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
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 10:13:48


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





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

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

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

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

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

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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/14 11:00:39


 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/14 11:05:53


What I have
LM
What I like stomping


Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





I agree man its just hard getting insaulted like that
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 11:40:19


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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





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

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

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

God that sounded terrible



   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 12:01:30


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





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


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 12:03:09


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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

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


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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/14 12:09:47


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





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

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

Seriously its rediculous but think about it


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


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

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


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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

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





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





Greece

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

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

There is a legal system for that.

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

   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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


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


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 12:20:47


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





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

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


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 12:24:08


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 12:28:04


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





I think we can all see how far you would take things if you could. That right there are the implications if this line of thought.
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

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

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

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

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






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


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

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





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

How can you not see the absurdity in this extremism

Its crazy man

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 12:47:31


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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

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


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


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

How can you not see the absurdity in this extremism

Its crazy man


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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/14 12:49:00


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
Regular Dakkanaut





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


This is rediculous

Ive proven my point

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 12:55:15


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






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


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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 12:58:30


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





Drops mic
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

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

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

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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/14 13:13:00


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





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

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

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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/14 13:28:12


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Chaplain with Hate to Spare





SoCal

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

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

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





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

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/14 19:26:44


 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






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



Healing surges are for fools. Fools and liberals.

Calvin: I'm thinking of starting my own talk radio show. I'll spout simplistic opinions for hours on end, ridicule anyone who disagrees with me, and generally foster divisiveness, cynicism, and a lower level of public dialog! 
   
 
Forum Index » Board Games, Roleplaying Games & Card Games
Go to: