21–30 of 105 posts
The act didn't bring Blizzard into public dispute. Blizzard banning the player brings Blizzard into public disrepute because it shows that they are cowardly whores willing to do anything for money.
Like most things these days, that depends on which "public" you're talking about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Blizzard should not pick a side. Not picking a side is siding with the status quo, which is Chinese oppression in Hong Kong.
Not picking a side is not allowing political discussion, no matter who you (or they) perceive to be right. Coincidentally, this is also the choice that makes most sense to a corporation which stands to lose a lot from picking a side. Players will likely respond to sensationalist reporting of this case, but forget about it soon after, while the Chinese government is not gonna go easy on Blizzard picking the other side…
The act didn't bring Blizzard into public dispute. Blizzard banning the player brings Blizzard into public disrepute because it shows that they are cowardly whores willing to do anything for money.
> The act didn't bring Blizzard into public dispute. Like most things these days, that depends on which "public" you're talking about.
"Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image will result in removal from Grandmasters and reduction of the player’s prize total to $0 USD [...]" That's pretty close to "Blizzard can remove you from Grandmasters as soon as you open your mouth". Sad to see such a cowardice from corporations, alth…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Blizzard should not pick a side. Not picking a side is siding with the status quo, which is Chinese oppression in Hong Kong.
Which is exactly how sports leagues operate, be they FIFA, the Olympic Committee, the NFL, the NBA... If you expect them to be the high water mark of social justice, you're going to be deeply disappointed. (Meanwhile, various tech firms have been criticized for picking a side, or allegedly picking a side in social conflicts over the past few years... Damned if you do, damned if you don't, apparently.)
Title is clickbaity. They did it for a political protest during an official Blizzard tournament stream, not for actions on his own stream or something. He put on a gas mask and called for liberation of HK. I'm with him, but I definitely see why Blizzard has the rule in place, and it would not be right to overlook this - they would then have to be OK with others doing other protests. Blizzard should not pick a side.
[flagged]
Hindsight is always easier.
While I agree with the sentiment that is being expressed here (i.e. it's "wrong"). I can't help but think about the fact that he ... simply broke the rules. There is a clear clause in the ToS that states basically "You are working for us. If you say anything that can damage our reputation, we can cease working with you." Which, to me, makes a whole lot of sense to have as a clause.
While I agree with the sentiment that is being expressed here (i.e. it's "wrong"). I can't help but think about the fact that he ... simply broke the rules. There is a clear clause in the ToS that states basically "You are working for us. If you say anything that can damage our reputation, we can cease working with you." Which, to me, makes a whole lot of sense to have as a clause.
He didn't damage their reputation. Blizzard shot themselves in the foot.
Title is clickbaity. They did it for a political protest during an official Blizzard tournament stream, not for actions on his own stream or something. He put on a gas mask and called for liberation of HK. I'm with him, but I definitely see why Blizzard has the rule in place, and it would not be right to overlook this - they would then have to be OK with others doing other protests. Blizzard should not pick a side.
[flagged]
But, it's too far to say that they (IBM) was pro-holocaust.