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 ru
Regular Dakkanaut




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


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


It`s probably for one of his videos, where he is debunking the myth posted on some thread, that warhammer is sexist and is for misogynists.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/13 13:59:34


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 gb
Screaming Shining Spear





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

"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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




UK

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





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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/13 17:18:35


"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
[DCM]
Chaplain with Hate to Spare





SoCal

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


This makes even less sense.

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

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


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

   
Made in gb
Screaming Shining Spear





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

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

"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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




UK

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

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





SoCal

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

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


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

   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

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

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

I will add language wall on the mix.

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

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

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

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

Again sorry if I do not get across easy, its a difficult topic and some things are definitely lost because of customs, traditions, local logic and language barriers please accept my apology is the above sounds antagonistic it should not be.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Chaplain with Hate to Spare





SoCal

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


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

   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 00:08:28


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

I will try!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 00:34:06


 
   
Made in us
Battle-tested Knight Castellan Pilot




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

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

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

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

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course not.

We arent debating racism, sexism, free speach; we are debating if an umbrella company should get involved BEFORE independent organizers do.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Itz not jeremys fault sprankle got talked mean to online


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 07:04:01


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
Regular Dakkanaut





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   
Made in us
Water-Caste Negotiator




orem, Utah

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

are you going to keep talking about it, or do something already? 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/12/14 08:04:50


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
Regular Dakkanaut





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

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

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

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

   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 08:22:46


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
Regular Dakkanaut





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

Heres mine:peregrine
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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

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
Regular Dakkanaut





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

Used in a sentence: eirlier tonight peregrine and others influenced (bullied) some kid to not post anymore ideas about his narrative campaign on dakkadakka that he doesnt like
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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

Whatever you say...


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 08:52:20


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
Regular Dakkanaut





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

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

And who cares how old he is, you and others would have responded the same way to a 13yo
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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

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


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

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

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


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 09:11:33


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
Regular Dakkanaut





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

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

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

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

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

Your entitled to your opinion but your opinion is wrong peregrine
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/12/14 09:48:22


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
Regular Dakkanaut





Here is where we fundimentally disagree

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

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

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

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

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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/14 10:14:01


 
   
 
Forum Index » Board Games, Roleplaying Games & Card Games
Go to: