J. Allen Brack: Regarding Last Weekend’s Hearthstone Grandmasters Tournament

Originally Posted by Elkfingers

Oh aye for sure, there are a bunch of people with loosely defined ideological convictions jumping on the bandwagon despite not really being remotely coherent as to why they're really against this sort of thing...but it's still weird to me when people use that as a reason to vindicate Blizzard's part in all this.

People are right to think that Blizzard's response has been just a tad disingenuous, even if they're right for the wrong reasons.

Here's the thing. If they're upset about the severity of the punishment, that's one thing. The time he was banned for was WAY too much. But there are so many people out there that aren't upset for that reason. They are upset because Blizzard punished someone for political beliefs they believe in. These same people would be cheering Blizzard on had they banned someone for chanting "Lock Her Up" or "Make America Great Again". That makes them hypocrites because once again, they aren't upset that Blizzard punished someone for a political saying, they punished someone for a political saying they personally believed in.

Originally Posted by DotEleven

Here's the thing. If they're upset about the severity of the punishment, that's one thing. The time he was banned for was WAY too much. But there are so many people out there that aren't upset for that reason. They are upset because Blizzard punished someone for political beliefs they believe in. These same people would be cheering Blizzard on had they banned someone for chanting "Lock Her Up" or "Make America Great Again". That makes them hypocrites because once again, they aren't upset that Blizzard punished someone for a political saying, they punished someone for a political saying they personally believed in.

Yeah that's exactly right. Politics isn't sports, and political decisions have consequences. I don't want the companies that I deal with to take some sort of pseudo-apolitical stance, not do they actually do that in practice.

Blizzard for example has a very clear policy on what it doesn't tolerate in the way of hate speech, and I'm sure that there are people who choose not to give them money because they disagree with that stance. Blizzard's platforms have also been used in the past to promote civil rights issues that Blizzard also promotes, and no action was taken against those people. The difference here is that Blizzard has chosen to remain neutral on Hong Kong (whether that's possible to do when you have a trading interest in the Chinese market is another conversation entirely), and I disagree with that choice.

The whole point of holding companies to account for their political stances is to make them reconsider that stance. China should not be trying to encroach on Hong Kong's political automony, nor is it right for them to brutally suppress protests as that is clearly a free speech issue. When the cards are down, I think it is wrong for Blizzard to be neutral when it comes to whether or not authoritarian regimes are ok - they're not ok.

It is specifically the inconsistency of their approach when it comes to this particular issue that I have a problem with because it inadvertently reveals a clear bias.

Originally Posted by Elkfingers

Yeah that's exactly right. Politics isn't sports, and political decisions have consequences. I don't want the companies that I deal with to take some sort of pseudo-apolitical stance, not do they actually do that in practice.

Blizzard for example has a very clear policy on what it doesn't tolerate in the way of hate speech, and I'm sure that there are people who choose not to give them money because they disagree with that stance. Blizzard's platforms have also been used in the past to promote civil rights issues that Blizzard also promotes, and no action was taken against those people. The difference here is that Blizzard has chosen to remain neutral on Hong Kong (whether that's possible to do when you have a trading interest in the Chinese market is another conversation entirely), and I disagree with that choice.

The whole point of holding companies to account for their political stances is to make them reconsider that stance. China should not be trying to encroach on Hong Kong's political automony, nor is it right for them to brutally suppress protests as that is clearly a free speech issue. When the cards are down, I think it is wrong for Blizzard to be neutral when it comes to whether or not authoritarian regimes are ok - they're not ok.

Can you provide a source to other times where people have personally expressed political issues in a post-game interview in the same kind of situation.

Noting that they DID eventually ban that one Collegiate team.


Like, I said. I do believe the punishment was excessive. It still is excessive. But I can at least be unbiased because I don't see an issue with there being a punishment for bringing politics into it instead of keeping it on the game. This would be true regardless of what was say if it was for Hong Kong or for China or for Trump or for Hillary.

But if you think that it was wrong of him to be banned for chanting Revolution of our Age but would be okay to be banned for "Make America Great Again" you're inherently biased and can't be trusted to make an objective opinion.

Originally Posted by DotEleven

Can you provide a source to other times where people have personally expressed political issues in a post-game interview in the same kind of situation.

Noting that they DID eventually ban that one Collegiate team.

I'll level with you. That's pretty narrow as far as criteria go, so no I have nothing like-for like. Potentially I came on a bit strong on that one particular aspect of the issue.

Still, let's talk about the Collegiate team. If the primary motivator for their decisions was following policy, as they claimed, it should have been just as simple to ban that team straight away. The fact that they didn't, and instead only took action after not doing so completely backfired does seem to suggest that perception played a much bigger role than they're willing to admit publically. They had absolutely no consistency in their procedures whatsoever, and even walked back the punishment they initially handed out after it all kicked off - would they have done that if there had been no outcry? Probably not. It just contextualises their statement in a light where it's shown to be entirely PR bullshit.

If they had said that the action they took was so that they could protect their markets I could probably see my way to being ok with that. Dealing with China is dubious, but it's not like Blizzard has a direct financial stake in how authoritarian the Chinese state decides to be and they're not obligated to endorse or condemn any political action anywhere. My problem is that they tried to paint their reaction as the result of some obviously bullshit commitment to procedure and rigid neutrality, when really all they wanted to do was distance themselves from clear human rights violations because if they didn't they'd be put in a very difficult position. The statement massively fucked me off, basically.

Originally Posted by Elkfingers

I'll level with you. That's pretty narrow as far as criteria go, so no I have nothing like-for like. Potentially I came on a bit strong on that one particular aspect of the issue.

Still, let's talk about the Collegiate team. If the primary motivator for their decisions was following policy, as they claimed, it should have been just as simple to ban that team straight away. The fact that they didn't, and instead only took action after not doing so completely backfired does seem to suggest that perception played a much bigger role than they're willing to admit publically. They had absolutely no consistency in their procedures whatsoever, and even walked back the punishment they initially handed out after it all kicked off - would they have done that if there had been no outcry? Probably not. It just contextualises their statement in a light where it's shown to be entirely PR bullshit.

If they had said that the action they took was so that they could protect their markets I could probably see my way to being ok with that. Dealing with China is dubious, but it's not like Blizzard has a direct financial stake in how authoritarian the Chinese state decides to be and they're not obligated to endorse or condemn any political action anywhere. My problem is that they tried to paint their reaction as the result of some obviously bullshit commitment to procedure and rigid neutrality, when really all they wanted to do was distance themselves from clear human rights violations because if they didn't they'd be put in a very difficult position. The statement massively fucked me off, basically.

Let me ask you this though. Do you believe he should not have been punished at all?

Also, although it did take a couple extra days, they did ban the college team for the same amount of time. Although we technically do still have difference in scale and actually different rules for each and that you actually have different people controlling each. Blizzard does the Grandmasters but the Collegiate scene is run by TESPA.

lol, at the children using baseless generalization to try and deflect onto "mur surrius" issues.
this is one problem, among many, and the best solution is to simply bar all trade with china by law.
see? was that so hard? now no one can do business with a monstrously tyrannical communist regime and no one will have to worry about the sub-standard garbage they sell ever contaminating the market ever again.

now, i suggest all US citizens follow my example and write your senators and house representatives to urge them to follow through with their condemnation and write this into law.

Originally Posted by DotEleven

Let me ask you this though. Do you believe he should not have been punished at all?

Also, although it did take a couple extra days, they did ban the college team for the same amount of time. Although we technically do still have difference in scale and actually different rules for each and that you actually have different people controlling each. Blizzard does the Grandmasters but the Collegiate scene is run by TESPA.

As I say, if they'd just been more open about why they deemed it necessary to be so heavy-handed to begin with, I could have at least respected the decision to walk it back. As things stand, it's just been PR spin and I can't really get on board with that.

Originally Posted by Elkfingers

As I say, if they'd just been more open about why they deemed it necessary to be so heavy-handed to begin with, I could have at least respected the decision to walk it back. As things stand, it's just been PR spin and I can't really get on board with that.

It's funny because the heavy-handed thing is the part that should've been stepped back on, which they did. Even with it being political, stripping all his winnings and banning him for like a year was WAY too much. the 6th month ban is still way to much for a small first time offense like this.

But that's not what people are upset about. They're just upset he was punished at all.

Originally Posted by Malikath

lol, at the children using baseless generalization to try and deflect onto "mur surrius" issues.
this is one problem, among many, and the best solution is to simply bar all trade with china by law.
see? was that so hard? now no one can do business with a monstrously tyrannical communist regime and no one will have to worry about the sub-standard garbage they sell ever contaminating the market ever again.

now, i suggest all US citizens follow my example and write your senators and house representatives to urge them to follow through with their condemnation and write this into law.

You call others children then earnestly suggest to bar trade with China? I guess that's more along the lines of unbridled idiocy than childish, though.

Originally Posted by Merin

You call others children then earnestly suggest to bar trade with China? I guess that's more along the lines of unbridled idiocy than childish, though.

eh, it's not like they're keeping with agreed upon regulations or product standards, just look at how they diluted the honey market with corn syrup to the point of damaging the apiarist industry.
but i guess it's idiotic to expect people to do what they agree to, oh well i've never cared about anyone's ignorant opinion in my life, i'm probably never going to.

Originally Posted by Elkfingers

Oh aye for sure, there are a bunch of people with loosely defined ideological convictions jumping on the bandwagon despite not really being remotely coherent as to why they're really against this sort of thing...but it's still weird to me when people use that as a reason to vindicate Blizzard's part in all this.

People are right to think that Blizzard's response has been just a tad disingenuous, even if they're right for the wrong reasons.

maybe he wasnt vindicating them as much as pointing out the hypocrisy. i do that all the time to people. its not that i really give a shit one way or the other, but you cant really act on conviction in one way if you arent willing to do it the other.
its like hardcore womens rights in the USA, but no one gives a fuck about the women that are treated like animals in africa. pointing it out doesnt mean that im vindicating the poor treatment of women in the USA, but it does show that the people screaming that business are kinda full of shit.

Originally Posted by Malikath

lol, at the children using baseless generalization to try and deflect onto "mur surrius" issues.
this is one problem, among many, and the best solution is to simply bar all trade with china by law.
see? was that so hard? now no one can do business with a monstrously tyrannical communist regime and no one will have to worry about the sub-standard garbage they sell ever contaminating the market ever again.

now, i suggest all US citizens follow my example and write your senators and house representatives to urge them to follow through with their condemnation and write this into law.

Here is the thing, your solution would provoke a war in the long run. I'll try to explain it.

I know that a lot of people don't like it when they see democratic politicians talking/dealing with dictators, but they are actually doing the right thing, if you isolate a country from the rest of the world because it's a dictatorship, you'll end up with another North Korea, a country full of resentment against the rest of the world, paranoid about foreign countries, hoarding all kinds of weapons for the day "our enemies come for us". Just imagine if China behaved like North Korea, good luck dealing with that without a war.

You should always try to have fair trade with all countries, especially totalitarian ones, because the best weapon that democracy has is capitalism, once people inside an oppressed country start to feel the influence from the free countries they will want the same freedom, especially when they see that they can do whatever they want, and have a better life, a safer life for them and their family. Those people will turn around their government eventually.

One of the key elements here are cultural products, like books, movies, music or videogames, that's why dictatorships ban a lot of those things from other countries, trying to stop as much influence as possible from the outside. Luckily, it's pretty hard to ban things perfectly, because democratic ideas can be injected into a country without you noticing it, especially today with the internet.

So yeah, I wouldn't advocate for isolating a country until it becomes a "good boy", because I don't know a single example where bullying someone made that person change politically.

Originally Posted by MasterOfNone

maybe he wasnt vindicating them as much as pointing out the hypocrisy. i do that all the time to people. its not that i really give a shit one way or the other, but you cant really act on conviction in one way if you arent willing to do it the other.
its like hardcore womens rights in the USA, but no one gives a fuck about the women that are treated like animals in africa. pointing it out doesnt mean that im vindicating the poor treatment of women in the USA, but it does show that the people screaming that business are kinda full of shit.

I get that, but it just feels like a lazy generalisation to dismiss issues out of hand. There's no reason why someone who cares about an issue in one place wouldn't also care about a worse one somewhere else. At the same time, people are more likely to focus their attention of issues that are closer to home or that have to do with their interests because those are the ones they have more exposure to, and feel they have a platform to express views on.

Originally Posted by Elkfingers

I get that, but it just feels like a lazy generalisation to dismiss issues out of hand. There's no reason why someone who cares about an issue in one place wouldn't also care about a worse one somewhere else. At the same time, people are more likely to focus their attention of issues that are closer to home or that have to do with their interests because those are the ones they have more exposure to, and feel they have a platform to express views on.

context is everything in these situations. we dont know if how people feel about the WHOLE situation other than the bits that they post here. he may not be dismissing anything just pointing out one thing /shrug

Originally Posted by Hipnos14

Here is the thing, your solution would provoke a war in the long run. -snip-

if in case you haven't noticed from how china has acted with it's neighboring states, war is inevitable.
im not saying we cut off support of Hong Kong, but trade with the tyrannical regime only serves to aid it in it's flagrant abuse of human rights and rampant pollution as the world's leading polluter.

i understand what would happen, i think it needs to happen and sooner rather then later.
and russia is next.

2 week update on this important issue:

Originally Posted by Ara Myrr

It's not like banning the AU team would have led to a bigger shitstorm that they were trying to avoid.

Nope, not at all.

Okay, you literally just described what an agenda is... Have gone to school recently?

Originally Posted by zolfare

Okay, you literally just described what an agenda is... Have gone to school recently?

Congrats on replying to a post from 2 months ago?