MTG thread
- Thread starter brekk
- Start date
I would love to hear otherwise from WotC. I don't want to watch anything from MTGHQ to see if he has a screenshot or has posted an official letter/email.
What also bothers me is that they went through that troll Facebook group and issued suspensions to anyone they could match to a DCI#.
Last edited by a moderator:
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
His Twitter has a picture of the supposed email his partner in crime was sent - but it looks very generic with plenty of potential to doctor. Couldn't find his anywhere in the toxic pile of spew on that Twitter though. Only hate and self-aggrandizing for the entirety of it.
No idea why I'm seeing a broken image + the proper image, text body looks like it only should be trying for the imgur.
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,340
- 5,864
His Twitter has a picture of the supposed email his partner in crime was sent - but it looks very generic with plenty of potential to doctor. Couldn't find his anywhere in the toxic pile of spew on that Twitter though. Only hate and self-aggrandizing for the entirety of it.
No idea why I'm seeing a broken image + the proper image, text body looks like it only should be trying for the imgur.
Why would he lie about this? The downside of being caught lying would far exceed to the up side of it. This is a person with large scale youtube presence in MTG. Why would he risk that by putting out easily disproved lies.
He also has a lot of youtubers supporting him like Boogie and Sargon on the large side to numerous smaller one as well. He risks the mother of all backlashes if he gets caught lying.
Last edited:
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
I'm sure it's mostly true which would result in a dwindling base since he could no longer provide what he used to - but if he's dramatic enough he'll garner more attention in the meantime and possibly hook people to come along to whatever his replacement venture is. I'm positive all of it besides the MTGO complete deactivation is true though, I've just seen accounts from many problem players get sold to me back when I was brokering on MTGO as a hobby/income source that were frozen for play and chat but were still able to trade.
Seems odd they'd make a special case for these fools rather than just sticking to what they did from 2012-2014 when I saw accounts like that come through my hands a few times. Editing "frozen" (or whatever term the MTGO folks would use for what I saw) to deactivated sounds far more dramatic and is a simple edit in Word to do - since that's just a Word doc or email printout/whatever.
Other major cases MTG folk have made a statement on - and they've pretty straight forward and been lied about in the past couple - perhaps they legitimately were problems this time, but the nonsense going on with these guys doesn't make them look trustworthy, especially when the MTGHQ guy literally tried to threaten MaRo with "Hey, I'm talking to some of your staff that aren't happy with you over this" type bullshit. (Which is pretty doubtful considering how toxic he is from a company owned by a toy brand - any sign of support could land them on the chopping block and he doesn't seem like the sort that would keep the contacts in confidence - completely not worth risking a cushy job over defending him)
TL;DR - They're trolls, they made their living trolling - doesn't seem too out of place to be cautious to not assume they'd edit something to troll harder.
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
And? Provacateurs/trolls can make a good living at Youtube/etc - look at Pewdiepie.
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,340
- 5,864
Yes but they have a lot to lose if they get caught lying. In this case we have WoTC giving this troll exactly what he wants. His youtube reputation is far more important to him then any action WoTC could take against him. If he caught lying here the costs to his youtube carrier would far out way any temporary benefit gained by lying.
WoTC can only hope he has been that reckless with the truth because it will solve the problem of him very quickly for them. But it isn't logical even for a troll to risk everything by lying when he has that much at stake.
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
Again, look at Pewdiepie's history... you'd think dishonesty would turn people off, but it doesn't within some demographics.
Enzee
Trakanon Raider
- 2,197
- 715
All these examples are quite different and would be handled in different ways. This isnt a court, a company taking an action isnt the same as setting a law precedent by your verdict on a case.
If scg was 100% selling counterfeits on purpose and extensive evidence came out proving this? Wotc would likely drop them as a vendor, just like they would any store that knowingly does that. Hell, even allowing proxies in your tournaments can get you banned from hosting events (such as FNM). The store i worked at wanted to run modern/legacy tournies with 10 proxies until we found out the punishment.
If proof of a female player cheating came out, theyd take the exact same actions they take any time they have proof. Sure, a handful of fans might try to defend her, but the vast majority would understand.
This specific situation is not ONLY about the ONE video he made. There is an ongoing campaign, with dozens, if not hundreds ,of examples of this guy harassing and bullying members of the mtg community. Sprankle quitting was just the straw that broke the back. When taken as a whole, wotc decided this was not someone who they wanted representing the game in any way.
That is their choice. Its their game. If they make decisions the community doesnt agree with, they hurt themselves and their sales. NOT banning him would piss more people off then banning him is.
Your mtgo account is technically not 'yours' either. If their mtgo servers go down tomorrow and the company folds from some catastrophy, everyone would lose their collections. Wouldnt be anything you could do about it either. They wouldt owe anyone financial restitution. The values attributed to the cards is ephemeral. They dont guarantee their value in any way. A $20 rare card could come out in a new set at common and drop to 50 cents. They dont have to reimburse you for that lost value.
Its a bit different with physical cards, as the game was, and alwayd had been, marketed as a collectible card game. Specifically, in regards to the reserved list. That was the company making a promise to its playerbase that those cards availability would stay the same. If they wre to go back on that, there is likely grounds for lawsuits, which is the main rumor for why they have been so steadfast on their decision to not break it. That theyve been threatened with major lawsuits from big investors should they break it.
Kuro
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 8,352
- 21,239
Prediction:. A woman or minority is going to the win during this Great Design Contest, and then the two random neckbeards in 2nd/3rd will be the ones actually working there two years later.
Wizards will also wholesale lift a set design they call garbage during the contest. For maximum irony, it'll be from the challenge that knocks that participant out.
Wizards will also wholesale lift a set design they call garbage during the contest. For maximum irony, it'll be from the challenge that knocks that participant out.
- 1
I get what you are saying and I don't disagree necessarily.
I don't think you are seeing that I am saying that they have set a precedent that some people are protected from even the implication. I am not talking irrefutable evidence. I am talking that right now if I had video of any of those things I listed which are all very different and I had a large MTGO account or was invested in the tournament scene at all I would be scared to post it. I would not post it because right now they have a precedent that if they don't like what you say it could lead to a lifetime ban. We all agree that this guy has a long history of being toxic. He didn't break a rule though. They banned him for life for the first violation that I have ever heard of for this kind of thing. If he did it live at a venue I would be holding a pitchfork along with you. I will still probably hold a pitchfork, I do not like the guy at all. I would venture to say that I most likely hate him. Doesn't change the fact that WotC set a very very bad precedent.
I put the "his" in quotes like that about his mtgo account because you are correct they have no legal obligation to keep your cards safe. That's why this is such a bad move in my opinion. They just showed that they will take an account away for something like this, what might they take one away for one tomorrow? It will cause people to be worried about keeping value in it at all.
They made a decision for the better of the company and its brand in banning him from DCI sanctioned events and while I don't necessarily agree it is the best move it is their brand. The second decision though to completely ban his MTGO account though is to their detriment and will drive people away, I think. I hope not and only time will tell of course. I know that I will never touch an online thing they do from now on and I don't even watch a single video of these personalities. I watched both sides to see what people were talking about. I am also selling all of my paper cards as well and will not play the game again. The guys at work are doing the same thing and all but one of them are super lefties. I am really really bothered by the Facebook group suspensions as well.
Yes, a CSV for a few categories.
I also have a pretty standard Affinity deck for sale
Affinity - Thomas Simetinger @ mtgtop8.com
Probably close to that if not identical, minus blood moons but some other randomness like an arcbound ravager invention.
Enzee
Trakanon Raider
- 2,197
- 715
I get it, I just don't agree at all. It wasn't about 'what he said' but what he did. These kinds of hypothetical situations always seem to exist in the argument against the action and never end up being accurate to the real world.
The argument for 'free speech' gets mixed in with people being assholes as if its their shield. "I have a right to be an asshole to you because it's free speech!" No, you actually don't and that's not what free speech is.
If you were some random magic youtuber who got a video showing Maro was 100% sexually harassing/abusing women. Wotc would not ban you for releasing the video, they'd fire MaRo. It's unrealistic to think the person releasing that information would be the one to be afraid and it's not the same thing as what's happening here. If you made videos every week saying how much you hate MaRo, how much of a shit bag he is, pushing your followers to harass him on twitter spouting toxic shit at him 24/7, contacting him directly to curse him out or bitch at him over and over, and THEN came out with a FAKE video saying he's sexually harassing people.. that'd be a closer analogy, and yea, you might get banned and you'd deserve it. That's defamation of character, cyber bullying and harassment.
Anyone defending him because 'oh noes, his opinion was unpopular, what if YOUR opinion becomes unpopular? This could happen to you!' are missing the point entirely. It had nothing to do with having an unpopular opinion. There is a way to express dissatisfaction with something without going to the extreme he did. There are countless mtg youtubers that bitch about WotC, cosplayers, whatever.. without resorting to actual harassment of an individual over it. None of them are in danger of getting banned for their content due to some hypothetical slippery slope resulting from this.
Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 27,121
- 71,817
It doesn't seem like there's all that much evidence that he harassed her unless you consider calling her a 4/10 in a YouTube video harassment. Her initial claim, that he harassed her over the spawn of two years, has even less evidence. It looks to me like he's an edgelord faggot internet warrior and she's a camgurl tier e-begger barnacle on the ass of MtG. I wouldn't want to have a cup of coffee with either of them.
- 1
I think that's where we differ. I am not defending anyone. I don't feel like his free speech is being trampled. I don't feel like he gets to say whatever he wants. If you have paid attention at all to this forum you should know by now that I despise those people that hide behind free speech to be edgy and "alt-right" and racist and the rest of that shit. I literally said in my post that I hate him in every way. I don't think that WotC wants to be in the business of watching every single YouTube for meanness though. I told a friend earlier that you could probably put that Professor Tolarian video and the Jeremy one side by side and point to the exact same phrases but one is said by a dude in a tweed jacket and using words with two syllables and he has tears in his eyes. The other is a shitty dudebro that thinks pepe memes are hilarious. I hate both of them. They both have done the exact same thing but one is on the side of good.
Leadsalad
Cis-XYite-Nationalist
- 5,965
- 11,929
I'm curious what other inventions you've cataloged.Yes, a CSV for a few categories.
I also have a pretty standard Affinity deck for sale
Affinity - Thomas Simetinger @ mtgtop8.com
Probably close to that if not identical, minus blood moons but some other randomness like an arcbound ravager invention.
Enzee
Trakanon Raider
- 2,197
- 715
Yea, i didnt mean to imply you were. Text arguments are annoying because its hard to fully clarify your point without it becoming a couple thousand word essay.
I was sort of addressing that narrative thats happening as well. There's a small overlap in what you are saying and those actually defending him.
As for Wotc monitoring youtube for meanness, again, i think this a hypothetical without much bearing on whats actually happening.
There are individual videos out there that are as bad as anything jeremy made already. Its not about the content of a single video or twitter post. Its the collective evidence, taken as a whole, and its impact. They made a judgement based on that and the community's reaction to him. There is always going to be some kind of judgement call, or common sense check, before these decisions are made. Im sure it was discussed among many employees internally before anything was done, for example, and it took a large community reaction before it even got to that point.
The idea that this could lead to more bannings, for more frivolous reasons, is where i disagree. I.e. the slippery slope argument.
In reality, the slippery slope scenarios never really happens was my point. Its more of a boogeyman tool in arguments then something that actually happens.
