Switch Theme:

Jeremy Hambly, Magic: TCG and ArchWarhammer  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/01 18:16:14


 
   
Made in us
Fighter Pilot





In a Desert Exile

 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/01 23:49:41






 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/02 13:10:53


Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

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.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 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?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/02 13:55:36


Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/02 17:16:55


 
   
Made in us
Fighter Pilot





In a Desert Exile

 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.





 
   
Made in ca
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






Vancouver, BC

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/03 07:15:53


 warboss wrote:
Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

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.
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/03 12:12:36


 
   
Made in us
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions





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?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/03 13:38:53


 
   
Made in ca
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






Vancouver, BC

 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.









 warboss wrote:
Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 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.

Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in us
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions





 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.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2018/01/03 15:19:56


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 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?

Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in ca
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






Vancouver, BC

 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?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/03 15:32:23


 warboss wrote:
Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
 
   
Made in us
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions





 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/03 15:38:15


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 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.

Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in us
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions





 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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

I too am surprised Peregrine hasn't gotten a talking to by the mods.
   
Made in us
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions





 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.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 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".

Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in us
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions





 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/03 16:10:58


 
   
Made in ca
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






Vancouver, BC

 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?

 warboss wrote:
Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 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.)

Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in us
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions





 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.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 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.

Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in us
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions





 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....

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/03 17:07:29


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 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.

Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
 
Forum Index » Board Games, Roleplaying Games & Card Games
Go to: