91–100 of 216 posts
Wizards of the Coast seems to be on a rampage to do as much damage to their brand as possible. Weren't they pretty beloved by fans before some of these more recent actions? It's like they've turned into the Comcast of table top games. What do they really have beyond their brand? People can play other games.
No definitely not
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a massive list of bonehead decisions made by WotC and none have resulted in firing. It’s an interesting hobby where fans have played no matter what the company does and the company knows that.
>It’s an interesting hobby where fans have played no matter what the company does and the company knows that. I don't think thats true. They walked back their license BS over fan outrage.
* stop using DnD; and/or,
* create the own RPG ruleset and license
There is a meaningful difference here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
American law enforcement would overwhelmingly "side" with the buyer here, by virtue solely of siding with the status quo. The moment they said "contract," Deputy Notmyjob will hold up a hand and say, "Sounds like a civil matter. Mr. Smith has advised you not to trespass on his property. Small claims office is at 1234 Fuckoff Street downtown. We'll be leaving now, and you will too, unless you'd like to take a trip to…
I always wonder about stories like this what the internal process that lead to this insane overreaction was. At some point, did someone really make the decision "lets send Pinkertons to this guy's house, risking an enormous publicity backlash"? It's easy to blame "the legal department" for stuff like this, but it seems extreme even for the most zealous attorney. My hunch is that they probably have some kind of securi…
> and the Pinkertons acted on their own Play Pinkerton games, win Pinkerton prizes. Or, less flippantly: everyone knows who the Pinkertons are and what they do. And the fact that everyone knows is, quite literally, the actual service that they offer. They will do such things without you have to explicitly tell them.
I get that the youtuber just wanted no trouble, but he may have really screwed himself by not insisting on a waver of liability, agreement that the existing videos can stay up (or, alternatively, compensation to replace the lost income from them), and compensation for his costs at a minimum. Handing WOTC's paid thugs the material probably didn't do anything to reduce his risk and took away the little leverage he had…
They could try, but all he has to do is mention the intimidation factor of Pinkertons at the door while under oath and I doubt a jury would find him liable for anything. Plus, at that point, he could probably afford a really good lawyer from crowdfunded donations. Wizards already has a PR issue from this happening in the first place. They'd be civilly negligent toward the Hasbro shareholders to push it any further.
Unfortunately when you're not very wealthy the question if you'd ultimately win or not isn't very important. That's why it's important to get bright line clarity such that if they brought any claims your odds of getting a summary dismissal would be very good.
Your point about the threat being limited by the specter of damage to their brand is a good one except if that were the motivation they wouldn't have opened with an in personal physical confrontation against a party with a highly visible public platform.
> he could probably afford a really good lawyer from crowdfunded donations
I doubt it. Sometimes that happens, but often people just blame the victim because there is always a never ending list of nitpicks ("Why didn't he tell the pinkertons they were tresspassing, ask them to leave and send a letter", "why didn't he insist on a release from the company", "he had to know this would happen when he put the video up in the first place!"). And even when the lawyers paid for, nothing can compensate you for the time, disruption in your life, and stress of being targeted.
Wizards of the Coast seems to be on a rampage to do as much damage to their brand as possible. Weren't they pretty beloved by fans before some of these more recent actions? It's like they've turned into the Comcast of table top games. What do they really have beyond their brand? People can play other games.
Certainly Dungeons and Dragons has tons of competition from other systems and I won't be playing it anymore, but it does have the network effect and weekly hosted games and name recognition.
MTG, I think, doesn't have serious competition. It is a unique juggernaut. Playing a 5e D&D game today has no relation to old 2e adventures, but many forms of Magic make use of ancient cards with serious monetary value.
Magic is also such an intricate and surprisingly balanced game and has something that other games somehow always struggle with: exactness. There is, technically, no room for interpretation on any Magic card (please correct me if I'm wrong here, I haven't played in 5+ years). Every possible interaction has a precise outcome that can be derived from the rules, or at worst from card-specific errata which are available freely and easily online.
The combination of amazing art, historic value, well-known lore, a massive library, and exact gameplay makes MTG difficult to buck. I'm certainly not buying any more cards, but I don't know where I would start looking if I got the itch for a card game again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is but we also have PI’s. Usually ex-cops or ex-military members with an intelligence angle. These are intimidating people by design. If you had a squad of paramilitary at your door, and you were the typical magic player, you’d give them the keys if they asked.
> If you had a squad of paramilitary at your door, and you were the typical magic player, you’d give them the keys if they asked I haven't played MtG since the 90s, so I'm maybe not clued in on what a "typical magic player" is, but I would expect them to be pretty rules-lawyer-y (both on and off the table) and would stand their ground on principle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a good description of what is , but not what ought to be . It's very easy to discuss this after the fact, detached from the situation with a calm head, and be confident that this victim would have been legally in the clear. But rational analysis is sorely absent when an armed gang shows up at your door demanding something and threatening more violence if you don't comply. The legal dynamic in the US has basic…
>>But rational analysis is sorely absent when an armed gang shows up at your door demanding something and threatening more violence if you don't comply. That is why my standing policy is to never answer the door unless I am expecting someone. Even for package delivery I have a table for them to leave the package on. >>Whereas what really needs to happen is for various aggressor parties to be legally restrained from u…
Sure. "Standing policy" implies that you've spent a bunch of time thinking it out, presumably thinking about the corner cases (police are there and they aren't leaving), and also concluding that you're willing to forgo answering the door in times it would have been beneficial. That's all work and preparation that you're taking for granted, that frankly most people don't have time for.
It would be akin to me railing against people for using GMail, as I run my own mail server. The world is too big to micromanage everything. If physical security is one of your hobbies that is fantastic. But it's wrong to assert that it's universal.
> Examples of laws where this happens would be great.
The point is that we're sorely lacking those laws, or at least enforcement of them. This particular situation should result in charges of armed robbery, but I doubt it will. But even my saying that is wrong, as it buys into this high stakes paradigm. Rather, how about a simple misdemeanor law that prohibits the bringing firearms onto someone else's residential real estate, unless a sign is posted that explicitly allowed it?
> Examples please
I feel bad for coming back to this example so often, but I don't stay up on the latest unjustified murder of the week and its details are beyond reproach - Breonna Taylor. That was perpetrated by "police" rather than corporate thugs, but it's exactly the dynamic of someone acting exactly as the legal system implies they should to preserve their rights, ending up with their girlfriend being murdered, and still no justice being served.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but it requires people to know their legal rights, and engage with them Had the police been called most likely the police would have said "this is a civil matter" not done nothing, at most taken a report for a detective to investigate the alleged theft. Also had the homeowner just said "leave my property", and then the police called, the private militia would then be trespassing and the police would remove them.…
That is a good description of what is , but not what ought to be . It's very easy to discuss this after the fact, detached from the situation with a calm head, and be confident that this victim would have been legally in the clear. But rational analysis is sorely absent when an armed gang shows up at your door demanding something and threatening more violence if you don't comply. The legal dynamic in the US has basic…
Agreed, but good luck. The police, the "actual" enforcement arm of the legal system, can pick you up without evidence, steal your money, lie to you until you're tricked into confessing to something you didn't do, and call it a successful mission.
The legal system is not intended to protect innocent people, it is only designed to provide enough protections so that more privileged people feel like it is, and don't side with the victims in trying to destroy/reform it.