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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Not knowing exactly what he said--the other comment was a paraphrase?--it still sounds to me like the cosplay flavor of slut shaming.

Why should people not use an advantage to raise money? Should smart people not use their brains? Should we shackle all the Harrison Bergerons?

If he is using Patreon himself, what does he bring to the table that we can shame him for?


Granted, if all he did was express one stupid opinion the reaction seems way overboard. Was this a single incident or a running theme in his work?

well the complicated part in his opinion and how he expressed it and were I think he shows he is quite a clever guy is he is not shaming the cosplayer, he is addressing the patreons or would be patreons and advises them as an adult to not so adult to not spend money on such things.

He is quite crafty in what he said and how he said it, I still maintain that on principle one using patreon should not advice someone to not patreon somebody else.

I would not really try to find dirt to shame anybody or principle first and foremost and secondly its a futile endeavour, if you dig dirt you first of all get dirty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
It's still grinding a long, fairly low quality YT content from all sides and the bandwagon jumpers, like I said next to nothing else happening in the MTG world at the moment so it's keeping the views and clicks coming if nothing else.

Really low card quality and bad card rules from what I see been reported and 8 million players leaving are the big stories, or should have been but are not reported that much, otherwise its a constant push for and against Wotc "inclusiveity and representation agenda".

This came out of nowhere and blew up extremely well and many things got out in the public from it, I am guessing now its the boiling phase were the big and medium combatants look for the next push while the supporters throw dirt at each other with content without much effort given to their content.

I was compiling a "story so far" for BobtheInquisitor and realised how old the feuds are and how deep the hatred goes between these channels I would add that I feel there is an economic pressure underlying the event because so many people have left, Wotc try's to find an excuse were they are and their policies are not the issue, the other channels probably feel their patreon support, clicks, views, ad revenue, dropping.

What I find troubling is that after two and a half weeks, no evidence has surfaced for the accusations raised against Unsleeved media.

Yeah, I didn't mean we should literally shame him. More like what beam is in his eye while he talks about others' motes.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
So this issue is mainly being blown out of proportion on all sides because it is a convenient distraction?

I'm honestly not sure about that player dip 20m seemed somewhat spun out of thin air as is the 12m as the metrics used are guesstimates at best

In a Hasboro's 2016 earning report, they stated there are around 1 million registered DCI players. I can only think the assumption of somewhere between 10 to 20 casual non-registered players for every serious registered players, putting the prior estimates in the 15-21 million range, maybe this estimate has been revised downwards of late to say 9-14 unregistered to 1 registered, or maybe its based on assumed average spend rates per customer and MTG income, again shaky as players could stop purchasing but carry on playing, especially the more casual players but do they still 'count', ?

I have no clue on the numbers that is what everybody cites.

I think that MtG is indeed in decline first time in a long time and everybody looks for an answer to why but also blame it to their opposition.

Its probably a good mix of everything as it usually is.

WoTC is, of course, entitled to deny service to whomever they wish for whatever reason. I didn't know anything about Hambly until hearing about all of this, so I don't know what his actual behavior was like, but at the least it does seem that he was sticking his neck out there and making himself a target. At this point there is basically no remaining evidence to corroborate the claims of one side or the other, but the tweets WoTC provided do seem like a pretty flimsy pretext for such a drastic measure. Not knowing what was actually said or done makes it hard to say whether or not I personally find the ban justified.

I do share the concern, however, that measures like this can be used as a way to enforce ideological purity. Hambly did not violate the WoTC terms of service per se, because the agreement only mentions what happens on WoTC websites, properties, or during sanctioned events. However, section 3 of their ToS is so broad as to apply to basically anything, which is obviously intentional on their part so that they can cut off anyone for any reason in order to protect their brand. The problem that I have is not with their corporate policy or how they've chosen to enforce it, though, it's that such broad definitions of what constitutes an offense can be easily exploited by anyone with the power to summon up a mob of the outraged and offended and target someone they deem "toxic" or an "awful person"; terms which are equally undefined and unqualified, and often mean simply that someone dared to publicly express that they are not a progressive.

In all of the progressive/third-wave feminist writing on 40k so far, we see that, once again, these kinds of terms are used without any kind of qualification whatsoever. We are implored to purge the community of its "toxic" elements (BoLS), create a blacklist of people guilty of "extreme thought" (Spikey Bits), accept changes to the lore which are more palatable to progressive ideology (Mary Sue) and more, all without clearly defining what exactly constitutes toxic behavior or extreme thought. As a side note, the latter is literally advocating ostracizing people for thought crime.

I am personally highly suspect of such calls to action for precisely that reason. If the goal were clearly stated as being rid of people who are openly racist or misogynistic, or who clearly harass others or create a literally unsafe environment, I would have no problem jumping on board. Thing is, the people advocating for this kind of "community purge" are in lockstep (goose step) agreement that "toxic behavior" and "extreme thought" go far beyond what a reasonable person would define as actual harassment, to include political disagreement or even minor differences in progressive ideology amongst themselves.

We need look no further than our own dear Peregrine in this thread, whose definition of an "awful" or "toxic" person worthy of being ostracized is someone who associates with the wrong person, exercises their right to vote, or is even in the center of the political spectrum, regardless of how they actually conduct themselves. You will frequently see such people hold a double standard for their own behavior, where it is justified for them to treat people with disrespect or even clear harassment, as long as their target is guilty of wrongthink or otherwise not making the proper in-group signaling. They will of course bring to bear ill-defined terms such as "toxic", "awful" or "hateful" to describe such targets, and will usually fail to nail down exactly what that means in context. They will also define their own behavior as merely "harsh" or "critical" and play the old game of "if you're offended by it then it must be true", even when their own behavior is objectively worse than that of their target.

For all of the talk about "toxic" elements of the gaming community that are creating a pervasively uncomfortable and unsafe environment for women and minorities, no one has ever, to my knowledge, provided some kind of evidence to corroborate claims that such an environment is prevalent in this hobby. I have personally never even seen or heard a first-hand account provided by a woman or person of color about some kind of systematic discrimination or harassment they've experienced playing 40k at a FLGS, tournament or GW store. I have, however, heard plenty of straight white males provide second-hand accounts about something their significant others, relatives or friends have supposedly experienced. I have also spoken with and heard opinions from women and people of color who feel perfectly welcome in the community and have no problems.

Contrast this to the #MeToo movement, where women are not simply alleging an all-pervasive environment of sexism and abuse without defining it, they are making specific, corroborated allegations of instances of real harassment and abuse that they have experienced first-hand. In some cases, criminal investigations have been opened and charges sought. In most of the reported instances, there exists an actually imbalanced power dynamic between employers and employees, not some kind of ill-defined, conspiratorial and post-modern tyrannical hierarchy of self-identity. In light of such real-life cases of abuse of power and systemic sexism, it seems especially dangerous and opportunistic to me to conflate such issues with nebulous claims of "toxic behavior" which often boil down to honest, if tactless, criticism or disagreement.

For all of the reasons stated above, I will always be skeptical of the "purge first, ask questions later" mentality of internet outrage mobs and their attempts to make it uncomfortable at best to openly express anything but their brand of ideology. Where real harassment and abuse happens, by all means, let's root it out. But harassment and abuse are not the same as dissent, and they certainly aren't the same thing as simply holding opinions other than what is proscribed by progressivism.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I have no clue on the numbers that is what everybody cites.

I think that MtG is indeed in decline first time in a long time and everybody looks for an answer to why but also blame it to their opposition.

Its probably a good mix of everything as it usually is.

The figures cited are usually based on various WoTC figures have thrown about over the years, usually as asides the other things but latched onto as gospel

I'd agree its popularity is waning, and whilst its never really acknowledged officially I'd wager Hearthstone has stung them a fair bit

My personal takes are;
a) way too much product (that may have led to the print issues) so people feel overloaded and give up
b) repeated tinkering with how long card sets remained legal in the most commonly played format
c) some oversights in card development, leading to 5 or 6 cards getting banned from official events,these cards were usually expensive to buy and a ban wrecks their value, why buy 'good' cards if they might become worthless overnight
d) Jeremy or Wedge depending on your tastes, I've made it a personal goal to lick both of them to determine their toxicity once and for all (joke)

Reading this thread I have to actually agree with Peregrine 99% on the issue.

Now I'm no SJW, or White Knight, etc. I have friends on both the left and right (thankfully not on the extremes) and I do make a ton of 'controversial' jokes, but there is a time and a place. I usually said jokes with friends in a trusting environment where we laugh at them, we find said jokes funny not because we agree with those points but because of the opposite, we laugh at the sheer ludicrous of them, we laugh at stereotypes because how how untrue they are to real life. I make this example because I believe people on the internet don't realise who they are talking too, even if they are on private servers and such, you have to really know who you are talking too to trust them with what your saying, other wise it's all about careful phrasing. I wouldn't dare go to a bar mitzvah and spread a load of Anne Frank jokes because I don't know all the people there so they would probably think I maybe sincere in intentions of harming and upsetting them, and so the consequence would be that I would probably be escorted out of the vicinity very quickly with a black eye and a cracked rib. The Internet is no different in that regard. I've seen some of the posts this Jeremy Hambly has said and tbh would this guy actually go up to this cosplayer in real life and say those things to her face in a very public space like a convention? Probably not. It really does not surprise me that he got such a reaction from some of the really crude things he said.

I also notice a lot of statements saying that Mr.Hamberly was remarking her cosplays to essentially soft porn for the MTG costumes, if so isn't that making more of a statement on the game than the cosplayer? I used to play ages ago (Around the Greek era with Rakdos Bloodwitches and Minotaur decks) and the amount of skimpy dresses females wore on the artworks as opposed to males and armoured females was a significant amount... If there were any armoured females. Should the Cosplayer get any flak for dressing up as accurately as the characters or should MTG make a better ratio of armoured females as well as skimpy ones? Question to consider before spewing out assumptions I suppose.

As for Arch, I don't really watch him. I enjoyed his lore vid on Konrad Curze and that was it. All I know is that many of the 40k YouTube Creators crowd really do not like him for backstage reasons.

Will this spill out on the 40k community? I don't think so tbh, I find we are a very open community in that regard, I've played against female wargamers and there are quite a few who come into stores all over the place. None of them appear to have problems about gender representation in lore as well tbh.

Even I can agree that if you can't stand the heat you shouldn't step foot in the kitchen. If you regularly make videos that are controversial within your "professional" community then you should expect for your behavior to have repercussions, whether you're wrong or right. I have been doing some more digging on this topic and let's be frank, Hambly is a jerk.

However, I also found the original video which Sprankle claims is the cause of her decision to leave MTG cosplay, and it is pretty tame. He uses her as an example to talk about cosplay in general and how it objectifies women, even as women claim that they are underrepresented and objectified. He does present it in a boorish and crass manner, but it's not even directed solely at Sprankle. It is instead directed at young males who pay cosplayers on the premise that it will get them into the cosplayers' pants. I have also looked at the evidence WoTC, Sprankle and others in the MTG YouTube community presented to show that there were months of targeted harassment, which is composed almost entirely of tweets that aren't directed at anyone in particular and have nothing to do with Sprankle at all.

The guy talked a lot of gak in general and the rest of his peers in the MTG YouTube community clearly despised him. He certainly didn't have many friends there. So if you want to make the argument that he made himself vulnerable by alienating himself, and it's his fault that he ended up getting pushed out because of it, I'd say that's totally fair. I'd also say that based on everything I've seen, Sprankle's claims of months of targeted harassment against her are patently false.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, is this controversy still blowing up? It seems like it's deflating here and the attempts to pull in Warhammer-related personalities haven't paid off.

He is trying desperately to keep the flames going, but I'm not sure how much longer this will go on. Many of the people at my local FLGS want Hambly to go away. They feel like he is bringing a lot of negative attention to the hobby, and frankly I can't blame them for that.

See, wishing people out because you disagree with them, is the base of a totalitarian ideology.

I suspect it'll die down if Jeremy manages to take a few lesser scalps down for their doxxing antics, I think he knows it's unlikely WoTC will do anything much public to their favoured shills beyond getting a lady staffer to write a puff 'be excellent to each other' article on the Magic homepage

The new expansion spoilers will most likely start rolling out in earnest soon giving people something else to prevaricate about

It should, his opponents banned him for life so it is a done deal for them, he got his petition with quite good numbers and made his reports on the people who attacked him and proven there were no real accusations about him.

I am suspecting he waits for the official answers before he pushes for round two.

On the 40k/ wargaming front I have seen no new articles about enforcing ban lists and corporate thought policing so hopefully that front has been pacified, the reaction to these articles was overtly against and highly critical so the authors might got the message.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
See, wishing people out because you disagree with them, is the base of a totalitarian ideology.

Uh, what? No. Not at all. Wishing to remove people you disagree with sufficiently from the community is normal. Everyone does it. It isn't totalitarian just because it happens to be aimed at people that you don't want removed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
On the 40k/ wargaming front I have seen no new articles about enforcing ban lists and corporate thought policing so hopefully that front has been pacified, the reaction to these articles was overtly against and highly critical so the authors might got the message.

Alternatively, the rather weak attempt by the gamergate types to bring pointless drama into 40k failed because people realized both that it was a weak attempt, and that there's no possible way to enforce any kind of ban or "thought policing" or whatever and therefore there's no reason to worry about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:
I'd also say that based on everything I've seen, Sprankle's claims of months of targeted harassment against her are patently false.

Remember that a lot of stuff has been deleted and is no longer available to find, and/or happened in private messages. Trying to reconstruct everything long after it has been removed is a hopeless cause, the current absence of evidence doesn't prove anything and you have to decide how much you trust the people saying that it did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:
We need look no further than our own dear Peregrine in this thread, whose definition of an "awful" or "toxic" person worthy of being ostracized is someone who associates with the wrong person, exercises their right to vote, or is even in the center of the political spectrum, regardless of how they actually conduct themselves.

Please don't lie about what I did and did not say. Nowhere did I say that people who vote or are in the center of the political spectrum should be shunned, or even state any disagreement with those things. The people I have targeted are NOT reasonable centrists, they're fringe lunatics and general s.

And yes, people who associate with the wrong people should be judged for that association and kicked out. If you are friends with a Nazi it means that you are either a Nazi yourself, or willing to accept Nazis. And if your moral standards allow you to do that then you are not the sort of person that I want anywhere near my life. Obviously the person in the real situation is not a literal Nazi, but the same principle is true. If you don't want to be judged for who you associate with then don't associate with horrible people.

 Peregrine wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
See, wishing people out because you disagree with them, is the base of a totalitarian ideology.

Uh, what? No. Not at all. Wishing to remove people you disagree with sufficiently from the community is normal. Everyone does it. It isn't totalitarian just because it happens to be aimed at people that you don't want removed.

It is not normal, normal is to either ignore people you do not like, or debate them until you reach the point to agree to disagree and move on with your life, actively trying to force somebody out of a community (except been bullying) is not normal it is a totalitarian ideology expressed at its purest form, "I don't like you I will erase you from existence".

If you find this normal, I am afraid to learn what else you find normal...

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
On the 40k/ wargaming front I have seen no new articles about enforcing ban lists and corporate thought policing so hopefully that front has been pacified, the reaction to these articles was overtly against and highly critical so the authors might got the message.

Alternatively, the rather weak attempt by the gamergate types to bring pointless drama into 40k failed because people realized both that it was a weak attempt, and that there's no possible way to enforce any kind of ban or "thought policing" or whatever and therefore there's no reason to worry about it.

I think you mess a lot of things here, first of all the response on Spikey Bits was not about the MTG incident, but against the articles pushing for similar policies on the 40k community and beyond, the mass of the response indicates that people thought it was a significant threat and their opposition about it, given the second push for it from Spikey Bits got similar response the sentiment has not died out on the subject, what else do you want to do start calling for heads? normal people do not work like that, they see a bad idea that can be massively abused? they respond expressing their opinion, no new article pushing such idea is published, there is nothing to do about it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:
I'd also say that based on everything I've seen, Sprankle's claims of months of targeted harassment against her are patently false.

Remember that a lot of stuff has been deleted and is no longer available to find, and/or happened in private messages. Trying to reconstruct everything long after it has been removed is a hopeless cause, the current absence of evidence doesn't prove anything and you have to decide how much you trust the people saying that it did.

Em no, I don't buy it, things get archived, screenshot and videos and articles are done for them with said archives and screenshots, if there were evidence about the incident somebody would have them, I do not subscribe to "guilty until proven innocent" ideology, there was no legitimate proof provided (logical because it it existed it would go to the Police, not Wotc) I do not trust people claiming stuff without providing any evidence for it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:
We need look no further than our own dear Peregrine in this thread, whose definition of an "awful" or "toxic" person worthy of being ostracized is someone who associates with the wrong person, exercises their right to vote, or is even in the center of the political spectrum, regardless of how they actually conduct themselves.

Please don't lie about what I did and did not say. Nowhere did I say that people who vote or are in the center of the political spectrum should be shunned, or even state any disagreement with those things. The people I have targeted are NOT reasonable centrists, they're fringe lunatics and general s.

And yes, people who associate with the wrong people should be judged for that association and kicked out. If you are friends with a Nazi it means that you are either a Nazi yourself, or willing to accept Nazis. And if your moral standards allow you to do that then you are not the sort of person that I want anywhere near my life. Obviously the person in the real situation is not a literal Nazi, but the same principle is true. If you don't want to be judged for who you associate with then don't associate with horrible people.

Why exactly are your moral above anybody else and allows you to judge whose morals are right or wrong and more importantly when guild by association was a thing of democratic free willed society, because every time I see it enforced in history, it is by intolerant, totalitarian, fascist and racist ideological governments.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
It is not normal, normal is to either ignore people you do not like, or debate them until you reach the point to agree to disagree and move on with your life, actively trying to force somebody out of a community (except been bullying) is not normal it is a totalitarian ideology expressed at its purest form, "I don't like you I will erase you from existence".

If you find this normal, I am afraid to learn what else you find normal...

Being told that you aren't welcome in a group is hardly "erased from existence". And yes, it absolutely is normal. If someone keeps being TFG in your gaming group you don't invite them back every week, you tell them they aren't welcome anymore and stop playing with them.

I think you mess a lot of things here, first of all the response on Spikey Bits was not about the MTG incident, but against the articles pushing for similar policies on the 40k community and beyond, the mass of the response indicates that people thought it was a significant threat and their opposition about it, given the second push for it from Spikey Bits got similar response the sentiment has not died out on the subject, what else do you want to do start calling for heads? normal people do not work like that, they see a bad idea that can be massively abused? they respond expressing their opinion, no new article pushing such idea is published, there is nothing to do about it.

Normal people don't look at this and see an idea that can be massively abused, they see internet drama over something completely irrelevant. It is not possible to have a ban list in 40k because there is no central authority to enforce one. So the more likely explanation is that the minority of people who cared about the internet drama only had enough outrage for a short time, after which there was nobody left to care.

Em no, I don't buy it, things get archived, screenshot and videos and articles are done for them with said archives and screenshots, if there were evidence about the incident somebody would have them, I do not subscribe to "guilty until proven innocent" ideology, there was no legitimate proof provided (logical because it it existed it would go to the Police, not Wotc) I do not trust people claiming stuff without providing any evidence for it.

On the other hand, whatever proof there was seems to have been enough to satisfy WOTC, and I'd bet that WOTC spent more time on this than the vast majority of people arguing about it. But if screenshots and archives always exist then why hasn't Hambly provided a copy of one of the videos in question, instead of coming up with excuses for why nobody has a copy and telling everyone to trust him that he didn't say anything inappropriate in it?

And no, it wouldn't necessarily go to the police, because there is a wide range of behavior that is unacceptable but not illegal.

Why exactly are your moral above anybody else and allows you to judge whose morals are right or wrong

Everyone judges people. It's part of life. Why are you asking such a ridiculous question?

and more importantly when guild by association was a thing of democratic free willed society

Since democratic free willed societies have existed.

because every time I see it enforced in history, it is by intolerant, totalitarian, fascist and racist ideological governments.

And nope. You don't get to pull a bait and switch like this. The subject of discussion was guilt by association in the context of private individuals making choices about their social activities. This has nothing to do with actions by the government, where guilt by association is an unacceptable legal principle. The standards for proof of guilt in court have always been much higher than the standards for proof of guilt when deciding who you want to be friends with.

We are not talking about your private gaming group are we? we talk about demanding somebody to be removed from the community, so that is one "bait and switch" by you.

Moving on, normal people, admittedly adults, when see a demand that is overreaching, think how it can be abused and how it can affect them, most of us have experience at least one overreaching legislation that was abused and needed a costly and lengthy battle to be overturned and since most people value their personal freedom in their life and their hobbies are part of their life they will react to such calls for power that are so abusable, whether it can or cannot be enforced is irrelevant when you debate on principle and allowing a bad thing to take root is never a good idea.

Moreover as I said, what more you want from people to do about it? demand Spikey bits and BOLS heads for the articles? dox them and try to shut them down? that is lunacy! People responded to these articles and since no more push was made for such ideas nothing more is needed to be done.

I am not sure were you got that? can you please provide evidence of him saying that? because his supporters use that video to defend him, I am not sure if Wotc spend any time debating about the evidence, they probably did spend time trying to find something better than what they presented that was laughable at best, especially for a lifetime ban, but I think their decision was set in stone from the start.

Clearly what evidence Wotc provided is seen as insufficient by those opposing the ban, but also for many of us that view it as observers.

I think I need to stay a bit on this comment though.

And no, it wouldn't necessarily go to the police, because there is a wide range of behavior that is unacceptable but not illegal.

If it is not illegal it is deemed acceptable by the laws of your country and by extension by the majority of your countries population, laws exist because morality is subjective and a clear definition of what is and is not moral needs to exist.

Who in his or her right mind would put a company or an individual above law to decide what is and is not acceptable.

Everyone judges people. It's part of life. Why are you asking such a ridiculous question?

Please don't try to change the subject, I am not asking why you judge me, that would be ridiculous, I judge you, you have every right to judge me, I asked why exactly are your morals higher than everybody else and you have the right to judge what morals are right or wrong, I can accept judgement that I do not align with your morals, fair enouph, I do not accept you decreeing what my morals should be and if they are right or wrong.

Now on the important subject you either subscribe to "guilty until proven innocent" philosophy were "guilt by association" is part of and the burden of proof lies to the accused or you subscribe to "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy were quilt cannot be assigned by association and the burden of proof lies to the accuser, the later is the foundation of the western legal system and our legal system collectively is regarded as the least oppressive and most just, can you guess why?

I do not think I made a bait and switch with this one the best example of how guild by association is all I said above is expressed by governments who used or use it to hunt down individuals making choices about their social activities that they do not like.

The fact that it is not a government that enforces thought policing but a corporation changes nothing, regardless of scale and impact the principle is the same.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
See, wishing people out because you disagree with them, is the base of a totalitarian ideology.

There is a difference between civil disagreement and trolling, though. It might be totalitarian, or it might be a community who has had enough of some jerk. To me, it sounds like the disagreement is where along the line Hambly falls, with some people having a higher tolerance for jerks.

Wizards of the Coast made the right call in this case, and they are free to remove him from their higher level scene.

If he wants to continue playing in his local level events and tournaments, run independently by shop owners, that is on him and them. Dont act like WotC has to let this guy play in their sanctioned events.

Forcing WotC to let him do as he pleases and disallow them to remove what they view as a toxic element is just as totalitarian as what you claim Peregrine advocates. He freely made his choices to act like a jerk, and they used their freedom to disassociate with him in the clearest possible manner.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
See, wishing people out because you disagree with them, is the base of a totalitarian ideology.

Disagreein with someone and disagreein with his manners is totally different. For example I agree with most of Peregrine opinions, but if he express them in real life like here in dakkadakka, I wouldn't want him in my gaming group, because he is too harsh and we are a bunch of softy casual snowflakes and people will get upset. I have friends and family from all parts of the political expectrum. What I don't have as friends are toxic and violent trolls without emphaty for others. I have no time to espend with that kind of people.
You are using "wishing people out" like you want them dead or something, when it isn't like that. Thats a straw man.

And about the "In a free democratic society we should respect totalitarians like radical communists, statits and nazis"; I have only this to say:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
If you wan't to respect nazis, then don't complain about muslims discriminating womans in our countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

If it is not illegal it is deemed acceptable by the laws of your country and by extension by the majority of your countries population, laws exist because morality is subjective and a clear definition of what is and is not moral needs to exist.

Ehm what? One simple example, in Spain you can kill your dog for whatever reason you want because is a property. Most people thing killing your dog without any reason (He's sick for example) is inmoral, but is totally legal.
For all human history theres have been a TON of unhetic inmoral and unetic laws. And not by our modern standards, but even for the time they had a ton of social backlash.

But to be honest I don't see the problem with all of this. A ton of people has been banned from videogames for example. Top-End Streamers and competitive players, for things like a twitter comment or insulting people ingame. And nobody bats an eye, if you are toxic, you deserve it. Good luck, go play other game.

I've been watching this thread and it is really quite absurd. 90% of what has been argued about could have been answered based on one paragraph from Psychotic Storm on page 1; (My underlining)

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

As you said, it is a private company. They are not a public service, they are a private company. They are free, under the law of most western democracies, and certainly including the UK and US, to decline service for any reason they like, or even for no reason at all, unless their reasons are racist, sexist or homophobic. Peregrine further made the point that they provide an entertainment service, not an essential service. It isn't like he has had his electricity cut off, nor even his internet access. Still further again, it seems part of this ban involves an online game? It is in their terms of service that you buy access to the game not ownership of things within it. However much one dislikes that simple fact, it is currently a legal fact. Someone feeling as if they own the items and believing they are entitled to make profit from it is not the same as actually having that legal right. Someone is welcome to challenge that in court, but until they do, and win, in this case and/or a very wide-ranging precedent is set, that is how things are.

Secondly it is not his private life. Much of what has apparently taken place was not "behind closed doors". At least some of it was in public, and it seems much of what was not "out in the open" was actually directed at someone who did not welcome that contact and is therefore entitled to make it public.

Now, finally, Peregrine is often very blunt. He can even be quite rude about ideas. However, I don't recall him ever making direct personal attacks on the members of this website, and certainly no threats. Comparing him to those who do is non-sensical. Similarly, I disagree with the points Psychotic Storm and natepreti are making, but you've not threatened or insulted people here, so I would not suggest you are on par with those who do. This website has a code of conduct that, in my opinion, you have not broken. Again though, if the owners of this site wanted to, they can ban you without reason being given. Ultimately, they could ban Peregrine or me too. If they took that approach, their site would probably not last long. If WotC take this approach too often, their business might suffer, but it is still their legal right to do so. Frankly, it is their moral right to do so, or you are forcing them to deal with someone they choose not to, which is far worse infringement on an entity's rights than not being allowed to play a game.

Well the disagreement about this case is on many levels by many people.

Personally I disagree that a company has the right to poke on an individuals behaviour outside their premises and act as a moral judge for peoples behaviour outside their premises. Lets not forget that beside the main ban they banned a pro player just because he was an admin in a closed FB group, that was behind closed doors and he was not even participating on the discussion that "theoretically" banned him (the fact said player defended Unsleeved media may be relevant).

I also argue that given the recent other grand stories, the Canadian L3 judge sexually harassing people and the pro player who cheated again in grand prix, getting just a demotion and a six months ban respectively the bans the other two people received seem extremely disproportional and based on ideological reasons, something showcasing double standards and an ideological purge instead of an effort to remove "toxic" elements from the community.

I also disagree on digital content ownership and if certain EULAs hold any legal validity but that is not really the argument here.

It has also been pointed out that the initial accusations that started this incident have never been proven and a few prominent members opposing unsleeved media has done to unsleeved media what they accused him of doing without any repercussions so far.

Outside the banning we discussed about the concept of freedom of speech especially outside the narrow definition of the US law, the validity of guilt by association, how morality is subjective and why we invented laws to decide such things because of how morality is subjective and why people participating on the wargaming community have valid reasons to worry and raise their voice against calls for similar bans from other companies.

Is this a good summary?

 Peregrine wrote:


Remember that a lot of stuff has been deleted and is no longer available to find, and/or happened in private messages. Trying to reconstruct everything long after it has been removed is a hopeless cause, the current absence of evidence doesn't prove anything and you have to decide how much you trust the people saying that it did.

So you're asking me to believe that the entire MTG YouTube community as well as WoTC conveniently forgot to screenshot, archive or otherwise preserve anything which could directly prove that Hambly directed months of targeted abuse at Sprankle?

Nope, it's all still there, you just have to dig for it because his videos got mass flagged and taken down. The evidence that WoTC, Sprankle and her allies provided is readily available. The original video only targets Sprankle in the sense that it's her Patreon he's using as an example for how naive, socially inept young men and teenagers think that being a "nice guy" to an attractive cosplayer who is showing some skin will buy you a ticket into her pants. Other than that, the evidence provided to support WoTC's decision consists entirely of tweets and social media posts, not a single one of which has anything at all to do with Sprankle. If anything, he talked more gak about some guy named Wedge. At no point in time, however, did he directly address someone with harassment or incite others to do so. At worst, he is guilty of making crude jokes and ill-advised responses to people who were directly engaging him.

Really, what he said at his worst is so tame compared to even things you'll see here on Dakka that it's a wonder anyone batted an eye about it at all. This is not meant as a personal attack on you, but just for perspective, you are regularly much more abrasive and "abusive" than he was. WoTC clearly had a team of lawyers dig through Hambly's entire life on the internet and that's all they could come up with. And if anyone disbelieves any of that, I implore you to look into it for yourselves. It is very clear to me that WoTC and Hambly's peers were looking for any pretext to be rid of him, and Sprankle's claim in and of itself was enough.

Again, yes, WoTC is a private company and they can associate with whomever they wish. They can deny service to whomever they wish. Hambly was making noise and he made himself a target. That doesn't change the fact that the pretext for his ban is a lie, and that the community of MTG "influencers" including WoTC staff singled him out pretty much for not being PC enough for their tastes. Again, my problem is not that WoTC is exercising their right as a private company to not associate with someone. It's that, first of all, they are clearly being dishonest and conflating mildly insensitive comments with months of targeted harassment, which is actually kind of a disgusting affront to people who experience real harassment and abuse. And secondly, that his marginalization from the MTG community was merely one example among many of politically motivated people trying to purge anyone who is not publicly 100% on board with their specific brand of ideology.

If anyone thinks that kind of movement can't come to 40k, think again. It's already here. At least two of the largest and most prominent 40k news blogs have published articles in the past few months which demand the 40k community do the same thing, except with no standard of evidence, no definition of what exactly constitutes actionable behavior, and no valid premise. Just that they say so, and you better believe them or else. Apparently the MTG community sheepishly went along with their own ideological purge, and that is not something I see happening in 40k. I will not sheepishly go along with it, anyway. I know who I am and the standard of behavior and respect that I hold myself to, and I will not be told that I am a bad person who shouldn't be involved in a hobby simply because I'm not a hard-core progressive.

Please don't lie about what I did and did not say. Nowhere did I say that people who vote or are in the center of the political spectrum should be shunned, or even state any disagreement with those things. The people I have targeted are NOT reasonable centrists, they're fringe lunatics and general s.

And yes, people who associate with the wrong people should be judged for that association and kicked out. If you are friends with a Nazi it means that you are either a Nazi yourself, or willing to accept Nazis. And if your moral standards allow you to do that then you are not the sort of person that I want anywhere near my life. Obviously the person in the real situation is not a literal Nazi, but the same principle is true. If you don't want to be judged for who you associate with then don't associate with horrible people.

My interpretation of what you said is not that much of an exaggeration. No one mentioned in this thread is anywhere near a Nazi. You may not agree with the ideas of people like Sargon, but it is absolute fact that he has never advocated genocide, the overthrow of democracy, or the supremacy of one race or gender above another. Conflating people with Nazis who are not Nazis is, again, dangerous and disrespectful to the victims of actual Nazis. If I knew someone was an actual Nazi, I wouldn't want to be around them either. I would choose not to play games with them or associate with them. I would also not associate with people who harass or assault women or who are openly racist. However, all of those things are very clear distinctions. Not everyone who disagrees with you politically is a racist, misogynist or Nazi, and casting those kinds of aspersions around for the purpose of political gain is an extremely short-sighted and selfish thing to do.

Also, how do you propose to enforce such a policy? Are you going to check the social media accounts of every person you ever play with to make sure they've never associated with someone you disprove of? Are you going to bring a questionnaire with you to the local gaming store and require that people disclose their political beliefs before they can get a game? If you run a gaming club and you want to enact that kind of policy, go for it. It's your right to associate with whomever you wish. However, that is not what people who write articles like the ones recently published on BoLS and Spikey Bits demand. They are literally advocating for a blacklist of people who are not part of the progressive movement to be made and enforced by GW and the community. I agree that is unlikely in 40k. Still, if you can't see why it's problematic that there is an increasingly vocal faction of people who want to enforce a proscribed political ideology on the players of games like 40k and MTG, based on an unproven premise which is not allowed to be questioned or debated, then I don't know what else to say.

Edit:
I just want to add as a final note that I have an extreme amount of respect for everyone here, including Peregrine and the moderators, for the fact that we can even have this type of discussion.

@ Luciferian

Wedge is another MTG YT'er, his content is fairly decent but by Mork is he a pro-WoTC fanatic

 Luciferian wrote:
If anyone thinks that kind of movement can't come to 40k, think again. It's already here. At least two of the largest and most prominent 40k news blogs have published articles in the past few months which demand the 40k community do the same thing, except with no standard of evidence, no definition of what exactly constitutes actionable behavior, and no valid premise. Just that they say so, and you better believe them or else. Apparently the MTG community sheepishly went along with their own ideological purge, and that is not something I see happening in 40k. I will not sheepishly go along with it, anyway. I know who I am and the standard of behavior and respect that I hold myself to, and I will not be told that I am a bad person who shouldn't be involved in a hobby simply because I'm not a hard-core progressive.

Two of the largest by total number of clicks, perhaps, but hardly prominent. BOLS is a clickbait sewer with minimal value, and from what little I've seen of Spiky Bits they aren't much better. TBH I wouldn't be surprised if BOLS had no genuine ideological opinion on the subject, and just posted about it because they knew it would generate clicks and advertising revenue. You know, just like all their various "news" posts on every random 40k rumor, no matter how obviously ridiculous and lacking in credibility.

And you know what sums up this supposed threat quite nicely? If you have good taste and don't read BOLS you'd never know it existed. Because, unlike MTG, 40k has no central authority to issue bans, and any calls for banning are completely irrelevant.

No one mentioned in this thread is anywhere near a Nazi. You may not agree with the ideas of people like Sargon, but it is absolute fact that he has never advocated genocide, the overthrow of democracy, or the supremacy of one race or gender above another. Conflating people with Nazis who are not Nazis is, again, dangerous and disrespectful to the victims of actual Nazis. If I knew someone was an actual Nazi, I wouldn't want to be around them either. I would choose not to play games with them or associate with them. I would also not associate with people who harass or assault women or who are openly racist. However, all of those things are very clear distinctions. Not everyone who disagrees with you politically is a racist, misogynist or Nazi, and casting those kinds of aspersions around for the purpose of political gain is an extremely short-sighted and selfish thing to do.

You're completely missing the point of that statement. Obviously nobody involved here is a literal Nazi, the point is to destroy the idea that banning people is somehow immoral and totalitarianism and such. By agreeing that you would ban the literal Nazi you admit that banning people for their beliefs is ok, and that your sole point of disagreement is that you don't think that Jeremy Hambly specifically should have been banned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Personally I disagree that a company has the right to poke on an individuals behaviour outside their premises and act as a moral judge for peoples behaviour outside their premises.

You can disagree, but you are wrong both legally and morally. Individuals and private clubs are indisputably free to decide who they want to be friends with and invite to their social events, based on pretty much anything they want. They can do so, and regularly do so. Please do not pretend that this situation is in any way exceptional. And please do not pretend that individuals are bound by the same restrictions as the government when it comes to things like judging people for their behavior or associations.

Lets not forget that beside the main ban they banned a pro player just because he was an admin in a closed FB group, that was behind closed doors and he was not even participating on the discussion that "theoretically" banned him (the fact said player defended Unsleeved media may be relevant).

He was an admin of a group specifically created to share offensive (racist, misogynist, etc) MTG memes. You don't get to be an admin of something like that without approving of it, and if you approve of that kind of trash then you don't belong in the community. It amazes me that people can look at this situation and say that he didn't deserve to be banned.

PS: it's also worth noting that, before WOTC acted, the player in question had already been dumped by his sponsors and kicked off his team. It's not just WOTC deciding that he's a and wanting to have nothing to do with him.

I also argue that given the recent other grand stories, the Canadian L3 judge sexually harassing people and the pro player who cheated again in grand prix, getting just a demotion and a six months ban respectively the bans the other two people received seem extremely disproportional and based on ideological reasons, something showcasing double standards and an ideological purge instead of an effort to remove "toxic" elements from the community.

No, you have that backwards. The judge getting a light punishment for sexual harassment is a strong argument that it isn't about ideological reasons. The same progressives that are supposedly being pandered to by banning Hambly also tend to be very loudly against sexual harassment. If WOTC is actually doing this for ideological reasons then giving a lifetime ban to the harasser would be an easy way to give them a win. It satisfies the leftists, and does so in a way that nobody can argue with. After all, who is going to defend someone who is guilty of sexual harassment? The fact that they passed on this perfect opportunity very strongly suggests that Hambly's ban is because he was genuinely that obnoxious and everyone wanted him gone.

I also disagree on digital content ownership and if certain EULAs hold any legal validity but that is not really the argument here.

This is not something where disagreement is possible. Applying conventional property ownership concepts to video game character stats does not work, period. The fundamental concepts of property involved completely fail when you attempt to apply them to in-game items, on a purely functional level regardless of your ideological opinions on the subject. All you have as an argument is a vague sense of entitlement to your character stats, and handwaving that someone will magically solve the problems and make it work.

PS: you really don't want this to happen. If the legal system changes to treat MTGO cards as a player's property it would instantly result in every online game shutting down, and none ever being developed again. The liability issues would be impossible to overcome, and the entire business concept would die.

Imagine EVE with legal digital property ownership It would be insane.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
We are not talking about your private gaming group are we?

No, but we are talking about WOTC's private gaming group, which runs according to the same principle as mine (and everyone else's): that the organizer of the group gets to decide who they invite to their private social event. The fact that WOTC's private club contains more members than my kitchen table MTG game doesn't change the basic situation here.

Who in his or her right mind would put a company or an individual above law to decide what is and is not acceptable.

Uh, everyone? Companies do this all the time. For example, cheating in a game of MTG is not a crime, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that WOTC shouldn't have the ability to go beyond what the law covers and ban cheaters from their events. The company or individual doesn't get to be above the law and impose legal consequences on you (jail time, fines, etc), but they can certainly decide who they want to invite to their private events based on more than just what is or isn't legal.

The fact that it is not a government that enforces thought policing but a corporation changes nothing, regardless of scale and impact the principle is the same.

The fact that it is a private organization changes everything. Thought policing by the government is wrong and terrifying because the government can strip you of your property and imprison you, and even kill you in some situations. A private organization has far less power over you, and can only decline to invite you to their private club. Essentially what you're saying here is that the principle is the same between "I don't want to be friends with you" and "I'm going to lock you in this cage forever, and if you try to escape I will kill you", and that's absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Imagine EVE with legal digital property ownership It would be insane.

Exactly. You'd be prosecuted and imprisoned for killing someone in EVE and taking the loot they drop.

EVE is not a stellar example of game design for sure, definitely not a good example of what we discussed, but a good distraction for somebody who do not wishes to debate.

It is clear to me that you do not want to establish a debate, you have your opinion set in stone and cannot see the precedents set by such actions.

And to be entirely honest yes, the fact they did not ban a person for conducting a criminal act inside their premises, but banned a person for life for expressing ideas and criticism they do not like outside their premises is a definite sign of political and ideological reasons behind such bans, nothing else.

To use your ideology, since Wotc did not ban a judge who if nothing else is also closely related to them for conducting a criminal act inside their premises, Wotc fully supports sexual harassment.

Guilty by association.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
EVE is not a stellar example of game design for sure, definitely not a good example of what we discussed, but a good distraction for somebody who do not wishes to debate.

No, EVE is actually a great example of game design. The permanent item loss, full PvP, etc, are mechanics that do an excellent job of accomplishing its goals, goals that have made it unique and successful over the past decade or more while its competition has failed and died. It just isn't a game that is compatible with your proposed rules for owning your video game character's stats.

It is clear to me that you do not want to establish a debate, you have your opinion set in stone and cannot see the precedents set by such actions.

No, I simply reject your attempts at handwaving away explanations of fatal flaws in your digital property ideas. I don't care what your ideological beliefs on the subject are, your proposed legal system for digital property ownership does not work. It's like accusing people of not wanting to have a debate because they reject your proposal for mandatory ownership of square circles.

And to be entirely honest yes, the fact they did not ban a person for conducting a criminal act inside their premises, but banned a person for life for expressing ideas and criticism they do not like outside their premises is a definite sign of political and ideological reasons behind such bans, nothing else.

Sigh. Did you even read the response I gave to this? It's the exact opposite, because a lifetime ban for the harasser would be an act that would be celebrated by the leftists/SJWs/whatever. If WOTC's goal is to advance a socially-progressive agenda and please people of that political alignment then the obvious, even mandatory, action is to ban the guy forever and not just give him a temporary suspension. And the fact that sexual harassment is one of those things that most people agree is awful and grounds for removal from a group means that it's a controversy-free way to score those points. So if WOTC is acting for the reasons that you claim we would expect to see at least as harsh a punishment for the harasser as for Hambly. But that's not what we see. We see a limited punishment for the harasser, and maximum punishment for the more difficult case. The obvious conclusion is that WOTC is not acting for the reasons you claim, and the Hambly ban is for other reasons: either WOTC finds the accusations against him credible on their own merits, independent of any ideological agenda, or people are just sick of his and told him to GTFO.

EVE is a bad game design, but as service, they do not ban you and close your account with all the stuff you cannot loose from PvP because of something you said out of the game/ forums.

Likewise I do not accept as an answer what amounts to "don't worry be just and fear not" on valid concerns about freedom of speech and impact of companies on private life.

The surprising lack of complains about the judge case from the parties you mentioned may be an indication of connection? regardless that does not change the fact that by your logic Wotc is definitely supporting his actions.

Also, it's one of those "details are hard to find, protect the victim's privacy, etc" situations, but from what I can find about the judge incident it looks like it was a case of inappropriate flirting and making someone uncomfortable, not assault or obvious malicious intent. That's not behavior that should be accepted, but there's a major difference between unprofessional behavior and maliciously harassing someone over an extended period of time (as Hambly is accused of).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
EVE is a bad game design, but as service, they do not ban you and close your account with all the stuff you cannot loose from PvP because of something you said out of the game/ forums.

We'll just have to disagree on this, since you don't provide any reasons why EVE is bad game design other than simply asserting that it must be true.

And no, EVE does not (AFAIK) ban people over that, but you're ignoring the context in which I mentioned EVE. EVE has full PvP, and when your ship is destroyed your gear (at least whatever isn't destroyed when your ship explodes) drops and anyone can take it. That means that I can kill you and take your stuff. In a legal system in which video game character attributes are not the player's property this is fine, we're just playing a game, no exchange of real-world property has occurred when digital items in the game world move between characters. In a legal system in which video game character attributes are the player's property this is a case of theft, and the player taking the stuff would be prosecuted and imprisoned for it.

Likewise I do not accept as an answer what amounts to "don't worry be just and fear not" on valid concerns about freedom of speech and impact of companies on private life.

Obviously you don't accept it, because you are paranoid about something that can not happen because of structural differences between MTG and 40k. It is completely irrational to worry about a ban list in 40k when there is no central authority that could enforce a ban list. In the absence of such a central authority the most anyone can do with a hypothetical ban list is publish a "HAY GUYS THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT MY FRIEND" statement that everyone else ignores. So no, I'm not going to accept that it's a reasonable fear to have when you're talking about freedom of speech threats and authoritarianism because some random person on the internet might refuse to play a game with you. Regardless of what you think about the WOTC case worrying about a ban list in 40k is not reasonable.

The surprising lack of complains about the judge case from the parties you mentioned may be an indication of connection?

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here, or what it has to do with the post you seem to be responding to.

regardless that does not change the fact that by your logic Wotc is definitely supporting his actions.

Uh, no, it really doesn't. WOTC explicitly stated that they do NOT support his actions because they stripped him of his judge credentials.