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.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/11/19/the-imperium-is-driven-by-hate-warhammer-is-not/

Sorry for bringing it back up, but this is new info.

This response is "on point".

Actually puts everything out there, defends the setting and lore, the context, but sets out how people are required to act in the real world and at events.

Good job from the company.

I am sure someone will still find a way to claim the symbol of the Spanish Falange (a symbol of the Catholic monarchy, of which Rivera's family had long been supporters) is actually a Norse rune.

10pts to the first person who brings up Hammers, Sickles, or Red Stars.

GW was 100% right to make a statement on this recent event. The problem is that they didn't make a statement on this recent event. They gave no context. They should have started with "At a recent tournament in Spain..." and then gone on to deliver their message.

 blood reaper wrote:
10pts to the first person who brings up Hammers, Sickles, or Red Stars.

The USSR killed just as many if not more than the Nazis ever did. Communism is just as repugnant as the Nazis. Stalin was just as evil as Hitler.

And now I have 10 points. Thanks!

I can't wait to see butthurt nazis getting offended about this.

Well played by GW.

Good - and thank you for posting it. As the original poster of the “Spanish nazi in tournament” thread - I was somewhat hurt that it was derailed and attacked, and that conversations about how to prevent this, or conversations about what you would have done in the moment were taken over by whataboutisms and clouding.

I said this before and I said this again - this is a hobby. Your hate, your malovence, has no place here. We are all trying to have fun with plastic, or resin, soldiers - take that gak you funnel and go to a basement and die like the rest of your fascist buddies did in the 1940’s.

Is that harsh - maybe - but I give no fething leeway or qualms to an entire set of people that view my family and I as subhuman and deserving of extermination.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
10pts to the first person who brings up Hammers, Sickles, or Red Stars.

The USSR killed just as many if not more than the Nazis ever did. Communism is just as repugnant as the Nazis. Stalin was just as evil as Hitler.

And now I have 10 points. Thanks!

Around 27 million people died (some figures claim as many as 30 million) in the USSR alone due to the Nazis, so the claim the USSR killed more people than the Germans is first off, incorrect, and secondly irrelevant. This is also not to mention the rest of Europe.

The point is that, in a desperate attempt to divert attention from a right-wing loon, people had to desperately bring up Communism. Could they bring up examples of people wearing Hammers, Sickles, or other such symbols? Certainly not.

This is a good stance and to be expected, but now the slippery slope of "wokism" may come into play as there is no actual definition of "symbols of real world hate groups" and I can see this becoming a tool by some nefarious types. Yes, we know the big offenders from both left and right, but I wonder where that fringeline border cases will fall. Let's be frank here (no pun intended), some will see the cross as a symbol of hate (we've seen the Crusading Knight be adopted by the far right.....well feth them, it ain't yours) so will someone bring that up to GW staff at some point. Someone wearing an Antifa shirt....same?
Like I said, shouldn't need to be said (some people are just complete tools for the most part) but I understand why they did. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

edited multiple times as it's early, the coffee has not yet hit the spot, and my dog got me up far sooner than expected (can I sometimes put her in a hate group for not liking people who want a respectable number of hours of sleep at night?)

 bullyboy wrote:
Let's be frank here

I can't believe you've done this

 bullyboy wrote:
Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

As something of an outsider to GW, somebody who doesn't play 40K but loves the lore and models I think that one of the reasons that GW has been moving away a lot from the old grim dark aesthetic to the more cartoony and clean art styles that have some out more recently. And the reason why they are "moving the story forward". Its to reground the narrative, art, armies and characters in imagery and a setting that less problematic for many people and the current culture.

Whether or not that move is a good or a bad thing is a totally separate conversation from "should we allow fascists at GW events or in the community".

 bullyboy wrote:
...my dog got me up far sooner than expected...

It's probably all the damn whistling.

This is the first I've heard about this, could someone give some proper context?

I think it's good of GW to outright state what the Imperium is meant to be though, as I've seen so many posts from people who seem to actually think the way the Imperium behaves is " necessary". That's just a complete fundamental misunderstanding of the Imperium, the whole point is meant to be that their actions are NOT in any way justified, they're meant to be the most horrific, cruel, corrupt, nightmarish, bloodiest regime there could possibly be, not this utterly absurd nonsense of " humanity wouldn't survive without them being like that, so they're good!" that some have somehow convinced themselves of.

Sunno wrote:
As something of an outsider to GW, somebody who doesn't play 40K but loves the lore and models I think that one of the reasons that GW has been moving away a lot from the old grim dark aesthetic to the more cartoony and clean art styles that have some out more recently. And the reason why they are "moving the story forward". Its to reground the narrative, art, armies and characters in imagery and a setting that less problematic for many people and the current culture.

Yes - a lot of the 'old school' British creatives were left wing, often with a fair amount of knowledge of history and they wrote a lot of stuff parodying the excesses of the right, fascism included, but also authoritarianism, communism and the like. 2000ad and GWs in house settings are probably the longest lived of them. Of course large numbers see those things as heroes (Dredd, the Imperium etc.) which is always amusing. I do feel as the setting becomes 'nicer' or at least the obvious nastiness is merely implied and not dwelt on, more people will come to the view that they are the good guys. maybe we will get a shiny new 40k like AoS where a lot of the horror is stripped out to be replaced with caricatures of good and bad.

If this pandemic has taught us anything, it's that some people are that stupid. Not only that stupid, but even dumber than that.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
This is the first I've heard about this, could someone give some proper context?

A player turned up to a Spanish tournament wearing certain symbols and using the name "Austrian Painter" (Dakka thread (locked)).

Kudos to GW. It's nice to see there are some things they value more highly than money.

It's also nice to get official confirmation that they still intend 40K as a satire.

 bullyboy wrote:
This is a good stance and to be expected, but now the slippery slope of "wokism" may come into play as there is no actual definition of "symbols of real world hate groups" and I can see this becoming a tool by some nefarious types. Yes, we know the big offenders from both left and right, but I wonder where that fringeline border cases will fall. Let's be frank here (no pun intended), some will see the cross as a symbol of hate (we've seen the Crusading Knight be adopted by the far right.....well feth them, it ain't yours) so will someone bring that up to GW staff at some point. Someone wearing an Antifa shirt....same?
Like I said, shouldn't need to be said (some people are just complete tools for the most part) but I understand why they did. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

edited multiple times as it's early, the coffee has not yet hit the spot, and my dog got me up far sooner than expected (can I sometimes put her in a hate group for not liking people who want a respectable number of hours of sleep at night?)

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Sunno wrote:
As something of an outsider to GW, somebody who doesn't play 40K but loves the lore and models I think that one of the reasons that GW has been moving away a lot from the old grim dark aesthetic to the more cartoony and clean art styles that have some out more recently. And the reason why they are "moving the story forward". Its to reground the narrative, art, armies and characters in imagery and a setting that less problematic for many people and the current culture.

Yes - a lot of the 'old school' British creatives were left wing, often with a fair amount of knowledge of history and they wrote a lot of stuff parodying the excesses of the right, fascism included, but also authoritarianism, communism and the like. 2000ad and GWs in house settings are probably the longest lived of them. Of course large numbers see those things as heroes (Dredd, the Imperium etc.) which is always amusing. I do feel as the setting becomes 'nicer' or at least the obvious nastiness is merely implied and not dwelt on, more people will come to the view that they are the good guys. maybe we will get a shiny new 40k like AoS where a lot of the horror is stripped out to be replaced with caricatures of good and bad.

I mean, Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka was literally named after Margaret Thatcher......

StraightSilver wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Sunno wrote:
As something of an outsider to GW, somebody who doesn't play 40K but loves the lore and models I think that one of the reasons that GW has been moving away a lot from the old grim dark aesthetic to the more cartoony and clean art styles that have some out more recently. And the reason why they are "moving the story forward". Its to reground the narrative, art, armies and characters in imagery and a setting that less problematic for many people and the current culture.

Yes - a lot of the 'old school' British creatives were left wing, often with a fair amount of knowledge of history and they wrote a lot of stuff parodying the excesses of the right, fascism included, but also authoritarianism, communism and the like. 2000ad and GWs in house settings are probably the longest lived of them. Of course large numbers see those things as heroes (Dredd, the Imperium etc.) which is always amusing. I do feel as the setting becomes 'nicer' or at least the obvious nastiness is merely implied and not dwelt on, more people will come to the view that they are the good guys. maybe we will get a shiny new 40k like AoS where a lot of the horror is stripped out to be replaced with caricatures of good and bad.

I mean, Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka was literally named after Margaret Thatcher......

Apparently that's not true. Can't quite remember who it was, but someone was asked if that was the case, and the answer was no.

But also a throw away at the time, being a WD sample warband, which eventually turned up in ‘Ere We Go.

Audustum wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
This is a good stance and to be expected, but now the slippery slope of "wokism" may come into play as there is no actual definition of "symbols of real world hate groups" and I can see this becoming a tool by some nefarious types. Yes, we know the big offenders from both left and right, but I wonder where that fringeline border cases will fall. Let's be frank here (no pun intended), some will see the cross as a symbol of hate (we've seen the Crusading Knight be adopted by the far right.....well feth them, it ain't yours) so will someone bring that up to GW staff at some point. Someone wearing an Antifa shirt....same?
Like I said, shouldn't need to be said (some people are just complete tools for the most part) but I understand why they did. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

edited multiple times as it's early, the coffee has not yet hit the spot, and my dog got me up far sooner than expected (can I sometimes put her in a hate group for not liking people who want a respectable number of hours of sleep at night?)

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

It's not complicated at all. As the tournament organizer it's your house and you can dis-invite someone for any reason. If you want people to continue attending your events you're going to cultivate an environment where people are comfortable and welcome, which means weeding out crypto-nazis, tankies, and other trash. Being a TO is being precisely the kind of overseer you're worried out; they need to approve army lists, paint jobs, attendee dress and behaviour anyways, so this is just more of the same.

Audustum wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
This is a good stance and to be expected, but now the slippery slope of "wokism" may come into play as there is no actual definition of "symbols of real world hate groups" and I can see this becoming a tool by some nefarious types. Yes, we know the big offenders from both left and right, but I wonder where that fringeline border cases will fall. Let's be frank here (no pun intended), some will see the cross as a symbol of hate (we've seen the Crusading Knight be adopted by the far right.....well feth them, it ain't yours) so will someone bring that up to GW staff at some point. Someone wearing an Antifa shirt....same?
Like I said, shouldn't need to be said (some people are just complete tools for the most part) but I understand why they did. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

edited multiple times as it's early, the coffee has not yet hit the spot, and my dog got me up far sooner than expected (can I sometimes put her in a hate group for not liking people who want a respectable number of hours of sleep at night?)

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

Hold on tight to those handrails before you slide down that slipper slope.

StraightSilver wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Sunno wrote:
As something of an outsider to GW, somebody who doesn't play 40K but loves the lore and models I think that one of the reasons that GW has been moving away a lot from the old grim dark aesthetic to the more cartoony and clean art styles that have some out more recently. And the reason why they are "moving the story forward". Its to reground the narrative, art, armies and characters in imagery and a setting that less problematic for many people and the current culture.

Yes - a lot of the 'old school' British creatives were left wing, often with a fair amount of knowledge of history and they wrote a lot of stuff parodying the excesses of the right, fascism included, but also authoritarianism, communism and the like. 2000ad and GWs in house settings are probably the longest lived of them. Of course large numbers see those things as heroes (Dredd, the Imperium etc.) which is always amusing. I do feel as the setting becomes 'nicer' or at least the obvious nastiness is merely implied and not dwelt on, more people will come to the view that they are the good guys. maybe we will get a shiny new 40k like AoS where a lot of the horror is stripped out to be replaced with caricatures of good and bad.

I mean, Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka was literally named after Margaret Thatcher......

Myth. Andy Chambers did an interview and more or less outright said that was a load of bs.

 Nurglitch wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
This is a good stance and to be expected, but now the slippery slope of "wokism" may come into play as there is no actual definition of "symbols of real world hate groups" and I can see this becoming a tool by some nefarious types. Yes, we know the big offenders from both left and right, but I wonder where that fringeline border cases will fall. Let's be frank here (no pun intended), some will see the cross as a symbol of hate (we've seen the Crusading Knight be adopted by the far right.....well feth them, it ain't yours) so will someone bring that up to GW staff at some point. Someone wearing an Antifa shirt....same?
Like I said, shouldn't need to be said (some people are just complete tools for the most part) but I understand why they did. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

edited multiple times as it's early, the coffee has not yet hit the spot, and my dog got me up far sooner than expected (can I sometimes put her in a hate group for not liking people who want a respectable number of hours of sleep at night?)

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

It's not complicated at all. As the tournament organizer it's your house and you can dis-invite someone for any reason. If you want people to continue attending your events you're going to cultivate an environment where people are comfortable and welcome, which means weeding out crypto-nazis, tankies, and other trash. Being a TO is being precisely the kind of overseer you're worried out; they need to approve army lists, paint jobs, attendee dress and behaviour anyways, so this is just more of the same.

Being a game overseer is a lot different than a political overseer. And wanting people to attend the events is why it's probably just easiest for them to ban everything. See below as I think my response to the next poster also contains some things relevant here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
This is a good stance and to be expected, but now the slippery slope of "wokism" may come into play as there is no actual definition of "symbols of real world hate groups" and I can see this becoming a tool by some nefarious types. Yes, we know the big offenders from both left and right, but I wonder where that fringeline border cases will fall. Let's be frank here (no pun intended), some will see the cross as a symbol of hate (we've seen the Crusading Knight be adopted by the far right.....well feth them, it ain't yours) so will someone bring that up to GW staff at some point. Someone wearing an Antifa shirt....same?
Like I said, shouldn't need to be said (some people are just complete tools for the most part) but I understand why they did. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

edited multiple times as it's early, the coffee has not yet hit the spot, and my dog got me up far sooner than expected (can I sometimes put her in a hate group for not liking people who want a respectable number of hours of sleep at night?)

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

Hold on tight to those handrails before you slide down that slipper slope.

There's no slippery slope here. Do you not think there'd be a firestorm if someone wore 'Black Lives Matter' at a top table stream? If they wore 'Let's go, Brandon'? How about a Che Gueverra shirt? Yes, you're gonna get a firestorm from these kind of things. Then you're going to get an equal firestorm from the supporters. You'll be accused of political bias for only banning the ones 'you dislike'. No, the safest path is to just ban all political attire. Nip the whole thing in the bud otherwise you have a recipe for forever controversy and stressed out TO's.

Audustum wrote:

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

Slippery slope fallacy and "wokism" in one go. Brilliant. How do you operate in the real world without being able to distinguish the shades of grey from the clear black and white? Surely we can all at least start by agreeing that neo-Nazi or actual Nazi symbols should get you kicked out of a tournament? Even if the only real change that occurs as a result of this is making that obvious point very clear it would at least be a start.

Slipspace wrote:

Audustum wrote:

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

Slippery slope fallacy and "wokism" in one go. Brilliant. How do you operate in the real world without being able to distinguish the shades of grey from the clear black and white? Surely we can all at least start by agreeing that neo-Nazi or actual Nazi symbols should get you kicked out of a tournament? Even if the only real change that occurs as a result of this is making that obvious point very clear it would at least be a start.

Does anyone actually know what slippery slope is? Or wokism?

Slippery Slope:

asserting that a proposed, relatively small, first action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in a significant and negative event and, therefore, should not be permitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

1. I'm not saying you shouldn't ban things ('not be permitted'), I'm saying you have to ban everything if you go that route.
2. I'm not saying the events are a 'chain', I am saying they are one and the same just with different window dressing (nazism as opposed to any other political topic).

Wokism:

Woke (/woʊk/ wohk) is an adjective meaning 'alert to racial prejudice and discrimination' that originated in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for left-wing ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

I'm really not talking about this at all. I'm talking about political controversies in general, nothing race or identity politics specific.

Minutiae aside, I'm of the opinion that procedure is just as important as result. The procedure here is awful. Political attire shows up on people semi-regularly, because people are political. We've developed no system for classifying what is acceptable and what is not. We just booted one and left a giant unending question mark as to the rest and expect poor, overworked TO's to step in a regulate speech like a governing body. That's not fair to them and it's a terrible system, which is why I say the rational move is to just ban it all.

The rational move is to leave it up to the tournament organizer's judgement, where the official position is that Nazis can take a hike.

Audustum wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Audustum wrote:

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

Slippery slope fallacy and "wokism" in one go. Brilliant. How do you operate in the real world without being able to distinguish the shades of grey from the clear black and white? Surely we can all at least start by agreeing that neo-Nazi or actual Nazi symbols should get you kicked out of a tournament? Even if the only real change that occurs as a result of this is making that obvious point very clear it would at least be a start.

Does anyone actually know what slippery slope is? Or wokism?

Slippery Slope:

asserting that a proposed, relatively small, first action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in a significant and negative event and, therefore, should not be permitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

1. I'm not saying you shouldn't ban things ('not be permitted'), I'm saying you have to ban everything if you go that route.
2. I'm not saying the events are a 'chain', I am saying they are one and the same just with different window dressing (nazism as opposed to any other political topic).

I'd say you're wrong about them being one and the same thing, hence the slippery slope. You're equating an actual neo-Nazi with literally any other political movement, which is insane. There are nuances here we can deal with as functioning human beings without just throwing our hands up and declaring the whole thing impossible to deal with.

For example, I live in Scotland. I've encountered more than one gamer with a "Yes" slogan on their army case/dice box etc (that's the symbol of the movement for Scottish independence, for those not following Scottish politics). I don't see how that political stance is even remotely related to someone whose ideology calls for the genocide of millions of people. Will someone possibly complain if they see that in a livestream? Maybe. Is that grounds for banning a "Yes" slogan? I don't think so, on the basis that it's not a symbol of an actual hate group and it's entirely possible for something to be political, for you to disagree with those politics, and not have to ban it.

For clarity, neo-Nazis are not one of those things. They are a bona-fide hate group whose core ideology is centred around hatred. Your inability to tell the difference is equal parts bizarre, confusing and troubling.

Slipspace wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Audustum wrote:

'Wokism' aside it just causes all kinda of issues because now every TO is expected to be some kind of political overseer. That's not a burden I'd want as a TO. The easiest and best move is probably just to ban all real world political symbols of any kind, hate based or not, violent or not, from attendee clothing. This will all get massively complicated very fast if you end up with someone wearing a controversial shirt at a streamed table anyway.

Slippery slope fallacy and "wokism" in one go. Brilliant. How do you operate in the real world without being able to distinguish the shades of grey from the clear black and white? Surely we can all at least start by agreeing that neo-Nazi or actual Nazi symbols should get you kicked out of a tournament? Even if the only real change that occurs as a result of this is making that obvious point very clear it would at least be a start.

Does anyone actually know what slippery slope is? Or wokism?

Slippery Slope:

asserting that a proposed, relatively small, first action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in a significant and negative event and, therefore, should not be permitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

1. I'm not saying you shouldn't ban things ('not be permitted'), I'm saying you have to ban everything if you go that route.
2. I'm not saying the events are a 'chain', I am saying they are one and the same just with different window dressing (nazism as opposed to any other political topic).

I'd say you're wrong about them being one and the same thing, hence the slippery slope. You're equating an actual neo-Nazi with literally any other political movement, which is insane. There are nuances here we can deal with as functioning human beings without just throwing our hands up and declaring the whole thing impossible to deal with.

For example, I live in Scotland. I've encountered more than one gamer with a "Yes" slogan on their army case/dice box etc (that's the symbol of the movement for Scottish independence, for those not following Scottish politics). I don't see how that political stance is even remotely related to someone whose ideology calls for the genocide of millions of people. Will someone possibly complain if they see that in a livestream? Maybe. Is that grounds for banning a "Yes" slogan? I don't think so, on the basis that it's not a symbol of an actual hate group and it's entirely possible for something to be political, for you to disagree with those politics, and not have to ban it.

For clarity, neo-Nazis are not one of those things. They are a bona-fide hate group whose core ideology is centred around hatred. Your inability to tell the difference is equal parts bizarre, confusing and troubling.

This, with the addition that in some cases the inability to tell the difference is also deliberate, intentional, and willful. A lot of this "debate" is the result of bad faith arguments being pumped out as noise by the dissenting side to muddy the waters and distract from the core of the discussion.

For a thread that really should be about "hurrah, GW have finally made clear that nazis are bad" there's a strange amount of controversy here...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW was 100% right to make a statement on this recent event. The problem is that they didn't make a statement on this recent event. They gave no context. They should have started with "At a recent tournament in Spain..." and then gone on to deliver their message.

Actually as a company statement its stronger for not referencing an event which GW had no influence nor control over directly. It also means that people don't get bogged down in "oh its only those ones that GW cares about" A blanket statement that names no names and points no fingers save at a generalist target means that it encompasses all hate groups. Sure this was sparked most likely by the event in Spain, but that doesn't mean its the only one.