I mentioned Dan as an example of not being fine with hate speech hear. I stand by that. We're a family friendly site, and reasonable.
Your views are not silenced, that's why your replies defending him have not been deleted. I'm just not hosting an article about a fellow that has been asked to no longer show up to events. If he wants redemption, cool, I understand that, as I was much like him in my own past, but he will do it on his own platform, and we're not going to be used to prop up a campaign of hate and negativity that has attacked cosplayers, content creators and other players.
I will not post further since there is no chance of genuine discussion here. And as I said to Lagrange, I wouldn't have the time anyway as this issue is more complicated than one-liners and labels. AJ, sadly we cannot have a genuine discussion about this issue as your view would be permitted and mine would be silenced.
(I am though saddened that Joshua felt the need to make reference to anti-semitism (Dan Horning whose views are clearly despicable based on what he actually said) but Dan has nothing to do with this issue about Jeremy. If Jeremy was actually anti-semitic or a serial harrasser, I would abandon him like a hotcake as I could not be more pro-Jewish or more opposed to bullying.
Challenge accepted. I have examined the evidence available at length. I have witnessed the conduct of both sides. have watched what both sides have put out pertaining to the matter in question. I have looked through forums and message boards across the web to get a fully holistic view taking into account all perspectives.
I absolutely would not support an article presenting the side of Jeremy, mainly because I have also done the same research and have come to a different conclusion than you. That's okay. I'm not giving a platform for anyone to defend a serial harasser. They can do that on their own sites.
We also don't stand by for hate speech here, you'll notice a distinct lack of an archive from an anti-semite pauper writer (Dan Horning), because as soon as he started popping off with his hate speech, we cut ties and deleted it. I stand by that decision too.
It would take hours of my time to discuss all the evidence. Sorry, you can do the research yourself, I have a full-time job and I have spent already way too much of my time examining both sides of the story (wasted 10 hours doing so, which I will never get back, although I can say that it was an eye-opening experience). Also, do you think an article presenting the side of Jeremy Hambly of Unsleeved Media would ever get published on this website (honestly)? (happy to be corrected if wrong).
After I looked at one side of the story (Christine Sprankle's and Wizards and Tolarian Community College and Mana Leek etc), I thought "Good thing that Wizards is taking action against bullying!". When I researched the other side of the story, I came to the conclusion: "Boy was I fooled". Please note that this is not an attack on Pete Jahn, as I also shared the same view until I spent 10 hours investigating...
You should write an article showcasing the 'evidence'. Yes, it would take some time, but just saying that the evidence is there and that we can find it ourselves leaves too much up to our own interpretation and researching skills.
The irony - Wizards has no realisation that it is the greatest bully of all (or perhaps it does realise this in its heart of hearts, but because it's in a position of power it knows it can get away with it, typical bullying behaviour by the way).
If Wizards applied the same standards to those members of the community who are aligned with it politically or who fit within its "identity politics", the amount of lifetime bans would go through the roof overnight.
I challenge anyone in the PureMTG Community to look at the evidence (yes that would involve spending equal time researching both sides, not just focusing on the dogpiling, the mantras and the slogans), and come to a different conclusion. What inconvenient things facts are, eh?
Just like above, I will be happy to provide constructive criticism also in the future when you are wrong. Unlike the issue of warnings at tournaments in paper magic, I think that the issue with bots is interesting.
1: Even if you did not ask a question you are wrong. When WotC ignores what could be a violation then that is no breach of anything. They have never promised to punish violations. They MAY punish violations.
2: What you linked to does not say what you claim. It is not clear that bots violate advertising rules.
You should also read the section on ‘Explanation of Disciplinary Escalation and Procedures’. If you are in violation WotC may do ‘something’. The keyword is MAY. So even if you are in violation they MAY not do anything about it.
This means bots, which have always been in conflict with terms of use (automated 3d party software is illegal)-
But wotc have ignored penalizing/stopping/hindering them (which would be simple), which is a breach in itself, and that is and have always been a big problem.
That's certainly fair. I would still encourage Hearts to submit an article, though. He/she has many opinions and rather than have them hidden in the comments, it would be good to see them out in the open.
This time I disagree with your point. Hearts certainly trolls this article (not the whole site mind you) pretty regularly which shows he reads it regularly and so he must like it for some reason. And this time he has a reasonable sounding request. When I was writing articles regularly (and even now with FFTR) I would love getting suggestions for articles even if I never had any intention of following those suggestions. I think it is fine to ask for something. Who knows? Maybe Pete will oblige sometime.
As to writing articles, while I agree anyone who wants to should, I don't think it is necessary for a regular to do so in order to be considered a participant.
You know, if you don't like the articles, you don't have to read them. Or, better yet, why don't you submit your own article, Hearts? You seem to have a lot to say, so why not say it?
One thing I can add to the discussion of artworks (that I discovered during a nostalgic read of old Inquest magazines):
For Magic's first year or two, before it was clear how huge a success it would be, the original contract they made for art commissions was percentage based. It caused a normal salary rate for the old sets, but the more Magic started selling, the higher and higher the artists were getting paid. It soon ballooned to WAY higher than the industry average. Wizards changed the contract to a flat rate, which was still above the industry standard, but lower than the old contract, upsetting many of Magic's artists at the time. (Multiple of them voiced their opinions in the Inquest article I'm referring to.)
This explains why reprints don't always use the old art. Those images are still under the original contracts, meaning they're more expensive to include than an entirely new picture would be. Old fans such as myself do usually prefer the old art, but it comes at a cost to the company.
First, we're going to do a week of Vintage Masters flashbacks December 13–20.
This will take the place of flashbacks originally scheduled for Lorwyn. Hopefully Lorwyn fans still like the Vintage Masters events, but don't worry, we now plan to run the Lorwyn flashbacks early in 2018.
I love the artwork in magic. I was a big Melissa Benson fan when I first started collecting. Thankfully all images are available online so I can enjoy. No way in heck am I gonna shill out more money for a better looking artwork card for online. I take the cheapest version possible.
I came to a different conclusion concerning the Jeremy vs Sprankle issue after looking at both sides of the story. After I watched all your links above, I agreed with the views of the speakers in the videos. After I fact-checked it and looked at the other side of the story, not so much.
In any event, I wish no one would ever say anything unkind about any public figure on either side (unless it's relevant to government).
I mentioned Dan as an example of not being fine with hate speech hear. I stand by that. We're a family friendly site, and reasonable.
Your views are not silenced, that's why your replies defending him have not been deleted. I'm just not hosting an article about a fellow that has been asked to no longer show up to events. If he wants redemption, cool, I understand that, as I was much like him in my own past, but he will do it on his own platform, and we're not going to be used to prop up a campaign of hate and negativity that has attacked cosplayers, content creators and other players.
I will not post further since there is no chance of genuine discussion here. And as I said to Lagrange, I wouldn't have the time anyway as this issue is more complicated than one-liners and labels. AJ, sadly we cannot have a genuine discussion about this issue as your view would be permitted and mine would be silenced.
(I am though saddened that Joshua felt the need to make reference to anti-semitism (Dan Horning whose views are clearly despicable based on what he actually said) but Dan has nothing to do with this issue about Jeremy. If Jeremy was actually anti-semitic or a serial harrasser, I would abandon him like a hotcake as I could not be more pro-Jewish or more opposed to bullying.
Challenge accepted. I have examined the evidence available at length. I have witnessed the conduct of both sides. have watched what both sides have put out pertaining to the matter in question. I have looked through forums and message boards across the web to get a fully holistic view taking into account all perspectives.
My conclusion differs strongly from yours.
I absolutely would not support an article presenting the side of Jeremy, mainly because I have also done the same research and have come to a different conclusion than you. That's okay. I'm not giving a platform for anyone to defend a serial harasser. They can do that on their own sites.
We also don't stand by for hate speech here, you'll notice a distinct lack of an archive from an anti-semite pauper writer (Dan Horning), because as soon as he started popping off with his hate speech, we cut ties and deleted it. I stand by that decision too.
It would take hours of my time to discuss all the evidence. Sorry, you can do the research yourself, I have a full-time job and I have spent already way too much of my time examining both sides of the story (wasted 10 hours doing so, which I will never get back, although I can say that it was an eye-opening experience). Also, do you think an article presenting the side of Jeremy Hambly of Unsleeved Media would ever get published on this website (honestly)? (happy to be corrected if wrong).
After I looked at one side of the story (Christine Sprankle's and Wizards and Tolarian Community College and Mana Leek etc), I thought "Good thing that Wizards is taking action against bullying!". When I researched the other side of the story, I came to the conclusion: "Boy was I fooled". Please note that this is not an attack on Pete Jahn, as I also shared the same view until I spent 10 hours investigating...
You should write an article showcasing the 'evidence'. Yes, it would take some time, but just saying that the evidence is there and that we can find it ourselves leaves too much up to our own interpretation and researching skills.
"Wizards Takes Action against Bullying"
The irony - Wizards has no realisation that it is the greatest bully of all (or perhaps it does realise this in its heart of hearts, but because it's in a position of power it knows it can get away with it, typical bullying behaviour by the way).
If Wizards applied the same standards to those members of the community who are aligned with it politically or who fit within its "identity politics", the amount of lifetime bans would go through the roof overnight.
I challenge anyone in the PureMTG Community to look at the evidence (yes that would involve spending equal time researching both sides, not just focusing on the dogpiling, the mantras and the slogans), and come to a different conclusion. What inconvenient things facts are, eh?
Just like above, I will be happy to provide constructive criticism also in the future when you are wrong. Unlike the issue of warnings at tournaments in paper magic, I think that the issue with bots is interesting.
I wont reply to you anymore and in the future unless I see something constructive in what you write.
1: Even if you did not ask a question you are wrong. When WotC ignores what could be a violation then that is no breach of anything. They have never promised to punish violations. They MAY punish violations.
2: What you linked to does not say what you claim. It is not clear that bots violate advertising rules.
I asked no question.
You asked the question. If the answer to your question is uninteresting, it is most likely because the question is uninteresting.
1: That section does not say what you say it says.
2: In the event it did what you say would still be uninteresting.
You should also read the section on ‘Explanation of Disciplinary Escalation and Procedures’. If you are in violation WotC may do ‘something’. The keyword is MAY. So even if you are in violation they MAY not do anything about it.
"7. Do not advertise in Magic Online. "
https://company.wizards.com/legal/code-conduct
This means bots, which have always been in conflict with terms of use (automated 3d party software is illegal)-
But wotc have ignored penalizing/stopping/hindering them (which would be simple), which is a breach in itself, and that is and have always been a big problem.
I always love to hear from new voices as well!
That's certainly fair. I would still encourage Hearts to submit an article, though. He/she has many opinions and rather than have them hidden in the comments, it would be good to see them out in the open.
This time I disagree with your point. Hearts certainly trolls this article (not the whole site mind you) pretty regularly which shows he reads it regularly and so he must like it for some reason. And this time he has a reasonable sounding request. When I was writing articles regularly (and even now with FFTR) I would love getting suggestions for articles even if I never had any intention of following those suggestions. I think it is fine to ask for something. Who knows? Maybe Pete will oblige sometime.
As to writing articles, while I agree anyone who wants to should, I don't think it is necessary for a regular to do so in order to be considered a participant.
You know, if you don't like the articles, you don't have to read them. Or, better yet, why don't you submit your own article, Hearts? You seem to have a lot to say, so why not say it?
Something interesting in next weeks opinion section please, rules, judge practices, warning-"system" or something please.
One thing I can add to the discussion of artworks (that I discovered during a nostalgic read of old Inquest magazines):
For Magic's first year or two, before it was clear how huge a success it would be, the original contract they made for art commissions was percentage based. It caused a normal salary rate for the old sets, but the more Magic started selling, the higher and higher the artists were getting paid. It soon ballooned to WAY higher than the industry average. Wizards changed the contract to a flat rate, which was still above the industry standard, but lower than the old contract, upsetting many of Magic's artists at the time. (Multiple of them voiced their opinions in the Inquest article I'm referring to.)
This explains why reprints don't always use the old art. Those images are still under the original contracts, meaning they're more expensive to include than an entirely new picture would be. Old fans such as myself do usually prefer the old art, but it comes at a cost to the company.
First, we're going to do a week of Vintage Masters flashbacks December 13–20.
This will take the place of flashbacks originally scheduled for Lorwyn. Hopefully Lorwyn fans still like the Vintage Masters events, but don't worry, we now plan to run the Lorwyn flashbacks early in 2018.
Yeah! I wished for the old artwork in one of the recent “What do you wish for online magic?”-WotC surveys.
Now I will have to find something else to complain about?!?
I love the artwork in magic. I was a big Melissa Benson fan when I first started collecting. Thankfully all images are available online so I can enjoy. No way in heck am I gonna shill out more money for a better looking artwork card for online. I take the cheapest version possible.
Love your article, great content as usual.
I came to a different conclusion concerning the Jeremy vs Sprankle issue after looking at both sides of the story. After I watched all your links above, I agreed with the views of the speakers in the videos. After I fact-checked it and looked at the other side of the story, not so much.
In any event, I wish no one would ever say anything unkind about any public figure on either side (unless it's relevant to government).