I believe that Wizards lack of statement/making this a policy is proof positive that this was a knee-jerk reaction to a twitter mob. If they felt they were 100% in the right and doing this for the right reasons, they would have made this as public as possible.
The real problem is that a knee-jerk reaction was to ban someone over some twitter fanfare. If enough people raise hell will Wizards just start banning people? That was really heavy handed.
As a 32 year old soon-to-be father (my wife is due in February), I have mixed feelings about this. I play magic mostly at the kitchen table with friends, but occasionally at sanctioned events (like GP Charlotte a few weeks ago). The (virtual) lifetime ban seems harsh, especially for a crime committed ten years ago. He served his sentence, paid his price, and has moved on. It seems fair that he should not have to keep paying for this over and over again throughout his life.
On the other hand, he is a registered sex offender. As a soon to be father, that changes everything in my mind. Our government (right or wrong) deems his offense to be public knowledge. Every American has the right to verify if there are registered sex offenders living in/near their home. There is a reason for this. It makes people uncomfortable and Wizards is no different. Wizards was forced to make a decision and they got rid of him. Maybe I would have thought about this differently in my 20's, but can you really blame Wizards for siding against a registered sex offender? Just my $.02
People who accuse him of being a convicted rapist, and Wizards, clearly don't understand what a plea bargain is. That IS what Zach Jesse accepted, instead of going to trial and risking getting a longer sentence. Courts are overburdened with cases so defenders and prosecutors usually work out lighter sentences, so that a bunch of time isn't "wasted" going to trial. I suggest reading this: https://news.usc.edu/61662/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/
MANY people accept plea bargains, it's just the way the current criminal justice system works: http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/06/13/6603/plea-bargainings-innocence-problem/
Over 50% of the people in the study said they would accept a plea bargain even if they were innocent.
Not to mention it's what the victim wanted. She didn't want him to be "buried in jail". Now, I'm not necessarily saying Zach Jesse is innocent, but it's very possible that he was. Prosecutors always treat each defendant as if they're guilty.
Zach Jesse served his time for a crime he may or may have not committed, but that is not the point. He is NOT a convicted rapist, but he would be if this had gone to trial and the prosecutor proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he committed this crime. That is the very definition of a conviction.
This ban is ridiculous, and it's all because Drew Levin formed a lynch mob on twitter. LSV did some of it but it was more like he left a tweet then decided to not debate his position. Not to mention this sets a dangerous precedent, do we start doing background checks on all players, then ban them if they have a criminal history? Even Sheldon Menery stated that he would "be happy to hang the guy". Does that sound professional, coming from a judge emeritus? Drew Levin should be banned for public shaming.
For some people, Magic isn't just a game, it's a lifestyle. Zach is being denied from something he loves for something COMPLETELY unrelated. And he had a few GP top 8s before he got banned too. I guess if the pros want to take someone out of the competition, they just need to look up their criminal history.
Public Mod Note
(Jay13x):
Warning for Ignoring a Moderator Request
I sit down at the table to play Magic. I don't care who I'm playing it with, they could be a robot, serial killer, whatever, I'm here for the game. Not to mention what Dio above me said; the guy isn't confirmed guilty. He took a plea bargain.
Public Mod Note
(Jay13x):
Warning for Ignoring a Moderator Request
Now, I'm not necessarily saying Zach Jesse is innocent, but it's very possible that he was. Prosecutors always treat each defendant as if they're guilty.
At the end of the day, I don't think it's relevant to this debate whether he's guilty or innocent. He has a particular criminal offense on his record. You are completely right that innocent people sometimes take plea bargains (and guilty people sometimes go free). But it doesn't make sense for Wizards to go investigate the facts of these cases and try to figure out whether the justice system got it right or wrong.
At the end of the day, the question for Wizards is "what do we do when a player has offense X on his or her criminal record?" Personally I think the policy should be for Wizards to leave all criminal matters to the justice system and never ban anyone over any criminal issue (other than crimes that also violate tournament rules, like a theft or assault that occurs at an FNM or tournament). But it's also fine for Wizards to set the bar elsewhere and say "we'll ban anyone convicted of crimes X, Y, Z ..." What's decidedly not fine is to ban certain people, ostensibly because of their criminal record, but not ban other people with the same or similar record. Rules need to be applied consistently and clearly.
Similarly, if Wizards wants to say it's not a bannable offense to tweet about someone's prior convictions, that's fine. But if they later decide to ban someone for tweeting about Chapin, then we have a problem.
Too long to just jump in and assume that I have a new and different opinion...
I can understand wanting to ban him from attending GP/PT/PPTQ/PTQ level events. I feel that if the store says it is okay, he shouldn't be prevented from playing FNM...but if the system WOTC has for banning players is an all or nothing thing, then banning down to FNM level is the only option they have.
As far as MTGO is concerned, it is technically linked to his DCI number and there are tournaments (MOCS) that he could potentially win and get invites to other things. Now, it does seem far easier to just prevent his account from entering any event like that and call it a day. Confiscating the account seems like overkill...but there might be something in the TOS that no one reads which covers such an occurrence. I do not think there is anything stopping him from making a new MTGO account (at least there shouldn't be), but losing your digital collection must suck a lot since you are spending real money for the right to use their servers.
Finally, was it addressed why he was even googled in the first place and all this dug up? Is there a link to Hasbro's reasoning for this decision?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am looking for Date Stamped promos from Khans of Tarkir block so I can finish my set. Check my wants if you have any.
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
People who accuse him of being a convicted rapist, and Wizards, clearly don't understand what a plea bargain is. That IS what Zach Jesse accepted, instead of going to trial and risking getting a longer sentence. Courts are overburdened with cases so defenders and prosecutors usually work out lighter sentences, so that a bunch of time isn't "wasted" going to trial. I suggest reading this: https://news.usc.edu/61662/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/
MANY people accept plea bargains, it's just the way the current criminal justice system works: http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/06/13/6603/plea-bargainings-innocence-problem/
Over 50% of the people in the study said they would accept a plea bargain even if they were innocent.
Not to mention it's what the victim wanted. She didn't want him to be "buried in jail". Now, I'm not necessarily saying Zach Jesse is innocent, but it's very possible that he was. Prosecutors always treat each defendant as if they're guilty.
Zach Jesse served his time for a crime he may or may have not committed, but that is not the point. He is NOT a convicted rapist, but he would be if this had gone to trial and the prosecutor proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he committed this crime. That is the very definition of a conviction.
When you take a plea bargain, you're convicted of the crime you plead guilty to. Pleading guilty does not mean you are then not convicted.
I have to ask, and maybe it was answered, but if Drew Levin knew about this for so long, why did he wait until Zach was his opponent to tweet outrage about it?
The real problem is that a knee-jerk reaction was to ban someone over some twitter fanfare. If enough people raise hell will Wizards just start banning people? That was really heavy handed.
On the other hand, he is a registered sex offender. As a soon to be father, that changes everything in my mind. Our government (right or wrong) deems his offense to be public knowledge. Every American has the right to verify if there are registered sex offenders living in/near their home. There is a reason for this. It makes people uncomfortable and Wizards is no different. Wizards was forced to make a decision and they got rid of him. Maybe I would have thought about this differently in my 20's, but can you really blame Wizards for siding against a registered sex offender? Just my $.02
https://news.usc.edu/61662/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/
MANY people accept plea bargains, it's just the way the current criminal justice system works:
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/06/13/6603/plea-bargainings-innocence-problem/
Over 50% of the people in the study said they would accept a plea bargain even if they were innocent.
Not to mention it's what the victim wanted. She didn't want him to be "buried in jail". Now, I'm not necessarily saying Zach Jesse is innocent, but it's very possible that he was. Prosecutors always treat each defendant as if they're guilty.
Zach Jesse served his time for a crime he may or may have not committed, but that is not the point. He is NOT a convicted rapist, but he would be if this had gone to trial and the prosecutor proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he committed this crime. That is the very definition of a conviction.
This ban is ridiculous, and it's all because Drew Levin formed a lynch mob on twitter. LSV did some of it but it was more like he left a tweet then decided to not debate his position. Not to mention this sets a dangerous precedent, do we start doing background checks on all players, then ban them if they have a criminal history? Even Sheldon Menery stated that he would "be happy to hang the guy". Does that sound professional, coming from a judge emeritus? Drew Levin should be banned for public shaming.
For some people, Magic isn't just a game, it's a lifestyle. Zach is being denied from something he loves for something COMPLETELY unrelated. And he had a few GP top 8s before he got banned too. I guess if the pros want to take someone out of the competition, they just need to look up their criminal history.
At the end of the day, I don't think it's relevant to this debate whether he's guilty or innocent. He has a particular criminal offense on his record. You are completely right that innocent people sometimes take plea bargains (and guilty people sometimes go free). But it doesn't make sense for Wizards to go investigate the facts of these cases and try to figure out whether the justice system got it right or wrong.
At the end of the day, the question for Wizards is "what do we do when a player has offense X on his or her criminal record?" Personally I think the policy should be for Wizards to leave all criminal matters to the justice system and never ban anyone over any criminal issue (other than crimes that also violate tournament rules, like a theft or assault that occurs at an FNM or tournament). But it's also fine for Wizards to set the bar elsewhere and say "we'll ban anyone convicted of crimes X, Y, Z ..." What's decidedly not fine is to ban certain people, ostensibly because of their criminal record, but not ban other people with the same or similar record. Rules need to be applied consistently and clearly.
Similarly, if Wizards wants to say it's not a bannable offense to tweet about someone's prior convictions, that's fine. But if they later decide to ban someone for tweeting about Chapin, then we have a problem.
I can understand wanting to ban him from attending GP/PT/PPTQ/PTQ level events. I feel that if the store says it is okay, he shouldn't be prevented from playing FNM...but if the system WOTC has for banning players is an all or nothing thing, then banning down to FNM level is the only option they have.
As far as MTGO is concerned, it is technically linked to his DCI number and there are tournaments (MOCS) that he could potentially win and get invites to other things. Now, it does seem far easier to just prevent his account from entering any event like that and call it a day. Confiscating the account seems like overkill...but there might be something in the TOS that no one reads which covers such an occurrence. I do not think there is anything stopping him from making a new MTGO account (at least there shouldn't be), but losing your digital collection must suck a lot since you are spending real money for the right to use their servers.
Finally, was it addressed why he was even googled in the first place and all this dug up? Is there a link to Hasbro's reasoning for this decision?
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
convert bulk into good cards? PucaTrade - https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/21195
Ebay - decks/Promos/DVDs
Trade thread (constantly updated)
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/337-pokerbob1s-casual-trading-emporium
When you take a plea bargain, you're convicted of the crime you plead guilty to. Pleading guilty does not mean you are then not convicted.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath