Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blizzard bans player from Hearthstone following on-stream Hong Kong protest

invenglobal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: Blizzard bans player from Hearthstone following on-stream Hong Kong protest

#71

Post by koonsolo »

VicFrank wrote: post #51
orisho wrote: post #8

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.

This is the rule in question > 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, in addition to other remedies which may be provided for under the Handbook and Blizzard’s Website Terms. The rule is not "poli…

You have to ask the question as a company, to allow politics to enter your space.

Now it is supporting HK, next time it is against nazi's, next time maybe against Trump. Once you disallow one, you will "pick a side".

I'm not saying this ban was good or bad, I'm just saying it's more complex than picking side in that debate. Maybe they just don't want to get into the shit of any political debate.

But for the rest, all the support for HK. Maybe this ban brings it even more in the news.

Re: Blizzard bans player from Hearthstone following on-stream Hong Kong protest

#72

Post by thefj »

vkou wrote: post #17
calcifer wrote: post #11

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.)

Didn't the NFL had an issue with kneeling a while ago? Did they fire the players?

Re: Blizzard bans player from Hearthstone following on-stream Hong Kong protest

#73

Post by BigJ1211 »

alpaca128 wrote: post #4

"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…

Ironically refusing to speak can also mean that. If the rest of the players would refuse to speak at all (in interviews or whatever), they could still be banned for that.

Re: Blizzard bans player from Hearthstone following on-stream Hong Kong protest

#74

Post by NeedMoreTea »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #55
orisho wrote: post #8

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.

They should have an explicit rule against political displays like they have in football (I mean soccer). That way it's clear for everyone rather than having a catch-all rule that is arbitrary and does not tell players where the line is.

Then there would be arguments that a certain symbol or action is political. Then any hint of something that might, conceivably be a stance or salute. No patterns, pictures or logos of any kind, unless it's of our sponsors.

Like FIFA ludicrously deciding that a poppy on a Remembrance Sunday international is political. They deserved every bit of anti-FIFA vitriol the popular press and internet managed to come up with.

Re: Blizzard bans player from Hearthstone following on-stream Hong Kong protest

#75

Post by pingyong »

Rainymood wrote: post #12

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.

How they choose to enforce the rules is completely at Blizzard's digression though. There's giving a slap on the wrist and then there is banning the player and the casters. That sends a pretty clear message. If a player had advocated for gay rights, that would've technically still broken the rules, yet somehow I doubt Blizzard would've cared much if at all.

Re: Blizzard bans player from Hearthstone following on-stream Hong Kong protest

#76

Post by Dylan16807 »

Rainymood wrote: post #12

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.

Unless someone is directly employed for social media PR, a clause that broad is not justifiable.

Re: Blizzard bans player from Hearthstone following on-stream Hong Kong protest

#77

Post by mytailorisrich »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #74
mytailorisrich wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should have an explicit rule against political displays like they have in football (I mean soccer). That way it's clear for everyone rather than having a catch-all rule that is arbitrary and does not tell players where the line is.

Then there would be arguments that a certain symbol or action is political. Then any hint of something that might, conceivably be a stance or salute. No patterns, pictures or logos of any kind, unless it's of our sponsors. Like FIFA ludicrously deciding that a poppy on a Remembrance Sunday international is political. They deserved every bit of anti-FIFA vitriol the popular press and internet managed to come up with.

> Then there would be arguments that a certain symbol or action is political.

No because they would not allow anything.

> Like FIFA ludicrously deciding that a poppy on a Remembrance Sunday international is political

If you start allowing this sort of display to commemorate a war then you open the door to plenty of highly political displays because wars are obviously highly political and sensitive issues.

Even in the UK wearing a poppy or not is political.

Re: Blizzard bans player from Hearthstone following on-stream Hong Kong protest

#78

Post by glogla »

koonsolo wrote: post #71
VicFrank wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the rule in question > 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, in addition to other remedies which may be provided for under the Handbook and Blizzard’s Website Terms. The rule is not "poli…

You have to ask the question as a company, to allow politics to enter your space. Now it is supporting HK, next time it is against nazi's, next time maybe against Trump. Once you disallow one, you will "pick a side". I'm not saying this ban was good or bad, I'm just saying it's more complex than picking side in that debate. Maybe they just don't want to get into the shit of any political debate. But for the rest, all…

What you're saying seems to be built on assumption that all "politics" is the same. It absolutely isn't. Evil (fascism, concentration camps, ehtnic cleansing, ...) and fighting against evil, are both political stances, but they are very different.

And "let's not interfere with evil because it would be politics (or affect our bottom line)" is definitely political stance - it's picking the evil side.

Re: Blizzard bans player from Hearthstone following on-stream Hong Kong protest

#79

Post by BigJ1211 »

koonsolo wrote: post #71
VicFrank wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the rule in question > 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, in addition to other remedies which may be provided for under the Handbook and Blizzard’s Website Terms. The rule is not "poli…

You have to ask the question as a company, to allow politics to enter your space. Now it is supporting HK, next time it is against nazi's, next time maybe against Trump. Once you disallow one, you will "pick a side". I'm not saying this ban was good or bad, I'm just saying it's more complex than picking side in that debate. Maybe they just don't want to get into the shit of any political debate. But for the rest, all…

The problem is, you also take a political stance by removing him from your tournament. Intended or not, people will read this as 'shilling' for China. Now I don't follow Hearthstone, but it's quite common to ask players personal questions like "How did you prepare for this match?" and I could see someone answering that with how the HK situation has affected that (less time, extra stress etc.).

This is not automatically a political statement, but just by bringing that up they could have banned and DQ'ed him for the same reason and it would've looked just as bad if not even worse. It would still look political in that situation.

Re: Blizzard bans player from Hearthstone following on-stream Hong Kong protest

#80

Post by NeedMoreTea »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #77
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then there would be arguments that a certain symbol or action is political. Then any hint of something that might, conceivably be a stance or salute. No patterns, pictures or logos of any kind, unless it's of our sponsors. Like FIFA ludicrously deciding that a poppy on a Remembrance Sunday international is political. They deserved every bit of anti-FIFA vitriol the popular press and internet managed to come up with.

> Then there would be arguments that a certain symbol or action is political. No because they would not allow anything. > Like FIFA ludicrously deciding that a poppy on a Remembrance Sunday international is political If you start allowing this sort of display to commemorate a war then you open the door to plenty of highly political displays because wars are obviously highly political and sensitive issues. Even in the…

Hardly, it's a symbol of remembrance of dead, not of a war. It's a hell of a stretch to call the use of a white poppy political.

Most remembrance ceremonies have veterans of both sides attending, and are used for reconcilliation - unlike e.g. WW2 anniversaries such as the now comically overblown D Day fun days.

Post reply on HN