I really like this series - been reading it for a while.
I couldn't find the answer elsewhere - apologies if it's been asked already. Does the "full playset of every card available on MTGO" include restricted cards? I know it doesn't include repeat versions (just the cheapest version right?). Like - is it 4x Power 9 or just 1x? I'm guessing 4x b/c the 1x seems hard to sort/keep track of....
Just to let you know, I'm sorry but I may be a bit late to today's event due to family stuff. I'll try to get back on time but, if not, please don't drop me.
I know a lot of magic players that are trump supporters. I know plenty of magic players that are conservatives.
The difference between the people I know, and the people like Jeremy, Travis, those on the draft women pages is kinda simple.
The people I know are not using their voice or platforms to attack others.
It's okay to be conservative/pro trump.
It's not okay to harass people enough to drive them out of the game or protect twitter accounts.
I've been debating about leaving magic behind because of this, at 37 I'm much too old to deal with this, and because of it, I'm very glad that something I've spent 24 years doing is not a thing that my son wants to pick up. I don't want to subject from this potential behavior, or let him watch daddy pick himself up after getting attacked again.
There is a disconnect in your reasoning. Just because there have not yet been other lifetime bans does not imply that the ban of Jeremy was politically motivated. If you read politics into this then you are creating a conspiracy theory. There is simply no evidence supporting that this is politically motivated (Whatever that means). Be careful what you read into the actions of WotC and remember that you dont know what kind of evidence they have based their decision upon.
An equivalent argument is that they dont like people named Jeremy. Other people dont get lifetime bans because they were not named Jeremy.
If WotC were to apply the same standards to others that they imposed on Jeremy, there would need to be many more lifetime bans imposed.
The fact that they don't do this (nor do I expect they will) means that WotC are essentially using the ban hammer to weaponise themselves in order to destroy their political opponents. I say "political" opponents because it is no surprise that the lifetime ban was handed to a pro-trump supporter (and a Pepe the Frog Memer) following his criticism of a person who fits within the "identity politics" victim narrative which WotC subscribes to.
Oh there is for sure some double standards, and the people that have harassed jeremy are worthy of being banned too. Other than not taking action against those people I'm not sure where WotC is being hypocritical.
I understand that he claimed that he was threatened and threats should be treated seriously and doing so should not be mocked. As I said above, threats should be handled by officials (police or whatever authority is appropriate.) WOTC has no authority to deal with such matters. They can however respond to community outcry and look at the evidence they are provided. As far as I know they did so, fairly and with a lot of thought. (It took them a week to respond to the debacle with anything other than a "we're looking into this" statement.
As to the other negative responses I think they were almost entirely in response to provocation. Similar to how if someone is physically assaulted that person's friends may attempt to defend them and perhaps damage the assailant in the process. (As far as I know there has been no actual physical violence, merely retaliation and verbal "warfare" between sides.) In light of the provocation, I assume WOTC decided they were not going to ban people for non-serious acts done in the heat of the moment.
Also, Ongoing well-planned harassment and incitement to harassment and possible violence is not the same thing as spontaneous retaliations. Both are wrong but not equally wrong and one is far more provable in terms of malice.
I think claiming hypocrisy on WOTC's part, based on these things is shaky at best.
I would love to have a more legitimate explanation for each ban and why it was rendered for the length it was. I am pretty sure some bans were handed out for comments made in the "private" 3,000+ member Facebook group that was used for mocking and sexualizing women and trans people in the community.I would like to know which ones were for that and which were for the harassment/threatening of community members.
However, WOTC is typically very closed mouthed about this sort of thing and is unlikely to be forthcoming unless lots of people demand it. Which is a shame but unlikely to change soon.
Hope this mini-tome clears up my own pov on this topic.
Ah OK I guess I misunderstood what you wrote, as I assumed you were talking about the discussion surrounding J & Co, rather what he actually said. Yeah I do think that's pretty clear, cut and dried, with little room for spin or nuance. He made few bones.
Perhaps I am the only person in the PureMTG Community who thinks that there are double-standards going on here by WotC (and hypocrisy to the highest degree). Everyone can come to their own conclusions, and I have followed the evidence to the best of my ability.
I actually agree with you, but it is a black and white issue - either you agree with his comments, like his followers do, or you don't. I haven't seen anyone sitting in the grey area in the middle, hence making it "black or white". I don't really see my comment as "silly" for that reason.
I agree with everything else you say, though. Most people agree Jeremy has done the wrong thing and that we shouldn't have to put up with that in an otherwise wonderful community, and yes we do need to work out how to make the community a better place as a result.
This is really rather silly as comments go, Shane. Black and White? Maybe that is a casual take on all this but I don't see it that way and I haven't read anyone else's take on the subject that makes it black and white.
I think maybe the mistake you are making is one of thinking that drawing a line and saying "don't cross this line" is making the issue black and white. And this is not between an outsider (like myself or yourself as we create content, but have such a small scope as to be invisible for the most part) and content creators. He was a well known and very popular content creator and then he created a series of events (almost seemingly on purpose) that blew up in his face, making each event worse than the last. That the end result was a life time ban from WOTC is perhaps harsh, but imho he earned it. The ban from MTGO is harsher in a way as it resulted in actual loss of property (though the technical answer to that is WOTC owns all of our digital things on mtgo. :/)
CSprankle was effectively chased out of the game as well though by less legit means and it was her choice rather than someone else, but imho it was a sensible and sane one. She's smart, talented and has a lot of other avenues to find her path in life other than mtg and while I am sad about the fact that she chose to leave, I understand it. And there is no way to undo the damage done by that decision.
I think the thing to take from this isn't that people are being too simplistic but that people take sides when sides are demanded of them. This isn't unreasonable or unfair, it just is.
Let's move on to the topic of how we benefit from the lessons learned here and how do we make the community a better place as a result?
Well, it certainly was an "article". I find the whole situation fascinating from a psychology point of view; like, what makes some people side with Jeremy, thinking he is the victim, while what makes others side with the content creators? Both sides think the situation is black and white, but both see it differently. The human mind is weird.
I am not sure I'd bother calling anything posted on Breitbart an article but that's mighty generous of you. I will pay it the same amount of heed I pay all their "articles".
Respectfully, I don't think many readers on this site will agree with you on this. Many of us, have independently come to our own conclusions without needing to resort to herd mentality. Watching Hambly's videos was enough for me to never want to hear from him again.
I will say that WOTC's response could be taken as heavy handed but imho it was appropriate given the outcry and the actions that precipitated it. Not to mention the actions of his followers and those who used the chaos to spread their own venom and negativity.
And, I say respectfully because I do respect your views because you have come across as earnest in the time I've known you through mtgo. And this may be more of a matter of what we value rather than aspects of evidence that one person has access to that the others don't.
I look forward to any kind of game you want to play when I am online if I have the time. Maybe I can be a 3rd in your 4 player match (I have a few commander lists still legal.)
Hi AJ, if you have looked into the evidence and came to a different conclusion to me, I respect that entirely. We all have a right to review the data and come to our own conclusions.
If I see you on Magic Online, I would prefer a 4 player commander duel between my Sheoldred and your Roon (or another commander of yours if my memory is wrong and you have no Roon) and 2 other players.
His followers made another pick one pack one today, and shared it on twitter.
I'm waiting for the redemption arc of this story that clearly is not going to happen.
You know I don't know. I could see where it counts either way there.
I really like this series - been reading it for a while.
I couldn't find the answer elsewhere - apologies if it's been asked already. Does the "full playset of every card available on MTGO" include restricted cards? I know it doesn't include repeat versions (just the cheapest version right?). Like - is it 4x Power 9 or just 1x? I'm guessing 4x b/c the 1x seems hard to sort/keep track of....
Thanks!
Just to let you know, I'm sorry but I may be a bit late to today's event due to family stuff. I'll try to get back on time but, if not, please don't drop me.
the as foretold deck is so good!
I know a lot of magic players that are trump supporters. I know plenty of magic players that are conservatives.
The difference between the people I know, and the people like Jeremy, Travis, those on the draft women pages is kinda simple.
The people I know are not using their voice or platforms to attack others.
It's okay to be conservative/pro trump.
It's not okay to harass people enough to drive them out of the game or protect twitter accounts.
I've been debating about leaving magic behind because of this, at 37 I'm much too old to deal with this, and because of it, I'm very glad that something I've spent 24 years doing is not a thing that my son wants to pick up. I don't want to subject from this potential behavior, or let him watch daddy pick himself up after getting attacked again.
There is a disconnect in your reasoning. Just because there have not yet been other lifetime bans does not imply that the ban of Jeremy was politically motivated. If you read politics into this then you are creating a conspiracy theory. There is simply no evidence supporting that this is politically motivated (Whatever that means). Be careful what you read into the actions of WotC and remember that you dont know what kind of evidence they have based their decision upon.
An equivalent argument is that they dont like people named Jeremy. Other people dont get lifetime bans because they were not named Jeremy.
Thanks Joshua, this is one of my main points.
If WotC were to apply the same standards to others that they imposed on Jeremy, there would need to be many more lifetime bans imposed.
The fact that they don't do this (nor do I expect they will) means that WotC are essentially using the ban hammer to weaponise themselves in order to destroy their political opponents. I say "political" opponents because it is no surprise that the lifetime ban was handed to a pro-trump supporter (and a Pepe the Frog Memer) following his criticism of a person who fits within the "identity politics" victim narrative which WotC subscribes to.
Oh there is for sure some double standards, and the people that have harassed jeremy are worthy of being banned too. Other than not taking action against those people I'm not sure where WotC is being hypocritical.
I hear your frustration.
I understand that he claimed that he was threatened and threats should be treated seriously and doing so should not be mocked. As I said above, threats should be handled by officials (police or whatever authority is appropriate.) WOTC has no authority to deal with such matters. They can however respond to community outcry and look at the evidence they are provided. As far as I know they did so, fairly and with a lot of thought. (It took them a week to respond to the debacle with anything other than a "we're looking into this" statement.
As to the other negative responses I think they were almost entirely in response to provocation. Similar to how if someone is physically assaulted that person's friends may attempt to defend them and perhaps damage the assailant in the process. (As far as I know there has been no actual physical violence, merely retaliation and verbal "warfare" between sides.) In light of the provocation, I assume WOTC decided they were not going to ban people for non-serious acts done in the heat of the moment.
Also, Ongoing well-planned harassment and incitement to harassment and possible violence is not the same thing as spontaneous retaliations. Both are wrong but not equally wrong and one is far more provable in terms of malice.
I think claiming hypocrisy on WOTC's part, based on these things is shaky at best.
I would love to have a more legitimate explanation for each ban and why it was rendered for the length it was. I am pretty sure some bans were handed out for comments made in the "private" 3,000+ member Facebook group that was used for mocking and sexualizing women and trans people in the community.I would like to know which ones were for that and which were for the harassment/threatening of community members.
However, WOTC is typically very closed mouthed about this sort of thing and is unlikely to be forthcoming unless lots of people demand it. Which is a shame but unlikely to change soon.
Hope this mini-tome clears up my own pov on this topic.
Ah OK I guess I misunderstood what you wrote, as I assumed you were talking about the discussion surrounding J & Co, rather what he actually said. Yeah I do think that's pretty clear, cut and dried, with little room for spin or nuance. He made few bones.
Perhaps I am the only person in the PureMTG Community who thinks that there are double-standards going on here by WotC (and hypocrisy to the highest degree). Everyone can come to their own conclusions, and I have followed the evidence to the best of my ability.
I actually agree with you, but it is a black and white issue - either you agree with his comments, like his followers do, or you don't. I haven't seen anyone sitting in the grey area in the middle, hence making it "black or white". I don't really see my comment as "silly" for that reason.
I agree with everything else you say, though. Most people agree Jeremy has done the wrong thing and that we shouldn't have to put up with that in an otherwise wonderful community, and yes we do need to work out how to make the community a better place as a result.
Sure thing.
This is really rather silly as comments go, Shane. Black and White? Maybe that is a casual take on all this but I don't see it that way and I haven't read anyone else's take on the subject that makes it black and white.
I think maybe the mistake you are making is one of thinking that drawing a line and saying "don't cross this line" is making the issue black and white. And this is not between an outsider (like myself or yourself as we create content, but have such a small scope as to be invisible for the most part) and content creators. He was a well known and very popular content creator and then he created a series of events (almost seemingly on purpose) that blew up in his face, making each event worse than the last. That the end result was a life time ban from WOTC is perhaps harsh, but imho he earned it. The ban from MTGO is harsher in a way as it resulted in actual loss of property (though the technical answer to that is WOTC owns all of our digital things on mtgo. :/)
CSprankle was effectively chased out of the game as well though by less legit means and it was her choice rather than someone else, but imho it was a sensible and sane one. She's smart, talented and has a lot of other avenues to find her path in life other than mtg and while I am sad about the fact that she chose to leave, I understand it. And there is no way to undo the damage done by that decision.
I think the thing to take from this isn't that people are being too simplistic but that people take sides when sides are demanded of them. This isn't unreasonable or unfair, it just is.
Let's move on to the topic of how we benefit from the lessons learned here and how do we make the community a better place as a result?
I'm gonna go with the side that doesn't have the Daily Stormer writing about it.
I'm comfortable with my decision.
Well, it certainly was an "article". I find the whole situation fascinating from a psychology point of view; like, what makes some people side with Jeremy, thinking he is the victim, while what makes others side with the content creators? Both sides think the situation is black and white, but both see it differently. The human mind is weird.
When your movement is being written about on that site, you have to consider if you're on the right side or not.
Nice article, thanks for the matchup insights.
Thanks Paul.
Hope we can fire up a Christmas Holidays Commander brawl with the PureMTG community.
I am not sure I'd bother calling anything posted on Breitbart an article but that's mighty generous of you. I will pay it the same amount of heed I pay all their "articles".
There is gonna be an article on Breitbart about this soonish.
Respectfully, I don't think many readers on this site will agree with you on this. Many of us, have independently come to our own conclusions without needing to resort to herd mentality. Watching Hambly's videos was enough for me to never want to hear from him again.
I will say that WOTC's response could be taken as heavy handed but imho it was appropriate given the outcry and the actions that precipitated it. Not to mention the actions of his followers and those who used the chaos to spread their own venom and negativity.
And, I say respectfully because I do respect your views because you have come across as earnest in the time I've known you through mtgo. And this may be more of a matter of what we value rather than aspects of evidence that one person has access to that the others don't.
I look forward to any kind of game you want to play when I am online if I have the time. Maybe I can be a 3rd in your 4 player match (I have a few commander lists still legal.)
Hi AJ, if you have looked into the evidence and came to a different conclusion to me, I respect that entirely. We all have a right to review the data and come to our own conclusions.
If I see you on Magic Online, I would prefer a 4 player commander duel between my Sheoldred and your Roon (or another commander of yours if my memory is wrong and you have no Roon) and 2 other players.
Poke me in the client, we can very easily have a discussion if you truly wish, I'm always happy to listen.