Did WoTC do this right?

[John Cox]

I'm coming down on the side of excessive punishment (seems like Hasbro legal is engaging in cya). I mean really do any of us believe this was anything more then something stupid said on the internet. Honestly if people are going to get banned for stupid things said on the internet I suspect we might as well throw out our DCI cards now, we've all been guilty at some point.

This was more than something stupid, the guy made a threat, that's serious.

[Aggro_zombies]

Finally, there's still the general policy decision aspect. I think that Wizards has to respond to things like this harshly because if they don't and the one time some crazy idiot does actually follow through with their threat, WoTC is going to have some major issues on its hands.

Really, though, lifetime banning someone is not going to stop them from carrying through a rape threat if that was their actual intention. In fact, you could argue that someone who is upset and saying things only in half-jest could be pushed over the edge by such a ban.

That said, Wizards certainly wants to send a message here that making threats against employees, "joke" or otherwise, is not going to be permitted. Even if he was joking (and let's be clear here, "it was a joke" is right up there on the Credible Excuses list with "I can't recall," and "It was just a rogue trader"), there are more constructive ways to vent your anger with the Organized Play changes than saying you're going to stick your dick in WotC employees.

[Sims]

On a more constructive note: Anything can be funny, even if it is about rape.

In this particular case the joke was tasteless and not funny, but that doesn't automatically write off rape as a subject that is ineligible for humor. People joke about nuclear war, the holocaust, racism, sexism, religion, etc... but for whateveer reason Rape is a no-no? GTFO.


Now, that all said, I do agree with WOTC's decision. Joke or not, it was still a threat of violence or illegal act against a WotC employee and if I were in charge I would take that alleged threat/joke quite seriously. Doesn't mean the guy couldn't have been joking, however.

[SpikeyMikey]

I can explain the difference between the example you used with the Black Brainstorm vs the current situation.

The "I'd kill for X" statement is an American colloquial term meaning you really really want X.

Also, the statement under discussion was directed at a specific person - not only that, an employee of WoTC.

Take the joke I posted at the beginning of my first post in this topic:

Rape is no laughing matter... Unless you're raping a clown.

Now if I were to inject a real name in there, say "Bozo the Clown", it's still not a threat, even though it's directed at a real person (although I think Bozo is probably dead now). I'm sure that at some point in the last decade, I've said or wrote that I'd like to kill MaRo and/or Tom LaPille. However, I don't actually pose a threat to either of those individuals. Even if I had the means to kill one or both of them without getting caught, I wouldn't. And I would think that a reasonable individual would recognize that if I posted something along those lines.

Saying "I'm so mad I could rape/murder/beat up/spit on person X" is just as much a hyperbole as "I would kill to have X".

Now what he said was not a joke. If it were a joke, there would be an intent to provide humor/laughs. It was obviously not meant to be a joke. No matter what your taste in humor, nothing about that fits the pattern of a joke. Jokes make light of a situation. He wasn't making light of a situation. There was no irony. There were no stereotypes. There was no pun. Thus, not a joke.

It was not a threat either, however. A threat would be a statement made to convey a promise of an action that negatively affects the threatened individual or group at a later time. There is no promise of action there. No reasonable person could construe what he wrote as intent to actually rape a Wizards' employee. It was obvious hyperbole.

And saying that it was necessary to set a strong general policy is silly. A 0-tolerance stance on something like this makes as much sense as expelling a 2nd grader under the sexual harassment policy for kissing another 2nd grader. We're intelligent individuals. We can make pretty good guesses at the intentions of others. A heavy-handed, draconian policy is not only nonsensical, it's insulting.

[Mr Miagi]

Well, the wizards pretty much "raped" the OP.. They announced the changes with no vaseline.. some of the pros and wannabe pros are still crying to their moms about it..


On a more serious note, I feel disgusted.. by both parties. I don't know the French guy, but it was a bit douchy what he said, rape and stuff, bit tasteles.. but then again in my community we make rude, your moma and gay jokes all the time so.. I'm pretty used to it.

The wizards reaction was an "overkill" and they basicly did it in a manner to silence all the "sheeps".. Did they have the reason/basis to do what they did? Yes (although a bit shaky one, since you can't take a rape statment from some1 playing geeky game to seriously.. it just ain't happening.. lol) Did they had to do what they did .. No, as it was clearly a bad joke.. but they decided to walk that route anyway just to manifest their power.. although their true intentions were masked into something more noble..

ps: wizards if you read this, please don't ban me
ps2: or ban me and I'll finally stop raping my wallet for your products

[TooCloseToTheSun]

@SpikeyMikey
Didn't you get banned from salvation for basically the same thing? I thought that joke was funny but there mods apparently not so much. I think they, like wizards, over reacted a little.

[Esper3k]

Really, though, lifetime banning someone is not going to stop them from carrying through a rape threat if that was their actual intention. In fact, you could argue that someone who is upset and saying things only in half-jest could be pushed over the edge by such a ban.

Certainly, but I guess then on the other hand, what is WoTC to do about this? I think it's pretty clear that even if the person wouldn't actually be following through with their threat, WoTC doesn't want people like that at their events.

Take the joke I posted at the beginning of my first post in this topic:

Rape is no laughing matter... Unless you're raping a clown.

Now if I were to inject a real name in there, say "Bozo the Clown", it's still not a threat, even though it's directed at a real person (although I think Bozo is probably dead now). I'm sure that at some point in the last decade, I've said or wrote that I'd like to kill MaRo and/or Tom LaPille. However, I don't actually pose a threat to either of those individuals. Even if I had the means to kill one or both of them without getting caught, I wouldn't. And I would think that a reasonable individual would recognize that if I posted something along those lines.

Saying "I'm so mad I could rape/murder/beat up/spit on person X" is just as much a hyperbole as "I would kill to have X".

Now what he said was not a joke. If it were a joke, there would be an intent to provide humor/laughs. It was obviously not meant to be a joke. No matter what your taste in humor, nothing about that fits the pattern of a joke. Jokes make light of a situation. He wasn't making light of a situation. There was no irony. There were no stereotypes. There was no pun. Thus, not a joke.

It was not a threat either, however. A threat would be a statement made to convey a promise of an action that negatively affects the threatened individual or group at a later time. There is no promise of action there. No reasonable person could construe what he wrote as intent to actually rape a Wizards' employee. It was obvious hyperbole.

And saying that it was necessary to set a strong general policy is silly. A 0-tolerance stance on something like this makes as much sense as expelling a 2nd grader under the sexual harassment policy for kissing another 2nd grader. We're intelligent individuals. We can make pretty good guesses at the intentions of others. A heavy-handed, draconian policy is not only nonsensical, it's insulting.

Florent was going to be going to Worlds, where he said he was going to carry out his threat at. At which point does the threat become credible?

And really, why would WoTC want to really go out of their way to give leeway to someone like that? I'm pretty certain this isn't really going to have any sort of negative impact on their business whereas going too soft on it could very well do so.

[SpikeyMikey]

@SpikeyMikey
Didn't you get banned from salvation for basically the same thing? I thought that joke was funny but there mods apparently not so much. I think they, like wizards, over reacted a little.

I did, actually. Some guy had gotten bawled out for saying he got raped in a match in the online tournament we were participating in. I thought it was ridiculous and made some comment about it involving raping the mod's mother. Actually now that I think about it, I think it was saying I wished someone would murder the mod's children.

[KevinTrudeau]

WotC did not do right in banning him for life, but they did do right in banning him for a nonzero interval of time. Dude was fucking up.

[SpikeyMikey]

Just in case there was any question as to the integrity of Wizards' OP, they've put it to rest. If you're a high profile pro who has possibly cheated his way to tens of thousands of dollars and the HoF and you finally get caught, you get 18 months. If you're a low profile player and make an off-color comment, it's life. Yup, no questions about WotC's integrity.

[Octopusman]

They made the right decision.

[Koby]

Just in case there was any question as to the integrity of Wizards' OP, they've put it to rest. If you're a high profile pro who has possibly cheated his way to tens of thousands of dollars and the HoF and you finally get caught, you get 18 months. If you're a low profile player and make an off-color comment, it's life. Yup, no questions about WotC's integrity.

Contrast this with PTR. Sometimes the game needs a villian. The game doesn't need criminals.

EDIT: Maybe not everyone know about PTR.

http://thestarkingtonpost.com/articles/_/534

[Ahab]

They just decided that they didn't want him at their events/games. It's not like he's not allowed to drive or enter public buildings. If I invite 100 people to my house for a night of tabletennis and someone behaves incorrectly, I will throw that person out. It sucks that he's professional player, but really, he practically threatened his employer.
It's not a question of rape jokes being funny or not. Wizards don't think they're funny, and that's the only thing that matters.

[thecrav]

Yes. Nobody should be allowed to joke about raping a woman.
It's also close to a criminal offense.

How long have we been at war with Eastasia?

Rape is no laughing matter... Unless you're raping a clown.

Someone beat me to it :/

[wolfstorm]

I'm coming down on the side of excessive punishment (seems like Hasbro legal is engaging in cya). I mean really do any of us believe this was anything more then something stupid said on the internet. Honestly if people are going to get banned for stupid things said on the internet I suspect we might as well throw out our DCI cards now, we've all been guilty at some point.

QFT... Pretty much exactly what he said is how I feel

[dschalter]

Just in case there was any question as to the integrity of Wizards' OP, they've put it to rest. If you're a high profile pro who has possibly cheated his way to tens of thousands of dollars and the HoF and you finally get caught, you get 18 months. If you're a low profile player and make an off-color comment, it's life. Yup, no questions about WotC's integrity.

This is a terrible comparison.

[alphacat]

1. Rape can be used as a joke, so can 9/11. Basically, anything can be humorous, that's exactly what humor is, it's not supposed to have boundaries.

2. It was clearly not a threat, the guy deserved to be punished, but lifetime ban is a little too much.

[dontbiteitholmes]

WotC/Hasbro is a company first and foremost. Some people might get shit twisted because it is a gaming company but when you get right down to it WotC has to answer for every decision it makes directly to Hasbro. If you got invited to the Monopoly world championships and said jokingly you were going to rape the head judge because he decided to use house rules for the free parking space you can imagine what would happen. If you got invited to a Wal-Mart public event and said you were going to rape the regional manager because he raised the price on Apple Jacks you can imagine what would happen. If an NBA player said he was going to rape David Stern because of the lockout you can imagine what would happen.

Pretty much any other scenario not involving WotC ends in an obvious harsh sentence. He can always appeal the decision but at the end of the day if WotC hit him with a slap on the wrist or still let him attend Worlds they were going to get a call from some suit at Hasbro asking why the hell they let that comment slide.

[stealth]

Way too harsh, even a 2 year ban would have pulled him into line quick smart.

[TheShaun]

Just imagine the (probably unlikely) possibility if they hadn't banned him, and he went on to actually physically rape her... Although it was extremely unlikely to actually happen, what if it did? Then you have a guy threatening to rape a woman, WotC flying him across the world to help find her, and inviting him to the same venue that she'll be in. I think the fear of this situation, however remote, makes their decision completely worth it.