Oh I see how this game works. When the justice system says he has to serve 3 months of work release, I'm supposed to acknowledge that he's served his time and trust in the system, but when it says he has to be on a registry of violent sex offenders, then the system has a lot problems and I'm supposed to ignore it. Give me a ****ing break.
I would hope that you'd think critically about the system at all times. I would also hope that your responses to serious questions would be less vulgar and dismissive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In addition to being a bad message towards kids and viewers, there is the problem of him sitting at a table with a woman. How should she feel? Threatened? Scared?
...
I think Wizards made the right choice, but that they need to address it and explain how it is different for other criminals.
I think this is a well written and insightful post.
I think the first part goes beyond being a "woman" though. I would feel fairly uncomfortable sitting across from someone and thinking "oh. he raped someone in the anus. huh." I mean, sure, I wouldn't feel "unsafe," but it would definitely be an unenjoyable experience.
I think we have reached the point where we need an official policy. If wizard wants to make convictions of violent felonies a lifetime DCI ban, then I don't really have an issue with it. I'd prefer an explicit set of rules rather than just "doing what feels right" because that never works out.
MTGO thing still feels ridiculous though.
You are right, it would be uncomfortable for most people to sit at a table with him. I only said 'woman' because of the recent discussions about why women are underrepresented at competitive tournaments.
In addition to being a bad message towards kids and viewers, there is the problem of him sitting at a table with a woman. How should she feel? Threatened? Scared?
Be careful here. What you're suggesting has a faint whiff of infantilization. Is it her decision how to feel about Jesse, or is it Wizards' decision how she ought to feel about Jesse?
I think Wizards made the right choice, but that they need to address it and explain how it is different for other criminals.
Is it different, though? Would we be having this conversation if he were convicted of a non-sexual violent crime? Should we be having this conversation if he were convicted of a non-sexual violent crime?
It is Wizards responsibility to make everyone feel as comfortable as possible when they go to a tournament. This means having rules about hygiene, respect, violence, etc. Sure, some women may feel fine at a table with him, but I am doubtful that 100% of women will be. That means that Wizards needs to do what is best for their players.
You second point is a very good point. I think that wizards needs to discuss this because clearly they think it is different. I, personally, think it is different, and here's why. Patrick Chapin is a criminal, but he is not a violent criminal. Zach is a violent criminal. We are talking about sexual-violent crimes, but I think this extends to all violent crimes. I would not be happy sitting at a table with Charles Mansion either. Wizards needs to make people feel safe when they play, and I think it is rational to think that people would feel less safe around a violent criminal vs a non-violent criminal. I don't think Patrick Chapin makes people feel unsafe. I know a lot of people who would not feel safe with Zach.
I think banning him from MTGO shows why Wizards is doing this though. They don't have a policy dictating that criminals cannot attend events. There are probably other convicted rapists playing at events. Banning from MTGO is clearly in line with Wizards not wanting a successful criminal representing the game. As this is the case, they need to explain why this is different for Chapin.
I would hope that you'd think critically about the system at all times.
That's exactly my point - the people arguing against his ban are saying that we have to look to the justice system and say he's served his time. That we have to let the system do its job and not have our own opinions on the matter. My point is that, if we're going to do that, we have to acknowledge that the system also says he needs to be kept on a registry of violent sexual offenders, apparently for the rest of his life.
The entire line of argument - that our personal behavior is somehow beholden to the justice system's findings is asinine. The justice system says OJ is innocent, but I doubt anyone here thinks they have to treat him as such.
I would hope that you'd think critically about the system at all times.
That's exactly my point - the people arguing against his ban are saying that we have to look to the justice system and say he's served his time. That we have to let the system do its job and not have our own opinions on the matter. My point is that, if we're going to do that, we have to acknowledge that the system also says he needs to be kept on a registry of violent sexual offenders, apparently for the rest of his life.
The entire line of argument - that our personal behavior is somehow beholden to the justice system's findings is asinine. The justice system says OJ is innocent, but I doubt anyone here thinks they have to treat him as such.
You're right. Thats is a pretty weak argument - unfortunately it is used by some people. The more important point is that if we think that sexual offenders should have any kind of a second chance at all, banning ZJ from playing a card game in a huge room with a lot of people everywhere is crazy.
You're right. Thats is a pretty weak argument - unfortunately it is used by some people. The more important point is that if we think that sexual offenders should have any kind of a second chance at all, banning ZJ from playing a card game in a huge room with a lot of people everywhere is crazy.
I wasn't aware that not playing a card game in a competitive setting is equivalent to not having "any kind of second chance at all". Here I thought we were just talking about a hobby company not wanting to do business with him, not banishment.
Well said. I can't blame Wizards and Hasbro for wanting to avoid the discomforting possibility that, if Zach Jesse won a major event, they would be obliged to publicly celebrate a convicted rapist.
The outrage that some members of the Magic community are expressing at Jesse's ban--outrage which will almost certainly dissipate after a few weeks--is nothing compared to the uproar that would emerge should the general public learn about the veneration of a sex offender.
It's important to evaluate the ban from the perspective of someone who knows and cares nothing about Magic. Would an outsider to the game, if told about Jesse's ban, be angry or even interested about the fact that someone is prevented from playing a silly card game? Doubtful. Would an outsider, by contrast, be upset if a convicted sex offender is venerated by a major corporation like Hasbro? You betcha.
It's not fair, but it doesn't have to be. Let's face it: rapists have a justifiably bad reputation in the public eye and a special place in hell.
Did you just gloss over the stuff about Patrick Chapin (Who I sincerely hope doesnt face any sort of negative action now), ask anyone who lives in an intercity area what they think about drug dealers or in Northern Mexico.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
I wasn't aware that not playing a card game in a competitive setting is equivalent to not having "any kind of second chance at all". Here I thought we were just talking about a hobby company not wanting to do business with him, not banishment.
Maybe you should read my first post. Anyway, the point is that if there's a reason for banning him from something as trivial as a card game, there's a reason to ban him from everything. Why should ANY club/society/community accept ZJ among them? If the MTG community has a reason for excluding him, everyone does.
Oh I see how this game works. When the justice system says he has to serve 3 months of work release, I'm supposed to acknowledge that he's served his time and trust in the system, but when it says he has to be on a registry of violent sex offenders, then the system has a lot problems and I'm supposed to ignore it. Give me a ****ing break.
What game? The sex offender registry isn't designed for rehabilitation, it's purely punitive. I honestly don't know what you want.
Maybe you should read my first post. Anyway, the point is that if there's a reason to ban him from something as trivial as a card game, there's a reason to ban him from everything. Why should ANY club/society/community accept ZJ among them. If the MTG community has a reason from banning him, everyone has.
I would say the opposite - that there is reason to ban him from something trivial does not imply that there is reason to ban him from something necessary. I'm fine with wizards not wanting to have him at sanctioned events, but that's because playing sanctioned magic isn't important. I would not be okay with, for example, his local grocery store refusing to sell him food.
May I interfere and ask why the comment about someone who has a resort in WOtC Hall of Flame having something to do with selling drugs is entirely ignored?
For people trying to defend Patrick Chapin here: He did not go to jail for USING drugs. He went to jail for SELLING them(largely heroin). And he would STILL be in jail if not for the fact that the main witness against him died(from an overdose) before Chapin went to trial. If Zack Jesse's behavior warrants a ban, then there is no question that Chapin's did as well.
Ultimately, WOTC can do literally whatever they want. But they handled this as poorly as possible. In particular, banning him from MTGO is just a joke. From what I've been able to find online(re: what Zack Jesse did), we are talking about one isolated incident that occurred while Jesse was drunk, and it occurred over a decade ago. He served his team(which was only 3 months to begin with) and has had no problems with the law since. People have to be allowed to move on from their past mistakes. The reason that we have such a high rate of recidivism in the US in criminals is precisely because no one ever wants to let anything go. Jail can rehabilitate people, when handled properly. It is pretty clear in Zack Jesse's case that it DID rehabilitate him.
The person that I am most disgusted with in all of this is Drew Levin. He literally went digging into Zack Jesse's past to find this, and then made a ridiculously big deal out of it when absolutely no one else knew about it. It was a complete non-issue. His behavior here is despicable.
Does any of this excuse Jesse's behavior? Of course not. But he has already served his sentence. The idea that he was declared fit to enter back into society and given a clean bill of mental health, but..somehow he's not fit to play Magic..is complete nonsense.
Agreed.
I should also add that if Zach Jesse's criminal offenses were something like theft or beating up another man, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Since his crime was sexual assault though, it unleashed the SJW mob. It's a ridiculous double standard, but sadly it exists because Magic (and the rest of the gaming community as a whole) has a SJW problem.
May I interfere and ask why the comment about someone who has a resort in WOtC Hall of Flame having something to do with selling drugs is entirely ignored?
Just interested, nothing personal.
Honest answer?
Because we are mostly white middle class suburbanites who never had to deal with the horrors of drug violence, so we think drug dealers are just shifty dudes that sell ganja and are harmless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
I should also add that if Zach Jesse's criminal offenses were something like theft or beating up another man, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Since his crime was sexual assault though, it unleashed the SJW mob. It's a ridiculous double standard, but sadly it exists because Magic (and the rest of the gaming community as a whole) has a SJW problem.
Feeling that theft and aggravated sexual battery are different crimes warranting different levels of concern is not a "ridiculous double standard". The two are not equivalent, and we have no obligation to have an equal reaction to them.
I would say the opposite - that there is reason to ban him from something trivial does not imply that there is reason to ban him from something necessary. I'm fine with wizards not wanting to have him at sanctioned events, but that's because playing sanctioned magic isn't important. I would not be okay with, for example, his local grocery store refusing to sell him food.
Alright then, so he should only be allowed to do what's necessary for survival - that doesn't sound like a second chance to me.
Feeling that theft and aggravated sexual battery are different crimes warranting different levels of concern is not a "ridiculous double standard". The two are not equivalent, and we have no obligation to have an equal reaction to them.
What about recovering heroin addicts or victims of drug violence around Chapin?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
Alright then, so he should only be allowed to do what's necessary for survival - that doesn't sound like a second chance to me.
You misunderstand, I'm not saying that the bar is "necessary for survival". That's merely an example to illustrate that feeling he should banned from one thing does not imply I feel he should be banned from every thing.
Because we are mostly white middle class suburbanites who never had to deal with the horrors of drug violence, so we think drug dealers are just shifty dudes that sell ganja and are harmless.
I seriously hope you are a lier.
But even if you are not, I still don't understand why it is ignored. Point is, if they banned a rapist, why don't they ban a drug dealer?
And, like, no one talks about it? So he needs to do a reddit post about it for people to notice?
Alright then, so he should only be allowed to do what's necessary for survival - that doesn't sound like a second chance to me.
You misunderstand, I'm not saying that the bar is "necessary for survival". That's merely an example to illustrate that feeling he should banned from one thing does not imply I feel he should be banned from every thing.
Yes, but what reason could there be to just ban him from MTG and not from everything else that's more than the bare-minimum for existing? If there is a good reason for the MTG-Community to do it then why does that very reason not apply to, say, the book club in his neighborhood?
Well said. I can't blame Wizards and Hasbro for wanting to avoid the discomforting possibility that, if Zach Jesse won a major event, they would be obliged to publicly celebrate a convicted rapist.
The outrage that some members of the Magic community are expressing at Jesse's ban--outrage which will almost certainly dissipate after a few weeks--is nothing compared to the uproar that would emerge should the general public learn about the veneration of a sex offender.
It's important to evaluate the ban from the perspective of someone who knows and cares nothing about Magic. Would an outsider to the game, if told about Jesse's ban, be angry or even interested about the fact that someone is prevented from playing a silly card game? Doubtful. Would an outsider, by contrast, be upset if a convicted sex offender is venerated by a major corporation like Hasbro? You betcha.
It's not fair, but it doesn't have to be. Let's face it: rapists have a justifiably bad reputation in the public eye and a special place in hell.
Did you just gloss over the stuff about Patrick Chapin (Who I sincerely hope doesnt face any sort of negative action now), ask anyone who lives in an intercity area what they think about drug dealers or in Northern Mexico.
Let's not kid ourselves: different crimes are perceived differently by the public. Violent offenses like rape are without a doubt considered to be more heinous than drug crimes. The examples you give of places where people would have a lower estimation of drug crimes--"an intercity area" (I think you mean "inner city") or "Northern Mexico"--probably have more to do with the murders, rapes, and dismemberments that occur around the drug trade, NOT the act of selling drugs itself. Moreover, there is generally a different perception of "hard drugs" like heroin and "soft drugs" like ecstasy, which Chapin was convicted of selling.
What about recovering heroin addicts or victims of drug violence around Chapin?
What about them? Are you asking whether I think drug trafficking must be treated the same as aggravated sexual battery? No, I don't think they are same. Chapin's offense isn't trivial by any measure, but I think Jesse's is more severe.
Yes, but what reason could there be to just ban him from MTG and not from everything else that's more than the bare-minimum for existing? If there is a good reason for the MTG-Community to do it then why does that very reason not apply to, say, the book club in his neighborhood?
Because Wizards is a business that is trying to maintain an appearance of being family-friendly, and in which Zach would be appearing in publicly promoted tournaments. I doubt the neighborhood book club, or most other organizations or companies Zach would interact with would have similar concerns.
Feeling that theft and aggravated sexual battery are different crimes warranting different levels of concern is not a "ridiculous double standard". The two are not equivalent, and we have no obligation to have an equal reaction to them.
Except by trying to make people "feel safe" in dealing with sexual assault, Wizards is basically treating women like children into thinking that they are incapable of interacting with those who have clearly served their time and have made every effort to better their lives.
But even if you are not, I still don't understand why it is ignored. Point is, if they banned a rapist, why don't they ban a drug dealer?
And, like, no one talks about it? So he needs to do a reddit post about it for people to notice?
Because the people who SJWd Zach Jesse really dont care about justice, Drew Levin just wanted to destroy the dude and he knew exactly how to get a mob riled up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You are right, it would be uncomfortable for most people to sit at a table with him. I only said 'woman' because of the recent discussions about why women are underrepresented at competitive tournaments.
It is Wizards responsibility to make everyone feel as comfortable as possible when they go to a tournament. This means having rules about hygiene, respect, violence, etc. Sure, some women may feel fine at a table with him, but I am doubtful that 100% of women will be. That means that Wizards needs to do what is best for their players.
You second point is a very good point. I think that wizards needs to discuss this because clearly they think it is different. I, personally, think it is different, and here's why. Patrick Chapin is a criminal, but he is not a violent criminal. Zach is a violent criminal. We are talking about sexual-violent crimes, but I think this extends to all violent crimes. I would not be happy sitting at a table with Charles Mansion either. Wizards needs to make people feel safe when they play, and I think it is rational to think that people would feel less safe around a violent criminal vs a non-violent criminal. I don't think Patrick Chapin makes people feel unsafe. I know a lot of people who would not feel safe with Zach.
I think banning him from MTGO shows why Wizards is doing this though. They don't have a policy dictating that criminals cannot attend events. There are probably other convicted rapists playing at events. Banning from MTGO is clearly in line with Wizards not wanting a successful criminal representing the game. As this is the case, they need to explain why this is different for Chapin.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
That's exactly my point - the people arguing against his ban are saying that we have to look to the justice system and say he's served his time. That we have to let the system do its job and not have our own opinions on the matter. My point is that, if we're going to do that, we have to acknowledge that the system also says he needs to be kept on a registry of violent sexual offenders, apparently for the rest of his life.
The entire line of argument - that our personal behavior is somehow beholden to the justice system's findings is asinine. The justice system says OJ is innocent, but I doubt anyone here thinks they have to treat him as such.
You're right. Thats is a pretty weak argument - unfortunately it is used by some people. The more important point is that if we think that sexual offenders should have any kind of a second chance at all, banning ZJ from playing a card game in a huge room with a lot of people everywhere is crazy.
I wasn't aware that not playing a card game in a competitive setting is equivalent to not having "any kind of second chance at all". Here I thought we were just talking about a hobby company not wanting to do business with him, not banishment.
Did you just gloss over the stuff about Patrick Chapin (Who I sincerely hope doesnt face any sort of negative action now), ask anyone who lives in an intercity area what they think about drug dealers or in Northern Mexico.
Maybe you should read my first post. Anyway, the point is that if there's a reason for banning him from something as trivial as a card game, there's a reason to ban him from everything. Why should ANY club/society/community accept ZJ among them? If the MTG community has a reason for excluding him, everyone does.
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
I would say the opposite - that there is reason to ban him from something trivial does not imply that there is reason to ban him from something necessary. I'm fine with wizards not wanting to have him at sanctioned events, but that's because playing sanctioned magic isn't important. I would not be okay with, for example, his local grocery store refusing to sell him food.
Just interested, nothing personal.
What I want is consistency from you about whether the justice system determines how we should treat him.
Agreed.
I should also add that if Zach Jesse's criminal offenses were something like theft or beating up another man, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Since his crime was sexual assault though, it unleashed the SJW mob. It's a ridiculous double standard, but sadly it exists because Magic (and the rest of the gaming community as a whole) has a SJW problem.
Honest answer?
Because we are mostly white middle class suburbanites who never had to deal with the horrors of drug violence, so we think drug dealers are just shifty dudes that sell ganja and are harmless.
No, it is indeed not. It is designed to appeal to the people with the pitchforks (of whom there are many) and to collect some votes.
Feeling that theft and aggravated sexual battery are different crimes warranting different levels of concern is not a "ridiculous double standard". The two are not equivalent, and we have no obligation to have an equal reaction to them.
Alright then, so he should only be allowed to do what's necessary for survival - that doesn't sound like a second chance to me.
What about recovering heroin addicts or victims of drug violence around Chapin?
You misunderstand, I'm not saying that the bar is "necessary for survival". That's merely an example to illustrate that feeling he should banned from one thing does not imply I feel he should be banned from every thing.
I seriously hope you are a lier.
But even if you are not, I still don't understand why it is ignored. Point is, if they banned a rapist, why don't they ban a drug dealer?
And, like, no one talks about it? So he needs to do a reddit post about it for people to notice?
Yes, but what reason could there be to just ban him from MTG and not from everything else that's more than the bare-minimum for existing? If there is a good reason for the MTG-Community to do it then why does that very reason not apply to, say, the book club in his neighborhood?
Let's not kid ourselves: different crimes are perceived differently by the public. Violent offenses like rape are without a doubt considered to be more heinous than drug crimes. The examples you give of places where people would have a lower estimation of drug crimes--"an intercity area" (I think you mean "inner city") or "Northern Mexico"--probably have more to do with the murders, rapes, and dismemberments that occur around the drug trade, NOT the act of selling drugs itself. Moreover, there is generally a different perception of "hard drugs" like heroin and "soft drugs" like ecstasy, which Chapin was convicted of selling.
What about them? Are you asking whether I think drug trafficking must be treated the same as aggravated sexual battery? No, I don't think they are same. Chapin's offense isn't trivial by any measure, but I think Jesse's is more severe.
Because Wizards is a business that is trying to maintain an appearance of being family-friendly, and in which Zach would be appearing in publicly promoted tournaments. I doubt the neighborhood book club, or most other organizations or companies Zach would interact with would have similar concerns.
Except by trying to make people "feel safe" in dealing with sexual assault, Wizards is basically treating women like children into thinking that they are incapable of interacting with those who have clearly served their time and have made every effort to better their lives.
Because the people who SJWd Zach Jesse really dont care about justice, Drew Levin just wanted to destroy the dude and he knew exactly how to get a mob riled up.