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

[glowpipe]

"Every Voice Counts*

*Not applicable in all regions"

Freedom of speech, not consequence.

[Alvito]

Imagine comparing talking about a human rights issue to talking about the Klan and Nazis, dude get out of the gene pool.

Free speach works both ways.

[Nefastus]

I doubt gamers were the target audience for this message. It's clearly designed for shareholders, to assure them about the stance Blizzard has.

Don't think it will convince them either.

[Elkfingers]

So this statement is total horseshit. I love this game, and I think that it's fairly pathetic when people post about unsubbing over petty shit in-game, but there's absolutely no way that I can square this and there's no way I can continue to give Blizzard my money.

The whole thing is just such an obvious bait and switch and it makes me feel sick a little bit. The situation in Hong Kong is very clearly a human rights crisis, yet by way of explanation for why action was taken against a player who spoke out about it they refer to some corporate buillshit about their values and how they want their platform to 'be a place where all are welcome'. In this particular case, they want people who are anti-human rights to feel just as welcome as those who are for them, which, you fucking what m8?

Let's be really clear here: choosing to be neutral on this issue is exactly the same thing as choosing to ignore human rights abuses. That's the point - Blizzard could have showed at least minimal solidarity by explaining that it's not the intended use of their platform and that they don't condone Blitzchung's misuse of it; a slap on the wrist would have done the job, basically. Instead, they made the decision to come down on him so hard that they had to later amend their decision and scale back on the penalties (albeit only after it turned into a total shitstorm).

Very clearly this has fuck all do do with neutrality, and obviously their relationship with China was a factor whether they admit to it publically or not. It's a factor because if they denounced China's actions, or even failed to be seen to be acting in a way that I can only describe as 'agressively neutral' they would lose a lot of money - that necessarily limits their available options when it comes to deciding how to deal with this.

There is absolutely no fucking room whatsoever for a neutral position on human rights abuses. It's like being neutral on torture; both are clearly horrible, and saying as much doesn't make your platform less welcoming unless your mission statement is that you also want to be inclusive of people who are awful bastards.

It's called bullshit outrage culture because people don't latch on to one thing and fight for it, no, it's not about giving opinions and such. It's bullshit because outrage culture is about getting super steaming mad at one thing until the next thing comes along and you completely forget about it and latch onto the next thing. Last week NBA, this week Blizzard, next week who knows, maybe Trump will make another blunder and it'll shift to him.

Wow yeah you're right. It's almost as though there can be more than one bad thing happening per month and that individuals lack either the time or resources to fully dedicate themselves to every single imaginable cause, so they do what they can within their means do either assist or raise awareness.

I take it, of course, that you have chosen a single issue and dedicated yourself exclusively to it then. Which one did you pick?

(Pls don't answer also. I can't be bothered to respond to whatever horseshit you come up with to justify the notion that the concerns you agree with are legitimate, while those that you don't agree with are examples of 'outrage culture' because *insert completely bollocks justification here*.)

[Kolvarg]

There is a reason of why blizzard employees protested against it. Its obvious Blizzard would NEVER punish a player if he praised the comunist tyranical regime in a similiar situation.

I wouldn't be that sure. If it happened with Blizzard Taiwan, like was the case with blitzchung, probably not, although it might depend on the extension of the "praising" and the words used. Not so sure they wouldn't punish a player in the US for doing the same, though.

Regardless, it's still their right to not want their company associated with this topic, and it's quite a reasonable and sane thing to want for any of the many international businesses that operate in China.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe his point was one of equivalence. Pro-LGBT rights and support for HK are both political human rights issues, and I believe he's saying that the same rules should apply to both. It has nothing to do with what other causes an LGBT person might support. In short, if Blizz treats the two issues differently, then the decision certainly reads to me as being far more about balancing financial losses than about policy (which, BTW, I believe is reasonable for a company - but I'm not keen on them pretending otherwise).

Well of course they are. On an individual level, of course there is genuine care and support for Hong Kong among the developers, just like there is genuine care and support for LGBT rights. But on a corporate level, activism is nothing short of marketing and PR. This is not news, and it's not a scandal for a company to engage with one issue but not the other.

My question is, why is it so bad that suspending blitzchung was a monetary decision? Why should they allow a participant on their contest to go off-script without permission and potentially damage their economic prospects in China, and let that be unpunished? They're allowed to have control over what is broadcast on their official channels. If he had made a "Free Hong Kong" statement on his personal platforms and Blizzard punished him for that, it would be a very different situation. In this case I really don't see what's the cause for such outrage.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd agree with this if Blizzard wouldn't also actively engage in politics outside of China. You can't have it both ways. You're either a political platform or you're not. Blizzard has chosen the former long ago.

So after you lose your virginity you become a sexual platform, and anyone can use you for sexual purposes with or without consent?

- - - Updated - - -

Well the latest in that an Overwatch event has just been canned, over concerns about protests and what not.. So if that can happen then there could be a possibility that Blizzcon might be next in getting canceled..

If only. If Blizzcon is canceled then we will know, the humanitarian crisis in China has been resolved!

[Onikaroshi]

So this statement is total horseshit. I love this game, and I think that it's fairly pathetic when people post about unsubbing over petty shit in-game, but there's absolutely no way that I can square this and there's no way I can continue to give Blizzard my money.

The whole thing is just such an obvious bait and switch and it makes me feel sick a little bit. The situation in Hong Kong is very clearly a human rights crisis, yet by way of explanation for why action was taken against a player who spoke out about it they refer to some corporate buillshit about their values and how they want their platform to 'be a place where all are welcome'. In this particular case, they want people who are anti-human rights to feel just as welcome as those who are for them, which, you fucking what m8?

Let's be really clear here: choosing to be neutral on this issue is exactly the same thing as choosing to ignore human rights abuses. That's the point - Blizzard could have showed at least minimal solidarity by explaining that it's not the intended use of their platform and that they don't condone Blitzchung's misuse of it; a slap on the wrist would have done the job, basically. Instead, they made the decision to come down on him so hard that they had to later amend their decision and scale back on the penalties (albeit only after it turned into a total shitstorm).

Very clearly this has fuck all do do with neutrality, and obviously their relationship with China was a factor whether they admit to it publically or not. It's a factor because if they denounced China's actions, or even failed to be seen to be acting in a way that I can only describe as 'agressively neutral' they would lose a lot of money - that necessarily limits their available options when it comes to deciding how to deal with this.

There is absolutely no fucking room whatsoever for a neutral position on human rights abuses. It's like being neutral on torture; both are clearly horrible, and saying as much doesn't make your platform less welcoming unless your mission statement is that you also want to be inclusive of people who are awful bastards.



Wow yeah you're right. It's almost as though there can be more than one bad thing happening per month and that individuals lack either the time or resources to fully dedicate themselves to every single imaginable cause, so they do what they can within their means do either assist or raise awareness.

I take it, of course, that you have chosen a single issue and dedicated yourself exclusively to it then. Which one did you pick?

(Pls don't answer also. I can't be bothered to respond to whatever horseshit you come up with to justify the notion that the concerns you agree with are legitimate, while those that you don't agree with are examples of 'outrage culture' because *insert completely bollocks justification here*.)

I mean, I don't get mad over anything. Getting mad at blizzard isn't going to help HK.

- - - Updated - - -

If only. If Blizzcon is canceled then we will know, the humanitarian crisis in China has been resolved!

If someone seriously thinks Blizzcon is going to be canceled... man... idk what to even think about that, that's just pants on head.

[Elkfingers]

I mean, I don't get mad over anything. Getting mad at blizzard isn't going to help HK.

Clearly you have nothing to get mad about then which means that you're ridiculously lucky. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't get mad over shit. That's basic empathy my dude. If I see somebody fucking with a homeless person, that makes me mad. When I see a government denying people the basic dignity that they deserve as human beings, that makes me mad. When I see a company who I've supported for over a decade condoning that behaviour through their actions, that makes me mad too.

Not being affected by stuff isn't a badge of honour, it just means that you don't give enough of a fuck to be moved. Honestly I find that tremendously sad.

[Onikaroshi]

Clearly you have nothing to get mad about then which means that you're ridiculously lucky. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't get mad over shit. That's basic empathy my dude. If I see somebody fucking with a homeless person, that makes me mad. When I see a government denying people the basic dignity that they deserve as human beings, that makes me mad. When I see a company who I've supported for over a decade condoning that behaviour through their actions, that makes me mad too.

Not being affected by stuff isn't a badge of honour, it just means that you don't give enough of a fuck to be moved. Honestly I find that tremendously sad.

Getting mad doesn't do anything, doing something does. Have you helped send humanitarian aid to HK? No, you just got mad a company, and probably canceled some subs or whatever, that doesn't help anyone, all that does in the long run is maybe get some innocent guy fired down the line so that Kotick can continue to line his pockets.

Btw, if someone is fucking with a homeless person and all you do is "get mad" you're part of the problem, either step in yourself and defend that person, or call the authorities if it looks like it would be risking your well being.

[Elkfingers]

Getting mad doesn't do anything, doing something does. Have you helped send humanitarian aid to HK? No, you just got mad a company, and probably canceled some subs or whatever, that doesn't help anyone, all that does in the long run is maybe get some innocent guy fired down the line so that Kotick can continue to line his pockets.

My dude pls. Tell me you know how disingenuous this argument is. If I donated money to every cause I supported, and campaigned for every issue I believed in, I would be the fucking prime minister of my country and trillions of pounds in debt.

Besides, witholding support for companies whose stances you disagree with as a consumer absolutely does do something if we're to believe all of the free market loving right-libertarians on these boards. That's supposed to be a basic fucking foundational principle of free-market capitalism, no? If enough people aligned their spending decisions with their principles such that it affected Blizzard's bottom line, that would absolutely do something.

For the record, my sub money will be going to humanitarian aid but yano, feel free to decide what I'm doing or not doing without actually asking.

Here's an interesting thought though: I went through your post history to try to find some causes you believe in so I could ask what you were doing to tangibly lend support in such a way that you were making a real impact when it came to literally every stance you've ever decided to take, but I found something much better. Here's you literally 3 days ago:

"sending aid is putting a band-aid on an amputated limb."

Unless you were just trying to score points by making a dishonest case for your viewpoint, why the fuck would you ask me whether or not I've done something that you yourself don't believe actually has any tangible impact, so as to bolster your case for how I'm not tangibly impacting anything? Seems shady my guy. Real shady.

[Onikaroshi]

My dude pls. Tell me you know how disingenuous this argument is. If I donated money to every cause I supported, and campaigned for every issue I believed in, I would be the fucking prime minister of my country and trillions of pounds in debt.

Besides, witholding support for companies whose stances you disagree with as a consumer absolutely does do something if we're to believe all of the free market loving right-libertarians on these boards. That's supposed to be a basic fucking foundational principle of free-market capitalism, no? If enough people aligned their spending decisions with their principles such that it affected Blizzard's bottom line, that would absolutely do something.

For the record, my sub money will be going to humanitarian aid but yano, feel free to decide what I'm doing or not doing without actually asking.

Here's an interesting thought though: I went through your post history to try to find some causes you believe in so I could ask what you were doing to tangibly lend support in such a way that you were making a real impact when it came to literally every stance you've ever decided to take, but I found something much better. Here's you literally 3 days ago: Unless you were just trying to score points by making a dishonest case for your viewpoint, why the fuck would you ask me whether or not I've done something that you yourself don't believe actually has any tangible impact, so as to bolster your case for how I'm not tangibly impacting anything? Seems shady my guy. Real shady.

Because it still is, but it something you can actually do, you can't help HK in the least but you can hopefully at least help the people living there. Nothing we do is going to help HK fight china or help fix china, only china can fix china.

I'd rather play what I enjoy and not stop doing something just because the company heads "did a big bad", I'm playing for fun and to support the devs, not Kotick

I also agree ENTIRELY with them banning Blitz, as he does as well, you don't use someone elses platform to further your ideals like that without expecting consequences. Blitz isn't even mad at Blizz but everyone else is "mad on his behalf"

[Elkfingers]

Because it still is, but it something you can actually do, you can't help HK in the least but you can hopefully at least help the people living there. Nothing we do is going to help HK fight china or help fix china, only china can fix china.

I'd rather play what I enjoy and not stop doing something just because the company heads "did a big bad", I'm playing for fun and to support the devs, not Kotick

Here's a fun idea. Why not just do both? They're not mutually exclusive.

Like, fine you're playing to support the devs, and I get that, but you're also supporting the corporation and once again that is a choice. Personally if I worked for a company which tacitly endorsed human rights violations, I would find a way to leave. Within reason of course, but I would be making plans to jump ship. That's just me though.

[Onikaroshi]

Here's a fun idea. Why not just do both? They're not mutually exclusive.

I will have fun playing Blizzard games AND donate to charity that sends support to areas where things like this is happening (HK isn't the only one), so yes, they aren't mutually exclusive.

I donate to proper charities every chance I can get.

[Elkfingers]

I will have fun playing Blizzard games AND donate to charity that sends support to areas where things like this is happening (HK isn't the only one), so yes, they aren't mutually exclusive.

I donate to proper charities every chance I can get.

That I don't really disagree with. At least you're offsetting it. I would have been way more ok with that as a response in the first place than trying to make the whole outrage culture thing work, and if we're being honest being just a tad underhanded in doing so.

[Kolvarg]

tacitly endorsed human rights violations

Where the hell did you get that from? Just from this situation?

Temporarily suspending a player for making political statements on their official platform (that would potentially be a LOT of trouble for Blizzard Taiwan in particular) without permission is not, in any logical capacity, endorsing human rights violations.

It's like saying Portugal and Spain endorsed the Holocaust because they didn't join the Allies in the war.

- - - Updated - - -

If enough people aligned their spending decisions with their principles such that it affected Blizzard's bottom line, that would absolutely do something.

Out of curiosity, may I ask what in concrete is that "something" that would be achieved?

[Elkfingers]

Where the hell did you get that from? Just from this situation?

Temporarily suspending a player for making political statements on their official platform (that would potentially be a LOT of trouble for Blizzard Taiwan in particular) without permission is not, in any logical capacity, endorsing human rights violations.

It's like saying Portugal and Spain endorsed the Holocaust because they didn't join the Allies in the war.

- - - Updated - - -



Out of curiosity, may I ask what in concrete is that "something" that would be achieved?

So just to make sure, we're talking about the same Spain here which, under Franco, collaborated with the Nazis and offered to join the war against the Allies? Ngl that's not a great example.

The 'something' that would be achieved, I would hope, would be Blizzard being forced to reconsider how it deals with similar situations in future i.e. not being so heavy-handed. Whether or not that would actually happen is pretty much incidental though, because personally I'm not really about giving companies money when I disagree on a basic level with the way they conduct themselves.

[Onikaroshi]

The 'something' that would be achieved, I would hope, would be Blizzard being forced to reconsider how it deals with similar situations in future i.e. not being so heavy-handed. Whether or not that would actually happen is pretty much incidental though, because personally I'm not really about giving companies money when I disagree on a basic level with the way they conduct themselves.

I'm pretty sure the PR Backlash Nightmare is enough to curtail them from being so heavy handed in the future.

[Elkfingers]

I'm pretty sure the PR Backlash Nightmare is enough to curtail them from being so heavy handed in the future.

I'd argue that it's more the financial impact of a PR backlash that's relevant from a risk management standpoint, otherwise it wouldn't even be a concern. Kinda the same deal as how a strike doesn't do anything at all unless it causes significant disruption.

[Raven]

If enough people aligned their spending decisions with their principles such that it affected Blizzard's bottom line, that would absolutely do something.

Yeah it would do something, to the people working at Blizzard who had nothing to do with any decisions and actually protested it.

It would do nothing to China, and nothing to help the people in Hong Kong.

[Onikaroshi]

I'd argue that it's more the financial impact of a PR backlash that's relevant from a risk management standpoint, otherwise it wouldn't even be a concern. Kinda the same deal as how a strike doesn't do anything at all unless it causes significant disruption.

Cause and effect though, massive negative PR = Financial impact. The original complaint was probably warranted, taking away the money he won playing fair was a dick move.

[Elkfingers]

Yeah it would do something, to the people working at Blizzard who had nothing to do with any decisions and actually protested it.

It would do nothing to China, and nothing to help the people in Hong Kong.

Ok cool. I just wanna make sure we're clear. Refusing to do business with a company whose moral stances I disagree with is in itself immoral because that company would choose to make up for its losses by materially inconveniencing its employees, which would in turn be somehow my fault rendering my initial decision to take action on a moral principle immoral.

What I should therefore do, is financially endorse a company whose moral stance I disagree with so as to prevent them from deciding to materially inconvenience their employees, though I am now giving money to a company whose moral stance I disagree with which is also immoral.

Well isn't this a fucking Catch 22.

Cause and effect though, massive negative PR = Financial impact. The original complaint was probably warranted, taking away the money he won playing fair was a dick move.

Yeah, but that's what I mean. Their doing what they did is the cause, my unsubbing until they've at least retreated to a more nuanced position is the effect. If people didn't stop giving them money there would be a much less pronounced effect, no? Or am I missing something here?