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.

There's little to no way I could be convinced that the 'artist' wasn't attempting to paint an SS Totenkopf. I could be convinced that they were naïve enough to have found the symbol and 'copied' it without knowing what it was.

Comparison of the Knights ion shield and a Totenkopf (under spoiler - I'm loathe to post the damn thing at all, but it seems to need illustrating):



Innocent mistake though it may have been, Reese should have backed down and apologised profusely. Instead he doubled down.

(..and then should have apologised again for charging a customer money for some of the worst freehand painting I've ever seen by a commercial painting service.)

 vict0988 wrote:

Germany's censorship isn't working from what I've seen in news shows and articles the far right were out in force to protest during corona, as a pirate I strongly object to anyone that would ban me from using the skull and crossbones and if you have freedom of speech the suggestion from anyone to restrict your speech that you think is reasonable should be "piss off".

it is not about a random skull with crossed bones, but the specific one
dress as a Pirate and there is no problem, but using that specific skull in public is not

the skull used is very unique and knowing is only an excuse as long no one points it out

you can also go around with an ISIS flag and telling people that this is just a random flag from the internet and that it is not your fault that terrorist like the colour black
but be not surprised if this gets you into trouble, specially if you start defending its use

I guess you won't see this reaction if they guy used the Confederate Flag with the excuse that it is just a random flag with stars from the internet and no one should be offended by some stars painted on a toy

That specific symbol is well known enough in the UK that a BBC comedy did a sketch specifically mocking it.

https://youtu.be/rWvpvlT9pJU" target="_new" rel="nofollow">Mitchell & Webb’s ‘Are we the baddies?’

maybe it’s different in the US, but in Europe you’d have to be pretty sheltered to not get the provenance of it.

Indeed. We're not talking about a generic 'skull and crossbones' - there's a reason why no one lose their gak every time a new Pirates of the Caribbean is marketed. This is a specific, and utterly repugnant, symbol that's being referenced.

Nor is this an issue of free speech. You do have the freedom to make any comment you like, but if you're engaging in apologetics over Nazi symbology, you'll also be just as free to be regarded as a human stain by any reasonable individual after the fact. 'Free speech' does not and should not become a free pass from the consequences of an opinion you have the poor common sense to state publicly.

ccs 798333 11124904 wrote:

Normal people who know little to nothing about WWII history anyways.

I think we learn more about the klan too. For example two of our lessons in XIXth century history were dovoted to the links between the XIXth century polish struggles against occupations and persecution, and the Black Patch Tabacco Kentucky War, where local farmers under the protection of the 2ed Klan members fought against the Italian mob owned tabacco industry and the mob supported and paid off US state. Where they used burning crosses in the hills as signs that the marauders are coming to burn farmer houses and crops. A real big thing in polish news papers coming out in the 1905-1907 year, jewish too as at the same time in the russian empire there was a revolution going on and peasent uprisings because of plagues and famine


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:


The Danish flag has probably been flown celebrating tragedies, doesn't stop me from flying my flag on my birthday. Yes, the intention really does matter, which is why only an idiot would call Buddhists erecting new swastika-riddled buildings Nazis or an Asian (especially if they are of Chinese descent, which they might be) a Nazi for using a skull and crossbones insignia similar to one that ONE division of the SS used.

Well goralen folk here defend themselfs that way too, even when they cooperated with the nazis durning WWII, and there are sfastikas slaped on churchs, houses etc in places where they live. In Reece case this isn't so simple though, the design is a clear retrace of a Waffen SS badge. A buddist having his solar sign is a buddist having a solar sign. It is different when you slap on a white circle on a red back ground.

Let's get back on topic please and discuss iconography elsewhere, thanks.

Yea, that was very unprofessional to trow dirt on a person without disclosing the reason. Since Pablo was in the podcast for so long, he could be considered public figure, so such statement sure can harm his life opportunities.
I know some people that have clearly right wing views in the hobby, i have to agree with Reece.
That symbol was used long before the SS was created, it was used by the Prussians. They even fought against the French in Waterloo.
So demonizing everything just because it was used by the nazis is wrong without the context and in fact the skull is used to warn about poisons and danger.
I`m sure if you check you could find easily a lot of armies using similar symbol and it`s no wonder the painters use it to make the models looks cooler.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Also you're ignoring they're the creators and main arbitrators of the ITC which in the US at least is the main organization behind competitive Warhammer.

...is that meant to be a point in their favour?

 BrookM wrote:
Let's get back on topic please and discuss iconography elsewhere, thanks.

As far as anyone knows, Pablo was not fired over iconography. Importing a separate drama he had nothing to do with doesn't help.

This situation is disturbing.

It wasn't enough for FLG to fire Pablo, they nuked his reputation with a letter talking about trust, harm, protecting customers, and dealing with him at your own risk. This language is pretty serious, sounds like Pablo's job with FLG was his only means of support. With this letter, they're trying to make him unemployable.

Exercising that kind of power over someone is cruel. The letter speaks about behavior "not in keeping with our values." What are those values, and why is this guy getting punished for some transgression after he's already left the company? Working for Reese should not mean entering into a lifetime agreement to behave to his satisfaction.

FLG also runs major tournaments and manages the ITC rankings. What does this mean for Pablo's participation in tournaments, or his podcast that's featured on the Frontline Gaming Network? FLG is trying to ruin someone after they already fired him. Not sure this level of vindictiveness is consistent with the standards of fairness I'd expect from tournament organizers.

It's clear Reese sees himself as some defender of the community. I am not clear who defends people from Reese. This letter crosses a lot of lines.

Depends on what the reason is really but assuming its bad enough to result is dismissal it seems like a reasonable message to me.

It balances the fact that someone has done something sufficiently bad, but you haven't proved in a court of law etc and presumably don't want to - but you want to give some heads up in case they go and do it to other people.

I look for example at the people who committed a fraud against our company for about £100k. We had a lengthy battle over several years and never got any money back. When they eventually fell over completely they didn't just owe us £100k, they owed a huge number number of people about £12m. For all those years we could have been telling these people (every industry is always a small world afte rall) that these people were bad, they shouldn't deal with them, but we felt we couldn't tell people. But with hindsight - we probably should have done, because it would saved some of those people the difference. But we had grave concerns over the cost (both in money and time) of going to court to make it public, prove our position and win the case.

Tyel wrote:
Depends on what the reason is really but assuming its bad enough to result is dismissal it seems like a reasonable message to me.

It balances the fact that someone has done something sufficiently bad, but you haven't proved in a court of law etc and presumably don't want to - but you want to give some heads up in case they go and do it to other people.

For all we know, he could have been dismissed for something as a minor as being late back from lunch one time time too many.
That's the issue isn't it? Perhaps it was something truly abhorrent that Pablo did, or maybe it was just something that Reese and Frankie didn't like.

What we do know, is that they've quite literally harmed his chances at any further employment in this industry through their comments. They damaged his ability to earn and provide for his family. And that, without serious justification, is deeply troubling.

All they had to do, is say nothing beyond 'He's no longer with us'.

They're securing the bag.

Tyel wrote:
Depends on what the reason is really but assuming its bad enough to result is dismissal it seems like a reasonable message to me.

It balances the fact that someone has done something sufficiently bad, but you haven't proved in a court of law etc and presumably don't want to - but you want to give some heads up in case they go and do it to other people.

I look for example at the people who committed a fraud against our company for about £100k. We had a lengthy battle over several years and never got any money back. When they eventually fell over completely they didn't just owe us £100k, they owed a huge number number of people about £12m. For all those years we could have been telling these people (every industry is always a small world afte rall) that these people were bad, they shouldn't deal with them, but we felt we couldn't tell people. But with hindsight - we probably should have done, because it would saved some of those people the difference. But we had grave concerns over the cost (both in money and time) of going to court to make it public, prove our position and win the case.

Thing is, if you're telling the truth, you can come out and make the accusations clearly and specifically, without exaggeration. You only have to prove it in court if the person decides to sue you. If they know that they did what you're accusing them of; they know they can't win that case.

If your company had passed the word around that "Hey, these guys owe us $100k that it seems like they have no intention of repaying" they might have saved a lot of other companies from financial loss; and if the debtors had tried to sue for defamation; the court case would have gone very quickly; you just show up with your unpaid bill.

If your company had just passed the word around that "These guys don't do business in accordance with our values and have breached our trust." some people who really trust you might take it on faith, but a lot of others would just feel like you're badmouthing people over... who knows what?

Are they being accused of some sort of fraud? Are they being accused of some sort of harassment? Are they being accused of holding unacceptable political opinions?

All of the above but also none.

That’s rather spicy.
Can’t really tell if he is just a ass.
Or throwing it out there deliberately knowing he won’t want to bring it all out to the light.

It’s not uncommon for company in nerdy spaces to drop people and leave it at that after some crazy things. With the nerd space being as it is, usually it’s best for both party’s to part ways.

What makes this even worse, IMO, is they specifically decided not to name the person involved in the recent cheating scandal who was definitively caught on video and who issued his own statement acknowledging his wrongdoing. This was, apparently, to prevent reputational damage both inside and outside 40k and give them a chance to rehabilitate.

But in the case of an ex-employee they're happy to make vague insinuations while naming them and warning people away from dealing with him. Something seems very off about their priorities.

VonGerrow wrote:
...You only have to prove it in court if the person decides to sue you...

To be perfectly fair, there's more to "going to court" than actually showing up at a courthouse. If the company is smaller and doesn't have a legal department, they'd probably want to hire outside counsel (which likely won't be cheap), and depending on the sums involved they may go to court and win their slam-dunk case only to find that they've wasted weeks of time getting set up and awaiting the hearing and at the end of the day they've incurred, say, $5k of fees to make somebody pay a $2k bill.

Literally who?

I love watching a bit of e-drama as much as the next person but I've never heard of him. I wonder of this is a pre-emptive 'distancing' because somebody is going to make a statement (with some sort of evidence) in the future regarding what he's alleged to have done, whether that's cheating, messing with the books, sexual harassment, etc and FLG just wanted to shove him out the door before it looked like they were made to push.

Apple fox wrote:
That’s rather spicy.
Can’t really tell if he is just a ass.

Which he? Knowing nothing and no one involved, the one that looks bad to me is the one making the statement.

Its the modern 'Truthiness' scenario. When on the defensive, with a weak position, make an attack. Evidence and right/wrong are just inconvenient and irrelevant 'facts.'
In this particular situation, they apparently aren't even worth mentioning.

 waefre_1 wrote:

VonGerrow wrote:
...You only have to prove it in court if the person decides to sue you...

To be perfectly fair, there's more to "going to court" than actually showing up at a courthouse. If the company is smaller and doesn't have a legal department, they'd probably want to hire outside counsel (which likely won't be cheap), and depending on the sums involved they may go to court and win their slam-dunk case only to find that they've wasted weeks of time getting set up and awaiting the hearing and at the end of the day they've incurred, say, $5k of fees to make somebody pay a $2k bill.

Well my country has histories of families going to court against each other for over 100 years, and bankrupting each other with court fees, for something which in todays courts would be considered a public insult. We even have a word for people that go on countless never ending court wars with others, which roughly translates in to english as foam person ,as in beer foam.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Table wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
When you have to say something isn't Nazi-ish, it's Nazi-"like", you have drawn a pretty odd line in the sand. It's clearly a Totenkopf, which for those who don't know, it's a sign to others that you were part of Herman Goering's Elite 3rd SS Panzer Division.

But sure, it's just Nazi-like. Just like 40k doesn't have a serious problem with people following and idealizing the same ideas. It's literally why we had to have GW come out and clean house with the whole "You will not be missed" speech.

How the hell did this thread devolve into this................

The guy was fired. FLG made a public statement about it where none was needed. Lets stay on track here. Leave the "nazi" accusations where they belong. On twitter.

On a side note, I dont keep up with the drama but wasnt that GW statement the first and last of its kind? Or has there been a sustained effort on their part?

GW has hired more female writers, has been making more female models (not even counting Sisters), finally added female Guard heads and did sue Arch Warhammer and get him black listed from World of Warships. Oh, and we finally got a non-Salamander Black Space Marine on a book cover (who was even the protagonist) and they've been making an effort to paint skin tones other than caucasian too. So while they haven't been painting rainbow Marines or anything they have been doing things to try and make the hobby space more welcoming to a wider range of people.

Not what I asked. And I dont care how they paint their models and identity politics. As I said, have they made another statement or did they not. As I have heard, it was not well taken by a huge part of the fanbase and to my knowledge they havent dared stick their neck out again. Which is good. I dont need a game company pontificating about morals. I need them to make cool models which people can paint green,black,white or blue for all I care.

Edit. Need to get back on topic. Lets take it to PM's if you care. Which I doubt you do.

 Dysartes wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Also you're ignoring they're the creators and main arbitrators of the ITC which in the US at least is the main organization behind competitive Warhammer.

...is that meant to be a point in their favour?

Yes and no. I mean I do have to give them credit for getting the US tournament scene largely under one rule set which makes it easier to travel and play the game, since even large regional tournaments could end up on wildly different rulesets, but I won't claim they're perfect or above criticism for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Table wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Table wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
When you have to say something isn't Nazi-ish, it's Nazi-"like", you have drawn a pretty odd line in the sand. It's clearly a Totenkopf, which for those who don't know, it's a sign to others that you were part of Herman Goering's Elite 3rd SS Panzer Division.

But sure, it's just Nazi-like. Just like 40k doesn't have a serious problem with people following and idealizing the same ideas. It's literally why we had to have GW come out and clean house with the whole "You will not be missed" speech.

How the hell did this thread devolve into this................

The guy was fired. FLG made a public statement about it where none was needed. Lets stay on track here. Leave the "nazi" accusations where they belong. On twitter.

On a side note, I dont keep up with the drama but wasnt that GW statement the first and last of its kind? Or has there been a sustained effort on their part?

GW has hired more female writers, has been making more female models (not even counting Sisters), finally added female Guard heads and did sue Arch Warhammer and get him black listed from World of Warships. Oh, and we finally got a non-Salamander Black Space Marine on a book cover (who was even the protagonist) and they've been making an effort to paint skin tones other than caucasian too. So while they haven't been painting rainbow Marines or anything they have been doing things to try and make the hobby space more welcoming to a wider range of people.

Not what I asked. And I dont care how they paint their models and identity politics. As I said, have they made another statement or did they not. As I have heard, it was not well taken by a huge part of the fanbase and to my knowledge they havent dared stick their neck out again. Which is good. I dont need a game company pontificating about morals. I need them to make cool models which people can paint green,black,white or blue for all I care.

Edit. Need to get back on topic. Lets take it to PM's if you care. Which I doubt you do.

You LITERALLY asked if there was "as sustained effort on their part?" which I answered. Christ, do you even read what you posted?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arbitrator wrote:
Literally who?

I love watching a bit of e-drama as much as the next person but I've never heard of him. I wonder of this is a pre-emptive 'distancing' because somebody is going to make a statement (with some sort of evidence) in the future regarding what he's alleged to have done, whether that's cheating, messing with the books, sexual harassment, etc and FLG just wanted to shove him out the door before it looked like they were made to push.

Guy used to help coordinate major FLG ITC events, ran their 2nd hand shop and hosts the Chapter Tactics podcast. In competitive 40k he's a decently well known figure.

Did someone actually post an unironic link to somethingawful in this thread? What is even going on.

These overall these sorts of things are rather unprofessional, since they cast a blacklight over someone in a way that really can't be confirmed in any way and doesn't really help the community know of any actual issues.

Not what I asked. And I dont care how they paint their models and identity politics. As I said, have they made another statement or did they not. As I have heard, it was not well taken by a huge part of the fanbase and to my knowledge they havent dared stick their neck out again. Which is good. I dont need a game company pontificating about morals

I very much want a game company to pontificate about morals because not making the statement that they did implies through silence that those attitudes are ok with them. Yes, a large part of the fanbase got upset by the "You will not be missed" message. Any guesses as to which part of the fanbase got upset...?

Back on topic it seems like Reece is just kind of bad at PR all around. The statement could have started and ended at "This person has been let go from FLG because their values no longer align with ours." The way the entire thing was worded leaves everybody with questions, as evidenced by this entire thread.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I gotta be blunt, that's a really poor way to handle the situation. Either you say nothing beyond "he doesn't work for us any more, we won't be saying any more about it than that", or you say it all re: what he did and let people draw their own conclusions.

The halfway house of making vague, unspecified but clearly serious allegations against someone but not substantiating or even explaining them in any way is basically just a character assassination. He may well have done something really bad, but from that statement, all you get is "FLG hereby expels Pablo from the tribe! Shun him!" and that's not a professional way to do business.

There's a few reasons to stay quiet, like if there is some kind of legal proceedings tied to the problem, or if they're trying to let him save face out of respect of their past work relationship. But yeah, no idea what caused this and the fact they didn't say anything for two weeks doesn't help either.

Then better way to handle would be simply neutral "he no longer works for us". Not "he's bad person, he did something very bad but we don't tell what or show evidence. Trust　us blindly"

This is definitely a case where FLG could have gotten the same effect by damning him with faint praise. They have always been very open about praising their outgoing public facing talent. A terse non-praising statement (PM no longer works for or with FLG in any capasity. FLG will no longer be carrying future episode his podcast on our network.) would have said volumes without actively casting a bad light on him.

Well I tried to see if Pablo was sharing his side of the story but he's mum on it with only this showing up on his Facebook:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Did someone actually post an unironic link to somethingawful in this thread? What is even going on.

the SA 40k community is unironically way better and healthier than the one here.

The statement was dumb but Pablo was terrible on chapter tactics and I'm happy that he's gone from it. When Geoff Robinson was on it he would actually call out Pablo on all his dumb and meaningless statements, the current guests/cohosts let him get away with too much.

 Kommisar wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Did someone actually post an unironic link to somethingawful in this thread? What is even going on.

the SA 40k community is unironically way better and healthier than the one here.

The statement was dumb but Pablo was terrible on chapter tactics and I'm happy that he's gone from it. When Geoff Robinson was on it he would actually call out Pablo on all his dumb and meaningless statements, the current guests/cohosts let him get away with too much.

Pablo also had a habit of talking over others and running his tangents into the ground. Some of his guests have tried correcting him (Danny from Mob Rules for example) but yeah, Pablo was prone to being incredibly wrong about the game despite hosting a show about competitive 40k.

Slipspace wrote:What makes this even worse, IMO, is they specifically decided not to name the person involved in the recent cheating scandal who was definitively caught on video and who issued his own statement acknowledging his wrongdoing. This was, apparently, to prevent reputational damage both inside and outside 40k and give them a chance to rehabilitate.

But in the case of an ex-employee they're happy to make vague insinuations while naming them and warning people away from dealing with him. Something seems very off about their priorities.

No no no, you've got it all wrong.

Cheater McCheaterpants's reputation shouldn't be negatively impacted by their cheating. They only did it "once"(cough...yeah...cough...right) so their golden after their "penance".
Pablo must've been sneaking out the back door of Reece's house....

THE ABOVE IS ALL SARCASM!
‐---------------------------------------
the cheater should be banned for life
Pablo(I don't even know who they are) should go after them for libel, unless it's true. If so...peace out

NOT SARCASM