC should not ban the judges from MTGO, even if the sex offender accusations are proven to be true? They should be allowed to continue playing MTGO without any restrictions?


No more than WoW should ban ex-cons. Now, if these judges' actions took place over MGTO, or say- they used online gaming as a means to be a sexual predator, then I can understand why they would. But at the end of the day, MGTO or Blizzard, or whoever doesn't need to know who's holding the account, either. Anonymity is key. I don't want everyone in online gaming to know my real name, background, etc.

Also, there's a HUGE difference in a sexual predator using an online service and a sexual predator actually working on behalf of the company for organized events.

 Peregrine wrote:
IOW, "just let me make straw man arguments and shrug it off". No thanks. You made a dishonest straw man argument, you can either provide proof of your accusation or concede that it was a dishonest attempt at a straw man.


To be fair, saying you probably call people Nazis arbitrarily is a bit less significant than advocating the murder of other human beings.

And if we wanna get real specific, the goose-steppers were all about killing people for their beliefs or belonging to certain ideologies....


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 17:08:33


Post by: Peregrine


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
People lie.

They will lie about anything- even things you can't imagine someone lying about. Pretty, sweet girls will lie. Old kindly men will lie. Your mother will lie. Duncan has probably lied. They will lie about things that you can understand lying about, and things you can't imagine a person lying about- murder, molestation, rape, theft, cheating, etc.- people will lie.

We don't ask for evidence because we think they're liars, though- not really. We need to assume someone is innocent until proven not to be. We do this because we need to establish a standard of evidence before we take action. This is how we actually take bad people out of society. Most of the time, it works. But sometimes the bad person can be the accuser. I've seen it and so have you.


I'm well aware of the fact that people lie, thanks for the condescending explanation. That's why we have a high burden of proof in court, and don't throw people into prison without evidence being provided. But this is not a court case. WOTC is not required to have indisputable proof before they act. They have every right to look at two people making accusations at each other, with much of the evidence having been deleted, and decide that they find one of them more credible than the other.

Sorry, it's not a popularity contest. It's actual action taken against someone. A lot of people on this forum think you're a 'bleep', but that doesn't mean you need to be banned.


Actually, a popularity contest is exactly what it is. If too many people in a community dislike you then you get banned. It happens all the time, people get banned and whatever reasons (if any are given at all) are mentioned are little more than an excuse for doing what everyone wanted to do. That's how life works, and not just in the gaming community.

No more than WoW should ban ex-cons. Now, if these judges' actions took place over MGTO, or say- they used online gaming as a means to be a sexual predator, then I can understand why they would. But at the end of the day, MGTO or Blizzard, or whoever doesn't need to know who's holding the account, either. Anonymity is key. I don't want everyone in online gaming to know my real name, background, etc.


So you believe that WOTC should allow convicted sexual predators to play in MTGO, as long as their crimes did not happen through MTGO? At least you're consistent in your no-bans policy, I'll grant you that much.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 17:14:45


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 Peregrine wrote:


I'm well aware of the fact that people lie, thanks for the condescending explanation. That's why we have a high burden of proof in court, and don't throw people into prison without evidence being provided. But this is not a court case. WOTC is not required to have indisputable proof before they act. They have every right to look at two people making accusations at each other, with much of the evidence having been deleted, and decide that they find one of them more credible than the other.


And in doing so, they subject themselves to being questioned in their practices. And, of course, it's why this could be a civil court case. Hey, it's their money.

 Peregrine wrote:
Actually, a popularity contest is exactly what it is. If too many people in a community dislike you then you get banned. It happens all the time, people get banned and whatever reasons (if any are given at all) are mentioned are little more than an excuse for doing what everyone wanted to do. That's how life works, and not just in the gaming community.


Not in rational communities populated with adults. See, in the real world we understand that some people may have opinions we dislike. And in any community, whining about someone tends to get you the boot long before 'voting them off the island'. If people saw your opinions online, and barred you from the gaming store because they didn't like what you said- I would have your side, because they are there for gaming- and they need to get over it. Plain and simple.

How would you feel if you came to my area, and I decided I disliked you- and banded a bunch of people together to get you barred from all the gaming places? Especially if it were based on an accusation with no evidence? I assure you, you would sing a new tune. "Bullying", I believe, would be the word.

 Peregrine wrote:
So you believe that WOTC should allow convicted sexual predators to play in MTGO, as long as their crimes did not happen through MTGO? At least you're consistent in your no-bans policy, I'll grant you that much.


Yes. Just like convicted murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. It's not their place to ban someone from using their service, unless what they've done somehow involves their service.

This sort of thing is exactly why we have repeat offenders. Someone commits a crime, serves his time and pays his debt to society. Elements of society decide they want to take a role in his punishment, further ostracize him, and now you have these people right where they do NOT need to be- isolated. Where they can easily slip right back into their old crimes.


[


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 17:24:11


Post by: Overread


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


 Peregrine wrote:
So you believe that WOTC should allow convicted sexual predators to play in MTGO, as long as their crimes did not happen through MTGO? At least you're consistent in your no-bans policy, I'll grant you that much.


Yes. Just like convicted murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. It's not their place to ban someone from using their service, unless what they've done somehow involves their service.

[


I believe with certain crimes there are restrictions on what the accused can do even once released from the prison system. Crimes against children/vulnerable adults tend to be the kind that will prevent people who committed those crimes from working in environments that involve those vulnerable groups. It's my understanding that that was one of the core reasons many of these police check systems came into being; to reduce the potential chances for re-offence.


I'm all for allowing those who are convicted to return to society once they've paid their due; but at the same time its important to realise that crimes of a sexual nature are very different to crime such as fraud or putting your hand in the till etc...


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 17:25:05


Post by: Peregrine


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
And in doing so, they subject themselves to being questioned in their practices. And, of course, it's why this could be a civil court case. Hey, it's their money.


There is not going to be any civil case over this. WOTC indisputably has the right to ban Hambly, and he has no possible defense. The best he could hope for is to get one of those civil cases where the case clearly has no merits, but the defendant decides that paying off the plaintiff with an out of court settlement is cheaper than paying their lawyers to win the case in court.

Not in rational communities populated with adults. See, in the real world we understand that some people may have opinions we dislike. And in any community, whining about someone tends to get you the boot long before 'voting them off the island'. If people saw your opinions online, and barred you from the gaming store because they didn't like what you said- I would have your side, because they are there for gaming- and they need to get over it. Plain and simple.


I'm not sure what "real world" you're living in, but banning people for things that are not criminal offenses proved to the burden of proof of a criminal trial happens all the time. That guy who is kind of annoying and makes tasteless jokes a bit too often doesn't get invited to watch the game at your house. That girl who always brings a tournament list to newbie night is told to stop coming. Etc. People constantly select who they want to be friends with based on all kinds of factors that wouldn't be enough to convict someone in court.

How would you feel if you'd been a long-time gamer in my community, and I decided to band together with a bunch of my friends and 'vote you out' of our gaming stores, based on accusations with no evidence?


I'd probably say " you" and go play somewhere else, and your community would probably be dead soon after because groups that randomly ban people for no reason don't tend to survive very long. But that's not the case with Jeremy Hambly. He isn't a completely innocent person getting banned for no reason, even his defenders tend to admit that he's a .

Yes. Just like convicted murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. It's not their place to ban someone from using their service, unless what they've done somehow involves their service.

This sort of thing is exactly why we have repeat offenders. Someone commits a crime, serves his time and pays his debt to society. Elements of society decide they want to take a role in his punishment, further ostracize him, and now you have these people right where they do NOT need to be- isolated. Where they can easily slip right back into their old crimes.


Then why should convicted sex offenders be banned from working as MTG judges? After all, their crimes (presumably) didn't involve MTG.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 17:28:05


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 Overread wrote:
I believe with certain crimes there are restrictions on what the accused can do even once released from the prison system. Crimes against children/vulnerable adults tend to be the kind that will prevent people who committed those crimes from working in environments that involve those vulnerable groups. It's my understanding that that was one of the core reasons many of these police check systems came into being; to reduce the potential chances for re-offence.


And this is fair, I agree. I don't think a convicted child predator should be able to get a job at the local elementary school, etc. But at the same time, I don't think denying him the ability to play WoW or shop at the local Sack & Save is reasonable. Unless, of course, it involved either of those services or establishments.

It's a short ideological hop from denying services based on other things, I believe.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:

There is not going to be any civil case over this. WOTC indisputably has the right to ban Hambly, and he has no possible defense. The best he could hope for is to get one of those civil cases where the case clearly has no merits, but the defendant decides that paying off the plaintiff with an out of court settlement is cheaper than paying their lawyers to win the case in court.


So he gets their money, to make up for the money he lost and to help with the hardships he's faced. He wins.

Absolutely nothing stops him from buying cards and playing with his buddies, or starting a new account.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm not sure what "real world" you're living in, but banning people for things that are not criminal offenses proved to the burden of proof of a criminal trial happens all the time. That guy who is kind of annoying and makes tasteless jokes a bit too often doesn't get invited to watch the game at your house. That girl who always brings a tournament list to newbie night is told to stop coming. Etc. People constantly select who they want to be friends with based on all kinds of factors that wouldn't be enough to convict someone in court.


Um, you're confused I see. I never said it had to be a 'criminal offense'. You're straw-manning again.

In those cases, you have evidence for what is taking place. And usually, there's an intervention or warning of some sorts. If someone complains about someone's behavior, you confirm it. You don't just hurl them out unless it's really, really bad. In the store where I part-time, if a customer complains that we're allowing someone to play that they dislike, we ask that they focus instead on enjoying the game and avoid one another. If the behavior is taking place in the store, we confirm it.

Whining 'he said, she said' situations are the type where we ask both parties to leave and not come back. The last thing we want is children bringing their schoolyard disputes in to disturb everyone else.

"Selecting your friends" and "barring someone from all the events in the area" are completely different. You're murking up the argument.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'd probably say " you" and go play somewhere else, and your community would probably be dead soon after because groups that randomly ban people for no reason don't tend to survive very long. But that's not the case with Jeremy Hambly. He isn't a completely innocent person getting banned for no reason, even his defenders tend to admit that he's a


Well, that's funny- especially considering that usually people who get banned from one place don't have much luck gaming elsewhere. And advocating murder is a pretty decent reason, though. I'm pretty sure that kind of word travels fast. And it's not like we're worlds apart- banned from one spot carries on to another. I'd buy your models off Craigslist, though.

But you're right- bully groups tend to lose credibility in the eyes of rational adults. That's why there's such an outcry over this incident with Jeremy. It seems there's enough people who think there's a bit of an error with the judgement, and you're going to have to work extra hard to convince me these are all a bunch of terrible people.

I do, however, believe that enough vindictive people or people of certain beliefs can get together and form little cesspools. You think 'banning people for no reason' would get your group to lose credibility, but I've watch forums and even establishments become outright hostile toward 'wrongthink' and eject people- and yet, there they still thrive.

 Peregrine wrote:
Then why should convicted sex offenders be banned from working as MTG judges? After all, their crimes (presumably) didn't involve MTG.


I think you're missing the point.

There's a difference between representing a company and acting on their behalf, and using a service they provide.

In other words, it's like the difference between Wal-Mart allowing a convicted sex offender to shop, vs. allowing him to work as the door greeter.

This isn't as difficult as you're making it out to be.

The million-dollar question is: What does any of this have to do with Arch Warhammer?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 17:53:42


Post by: Peregrine


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
So he gets their money, to make up for the money he lost and to help with the hardships he's faced. He wins.


Or WOTC says you, refuses to settle out of court, and forces him to argue the merits of his case in court. At which point he loses, because he has no case. All he has is the potential to abuse the legal system with a frivolous lawsuit.

Absolutely nothing stops him from buying cards and playing with his buddies, or starting a new account.


Ok, yes, I'm not sure why you feel the need to argue a point that nobody is disagreeing with.

Um, you're confused I see. I never said it had to be a 'criminal offense'. You're straw-manning again.


No, but you're applying the rules of evidence appropriate to criminal court. In the real world things are often unclear, and people make decisions about who to trust despite not having perfect evidence. If multiple people say "don't invite this guy, he groped me at a previous event" you're probably going to trust them and ban the guy, even if the accusers don't provide video proof of the incident.

"Selecting your friends" and "barring someone from all the events in the area" are completely different. You're murking up the argument.


They are only different in the number of people involved. The principle is the same, a group of people decide that they don't want to be around someone and that person stops getting invited to the event.

And advocating murder is a pretty decent reason, though. I'm pretty sure that kind of word travels fast. And it's not like we're worlds apart- banned from one spot carries on to another. I'd buy your models off Craigslist, though.


Yeah, sure. Just keep dreaming of it, I'm sure I'm going to get banned from everywhere because I approve of shooting Nazis.

PS: remember the days when Nazis were the default video game enemy, because everyone agreed that Nazis are always acceptable targets and you never have to feel bad about killing them?

I think you're missing the point.

There's a difference between representing a company and acting on their behalf, and using a service they provide.

In other words, it's like the difference between Wal-Mart allowing a convicted sex offender to shop, vs. allowing him to work as the door greeter.

This isn't as difficult as you're making it out to be.


No, I see your point, but all of the arguments about not shunning people because you don't want them to go back to their crimes apply to having productive employment. If you're going to argue against banning them from MTGO based on that reasoning then you can't simultaneously say that we should set aside that point and ban them from being judges.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 18:00:58


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 Peregrine wrote:
Or WOTC says you, refuses to settle out of court, and forces him to argue the merits of his case in court. At which point he loses, because he has no case. All he has is the potential to abuse the legal system with a frivolous lawsuit.


Neither of us being lawyers, this is a possibility. But there's also some ground he has to stand on. Not to mention, if there's enough of an upset through the community- they'll be prompted to take some action. Crazier things have happened.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, but you're applying the rules of evidence appropriate to criminal court. In the real world things are often unclear, and people make decisions about who to trust despite not having perfect evidence.


And adults require something- credibility, proof, more than word of mouth. Idiots take everyone at their word. Maybe the -adult- decision is to stay out of squabbles until you're presented with a reason to take action. Didn't your mother teach you not to believe everything someone says? I remember that being the first thing I learned.

Long before I take action against another human being, I'll need some proof. What I 'believe' is irrelevant, because belief on its own is nothing. I need proof before I DO something. How is this too difficult for you?

 Peregrine wrote:
They are only different in the number of people involved. The principle is the same, a group of people decide that they don't want to be around someone and that person stops getting invited to the event.


Incorrect. I don't care who your friends are. Select them any way you see fit. But the moment you start mobbing up on someone, demanding they not be allowed to participate in large group activities, and provide no evidence- I call you out as a bully. And bullies deserve to be purged from the gaming community, right behind the sexual predators.

 Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, sure. Just keep dreaming of it, I'm sure I'm going to get banned from everywhere because I approve of shooting Nazis.


I'm pretty sure that your other behaviors are enough to sell a rational community on hurling you into the streets and laughing, if your behavior on here is any indication.

 Peregrine wrote:
PS: remember the days when Nazis were the default video game enemy, because everyone agreed that Nazis are always acceptable targets and you never have to feel bad about killing them?


I remember the days when people knew the difference between video games and real life. But then again, we've had a massive influx of unhinged manchildren that can't function in reality.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, I see your point, but all of the arguments about not shunning people because you don't want them to go back to their crimes apply to having productive employment. If you're going to argue against banning them from MTGO based on that reasoning then you can't simultaneously say that we should set aside that point and ban them from being judges.


Incorrect again.

Barring someone from representing your company and denying them services are two different things. I'm not sure why this is eluding you.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 21:00:30


Post by: cuda1179


When it comes to nerdy hobbies, I've basically seen them (classically) as a way for social outcasts to band together in a way that unites us in a way where other areas of life have shunned us. Basically all of us freaks, geeks, and weirdos need to stick together.

That being said, a few common overlapping hobbies does not make a homogenous life philosophy. I actually agree with Hambly that players that bring their significant others (regardless of gender) have a propensity to be annoying AF. I'm also not a huge fan of Cosplay. Then again I'd rarely, if ever, exclude someone for it.

I've played with college students, young kids, veterans, the disabled, jocks, etc. Almost all the time my general rule is, "we're here for the game. Game on". After the game, go your separate ways.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 22:38:28


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 cuda1179 wrote:
Then again I'd rarely, if ever, exclude someone for it.


I have a lot of respect for Cosplayers who make their own costumes. I have significantly less respect for people who model a costume someone else made, and charge people money to take pictures with them. And far less respect for anyone who pays for that picture.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've played with college students, young kids, veterans, the disabled, jocks, etc. Almost all the time my general rule is, "we're here for the game. Game on". After the game, go your separate ways.


Before people brought identity politics into gaming, there weren't anyone but heterosexual white males playing. Haven't you heard?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 23:26:00


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Sigh

Guys can we calm down a bit?

If I am allowed to remind a few things maybe lost in the timeline

Chistine stopped been a cosplayer for some reasons (a lot are floating around all valid, I don't know her I cannot say one or the other is the real one) she decided for whatever reason to accuse Unsleeved Media for years of harassment against her as the reason, something nobody has managed to prove, his videos and tweets are out there oddly or not by people who are on Unsleeved Media's "side" and prove that at best his interactions with her go sixth months back not even a year.

Never the less Telarian Community college made a video accusing him for that and this started a harassment campaign against Unsleeved media from Supporters of Telarian, including some judges and at least one Wotc employee, this lead to a week long investigation from Wotc that ended with his lifetime ban, the evidence for the lifetime ban by Wotc were one tweet and two Pepe Meme posts.

To put some context, Christine was friend with Telarian, Telarian is quite close with Wotc never raising any criticism even against blatant issues like cards coming warped straight from the booster, on the other hand Unsleeved Media is continuously criticising Wotc, for issues like the card quality calling others for not doing so ectr, moreover from a video released today from MTG lion it seems Telarian and the mana source are old enemies with Unsleeved Media and have a "with me or against me" policy.

I think they are also ideologically opposed, but I really have not gone searching to that depth.

The pro player you speak of was banned for a year for been a moderator in a private FB group were some players played a stupid game rating prominent female MtG players.

Both bans were seen by many as an ideological witch hunt (the pro player had supported Unsleeved Media in the investigation) and Unsleeved media with others called Wotc for biased and uneven handling of the ban.

The ban made Unsleeved Media point to a few people who were in his mind doing worse to the community than he did like a pro player who has been caught 3 times so far cheat? and he set up an account for people to submit dirt for the magic community.

I do not know if he knew what he would unleash but many submitted many accusation far worse than anyone could imagine and either on virtue or spite he decided to go on with what he got and could verify and here we are, now videos are flagged by people not wanting their name been out public Wotc silently bans and removes people from the records, the vice president made an unofficial statement that distances themselves from the Judges program and the list goes on and on, including been published on news sites and gaining more and more attention.

As with many things it has moved on the political agenda and gained a momentum of its own now.

I know were this started here and on what principles the initial discussion was done, but I can't believe anyone of us would expect it to go that far and so rapidly and particular in this direction.

Now on the MtG Online collection, according to a real layer WotC has no right to take his collection and by their own fault they have given monetary value to the collection, but don't listen to me.



Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 23:32:51


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 PsychoticStorm wrote:


To put some context, Christine was friend with Telarian, Telarian is quite close with Wotc never raising any criticism even against blatant issues like cards coming warped straight from the booster, on the other hand Unsleeved Media is continuously criticising Wotc, for issues like the card quality calling others for not doing so ectr, moreover from a video released today from MTG lion it seems Telarian and the mana source are old enemies with Unsleeved Media and have a "with me or against me" policy.


And there's another little trend I've noticed. People at a company have 'friends' out there doing their dirty work against their critics. It's been happening with comics.

Within 24 hours of some of these 'creators' being criticized, it seems like there's just suddenly a little pocket force of people out there trying to lash out at the critics. Some are 'journalists', others are just slobbering bands of outrage fetishists. Convenient how these people are always pals with creators and are suddenly organized in force, and how the accusations of 'Alt-right' or 'MRA' seem to fly. It's almost as if there's a method to this, a sort of doctrine...


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/03 23:46:33


Post by: Turnip Jedi


Brian ('The Professor') from Tolarian Community College is a spectacularly disingenuous waste of skin, he was fairly vocal about Wizards shortcoming in the early days, then he started getting preview cards which equals clicks which equals moneys, and now he's a full on shill and shizz klaxon for hire and Wizards can do no wrong


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 01:00:44


Post by: cuda1179


I'm beginning to wonder why Sprankle left Magic. Even she admits that her ex boyfriend was basically funding her life. His money both funded her lifestyle and her hobbying. Their sudden breakup set her back so much she ended up sleeping on a couch in her estranged mother's trailer.

If you can't afford your own place, you obviously don't have a "real" job. I'm wondering if the sudden need to find a job left little available time or disposable income to be a cosplaying Magic player.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 01:24:57


Post by: PsychoticStorm


We can speculate a lot about it, we really do not know.

I think the latest journalist had a point though, considering how much Wotc used her to promote Magic, they should have hired her as an employee, not just pay her so little twice per year, she needed a good manager and had none.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 03:21:01


Post by: Crazyterran


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


 cuda1179 wrote:
I've played with college students, young kids, veterans, the disabled, jocks, etc. Almost all the time my general rule is, "we're here for the game. Game on". After the game, go your separate ways.


Before people brought identity politics into gaming, there weren't anyone but heterosexual white males playing. Haven't you heard?


Hey man, you were the one calling people Nazis and Child Rapists! Unless you found that quote..?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
We can speculate a lot about it, we really do not know.

I think the latest journalist had a point though, considering how much Wotc used her to promote Magic, they should have hired her as an employee, not just pay her so little twice per year, she needed a good manager and had none.


I remember there was a Warcraft cosplayer that got hired as a community manager by Cryptozoic during WoWTCGs days. Made sense, since it's an easy way to represent the brand and makes sure someone who puts a lot of time and effort into doing something can keep doing that something for you.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 03:24:25


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 Crazyterran wrote:

Hey man, you were the one calling people Nazis and Child Rapists! Unless you found that quote..?


[citation needed]


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 03:30:18


Post by: Crazyterran


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
 Crazyterran wrote:

Hey man, you were the one calling people Nazis and Child Rapists! Unless you found that quote..?


[citation needed]


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Didn't this guy get banned for a Pepe meme, according to the person who actually coordinated with him? Then they seized thousands of dollars worth of his online gaming stuff?

And apparently he gave some grief to a cosplayer. Pardon me if I don't really care about negative criticism toward people playing dress-up. You can't expect all your critique to be positive.

I'm glad GW doesn't have anything like this. The only people I've seen calling for bans in the 40k/AoS circuits have already revealed themselves to be psychologically unhinged.

 Crazyterran wrote:
...There's also the source/motivation of the work going into finding this evidence poisoning this a bit - what do people who are typically alt right trolls (the people rallying around Hambly)...


"Alt Right" is the "heretic" of 2017. Apparently if you dislike what someone says, you can call them 'alt right', a 'Nazi', or something like that. I swear, man, sometimes I wonder if people are just replicating the antics of insane religious fanatics we dealt with in the early 90's and late 80's.

If you think throwing labels on people is going to discredit an argument, you are mistaken. People are getting smarter and wising up to this tactic.

So what if they're "Alt right"? Are they wrong? If you saw a Nazi taking down a child rapist, would you side with the child rapist?


In the context of this thread you know exactly what you did. But keep on trumpeting the other people using identity politics, lol. Not to mention you accusing me of calling Hambly a Nazi, or Peregrine of calling people Nazis. Calling other people toxic while coming in swinging with a toxic attitude.

You hypocrite.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 03:33:26


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 Crazyterran wrote:
[
In the context of this thread you know exactly what you did. But keep on trumpeting the other people using identity politics, lol. Not to mention you accusing me of calling Hambly a Nazi, or Peregrine of calling people Nazis. Calling other people toxic while coming in swinging with a toxic attitude.

You hypocrite.


Who'd I call a 'Nazi'? Didn't you actually call him a Nazi?

Show me where I'm wrong.. I'm dying to see it.

You apparently believe "Disagreeing with me" = "Toxic". How... expected. Sorry, man- that sort of thinking is more toxic to communities than your mysterious 'trolls'.

Actually, I'm not going to stoop to your level. I'd let the administration yank your leash. Call names more, if you like. The only thing toxic here is your behavior.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm beginning to wonder why Sprankle left Magic. Even she admits that her ex boyfriend was basically funding her life. His money both funded her lifestyle and her hobbying. Their sudden breakup set her back so much she ended up sleeping on a couch in her estranged mother's trailer.


And still no proof of this 'harassment'? I hate how that word is abused to just mean 'someone upset me'.

 cuda1179 wrote:
If you can't afford your own place, you obviously don't have a "real" job. I'm wondering if the sudden need to find a job left little available time or disposable income to be a cosplaying Magic player.


Well, cosplaying is a hobby. At some point, you gotta go into adult mode. Sounds to me like she was upset and using her lifestyle change as a catalyst to start some drama.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 03:48:49


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The pro player you speak of was banned for a year for been a moderator in a private FB group were some players played a stupid game rating prominent female MtG players.


So, you admit that the player in question was guilty of behavior. What exactly is wrong with this ban?

(the pro player had supported Unsleeved Media in the investigation)


And had also been dropped by his sponsors and kicked off his team before WOTC did anything. Somehow I don't think his support of Hambly was the issue.

Now on the MtG Online collection, according to a real layer WotC has no right to take his collection and by their own fault they have given monetary value to the collection, but don't listen to me.


You'd better pray that this doesn't happen, if you're at all a fan of online gaming. If someone manages to succeed in getting video game character attributes treated as property with monetary value, despite the fact that they in no way function as property on a conceptual level and treating them as property leads to absurd results, it would instantly end online gaming as we know it. MTGO would instantly be shut down, as would every online game with persistent characters, and nobody would ever make a new one again.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 03:54:59


Post by: Crazyterran


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
 Crazyterran wrote:
[
In the context of this thread you know exactly what you did. But keep on trumpeting the other people using identity politics, lol. Not to mention you accusing me of calling Hambly a Nazi, or Peregrine of calling people Nazis. Calling other people toxic while coming in swinging with a toxic attitude.

You hypocrite.


Who'd I call a 'Nazi'? Didn't you actually call him a Nazi?

Show me where I'm wrong.. I'm dying to see it.

You apparently believe "Disagreeing with me" = "Toxic". How... expected. Sorry, man- that sort of thinking is more toxic to communities than your mysterious 'trolls'.

Actually, I'm not going to stoop to your level. I'd let the administration yank your leash. Call names more, if you like. The only thing toxic here is your behavior.


I haven't called you or anyone else any names, unless you count pointing out your hypocrisy. I said the group that rallied to defend Hambly was the alt-right, which is a loose political affiliation in the US that is (sort of) aligned with the Republican Party as it is/was. Typically championed by Breitbart. This apparently triggered you (actually, no apparently, you admitted it), as you came out swinging over it, calling me toxic (who's name calling now?) and saying you need to purge the gaming community of them. Interesting word choice, no?

This thread was perfectly fine until you came in here with half of half the facts, absurd examples, and ridiculous outrage over simple political facts. There was no name calling or mudslinging until you appeared.

Show me where I called him a Nazi, other than simply fixing your own absurd example. Your own example where, in the context of this thread, where you probably (a favourite word of yours, no?) implied that Hambly was a Nazi and that Wizards were Child Rapists, or people who defended them.



Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 04:01:42


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 Crazyterran wrote:
I haven't called you or anyone else any names, unless you count pointing out your hypocrisy. I said the group that rallied to defend Hambly was the alt-right, which is a loose political affiliation in the US that is (sort of) aligned with the Republican Party as it is/was. Typically championed by Breitbart. This apparently triggered you (actually, no apparently, you admitted it), as you came out swinging over it, calling me toxic (who's name calling now?) and saying you need to purge the gaming community of them. Interesting word choice, no?


No, you said something childish and you were called out on it. "muh alt-rite" is the go-to phrase for people who have difficulty understanding that sometimes people disagree with you.

And I called your behavior toxic. It certainly is. It's practically oozing.

And yes, bullies should be 'purged' from the gaming community. But I see what you're doing. You're not fooling anyone, and nowhere near as clever as you think.

Do you wanna call me 'Alt-right'? A 'Nazi'? Go ahead. Please, by all means. Insinuate everything you like. It's a little dance I've seen plenty of people do when they're on the losing side of a discussion and have nothing left to support their claims.

 Crazyterran wrote:
This thread was perfectly fine until you came in here with half of half the facts, absurd examples, and ridiculous outrage over simple political facts. There was no name calling or mudslinging until you appeared.


This, young sir, is a blatant lie and you know it. What you're trying to say is, "This thread was fine while me and Peregrine had no one disagreeing with us". Welcome to the adult world, your worldview isn't held as a universal truth, please try to adjust as quickly as possible for your own sake.

You were mudslinging and making blatantly false or otherwise unfounded statements against another person. You may call me a hypocrite if you like, but from the mouth of a liar any name you spew forth has no merit, no weight, nothing.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 04:08:33


Post by: cuda1179


 Peregrine wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Now on the MtG Online collection, according to a real layer WotC has no right to take his collection and by their own fault they have given monetary value to the collection, but don't listen to me.


You'd better pray that this doesn't happen, if you're at all a fan of online gaming. If someone manages to succeed in getting video game character attributes treated as property with monetary value, despite the fact that they in no way function as property on a conceptual level and treating them as property leads to absurd results, it would instantly end online gaming as we know it. MTGO would instantly be shut down, as would every online game with persistent characters, and nobody would ever make a new one again.


I think the largest issues are:

1. Wotc having sloppy user agreements
2. Not properly defining terms
3. Not putting in proper limits
4. Giving in-game items real world exchange value


Change all that and they wouldn't really have a problem.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 04:16:31


Post by: Peregrine


 cuda1179 wrote:
I think the largest issues are:

1. Wotc having sloppy user agreements
2. Not properly defining terms
3. Not putting in proper limits
4. Giving in-game items real world exchange value


Change all that and they wouldn't really have a problem.


No, the biggest issue is that on a functional level video game character attributes do not function like property and are incompatible with the laws for handling property. MTGO cards are not something you could, even in theory, take possession of, so how can they be your property? It just leads to absurdity if you try to apply the concept of property to them. For example, if WOTC ever shuts down MTGO then they'd be guilty of destroying everyone's property, creating an obligation to keep the MTGO servers running literally forever. If WOTC makes balance changes that change the text of cards and damage their value they could be sued for that damage. And, when you apply the precedent created by the case to other games, killing someone in PvP and taking their stuff in a game like EVE Online would become a crime punishable by prison and/or fines. Destroy a capital ship in EVE? Congratulations, that's a felony and you're going to prison.

As for #4, WOTC did not do this. The items have no real world exchange value because they can not be exchanged for real-world money. It is not possible to buy or sell MTGO cards through the game, you can only pay someone outside of the game to perform a trade within the game, bypassing WOTC's game mechanics entirely.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 04:27:00


Post by: PsychoticStorm


 Peregrine wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The pro player you speak of was banned for a year for been a moderator in a private FB group were some players played a stupid game rating prominent female MtG players.


So, you admit that the player in question was guilty of behavior. What exactly is wrong with this ban?



No I vehemently oppose such ideas, such person was a moderator in a private FB group, that is under locked doors, in a private place, he was baned for what other people did in his private space just because he was the owner of the group, he never participated in such activity and was found guilty by association.

Frankly even the "game" is at best childish and unworthy of anything more than laughing at the people participating, maybe it is from were I live or my age, but getting seriously upset over it is worse than participating in it in my opinion, that been said the owner of a private group is not the guardian of its members, has no responsibility for their behaviour and it is not their guardian.

Wotc banning him just because he was a moderator in such group because someone from inside reported the "game" he did not participate in is a gross overreach of their power, it was done in private, in another platform and outside of their domain, beyond showing they had an axe to grind with this particular individual, for whatever reasons, they clearly show they think they have the right to dictate what your behaviour will be outside their premises and what you are allowed to think say and allow to happen in your private life.

It is unacceptable at best and a really bad precedent for the future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
Spoiler:
 cuda1179 wrote:
I think the largest issues are:

1. Wotc having sloppy user agreements
2. Not properly defining terms
3. Not putting in proper limits
4. Giving in-game items real world exchange value


Change all that and they wouldn't really have a problem.


No, the biggest issue is that on a functional level video game character attributes do not function like property and are incompatible with the laws for handling property. MTGO cards are not something you could, even in theory, take possession of, so how can they be your property? It just leads to absurdity if you try to apply the concept of property to them. For example, if WOTC ever shuts down MTGO then they'd be guilty of destroying everyone's property, creating an obligation to keep the MTGO servers running literally forever. If WOTC makes balance changes that change the text of cards and damage their value they could be sued for that damage. And, when you apply the precedent created by the case to other games, killing someone in PvP and taking their stuff in a game like EVE Online would become a crime punishable by prison and/or fines. Destroy a capital ship in EVE? Congratulations, that's a felony and you're going to prison.

As for #4, WOTC did not do this. The items have no real world exchange value because they can not be exchanged for real-world money. It is not possible to buy or sell MTGO cards through the game, you can only pay someone outside of the game to perform a trade within the game, bypassing WOTC's game mechanics entirely.


So I am guessing you did not bother to see the Youtube video?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 04:35:40


Post by: Peregrine


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
No I vehemently oppose such ideas, such person was a moderator in a private FB group, that is under locked doors, in a private place, he was baned for what other people did in his private space just because he was the owner of the group, he never participated in such activity and was found guilty by association.


He was the owner of a group specifically created for offensive MTG memes, and allowed the offensive material to exist. The idea that he "never participated" is laughable.

Frankly even the "game" is at best childish and unworthy of anything more than laughing at the people participating, maybe it is from were I live or my age, but getting seriously upset over it is worse than participating in it in my opinion, that been said the owner of a private group is not the guardian of its members, has no responsibility for their behaviour and it is not their guardian.


No, it's childish but it's also sexist that is completely inappropriate in any group that has ambitions of being open and welcoming to people regardless of gender.

Wotc banning him just because he was a moderator in such group because someone from inside reported the "game" he did not participate in is a gross overreach of their power, it was done in private, in another platform and outside of their domain, beyond showing they had an axe to grind with this particular individual, for whatever reasons, they clearly show they think they have the right to dictate what your behaviour will be outside their premises and what you are allowed to think say and allow to happen in your private life.


They don't have the right to dictate behavior outside their premises, nor are they doing so. The person in question is free to engage in whatever childish and sexist games he wants, and make all the offensive MTG memes he can come up with. WOTC has no power to stop him from doing it. But WOTC is not obligated to invite a sexist and immature to their social event.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
So I am guessing you did not bother to see the Youtube video?


No, I'm not going to watch a video of something that is best presented in text form just so that someone can get advertising money from it. Do you have a transcript of the video, or a written form of the argument?


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 04:44:48


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 Peregrine wrote:
He was the owner of a group specifically created for offensive MTG memes, and allowed the offensive material to exist. The idea that he "never participated" is laughable.


Nothing happens if you're offended. And what is 'offensive' is subjective, considering that we need 'trigger warnings' on pictures of food in some groups. We, as a society, need to stop coddling people who can't handle reality. The internet is big. If you don't like what you see in one place, you can always go somewhere else.

As I am understanding, he had very little interaction with the group at all. And even if he did own it, it's almost full-time work to moderate every post on a facebook group. I've started a couple of Social Media groups and left them, or simply handed them over. Moderating every single post is nearly impossible if you have a job and a social life.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it's childish but it's also sexist that is completely inappropriate in any group that has ambitions of being open and welcoming to people regardless of gender.


But it's a private group, and no one said they had 'ambitions of being open and welcoming' to everyone. You don't get to dictate what's appropriate in someone's private group.

Fun fact, though- most adult women aren't perpetually triggered snowflakes that need boys trying to shield them from the naughty behaviors of juvenile males.

You say this 'hot or not' type game is super sexist and offensive, and M:tG is 'right' for policing people out of their events. Seems like they'd have worried about the actual child rapists at their events first. If you can apply any critical thinking at all, you'll quickly see why this is raising eyebrows.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, I'm not going to watch a video of something that is best presented in text form just so that someone can get advertising money from it. Do you have a transcript of the video, or a written form of the argument?


You should really watch it instead of doing your best to dodge anything that upsets you. The guy's actually a lawyer, apparently, and makes some very valid points.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 05:00:11


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Video summary, your assumptions about what has or has not monetary value is wrong according to areal lawyer, but it does not matter Wotc EULA is so baldly written that by withholding Unsleeved Medias assets they are in breach of their own contract.

Case can be won, not advisable to file because the money lost are far less than the money it will involve.

Now, on your other comments, "offensive" is subject to personal interpretation, you find it offensive and sexist I find it not worth the effort bothering about it, I like how you completely ignore the word private nobody outside the group has access to view such group and it was on another platform, if somebody would be eligible to take action about it it would be the Facebook and not Wotc since it was not on their platform, moreover it was not public.

I cannot understand with what logic you support a corporation dictating what people may think or do in their private life especially in private places, I can think of a few totalitarian regimes in the cold war era that had such behaviour, but I thought we are in the "free west" and giving corporations the power governments are not allowed to have for obvious reasons is not a good idea.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 05:01:53


Post by: Peregrine


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Nothing happens if you're offended. And what is 'offensive' is subjective, considering that we need 'trigger warnings' on pictures of food in some groups. We, as a society, need to stop coddling people who can't handle reality. The internet is big. If you don't like what you see in one place, you can always go somewhere else.


I see. So you think that dakka's rules are objectionable and we need to stop coddling people who can't handle the reality of posting Nazi propaganda or pornography or whatever other material the site owners don't want to have around? Or does your outrage about people being offended only apply when it aligns with your ideological positions?

As I am understanding, he had very little interaction with the group at all. And even if he did own it, it's almost full-time work to moderate every post on a facebook group. I've started a couple of Social Media groups and left them, or simply handed them over. Moderating every single post is nearly impossible if you have a job and a social life.


And there's an easy solution for that: don't make a group specifically for the purpose of creating and sharing offensive MTG memes, and if moderating it into something less offensive is too much work then click "leave group". This isn't a case of finding some local store's facebook page with offensive material in the comments and getting outraged that the moderator didn't delete it within 30 minutes, the entire purpose of the group in question was to do exactly what was going on.

But it's a private group, and no one said they had 'ambitions of being open and welcoming' to everyone. You don't get to dictate what's appropriate in someone's private group.


You don't, which is why WOTC did not delete the group or any of its contents. The people involved are free to keep posting whatever they want, and WOTC is not going to stop them. But WOTC does have the right to decide that the MTG tournament community they organize is meant to be open and welcoming and decide that immature sexist s are not the kind of people they want to invite. The facebook group organizers dictate what is appropriate in their private group, WOTC dictates what is appropriate in theirs.

Fun fact, though- most adult women aren't perpetually triggered snowflakes that need boys trying to shield them from the naughty behaviors of juvenile males.


Perhaps not, but most adult women probably don't make a habit of participating in groups that are full of immature and sexist men. They might not be "triggered" (a blatant misuse of the term, btw, but that's what I expect from you), but they're going to take their money and interest elsewhere.

You should really watch it instead of doing your best to dodge anything that upsets you. The guy's actually a lawyer, apparently, and makes some very valid points.


I'm not dodging it because it upsets me, I'm asking for a text source because youtube videos are a terrible medium for this kind of information. If someone wants to provide a text form of the argument I'll be happy to explain why it is wrong, and why you should pray that no court ever finds it compelling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Video summary, your assumptions about what has or has not monetary value is wrong according to areal lawyer, but it does not matter Wotc EULA is so baldly written that by withholding Unsleeved Medias assets they are in breach of their own contract.


This needs more detail. How exactly can cards have monetary value when you can not sell them, can not take possession of them (even in theory), and sign an agreement explicitly stating that you do not own them? How exactly do you handle the absurd consequences which follow from treating video game character attributes as property with monetary value? Are you seriously making the argument that destroying a capital ship in EVE Online is felony destruction of property, punishable by prison sentences?

Now, on your other comments, "offensive" is subject to personal interpretation, you find it offensive and sexist I find it not worth the effort bothering about it, I like how you completely ignore the word private nobody outside the group has access to view such group and it was on another platform, if somebody would be eligible to take action about it it would be the Facebook and not Wotc since it was not on their platform, moreover it was not public.


You're right, offensive is subject to personal interpretation. WOTC has clearly decided that the MTG meme group contained offensive material, and anyone who participates in or endorses it is not the kind of person they want to associate with. Other people are free to decide that the material is not offensive, and allow the people who made it into their private groups. They are free to host their own MTG tournaments and invite everyone who made those memes. I really don't see why this is so hard to understand.

I cannot understand with what logic you support a corporation dictating what people may think or do in their private life especially in private places, I can think of a few totalitarian regimes in the cold war era that had such behaviour, but I thought we are in the "free west" and giving corporations the power governments are not allowed to have for obvious reasons is not a good idea.


Again, they are not dictating what you can do in your private life. They are not imprisoning anyone, or fining them, or in any way doing the things that totalitarian regimes do to their enemies. They are simply making the same decisions that we all make, about who they do and do not wish to associate with. If anything the totalitarianism would be the demand that WOTC be stripped of their power to decide who to invite to their private club, denying them the freedom to run their business as they desire and turning them into a puppet for your opinions.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 05:32:56


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


 Peregrine wrote:
I see. So you think that dakka's rules are objectionable and we need to stop coddling people who can't handle the reality of posting Nazi propaganda or pornography or whatever other material the site owners don't want to have around? Or does your outrage about people being offended only apply when it aligns with your ideological positions?


Privately owned page. They can set whatever rules they want for their page. Doesn't mean I have to agree with all of them.

I think some folks need to stop demanding that everyone else in the world police everything for you, because you lack the adult skill called 'controlling my emotions'. I see things that bother me all the time. I walk away, go to a different page, tell someone to knock it off, etcetera. I don't expect the entire world to adapt to me. And, if I owned a page, I'd have restrictions on what I'd want there. It's a private page. You're missing the point, or deliberately trying to derail it because you have no argument.

Par for the course with you.

Why do you insinuate that I think 'Nazi Propaganda' is okay? Are you trying to say something? Go on, man up and say what you're thinking. I dare you.

 Peregrine wrote:
And there's an easy solution for that: don't make a group specifically for the purpose of creating and sharing offensive MTG memes, and if moderating it into something less offensive is too much work then click "leave group". This isn't a case of finding some local store's facebook page with offensive material in the comments and getting outraged that the moderator didn't delete it within 30 minutes, the entire purpose of the group in question was to do exactly what was going on.


You keep saying 'offensive' like it's a universal term. Some people find pictures of women in swimsuits 'offensive'. The group was private for a reason. Don't like the content? Don't join the group. It's called being an adult and taking responsibility for your own behavior. Stop trying to demand that the world cater to your fragile feelings.

In order for people to be exposed to that groups 'offensive memes', they had to ACTUALLY JOIN the private group. You don't stumble onto it. And if it was for the purpose of sharing 'offensive memes', then these morons knew EXACTLY what kind of group they're joining. That's like intentionally walking into a lit cigarette and whining because someone burned you.

 Peregrine wrote:
You don't, which is why WOTC did not delete the group or any of its contents. The people involved are free to keep posting whatever they want, and WOTC is not going to stop them. But WOTC does have the right to decide that the MTG tournament community they organize is meant to be open and welcoming and decide that immature sexist s are not the kind of people they want to invite. The facebook group organizers dictate what is appropriate in their private group, WOTC dictates what is appropriate in theirs.


Again, that's fine. But people aren't arguing that they can't do this. People are asking why they were more concerned about 'offensive memes' than they were the actual child rapists as judges and the other scummery that wasn't worth policing. I'd say an organization that lets a kiddie-diddler be a judge probably wouldn't be too concerned about a Pepe, if that's setting the standards.

 Peregrine wrote:
Perhaps not, but most adult women probably don't make a habit of participating in groups that are full of immature and sexist men. They might not be "triggered" (a blatant misuse of the term, btw, but that's what I expect from you), but they're going to take their money and interest elsewhere.


Most adult women have a sense of humor, and the majority of them see little 'protective' males as potential sexual predators. So far, they seem to be right.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm not dodging it because it upsets me, I'm asking for a text source because youtube videos are a terrible medium for this kind of information. If someone wants to provide a text form of the argument I'll be happy to explain why it is wrong, and why you should pray that no court ever finds it compelling.


If a few minutes of a Youtube video and listening to a man speaking is too difficult for you, I'm starting to understand your difficulty reading posts.

What do you want, a blog from a whining girl?



Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 05:47:05


Post by: Peregrine


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Privately owned page. They can set whatever rules they want for their page. Doesn't mean I have to agree with all of them.


Exactly. Just like WOTC can set the rules for their privately owned MTG club.

Why do you insinuate that I think 'Nazi Propaganda' is okay? Are you trying to say something? Go on, man up and say what you're thinking. I dare you.


No, I was actually making the exact opposite assumption: that you think that Nazi propaganda is not ok, and have no problem with a site imposing a "no Nazi propaganda" rule and banning anyone who posts it. And I see that, as expected, you agree with me that private groups are allowed to decide who and what is allowed in their group.

You keep saying 'offensive' like it's a universal term. Some people find pictures of women in swimsuits 'offensive'. The group was private for a reason. Don't like the content? Don't join the group. It's called being an adult and taking responsibility for your own behavior. Stop trying to demand that the world cater to your fragile feelings.


Sigh. Again, WOTC did not shut down the group. They did not delete any of its content. Nor did they attempt to do either of those things. They simply took responsibility for their own group and decided that certain people aren't welcome in it. If you don't like WOTC's decisions about their private group you are free to be an adult, take responsibility for your own behavior, and not join WOTC's group. Stop trying to demand that WOTC cater to your fragile feelings.

Again, that's fine. But people aren't arguing that they can't do this. People are asking why they were more concerned about 'offensive memes' than they were the actual child rapists as judges and the other scummery that wasn't worth policing. I'd say an organization that lets a kiddie-diddler be a judge probably wouldn't be too concerned about a Pepe, if that's setting the standards.


And you will notice that, now that WOTC has been informed of the business(es) they partner with failing to take responsibility (both morally and legally) for employee background checks, the judges in question are being removed. Nowhere did WOTC say "raping kids is ok, come join our club".

If a few minutes of a Youtube video and listening to a man speaking is too difficult for you, I'm starting to understand your difficulty reading posts.

What do you want, a blog from a whining girl?


I want a written form of the argument, preferably with linked citations to quoted material supporting its extremely unconventional position. Video of someone talking at the camera is a terrible medium for this kind of thing, and I wish people would stop doing it. It's harder to follow, much harder to quote in a response, and generally just a pain in the ass to deal with. But apparently youtube advertising money is the most important goal here.


Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer @ 2018/01/04 06:09:41


Post by: Cream Tea


 Peregrine wrote:
Video of someone talking at the camera is a terrible medium for this kind of thing, and I wish people would stop doing it. It's harder to follow, much harder to quote in a response, and generally just a pain in the ass to deal with. But apparently youtube advertising money is the most important goal here.

I think it's more laziness than anything else. Switching your camera on and rambling for a while is easier than writing coherent text, especially for those less used to writing.

I hate it when people expect you to watch 20+ minutes of video of what could be read in three.