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
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





 Peregrine wrote:


I'm well aware of the fact that people lie, thanks for the condescending explanation. That's why we have a high burden of proof in court, and don't throw people into prison without evidence being provided. But this is not a court case. WOTC is not required to have indisputable proof before they act. They have every right to look at two people making accusations at each other, with much of the evidence having been deleted, and decide that they find one of them more credible than the other.


And in doing so, they subject themselves to being questioned in their practices. And, of course, it's why this could be a civil court case. Hey, it's their money.

 Peregrine wrote:
Actually, a popularity contest is exactly what it is. If too many people in a community dislike you then you get banned. It happens all the time, people get banned and whatever reasons (if any are given at all) are mentioned are little more than an excuse for doing what everyone wanted to do. That's how life works, and not just in the gaming community.


Not in rational communities populated with adults. See, in the real world we understand that some people may have opinions we dislike. And in any community, whining about someone tends to get you the boot long before 'voting them off the island'. If people saw your opinions online, and barred you from the gaming store because they didn't like what you said- I would have your side, because they are there for gaming- and they need to get over it. Plain and simple.

How would you feel if you came to my area, and I decided I disliked you- and banded a bunch of people together to get you barred from all the gaming places? Especially if it were based on an accusation with no evidence? I assure you, you would sing a new tune. "Bullying", I believe, would be the word.

 Peregrine wrote:
So you believe that WOTC should allow convicted sexual predators to play in MTGO, as long as their crimes did not happen through MTGO? At least you're consistent in your no-bans policy, I'll grant you that much.


Yes. Just like convicted murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. It's not their place to ban someone from using their service, unless what they've done somehow involves their service.

This sort of thing is exactly why we have repeat offenders. Someone commits a crime, serves his time and pays his debt to society. Elements of society decide they want to take a role in his punishment, further ostracize him, and now you have these people right where they do NOT need to be- isolated. Where they can easily slip right back into their old crimes.


[

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/03 17:18:37


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




UK

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


 Peregrine wrote:
So you believe that WOTC should allow convicted sexual predators to play in MTGO, as long as their crimes did not happen through MTGO? At least you're consistent in your no-bans policy, I'll grant you that much.


Yes. Just like convicted murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. It's not their place to ban someone from using their service, unless what they've done somehow involves their service.

[


I believe with certain crimes there are restrictions on what the accused can do even once released from the prison system. Crimes against children/vulnerable adults tend to be the kind that will prevent people who committed those crimes from working in environments that involve those vulnerable groups. It's my understanding that that was one of the core reasons many of these police check systems came into being; to reduce the potential chances for re-offence.


I'm all for allowing those who are convicted to return to society once they've paid their due; but at the same time its important to realise that crimes of a sexual nature are very different to crime such as fraud or putting your hand in the till etc...
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
And in doing so, they subject themselves to being questioned in their practices. And, of course, it's why this could be a civil court case. Hey, it's their money.


There is not going to be any civil case over this. WOTC indisputably has the right to ban Hambly, and he has no possible defense. The best he could hope for is to get one of those civil cases where the case clearly has no merits, but the defendant decides that paying off the plaintiff with an out of court settlement is cheaper than paying their lawyers to win the case in court.

Not in rational communities populated with adults. See, in the real world we understand that some people may have opinions we dislike. And in any community, whining about someone tends to get you the boot long before 'voting them off the island'. If people saw your opinions online, and barred you from the gaming store because they didn't like what you said- I would have your side, because they are there for gaming- and they need to get over it. Plain and simple.


I'm not sure what "real world" you're living in, but banning people for things that are not criminal offenses proved to the burden of proof of a criminal trial happens all the time. That guy who is kind of annoying and makes tasteless jokes a bit too often doesn't get invited to watch the game at your house. That girl who always brings a tournament list to newbie night is told to stop coming. Etc. People constantly select who they want to be friends with based on all kinds of factors that wouldn't be enough to convict someone in court.

How would you feel if you'd been a long-time gamer in my community, and I decided to band together with a bunch of my friends and 'vote you out' of our gaming stores, based on accusations with no evidence?


I'd probably say " you" and go play somewhere else, and your community would probably be dead soon after because groups that randomly ban people for no reason don't tend to survive very long. But that's not the case with Jeremy Hambly. He isn't a completely innocent person getting banned for no reason, even his defenders tend to admit that he's a .

Yes. Just like convicted murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. It's not their place to ban someone from using their service, unless what they've done somehow involves their service.

This sort of thing is exactly why we have repeat offenders. Someone commits a crime, serves his time and pays his debt to society. Elements of society decide they want to take a role in his punishment, further ostracize him, and now you have these people right where they do NOT need to be- isolated. Where they can easily slip right back into their old crimes.


Then why should convicted sex offenders be banned from working as MTG judges? After all, their crimes (presumably) didn't involve MTG.

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
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





 Overread wrote:
I believe with certain crimes there are restrictions on what the accused can do even once released from the prison system. Crimes against children/vulnerable adults tend to be the kind that will prevent people who committed those crimes from working in environments that involve those vulnerable groups. It's my understanding that that was one of the core reasons many of these police check systems came into being; to reduce the potential chances for re-offence.


And this is fair, I agree. I don't think a convicted child predator should be able to get a job at the local elementary school, etc. But at the same time, I don't think denying him the ability to play WoW or shop at the local Sack & Save is reasonable. Unless, of course, it involved either of those services or establishments.

It's a short ideological hop from denying services based on other things, I believe.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:

There is not going to be any civil case over this. WOTC indisputably has the right to ban Hambly, and he has no possible defense. The best he could hope for is to get one of those civil cases where the case clearly has no merits, but the defendant decides that paying off the plaintiff with an out of court settlement is cheaper than paying their lawyers to win the case in court.


So he gets their money, to make up for the money he lost and to help with the hardships he's faced. He wins.

Absolutely nothing stops him from buying cards and playing with his buddies, or starting a new account.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm not sure what "real world" you're living in, but banning people for things that are not criminal offenses proved to the burden of proof of a criminal trial happens all the time. That guy who is kind of annoying and makes tasteless jokes a bit too often doesn't get invited to watch the game at your house. That girl who always brings a tournament list to newbie night is told to stop coming. Etc. People constantly select who they want to be friends with based on all kinds of factors that wouldn't be enough to convict someone in court.


Um, you're confused I see. I never said it had to be a 'criminal offense'. You're straw-manning again.

In those cases, you have evidence for what is taking place. And usually, there's an intervention or warning of some sorts. If someone complains about someone's behavior, you confirm it. You don't just hurl them out unless it's really, really bad. In the store where I part-time, if a customer complains that we're allowing someone to play that they dislike, we ask that they focus instead on enjoying the game and avoid one another. If the behavior is taking place in the store, we confirm it.

Whining 'he said, she said' situations are the type where we ask both parties to leave and not come back. The last thing we want is children bringing their schoolyard disputes in to disturb everyone else.

"Selecting your friends" and "barring someone from all the events in the area" are completely different. You're murking up the argument.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'd probably say " you" and go play somewhere else, and your community would probably be dead soon after because groups that randomly ban people for no reason don't tend to survive very long. But that's not the case with Jeremy Hambly. He isn't a completely innocent person getting banned for no reason, even his defenders tend to admit that he's a


Well, that's funny- especially considering that usually people who get banned from one place don't have much luck gaming elsewhere. And advocating murder is a pretty decent reason, though. I'm pretty sure that kind of word travels fast. And it's not like we're worlds apart- banned from one spot carries on to another. I'd buy your models off Craigslist, though.

But you're right- bully groups tend to lose credibility in the eyes of rational adults. That's why there's such an outcry over this incident with Jeremy. It seems there's enough people who think there's a bit of an error with the judgement, and you're going to have to work extra hard to convince me these are all a bunch of terrible people.

I do, however, believe that enough vindictive people or people of certain beliefs can get together and form little cesspools. You think 'banning people for no reason' would get your group to lose credibility, but I've watch forums and even establishments become outright hostile toward 'wrongthink' and eject people- and yet, there they still thrive.

 Peregrine wrote:
Then why should convicted sex offenders be banned from working as MTG judges? After all, their crimes (presumably) didn't involve MTG.


I think you're missing the point.

There's a difference between representing a company and acting on their behalf, and using a service they provide.

In other words, it's like the difference between Wal-Mart allowing a convicted sex offender to shop, vs. allowing him to work as the door greeter.

This isn't as difficult as you're making it out to be.

The million-dollar question is: What does any of this have to do with Arch Warhammer?

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/01/03 17:49:12


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
So he gets their money, to make up for the money he lost and to help with the hardships he's faced. He wins.


Or WOTC says you, refuses to settle out of court, and forces him to argue the merits of his case in court. At which point he loses, because he has no case. All he has is the potential to abuse the legal system with a frivolous lawsuit.

Absolutely nothing stops him from buying cards and playing with his buddies, or starting a new account.


Ok, yes, I'm not sure why you feel the need to argue a point that nobody is disagreeing with.

Um, you're confused I see. I never said it had to be a 'criminal offense'. You're straw-manning again.


No, but you're applying the rules of evidence appropriate to criminal court. In the real world things are often unclear, and people make decisions about who to trust despite not having perfect evidence. If multiple people say "don't invite this guy, he groped me at a previous event" you're probably going to trust them and ban the guy, even if the accusers don't provide video proof of the incident.

"Selecting your friends" and "barring someone from all the events in the area" are completely different. You're murking up the argument.


They are only different in the number of people involved. The principle is the same, a group of people decide that they don't want to be around someone and that person stops getting invited to the event.

And advocating murder is a pretty decent reason, though. I'm pretty sure that kind of word travels fast. And it's not like we're worlds apart- banned from one spot carries on to another. I'd buy your models off Craigslist, though.


Yeah, sure. Just keep dreaming of it, I'm sure I'm going to get banned from everywhere because I approve of shooting Nazis.

PS: remember the days when Nazis were the default video game enemy, because everyone agreed that Nazis are always acceptable targets and you never have to feel bad about killing them?

I think you're missing the point.

There's a difference between representing a company and acting on their behalf, and using a service they provide.

In other words, it's like the difference between Wal-Mart allowing a convicted sex offender to shop, vs. allowing him to work as the door greeter.

This isn't as difficult as you're making it out to be.


No, I see your point, but all of the arguments about not shunning people because you don't want them to go back to their crimes apply to having productive employment. If you're going to argue against banning them from MTGO based on that reasoning then you can't simultaneously say that we should set aside that point and ban them from being judges.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/03 17:55:08


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
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





 Peregrine wrote:
Or WOTC says you, refuses to settle out of court, and forces him to argue the merits of his case in court. At which point he loses, because he has no case. All he has is the potential to abuse the legal system with a frivolous lawsuit.


Neither of us being lawyers, this is a possibility. But there's also some ground he has to stand on. Not to mention, if there's enough of an upset through the community- they'll be prompted to take some action. Crazier things have happened.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, but you're applying the rules of evidence appropriate to criminal court. In the real world things are often unclear, and people make decisions about who to trust despite not having perfect evidence.


And adults require something- credibility, proof, more than word of mouth. Idiots take everyone at their word. Maybe the -adult- decision is to stay out of squabbles until you're presented with a reason to take action. Didn't your mother teach you not to believe everything someone says? I remember that being the first thing I learned.

Long before I take action against another human being, I'll need some proof. What I 'believe' is irrelevant, because belief on its own is nothing. I need proof before I DO something. How is this too difficult for you?

 Peregrine wrote:
They are only different in the number of people involved. The principle is the same, a group of people decide that they don't want to be around someone and that person stops getting invited to the event.


Incorrect. I don't care who your friends are. Select them any way you see fit. But the moment you start mobbing up on someone, demanding they not be allowed to participate in large group activities, and provide no evidence- I call you out as a bully. And bullies deserve to be purged from the gaming community, right behind the sexual predators.

 Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, sure. Just keep dreaming of it, I'm sure I'm going to get banned from everywhere because I approve of shooting Nazis.


I'm pretty sure that your other behaviors are enough to sell a rational community on hurling you into the streets and laughing, if your behavior on here is any indication.

 Peregrine wrote:
PS: remember the days when Nazis were the default video game enemy, because everyone agreed that Nazis are always acceptable targets and you never have to feel bad about killing them?


I remember the days when people knew the difference between video games and real life. But then again, we've had a massive influx of unhinged manchildren that can't function in reality.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, I see your point, but all of the arguments about not shunning people because you don't want them to go back to their crimes apply to having productive employment. If you're going to argue against banning them from MTGO based on that reasoning then you can't simultaneously say that we should set aside that point and ban them from being judges.


Incorrect again.

Barring someone from representing your company and denying them services are two different things. I'm not sure why this is eluding you.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/03 18:06:26


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

When it comes to nerdy hobbies, I've basically seen them (classically) as a way for social outcasts to band together in a way that unites us in a way where other areas of life have shunned us. Basically all of us freaks, geeks, and weirdos need to stick together.

That being said, a few common overlapping hobbies does not make a homogenous life philosophy. I actually agree with Hambly that players that bring their significant others (regardless of gender) have a propensity to be annoying AF. I'm also not a huge fan of Cosplay. Then again I'd rarely, if ever, exclude someone for it.

I've played with college students, young kids, veterans, the disabled, jocks, etc. Almost all the time my general rule is, "we're here for the game. Game on". After the game, go your separate ways.
   
Made in us
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





 cuda1179 wrote:
Then again I'd rarely, if ever, exclude someone for it.


I have a lot of respect for Cosplayers who make their own costumes. I have significantly less respect for people who model a costume someone else made, and charge people money to take pictures with them. And far less respect for anyone who pays for that picture.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've played with college students, young kids, veterans, the disabled, jocks, etc. Almost all the time my general rule is, "we're here for the game. Game on". After the game, go your separate ways.


Before people brought identity politics into gaming, there weren't anyone but heterosexual white males playing. Haven't you heard?
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

Sigh

Guys can we calm down a bit?

If I am allowed to remind a few things maybe lost in the timeline

Chistine stopped been a cosplayer for some reasons (a lot are floating around all valid, I don't know her I cannot say one or the other is the real one) she decided for whatever reason to accuse Unsleeved Media for years of harassment against her as the reason, something nobody has managed to prove, his videos and tweets are out there oddly or not by people who are on Unsleeved Media's "side" and prove that at best his interactions with her go sixth months back not even a year.

Never the less Telarian Community college made a video accusing him for that and this started a harassment campaign against Unsleeved media from Supporters of Telarian, including some judges and at least one Wotc employee, this lead to a week long investigation from Wotc that ended with his lifetime ban, the evidence for the lifetime ban by Wotc were one tweet and two Pepe Meme posts.

To put some context, Christine was friend with Telarian, Telarian is quite close with Wotc never raising any criticism even against blatant issues like cards coming warped straight from the booster, on the other hand Unsleeved Media is continuously criticising Wotc, for issues like the card quality calling others for not doing so ectr, moreover from a video released today from MTG lion it seems Telarian and the mana source are old enemies with Unsleeved Media and have a "with me or against me" policy.

I think they are also ideologically opposed, but I really have not gone searching to that depth.

The pro player you speak of was banned for a year for been a moderator in a private FB group were some players played a stupid game rating prominent female MtG players.

Both bans were seen by many as an ideological witch hunt (the pro player had supported Unsleeved Media in the investigation) and Unsleeved media with others called Wotc for biased and uneven handling of the ban.

The ban made Unsleeved Media point to a few people who were in his mind doing worse to the community than he did like a pro player who has been caught 3 times so far cheat? and he set up an account for people to submit dirt for the magic community.

I do not know if he knew what he would unleash but many submitted many accusation far worse than anyone could imagine and either on virtue or spite he decided to go on with what he got and could verify and here we are, now videos are flagged by people not wanting their name been out public Wotc silently bans and removes people from the records, the vice president made an unofficial statement that distances themselves from the Judges program and the list goes on and on, including been published on news sites and gaining more and more attention.

As with many things it has moved on the political agenda and gained a momentum of its own now.

I know were this started here and on what principles the initial discussion was done, but I can't believe anyone of us would expect it to go that far and so rapidly and particular in this direction.

Now on the MtG Online collection, according to a real layer WotC has no right to take his collection and by their own fault they have given monetary value to the collection, but don't listen to me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/03 23:26:55


 
   
Made in us
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





 PsychoticStorm wrote:


To put some context, Christine was friend with Telarian, Telarian is quite close with Wotc never raising any criticism even against blatant issues like cards coming warped straight from the booster, on the other hand Unsleeved Media is continuously criticising Wotc, for issues like the card quality calling others for not doing so ectr, moreover from a video released today from MTG lion it seems Telarian and the mana source are old enemies with Unsleeved Media and have a "with me or against me" policy.


And there's another little trend I've noticed. People at a company have 'friends' out there doing their dirty work against their critics. It's been happening with comics.

Within 24 hours of some of these 'creators' being criticized, it seems like there's just suddenly a little pocket force of people out there trying to lash out at the critics. Some are 'journalists', others are just slobbering bands of outrage fetishists. Convenient how these people are always pals with creators and are suddenly organized in force, and how the accusations of 'Alt-right' or 'MRA' seem to fly. It's almost as if there's a method to this, a sort of doctrine...
   
Made in gb
Screaming Shining Spear





Brian ('The Professor') from Tolarian Community College is a spectacularly disingenuous waste of skin, he was fairly vocal about Wizards shortcoming in the early days, then he started getting preview cards which equals clicks which equals moneys, and now he's a full on shill and shizz klaxon for hire and Wizards can do no wrong

"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

I'm beginning to wonder why Sprankle left Magic. Even she admits that her ex boyfriend was basically funding her life. His money both funded her lifestyle and her hobbying. Their sudden breakup set her back so much she ended up sleeping on a couch in her estranged mother's trailer.

If you can't afford your own place, you obviously don't have a "real" job. I'm wondering if the sudden need to find a job left little available time or disposable income to be a cosplaying Magic player.
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

We can speculate a lot about it, we really do not know.

I think the latest journalist had a point though, considering how much Wotc used her to promote Magic, they should have hired her as an employee, not just pay her so little twice per year, she needed a good manager and had none.
   
Made in ca
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






Vancouver, BC

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


 cuda1179 wrote:
I've played with college students, young kids, veterans, the disabled, jocks, etc. Almost all the time my general rule is, "we're here for the game. Game on". After the game, go your separate ways.


Before people brought identity politics into gaming, there weren't anyone but heterosexual white males playing. Haven't you heard?


Hey man, you were the one calling people Nazis and Child Rapists! Unless you found that quote..?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
We can speculate a lot about it, we really do not know.

I think the latest journalist had a point though, considering how much Wotc used her to promote Magic, they should have hired her as an employee, not just pay her so little twice per year, she needed a good manager and had none.


I remember there was a Warcraft cosplayer that got hired as a community manager by Cryptozoic during WoWTCGs days. Made sense, since it's an easy way to represent the brand and makes sure someone who puts a lot of time and effort into doing something can keep doing that something for you.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/04 03:22:19


 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
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





 Crazyterran wrote:

Hey man, you were the one calling people Nazis and Child Rapists! Unless you found that quote..?


[citation needed]
   
Made in ca
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






Vancouver, BC

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
 Crazyterran wrote:

Hey man, you were the one calling people Nazis and Child Rapists! Unless you found that quote..?


[citation needed]


 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Didn't this guy get banned for a Pepe meme, according to the person who actually coordinated with him? Then they seized thousands of dollars worth of his online gaming stuff?

And apparently he gave some grief to a cosplayer. Pardon me if I don't really care about negative criticism toward people playing dress-up. You can't expect all your critique to be positive.

I'm glad GW doesn't have anything like this. The only people I've seen calling for bans in the 40k/AoS circuits have already revealed themselves to be psychologically unhinged.

 Crazyterran wrote:
...There's also the source/motivation of the work going into finding this evidence poisoning this a bit - what do people who are typically alt right trolls (the people rallying around Hambly)...


"Alt Right" is the "heretic" of 2017. Apparently if you dislike what someone says, you can call them 'alt right', a 'Nazi', or something like that. I swear, man, sometimes I wonder if people are just replicating the antics of insane religious fanatics we dealt with in the early 90's and late 80's.

If you think throwing labels on people is going to discredit an argument, you are mistaken. People are getting smarter and wising up to this tactic.

So what if they're "Alt right"? Are they wrong? If you saw a Nazi taking down a child rapist, would you side with the child rapist?


In the context of this thread you know exactly what you did. But keep on trumpeting the other people using identity politics, lol. Not to mention you accusing me of calling Hambly a Nazi, or Peregrine of calling people Nazis. Calling other people toxic while coming in swinging with a toxic attitude.

You hypocrite.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/04 03:31:01


 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
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





 Crazyterran wrote:
[
In the context of this thread you know exactly what you did. But keep on trumpeting the other people using identity politics, lol. Not to mention you accusing me of calling Hambly a Nazi, or Peregrine of calling people Nazis. Calling other people toxic while coming in swinging with a toxic attitude.

You hypocrite.


Who'd I call a 'Nazi'? Didn't you actually call him a Nazi?

Show me where I'm wrong.. I'm dying to see it.

You apparently believe "Disagreeing with me" = "Toxic". How... expected. Sorry, man- that sort of thinking is more toxic to communities than your mysterious 'trolls'.

Actually, I'm not going to stoop to your level. I'd let the administration yank your leash. Call names more, if you like. The only thing toxic here is your behavior.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm beginning to wonder why Sprankle left Magic. Even she admits that her ex boyfriend was basically funding her life. His money both funded her lifestyle and her hobbying. Their sudden breakup set her back so much she ended up sleeping on a couch in her estranged mother's trailer.


And still no proof of this 'harassment'? I hate how that word is abused to just mean 'someone upset me'.

 cuda1179 wrote:
If you can't afford your own place, you obviously don't have a "real" job. I'm wondering if the sudden need to find a job left little available time or disposable income to be a cosplaying Magic player.


Well, cosplaying is a hobby. At some point, you gotta go into adult mode. Sounds to me like she was upset and using her lifestyle change as a catalyst to start some drama.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/04 03:41:08


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The pro player you speak of was banned for a year for been a moderator in a private FB group were some players played a stupid game rating prominent female MtG players.


So, you admit that the player in question was guilty of behavior. What exactly is wrong with this ban?

(the pro player had supported Unsleeved Media in the investigation)


And had also been dropped by his sponsors and kicked off his team before WOTC did anything. Somehow I don't think his support of Hambly was the issue.

Now on the MtG Online collection, according to a real layer WotC has no right to take his collection and by their own fault they have given monetary value to the collection, but don't listen to me.


You'd better pray that this doesn't happen, if you're at all a fan of online gaming. If someone manages to succeed in getting video game character attributes treated as property with monetary value, despite the fact that they in no way function as property on a conceptual level and treating them as property leads to absurd results, it would instantly end online gaming as we know it. MTGO would instantly be shut down, as would every online game with persistent characters, and nobody would ever make a new one again.

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:
 Crazyterran wrote:
[
In the context of this thread you know exactly what you did. But keep on trumpeting the other people using identity politics, lol. Not to mention you accusing me of calling Hambly a Nazi, or Peregrine of calling people Nazis. Calling other people toxic while coming in swinging with a toxic attitude.

You hypocrite.


Who'd I call a 'Nazi'? Didn't you actually call him a Nazi?

Show me where I'm wrong.. I'm dying to see it.

You apparently believe "Disagreeing with me" = "Toxic". How... expected. Sorry, man- that sort of thinking is more toxic to communities than your mysterious 'trolls'.

Actually, I'm not going to stoop to your level. I'd let the administration yank your leash. Call names more, if you like. The only thing toxic here is your behavior.


I haven't called you or anyone else any names, unless you count pointing out your hypocrisy. I said the group that rallied to defend Hambly was the alt-right, which is a loose political affiliation in the US that is (sort of) aligned with the Republican Party as it is/was. Typically championed by Breitbart. This apparently triggered you (actually, no apparently, you admitted it), as you came out swinging over it, calling me toxic (who's name calling now?) and saying you need to purge the gaming community of them. Interesting word choice, no?

This thread was perfectly fine until you came in here with half of half the facts, absurd examples, and ridiculous outrage over simple political facts. There was no name calling or mudslinging until you appeared.

Show me where I called him a Nazi, other than simply fixing your own absurd example. Your own example where, in the context of this thread, where you probably (a favourite word of yours, no?) implied that Hambly was a Nazi and that Wizards were Child Rapists, or people who defended them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/04 03:56:35


 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
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





 Crazyterran wrote:
I haven't called you or anyone else any names, unless you count pointing out your hypocrisy. I said the group that rallied to defend Hambly was the alt-right, which is a loose political affiliation in the US that is (sort of) aligned with the Republican Party as it is/was. Typically championed by Breitbart. This apparently triggered you (actually, no apparently, you admitted it), as you came out swinging over it, calling me toxic (who's name calling now?) and saying you need to purge the gaming community of them. Interesting word choice, no?


No, you said something childish and you were called out on it. "muh alt-rite" is the go-to phrase for people who have difficulty understanding that sometimes people disagree with you.

And I called your behavior toxic. It certainly is. It's practically oozing.

And yes, bullies should be 'purged' from the gaming community. But I see what you're doing. You're not fooling anyone, and nowhere near as clever as you think.

Do you wanna call me 'Alt-right'? A 'Nazi'? Go ahead. Please, by all means. Insinuate everything you like. It's a little dance I've seen plenty of people do when they're on the losing side of a discussion and have nothing left to support their claims.

 Crazyterran wrote:
This thread was perfectly fine until you came in here with half of half the facts, absurd examples, and ridiculous outrage over simple political facts. There was no name calling or mudslinging until you appeared.


This, young sir, is a blatant lie and you know it. What you're trying to say is, "This thread was fine while me and Peregrine had no one disagreeing with us". Welcome to the adult world, your worldview isn't held as a universal truth, please try to adjust as quickly as possible for your own sake.

You were mudslinging and making blatantly false or otherwise unfounded statements against another person. You may call me a hypocrite if you like, but from the mouth of a liar any name you spew forth has no merit, no weight, nothing.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/04 04:06:50


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

 Peregrine wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Now on the MtG Online collection, according to a real layer WotC has no right to take his collection and by their own fault they have given monetary value to the collection, but don't listen to me.


You'd better pray that this doesn't happen, if you're at all a fan of online gaming. If someone manages to succeed in getting video game character attributes treated as property with monetary value, despite the fact that they in no way function as property on a conceptual level and treating them as property leads to absurd results, it would instantly end online gaming as we know it. MTGO would instantly be shut down, as would every online game with persistent characters, and nobody would ever make a new one again.


I think the largest issues are:

1. Wotc having sloppy user agreements
2. Not properly defining terms
3. Not putting in proper limits
4. Giving in-game items real world exchange value


Change all that and they wouldn't really have a problem.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 cuda1179 wrote:
I think the largest issues are:

1. Wotc having sloppy user agreements
2. Not properly defining terms
3. Not putting in proper limits
4. Giving in-game items real world exchange value


Change all that and they wouldn't really have a problem.


No, the biggest issue is that on a functional level video game character attributes do not function like property and are incompatible with the laws for handling property. MTGO cards are not something you could, even in theory, take possession of, so how can they be your property? It just leads to absurdity if you try to apply the concept of property to them. For example, if WOTC ever shuts down MTGO then they'd be guilty of destroying everyone's property, creating an obligation to keep the MTGO servers running literally forever. If WOTC makes balance changes that change the text of cards and damage their value they could be sued for that damage. And, when you apply the precedent created by the case to other games, killing someone in PvP and taking their stuff in a game like EVE Online would become a crime punishable by prison and/or fines. Destroy a capital ship in EVE? Congratulations, that's a felony and you're going to prison.

As for #4, WOTC did not do this. The items have no real world exchange value because they can not be exchanged for real-world money. It is not possible to buy or sell MTGO cards through the game, you can only pay someone outside of the game to perform a trade within the game, bypassing WOTC's game mechanics entirely.

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

 Peregrine wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The pro player you speak of was banned for a year for been a moderator in a private FB group were some players played a stupid game rating prominent female MtG players.


So, you admit that the player in question was guilty of behavior. What exactly is wrong with this ban?



No I vehemently oppose such ideas, such person was a moderator in a private FB group, that is under locked doors, in a private place, he was baned for what other people did in his private space just because he was the owner of the group, he never participated in such activity and was found guilty by association.

Frankly even the "game" is at best childish and unworthy of anything more than laughing at the people participating, maybe it is from were I live or my age, but getting seriously upset over it is worse than participating in it in my opinion, that been said the owner of a private group is not the guardian of its members, has no responsibility for their behaviour and it is not their guardian.

Wotc banning him just because he was a moderator in such group because someone from inside reported the "game" he did not participate in is a gross overreach of their power, it was done in private, in another platform and outside of their domain, beyond showing they had an axe to grind with this particular individual, for whatever reasons, they clearly show they think they have the right to dictate what your behaviour will be outside their premises and what you are allowed to think say and allow to happen in your private life.

It is unacceptable at best and a really bad precedent for the future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
Spoiler:
 cuda1179 wrote:
I think the largest issues are:

1. Wotc having sloppy user agreements
2. Not properly defining terms
3. Not putting in proper limits
4. Giving in-game items real world exchange value


Change all that and they wouldn't really have a problem.


No, the biggest issue is that on a functional level video game character attributes do not function like property and are incompatible with the laws for handling property. MTGO cards are not something you could, even in theory, take possession of, so how can they be your property? It just leads to absurdity if you try to apply the concept of property to them. For example, if WOTC ever shuts down MTGO then they'd be guilty of destroying everyone's property, creating an obligation to keep the MTGO servers running literally forever. If WOTC makes balance changes that change the text of cards and damage their value they could be sued for that damage. And, when you apply the precedent created by the case to other games, killing someone in PvP and taking their stuff in a game like EVE Online would become a crime punishable by prison and/or fines. Destroy a capital ship in EVE? Congratulations, that's a felony and you're going to prison.

As for #4, WOTC did not do this. The items have no real world exchange value because they can not be exchanged for real-world money. It is not possible to buy or sell MTGO cards through the game, you can only pay someone outside of the game to perform a trade within the game, bypassing WOTC's game mechanics entirely.


So I am guessing you did not bother to see the Youtube video?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/04 04:29:38


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 PsychoticStorm wrote:
No I vehemently oppose such ideas, such person was a moderator in a private FB group, that is under locked doors, in a private place, he was baned for what other people did in his private space just because he was the owner of the group, he never participated in such activity and was found guilty by association.


He was the owner of a group specifically created for offensive MTG memes, and allowed the offensive material to exist. The idea that he "never participated" is laughable.

Frankly even the "game" is at best childish and unworthy of anything more than laughing at the people participating, maybe it is from were I live or my age, but getting seriously upset over it is worse than participating in it in my opinion, that been said the owner of a private group is not the guardian of its members, has no responsibility for their behaviour and it is not their guardian.


No, it's childish but it's also sexist that is completely inappropriate in any group that has ambitions of being open and welcoming to people regardless of gender.

Wotc banning him just because he was a moderator in such group because someone from inside reported the "game" he did not participate in is a gross overreach of their power, it was done in private, in another platform and outside of their domain, beyond showing they had an axe to grind with this particular individual, for whatever reasons, they clearly show they think they have the right to dictate what your behaviour will be outside their premises and what you are allowed to think say and allow to happen in your private life.


They don't have the right to dictate behavior outside their premises, nor are they doing so. The person in question is free to engage in whatever childish and sexist games he wants, and make all the offensive MTG memes he can come up with. WOTC has no power to stop him from doing it. But WOTC is not obligated to invite a sexist and immature to their social event.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
So I am guessing you did not bother to see the Youtube video?


No, I'm not going to watch a video of something that is best presented in text form just so that someone can get advertising money from it. Do you have a transcript of the video, or a written form of the argument?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/04 04:37:00


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
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





 Peregrine wrote:
He was the owner of a group specifically created for offensive MTG memes, and allowed the offensive material to exist. The idea that he "never participated" is laughable.


Nothing happens if you're offended. And what is 'offensive' is subjective, considering that we need 'trigger warnings' on pictures of food in some groups. We, as a society, need to stop coddling people who can't handle reality. The internet is big. If you don't like what you see in one place, you can always go somewhere else.

As I am understanding, he had very little interaction with the group at all. And even if he did own it, it's almost full-time work to moderate every post on a facebook group. I've started a couple of Social Media groups and left them, or simply handed them over. Moderating every single post is nearly impossible if you have a job and a social life.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it's childish but it's also sexist that is completely inappropriate in any group that has ambitions of being open and welcoming to people regardless of gender.


But it's a private group, and no one said they had 'ambitions of being open and welcoming' to everyone. You don't get to dictate what's appropriate in someone's private group.

Fun fact, though- most adult women aren't perpetually triggered snowflakes that need boys trying to shield them from the naughty behaviors of juvenile males.

You say this 'hot or not' type game is super sexist and offensive, and M:tG is 'right' for policing people out of their events. Seems like they'd have worried about the actual child rapists at their events first. If you can apply any critical thinking at all, you'll quickly see why this is raising eyebrows.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, I'm not going to watch a video of something that is best presented in text form just so that someone can get advertising money from it. Do you have a transcript of the video, or a written form of the argument?


You should really watch it instead of doing your best to dodge anything that upsets you. The guy's actually a lawyer, apparently, and makes some very valid points.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/04 04:48:35


 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

Video summary, your assumptions about what has or has not monetary value is wrong according to areal lawyer, but it does not matter Wotc EULA is so baldly written that by withholding Unsleeved Medias assets they are in breach of their own contract.

Case can be won, not advisable to file because the money lost are far less than the money it will involve.

Now, on your other comments, "offensive" is subject to personal interpretation, you find it offensive and sexist I find it not worth the effort bothering about it, I like how you completely ignore the word private nobody outside the group has access to view such group and it was on another platform, if somebody would be eligible to take action about it it would be the Facebook and not Wotc since it was not on their platform, moreover it was not public.

I cannot understand with what logic you support a corporation dictating what people may think or do in their private life especially in private places, I can think of a few totalitarian regimes in the cold war era that had such behaviour, but I thought we are in the "free west" and giving corporations the power governments are not allowed to have for obvious reasons is not a good idea.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/04 05:00:37


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Nothing happens if you're offended. And what is 'offensive' is subjective, considering that we need 'trigger warnings' on pictures of food in some groups. We, as a society, need to stop coddling people who can't handle reality. The internet is big. If you don't like what you see in one place, you can always go somewhere else.


I see. So you think that dakka's rules are objectionable and we need to stop coddling people who can't handle the reality of posting Nazi propaganda or pornography or whatever other material the site owners don't want to have around? Or does your outrage about people being offended only apply when it aligns with your ideological positions?

As I am understanding, he had very little interaction with the group at all. And even if he did own it, it's almost full-time work to moderate every post on a facebook group. I've started a couple of Social Media groups and left them, or simply handed them over. Moderating every single post is nearly impossible if you have a job and a social life.


And there's an easy solution for that: don't make a group specifically for the purpose of creating and sharing offensive MTG memes, and if moderating it into something less offensive is too much work then click "leave group". This isn't a case of finding some local store's facebook page with offensive material in the comments and getting outraged that the moderator didn't delete it within 30 minutes, the entire purpose of the group in question was to do exactly what was going on.

But it's a private group, and no one said they had 'ambitions of being open and welcoming' to everyone. You don't get to dictate what's appropriate in someone's private group.


You don't, which is why WOTC did not delete the group or any of its contents. The people involved are free to keep posting whatever they want, and WOTC is not going to stop them. But WOTC does have the right to decide that the MTG tournament community they organize is meant to be open and welcoming and decide that immature sexist s are not the kind of people they want to invite. The facebook group organizers dictate what is appropriate in their private group, WOTC dictates what is appropriate in theirs.

Fun fact, though- most adult women aren't perpetually triggered snowflakes that need boys trying to shield them from the naughty behaviors of juvenile males.


Perhaps not, but most adult women probably don't make a habit of participating in groups that are full of immature and sexist men. They might not be "triggered" (a blatant misuse of the term, btw, but that's what I expect from you), but they're going to take their money and interest elsewhere.

You should really watch it instead of doing your best to dodge anything that upsets you. The guy's actually a lawyer, apparently, and makes some very valid points.


I'm not dodging it because it upsets me, I'm asking for a text source because youtube videos are a terrible medium for this kind of information. If someone wants to provide a text form of the argument I'll be happy to explain why it is wrong, and why you should pray that no court ever finds it compelling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Video summary, your assumptions about what has or has not monetary value is wrong according to areal lawyer, but it does not matter Wotc EULA is so baldly written that by withholding Unsleeved Medias assets they are in breach of their own contract.


This needs more detail. How exactly can cards have monetary value when you can not sell them, can not take possession of them (even in theory), and sign an agreement explicitly stating that you do not own them? How exactly do you handle the absurd consequences which follow from treating video game character attributes as property with monetary value? Are you seriously making the argument that destroying a capital ship in EVE Online is felony destruction of property, punishable by prison sentences?

Now, on your other comments, "offensive" is subject to personal interpretation, you find it offensive and sexist I find it not worth the effort bothering about it, I like how you completely ignore the word private nobody outside the group has access to view such group and it was on another platform, if somebody would be eligible to take action about it it would be the Facebook and not Wotc since it was not on their platform, moreover it was not public.


You're right, offensive is subject to personal interpretation. WOTC has clearly decided that the MTG meme group contained offensive material, and anyone who participates in or endorses it is not the kind of person they want to associate with. Other people are free to decide that the material is not offensive, and allow the people who made it into their private groups. They are free to host their own MTG tournaments and invite everyone who made those memes. I really don't see why this is so hard to understand.

I cannot understand with what logic you support a corporation dictating what people may think or do in their private life especially in private places, I can think of a few totalitarian regimes in the cold war era that had such behaviour, but I thought we are in the "free west" and giving corporations the power governments are not allowed to have for obvious reasons is not a good idea.


Again, they are not dictating what you can do in your private life. They are not imprisoning anyone, or fining them, or in any way doing the things that totalitarian regimes do to their enemies. They are simply making the same decisions that we all make, about who they do and do not wish to associate with. If anything the totalitarianism would be the demand that WOTC be stripped of their power to decide who to invite to their private club, denying them the freedom to run their business as they desire and turning them into a puppet for your opinions.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/04 05:10:24


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
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





 Peregrine wrote:
I see. So you think that dakka's rules are objectionable and we need to stop coddling people who can't handle the reality of posting Nazi propaganda or pornography or whatever other material the site owners don't want to have around? Or does your outrage about people being offended only apply when it aligns with your ideological positions?


Privately owned page. They can set whatever rules they want for their page. Doesn't mean I have to agree with all of them.

I think some folks need to stop demanding that everyone else in the world police everything for you, because you lack the adult skill called 'controlling my emotions'. I see things that bother me all the time. I walk away, go to a different page, tell someone to knock it off, etcetera. I don't expect the entire world to adapt to me. And, if I owned a page, I'd have restrictions on what I'd want there. It's a private page. You're missing the point, or deliberately trying to derail it because you have no argument.

Par for the course with you.

Why do you insinuate that I think 'Nazi Propaganda' is okay? Are you trying to say something? Go on, man up and say what you're thinking. I dare you.

 Peregrine wrote:
And there's an easy solution for that: don't make a group specifically for the purpose of creating and sharing offensive MTG memes, and if moderating it into something less offensive is too much work then click "leave group". This isn't a case of finding some local store's facebook page with offensive material in the comments and getting outraged that the moderator didn't delete it within 30 minutes, the entire purpose of the group in question was to do exactly what was going on.


You keep saying 'offensive' like it's a universal term. Some people find pictures of women in swimsuits 'offensive'. The group was private for a reason. Don't like the content? Don't join the group. It's called being an adult and taking responsibility for your own behavior. Stop trying to demand that the world cater to your fragile feelings.

In order for people to be exposed to that groups 'offensive memes', they had to ACTUALLY JOIN the private group. You don't stumble onto it. And if it was for the purpose of sharing 'offensive memes', then these morons knew EXACTLY what kind of group they're joining. That's like intentionally walking into a lit cigarette and whining because someone burned you.

 Peregrine wrote:
You don't, which is why WOTC did not delete the group or any of its contents. The people involved are free to keep posting whatever they want, and WOTC is not going to stop them. But WOTC does have the right to decide that the MTG tournament community they organize is meant to be open and welcoming and decide that immature sexist s are not the kind of people they want to invite. The facebook group organizers dictate what is appropriate in their private group, WOTC dictates what is appropriate in theirs.


Again, that's fine. But people aren't arguing that they can't do this. People are asking why they were more concerned about 'offensive memes' than they were the actual child rapists as judges and the other scummery that wasn't worth policing. I'd say an organization that lets a kiddie-diddler be a judge probably wouldn't be too concerned about a Pepe, if that's setting the standards.

 Peregrine wrote:
Perhaps not, but most adult women probably don't make a habit of participating in groups that are full of immature and sexist men. They might not be "triggered" (a blatant misuse of the term, btw, but that's what I expect from you), but they're going to take their money and interest elsewhere.


Most adult women have a sense of humor, and the majority of them see little 'protective' males as potential sexual predators. So far, they seem to be right.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm not dodging it because it upsets me, I'm asking for a text source because youtube videos are a terrible medium for this kind of information. If someone wants to provide a text form of the argument I'll be happy to explain why it is wrong, and why you should pray that no court ever finds it compelling.


If a few minutes of a Youtube video and listening to a man speaking is too difficult for you, I'm starting to understand your difficulty reading posts.

What do you want, a blog from a whining girl?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/04 05:38:52


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Privately owned page. They can set whatever rules they want for their page. Doesn't mean I have to agree with all of them.


Exactly. Just like WOTC can set the rules for their privately owned MTG club.

Why do you insinuate that I think 'Nazi Propaganda' is okay? Are you trying to say something? Go on, man up and say what you're thinking. I dare you.


No, I was actually making the exact opposite assumption: that you think that Nazi propaganda is not ok, and have no problem with a site imposing a "no Nazi propaganda" rule and banning anyone who posts it. And I see that, as expected, you agree with me that private groups are allowed to decide who and what is allowed in their group.

You keep saying 'offensive' like it's a universal term. Some people find pictures of women in swimsuits 'offensive'. The group was private for a reason. Don't like the content? Don't join the group. It's called being an adult and taking responsibility for your own behavior. Stop trying to demand that the world cater to your fragile feelings.


Sigh. Again, WOTC did not shut down the group. They did not delete any of its content. Nor did they attempt to do either of those things. They simply took responsibility for their own group and decided that certain people aren't welcome in it. If you don't like WOTC's decisions about their private group you are free to be an adult, take responsibility for your own behavior, and not join WOTC's group. Stop trying to demand that WOTC cater to your fragile feelings.

Again, that's fine. But people aren't arguing that they can't do this. People are asking why they were more concerned about 'offensive memes' than they were the actual child rapists as judges and the other scummery that wasn't worth policing. I'd say an organization that lets a kiddie-diddler be a judge probably wouldn't be too concerned about a Pepe, if that's setting the standards.


And you will notice that, now that WOTC has been informed of the business(es) they partner with failing to take responsibility (both morally and legally) for employee background checks, the judges in question are being removed. Nowhere did WOTC say "raping kids is ok, come join our club".

If a few minutes of a Youtube video and listening to a man speaking is too difficult for you, I'm starting to understand your difficulty reading posts.

What do you want, a blog from a whining girl?


I want a written form of the argument, preferably with linked citations to quoted material supporting its extremely unconventional position. Video of someone talking at the camera is a terrible medium for this kind of thing, and I wish people would stop doing it. It's harder to follow, much harder to quote in a response, and generally just a pain in the ass to deal with. But apparently youtube advertising money is the most important goal here.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/04 05:48:13


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 se
Swift Swooping Hawk





 Peregrine wrote:
Video of someone talking at the camera is a terrible medium for this kind of thing, and I wish people would stop doing it. It's harder to follow, much harder to quote in a response, and generally just a pain in the ass to deal with. But apparently youtube advertising money is the most important goal here.

I think it's more laziness than anything else. Switching your camera on and rambling for a while is easier than writing coherent text, especially for those less used to writing.

I hate it when people expect you to watch 20+ minutes of video of what could be read in three.

Craftworld Sciatháin 4180 pts  
   
 
Forum Index » Board Games, Roleplaying Games & Card Games
Go to: