Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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?

 cuda1179 wrote:
Why doesn't WotC do background checks on their judges?

Child protection or Pepe memes - you have to prioritize!

 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.

 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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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?

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.