For all intends an purposes a card is ONLY mint if nothing altered the card , neither damage or anything else.
If you ink a card , at the borders to fix some white spots of damage, or put a signature on it, its DAMAGED.
However that does not mean its the "same" damage as actual destroyed card.
Any alter will be classified as "damaged" , but can be worth more than the original card if someone wants that particular alter.
So yes, a card with a signature is "damaged" , but in the end, most would simply put some form of "signature" tag to it, and rate it not as damaged for the actual quality of the card ignoring its signature ; as people still care for the quality even if its signed.
The proper label would so be : "signed - light played" , and that would be fine.
If you did not order a signed card, you are totally in the right to claim your money back, which any halve reasonable store would absolutely grant.
- Registered User
Member for 10 years, 1 month, and 9 days
Last active Tue, Mar, 19 2019 15:55:50
- 1 Follower
- 4,586 Total Posts
- 592 Thanks
Feb 9, 2019Posted in: Magic General
This is literally, absolutely everything in a market economy, so your argument doesn't seem to have much point to it. Would you mind explaining how cards are a special case in economic theory?
You seem to agree and claim its absolute true.
So what exactly is your critique at all ?
Outside of totally agreeing to it.
Feb 9, 2019You BUY the packs.Posted in: Magic General
You can sell them if you choose to for exactly that value.
If you choose to open them, they are no longer a random product and so the cost of the product is not even connected to the cards inside them.
Simply put, you buy 15 randomized cards in a pack for say 3$.
As long as you sell 15 randomized cards in a pack you can get 3$ for it from somebody else.
If you open them, its no longer 15 randomized cards in a pack, its just 15 "not" random cards.
So the value of the specific card is then defined by a 2ndary market depending on if they choose to declare its value.
Its highly artificial as a cards value can be 1 cent or 100$ , or even much more crazy, hey they could be missprints, or you find a specific collector that pays you even much more.
Cards "value" is not regulated at all, and the value of said cards is extremely artificial.
What WotC sells you in booster packs is however just the promise to receive 15 randomized cards (or 14 at this point in time).
The odds and chances for a foil are defined as is the chance to get any specific card and if challenged in court, they had to show that these numbers are correct (as lying about them would be fraud).
We are all perfectly aware that magic cards have a value on the 2ndary market for all intends and purposes you get money for them, so nobody is having any illusion about that.
Still, buying booster product, its your choice to open the product and transform the product by doing so.
Feb 9, 2019Comparing physical vs digital has a bunch of real life hurdles that make them very different.Posted in: Magic General
The simple time and effort to buy product is one.
If you can order any quantity of product and get it instantly, it removes a period of time to cancel your order, a grace period to realize your mistake so to speak.
Ordering physical product also has a set limit in what you can possible store in your home to begin with.
Spending 1000$ on magic cards gives you physical a lot of stuff, if you continue to do that, the hurdles to visible SEE your own addiction (and for anybody else in your family, friends, even your neighbors) is very real.
That does not exist in digital, you are charged with money, you get the stuff immediately, and nobody in your family, friends will notice at all.
You might even not realize what kind of money you spend.
If you buy said product in a store, the limits of the store are also a healthy prevention mechanism, ordering massive online pretty much blurs the lines of digital and physical product quite a bit more (which is the reason people get much more addicted to digital impulsive buying, rather than doing so in the physical world).
Stuff to notice at least.
Physical cards have actually no value , the value is artificial by the 2ndary market (and can change, crash and explode at any point, as its not really regulated at all, especially not by the cards producers).
There are people that buy magic cards and never play with them. They just open them, look at the arts, and collect the cards.
The "game" is not sold with the booster packs, the "game" is build on top of the cards, as an "extra" so to speak.
For digital lootboxes, its reversed. The "game" is build and lootboxes are on top of the game. Pretty fundamental difference, which matters a lot here (but is easy to oversee).
If you want to draft with cards, you can re-use the cards you have as many times as you want. Cube and any other form of casual play does exactly that, they are YOUR cards, do whatever you want with them.
You could even just print the cards with your printer and play casually with them, nobody cares for that.
If you want to have the "real" cards, thats what you buy, the cards, they are yours then.
For digital a massive issue is that you dont buy the cards or items, you buy into a SERVICE. You have no rights to resell cards or items, outside of the game these items have no value at all and they are bound to the account and service.
So by nature, in a digital game you pay for a service , not an actual product, and it can be changed at any point, removed from your account, your account be terminated etc.
So for the physical game, you buy a booster pack and you always get the same number of randomized product.
You never lose money by buying a booster pack, you always get the cards ; which happen to have a value on the 2ndary market, but that is not the concern of the producer of the cards (as long as they are clearly not connected to said 2ndary market, which is why this is so important that WotC is not interfering with the 2ndary market in any way, shape or form ; they must be clearly identified as the producer of the product ; even if we are all well aware that this is extremely blurry at best anyway).
Lootboxes are pretty much not different from a slot-machine in a casino at all. It does exactly the same.
You pay money, see a little light show, bling, bling, sounds and your money is wasted.
You can waste a lot more money this way in lootboxes than you can lose in a slot-machine at a casino.
And the casino slot-machines are pretty highly regulated by laws ; so should be digital lootboxes.
Casino slot-machines are not allowed to advertise to children.
Lootboxes are very actively advertised to children (especially as the games themselves are advertised to children in the 1st place).
Implemented social pressure in a game, time pressure (buy it now or get left out), and trying to hide what the product actually costs (especially by using "premium" currency to hide the $ values) , all of that is highly problematic.
All of that does not happen in the physical world, or to a massively reduced proportion ; like shops might run a sell, like every shop does, so thats arguably fine, as long as the sell is not rigged.
To some degree you could say social pressure is produced if especially kids are "lured" into a shop to spend time, get friends there and for whatever reason they buy a lot of booster packs (not that this is realistic at all, but you get the idea).
By the definition of "gambling" that is like :
Gambling is defined as “the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods.”
Lootboxes and physical trading card games are most of the time not gambling, its just an obfuscated randomized product you receive.
If they would be clearly identified as gambling, both of them would be equally regulated from the start. Well, they are not.
Magic had the issue with "ante" cards at the beginning, which pretty much falls under the gambling problem, so that had to be removed fairly quickly.
Feb 9, 2019"Physical" loot-boxes in the form of booster packs are pretty much proven over time to not be a problem.Posted in: Magic General
In the end, people get value from it, and the people that go on a rampage to buy booster packs are extremely rare.
The people that are "addicted" to physical packs are quite small, vast majority of people will ignore them at some point and simply buy the cards they specifically want (with a secondary market in the real world).
Any "collectable" game will have some form of addictive nature, if the people want to have all the stuff, they will hunt the cards.
Booster packs are not really aggressively promoted and the game itself does not really mention booster packs at all (the inserted "advertisement" cards in the packs might be an issue regarding that to some degree, and i would love to see them gone, as inserting this kind of advertisement is a disgrace and a giant waste anyway).
Digital loot-boxes however prove to be a much bigger problem, as losing control over buying something digital is much easier than doing so with a physical product you receive (as you "see" if you go too extreme as you are flooded with product in your home).
Some people buy digital product and completely lose the overview of what they spend and what they actually get from buying that stuff.
And in the most aggressive form of lootboxes sold in mostly free to play games, its a fundamental part to actively force an addictive nature on a game as an added element on a market that "traditionally" did not do that (videogames like 10-15 years ago, currently almost every game will push micro transaction ingame shops and lootboxes to bite and pick pieces of money everywhere and do so in a more and more aggressive manner).
There is much to gain to prevent an excess of digital lootboxes and regulating ingame shops.
There are already many laws and changes implemented for digital games to fix these problems.
For example they have to make visible what the "odds" are to get something and show everything you can get from a product (so no hiding).
This will be a big topic for the industry and its important to find good regulative solutions to balance the needs of the industry to make money and the aggressive nature of promoting an addictive behavior, especially targeting kids.
Feb 7, 2019I just recently noticed that the text wording on the german hydroid krasis has a very different formatting:Posted in: Magic General
Its the "X/2" wording, instead of "half X"
Wenn du diesen Zauberspruch wirkst, erhältst du X/2 Lebenspunkte dazu und ziehst X/2 Karten. Runde jeweils ab.
They dont seem to do that in any other language and it strikes me as very odd (i even like it, as its shorter than the worded version and even clearer to what it means as this does not suffer from line breaks to mess up the meaning).
How do you like that wording ?
And do you know other cards that have an entirely different text formatting in any other language ?
Could even see me collecting this odd cards, as they are so special.
Jan 28, 2019Mechanics like "suspend" did something pretty different than what we are used to.Posted in: Magic General
But it was also much more complicated than what the casual new player is used to, as they had to understand what the upkeep is (most newbies dont, as almost nothing happens in the upkeep anymore), they had to manage counters ticking down, then the creature is "cast" in the upkeep and gets haste.
You could also do a lot of tricks with it, removing or adding time counters and the set even had Split Second, which was also somewhat difficult to understand for a newbie player, as they had no idea how it really worked (as a newbie does not really understand the concept of "priority" and what abilities work and which dont, as you can use Morph even with Split Second spells on the stack and so on).
Lots and lots of mechanics that did pretty special stuff, but too complicated for lots of players.
Established players LOVED Time Spiral and its mechanics and people that got used to the mechanics also enjoy the mechanics (as suspend is also a pretty "strong" mechanic as it greatly reduces the cost of spells).
At this point in time, WotC will re-use mechanics and also re-use the concepts of mechanics to dumb the game down, so casuals can understand and play with the mechanics without really understanding the rules to fully grasp the mechanics ; in the eyes of an established player, thats a bad thing, but thats also a much smaller group than the casual crowd.
Limited doesnt need to be balanced at all, as it is self-balancing.
If a color is stronger than the others, it will be over-drafted and that weakens the cards the players are able to get, so the person thats drafting the weaker colors gets to choose from more of them.
However, its "easier" to balance a set when every color gets more or less the same stuff in slight variations, its more of a spread-sheet design process as you can easily fill the slots and check the boxes, instead of really tinkering with the set in other ways.
They really badly do that, especially visible are the "uncommon" multicolor cycles in sets that work as sign posts to "in your face" tell everyone what the color combination is supposed to look like in a given set.
So its not a BAD thing perse, but if its done over and over and over again, the spread-sheet design approach becomes way too predictable and that stretches the border of when it becomes boring and just lazy.
Even with the spread-sheet kind of design process sprinkling more "unique" card designs into a set might help it, cards that produce a build-around me effect without being just a filler (they do that, mostly in the form of an obscure rare or even mythic at this point, could do that more on the uncommon level).
In Ravnica for example the "guild gate" mechanics kind of produce a secret 11th guild that combines colors.
So thats a nice thing to have, breaking out of the otherwise 2-color cycle of the guild mechanics and pushing a 4-5 color approach.
They could do that more often, to break out of the spread-sheet design and put some cool mechanics in the set that are not just keyword mechanics (as the guild-gate mechanics do not have a keyword).
Jan 28, 2019Posted in: Magic GeneralQuote from Flamebuster »Cards are on;ly janky until something comes along and makes them relevant. Dark Depths was a prime example until Vampire Hexmage was introduced. As SavannahLion mentioned, LED was considered bad until it was errata'd (I believe) and found a home in Dredge decks.
Granted there are some awful cards that don't deserve the cardboard and ink they were made of but I guess it's all relative in the game of endless possibilities.
Cards that do powerful things are potentially always broken, if their "drawback" is turned into an advantage and/or easy to work with.
LED was much harder to abuse without Storm as a mechanic and without mechanics like flashback and the like.
It was almost impossible to really get something out of it.
Discarding your hand can easily be an advantage as its exactly what you want (aka Dredge, even works with madness, but dredge is simply better).
Thats the essence of Johnny cards, find the combination and break the game, no matter how seemingly useless the parts look, as long as they just produce a combo everything is fine.
And lots and lots of cards fall into the group of potentially busted, but missing a key card to combo with.
Jan 28, 2019Posted in: The Rumor MillQuote from DanzBorin »Flippers are starting to list under MSRP. People realized too late that this isn't like the first one. If you want one, keep your eyes out for deals.
If they plan to keep doing these they need way bigger hitters.
Yea, the product already lost all its steam right from the get go.
It will sell even worse the next time, as all the people that got burned wont buy it again.
They can never ever sell the numbers they did with the 1st and this product is doomed to fail hard unless they put in some serious bombs that justify the incredible high price tag.
Jan 27, 2019Posted in: The Rumor MillQuote from zdtsd »The whole problem here is walker choice.
the "chase" walkers here are $20, while Teferi and Lili are $50.
Not just that.
They look really bad (people mostly like tamiyo, but the rest is incredible bad artwork for the characters).
The walkers are either reprinted a bunch of times, not worth anything, not played in constructed formats and/or just mediocre like the new planeswalkers.
All of the points make this a terrifically bad product as it is.
Jan 26, 2019TheOnlyOne652089 posted a message on as a female player the new art style females is getting really annoyingPosted in: Magic General
Have you considered that the market force of "sexual objectification doesn't play as well as it used to" might be behind Wizards' move?
Well there "data" is terrible and making judgment of that data is just as random as it ever was.
They are not even consistent and in the end their political agenda is pushed more and even ignoring what the "market" would ask for, even in despise of the market, the agenda is more prevalent among WotC employees.
So yes i have.
If there's no room for nuance in your arguments, then we aren't going to get very far. The world isn't a simple place, and if you try to remove context from everything (for instance, seeing no difference between a man about to beat a woman and a bunch of zombies knocking a man to the floor), you're going to find you're left with arguments that don't match up with reality.
So funny enough you are aware that some form of violence is justified and thats always depends on the viewpoint and can be completely different from person to person.
To be consistent, violence in fantasy art is just as valid no matter "who" is doing it against who ever.
If you swap Garruk and Liliana in place, it doesnt suddenly become acceptable, its either BAD or not, and if either is fine and the other is not, than its not consistent and made up crap that has no place.
You also didn't address the fact that your willful blindness to something that members of minority groups see as being completely obvious is more indicative of a privileged mindset than anything else. The argument essentially boils down to "I personally don't see it so it must not exist." Nor did you address the accusation that you're willfully denying that patterns exist despite there being clear statistical trends (nothing but isolated incidents, perhaps?).
I do not like to think of groups, and especially not claim what makes a "minority" group. That kind of thinking is toxic and opinions based on that kind of grouping are purely evil as they have the gravest of effects and never truly help an individual, but just put people into boxes, and thats never ever a good thing to begin with.
And you are talking WAY more into all of this than you can chew.
You even go as far as claiming a moral highground and even bring up accusations out of nowhere. Your thinking is problematic, you are the problem, try to think about your intentions.
If you want to get into what businesses are "supposed" to be doing, then it's entirely one thing: Maximizing shareholder value.
You can maximize shareholder value in short term by completely trashing your product and selling out, and even disvow your ideals and crap on everything you build.
You can maximize shareholder value in long term, by building an honoring your values.
Two very different things.
WotC shifting into a political motivated agenda is among the most terrible choices they made, as its hurtful to crap on your long term fanbase.
Artists should get the freedom to produce whatever art they claim to be good and fitting, end result is more diverse art and better results. Thats what people want and value of the "old" artworks, and what we very rarely get today.
Your tastes do not line up with overall audience trends, so Wizards no longer caters to them. It's not political. They're just trying to make the most money they can, and they aren't going to do that by keeping the same art style as 20 years ago. That's the ultimate reason you don't see Earthbind-style art anymore, and Basandra-style art is nowhere near as prevalent as it used to be. Don't mix up the beliefs of the players with the beliefs of the company making this game, because the reasons each group holds its respective views are very, very different.
WotC would have fired and shun Terese Nielsen , but fans wanted her to make magic cards, and the artwork sticks out very visible.
Thats one of the kind of artwork people WANT to have, as it brings a form of diversity in artwork.
That does NOT mean that every artwork on every magic card has to be a Terese Nielsen art.
Magic has plenty of artists, granting them more freedom would be greatly appreciated.
Wizards never betrayed you, because they never owed you anything to begin with. The only people who matter to a corporation are the shareholders, and unless you own enough shares for Hasbro to take notice of you, then you can either accept the shift in presentation or quit the game. That horse isn't going back into its stable.
Oh they did. As a customer a company owes you the promise of making a good product, and if you stop doing that, you earn the fruits of your bad job.
Betrayal of your customers is among the worst decisions a company can make, and plenty of companies learn that the hard way, as getting a customer BACK is much more costly then keeping them happy.
If the group "some people" is undefined, then the argument carries no weight because there's absolutely no guarantee that those people even exist and aren't just made up for the sake of argument.
Thats the essence of a thought example, you might not be familiar with.
Jan 26, 2019TheOnlyOne652089 posted a message on as a female player the new art style females is getting really annoyingPosted in: Magic General
There are people who are statistically at greater risk than others. Hence why it's exceedingly tasteless to show Garruk about to punch Liliana after restraining her. Refusing to acknowledge social groups is a privilege afforded to people who don't have to think about the subject on a regular basis. Put another way, the fact that you're willing to reject the idea that groups matter is evidence that you've never been pigeonholed or disadvantaged based on gender or any other facet of identity.
Society and its norms are the sum of its actors. So when a company like Wizards produces art that's uncomfortably close to real-life gender-based violence (or they objectify women, or whatever else), they're contributing to an overarching trend. When they don't do that, they're not contributing to an overarching trend. But at the end of the day, it's always intellectually disingenuous to say "there are no such things as patterns, only a great many isolated incidents."
Its a companies job to produce a product, not make political arguments and especially not, push something specific for a subset of people.
Its exactly what people critique, rightfully, and they hate WotC doing this, as it has no logical reason, its just political agenda.
If VIOLENCE is bad, then ALL Violence is bad, not just a subset of violence someone claims upsets them personally.
The moment you cherry pick something and ignore the rest, you are doing nobody a favor, you just claim to be more important or above others, and thats just toxic and evil in nature.
Its a fantasy world after all, and if there is violence, then thats it.
I for once want to see boobs and cleavage in my female art. At least some, not all of them.
Why? I find it aesthetically. Basandra, Battle Seraph
And theres absolutely nothing wrong with boobs, but for whatever reason WotC clearly thinks boobs are inherently evil and female have to be flat.
If an artist paints a picture and the female happens to have boobs as they feel it looks great on that art, that should be fine, instead of not accepting that art and shrinking the boobs to make it acceptable ; which is just silly and somewhat discrimination against females that happen to have bigger boobs as that would be a crime or valued less in a made up social hierarchy of body objectivity (which is a thing for female characters and much less for male characters).
In the end they can do whatever they want, its a fantasy world, but doing so with a set intention and an agenda just makes it instrumental.
And its a very bad feeling if a COMPANY is trying to influence its customers and tries to influence the customer into portraying a specific "ideal" they want to display of a world they claim to follow in a real life connection.
Its a form of betrayal thats really hurting.
It kills the innocence of a fantasy world and FORCES a connection to the real world, that otherwise wouldnt exist, or just remotely.
The fact that WotC thinks that "representation" is a important deal in cards just produces a checklist of characteristics that have to be on cards, rather than producing good artwork, its following and pushing an agenda, and thats what "some people" really do not like at all.
It really comes down to companies should not meddle with real life politics, and stick to making the best possible product, instead of wiggling to the loudest cry baby that comes around, thats simply pathetic and produces an inferior product.
If you don't want to label groups, then why label a group as "some people"?
Some people is not a group, its literally an undefined group of everyone and that fits perfectly well.
Jan 26, 2019TheOnlyOne652089 posted a message on as a female player the new art style females is getting really annoyingPosted in: Magic General
Even on an individual level, you're not going to find very many men who've been impacted by institutional sexism because institutional power favours men pretty much every time.
Theres no such thing as "favours men", thats as toxic as it gets to even have that opinion, especially if its complete bollocks.
It is however a very clear display of a political stands thats questionable at best and by itself sexism.
So i wont drive down this ballpark any further as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand anyway and will with guarantee only result in flame and *****posts.
Imagery is a thing that matters. Garruk looks like he's about to deliver the same kind of violence a great many women have been subjected to, whereas the reverse situation is... Garruk just kind of flat on his back while Liliana stands over him. Not Liliana about to deliver a punch or anything.
Triumph of Cruelty is passable as a piece of Magic art because it's not depicting things in a manner far too close to home for people who've been subject to domestic violence (unless you want to argue that PTSD isn't a real thing). Triumph of Ferocity is not, because it does.
Triumph of Cruelty can be interpreted as female violence using a mob (zombies) to do the violence in her name.
Its the same display of violence Triumph of Ferocity, its just 2 different stances of how these characters would approach to fight.
Non is less violent than the other, both are going to kill the other, and both are exceptional violent with deadly force and the worst intends possible.
Also, every form of violence can be translated to something a person might have experienced in real life. That alone shouldnt be a reason to make displaying that fantasy art somehow problematic at all.
Individuals have issues, they should deal with them.
Marking a specific "group" of people as more valuable or more "worth" protecting than other "groups" is just again the display of a form of group thinking thats extremely problematic and toxic.
If an individual has a problem with an artwork that in their mind looks somehow like "domestic violence" , then thats entirely their personal issue, and they can simply choose to not like the artwork and keep on with their lives.
If an artwork of a person getting Incinerated Disintegrate isnt a problem at all, then its downright ridiculous to make a artwork of a simple "punch" a giant outcry, its fantasy art after all, and real world thinking has no place in this fantasy.
If someone wants to be consistent in their logic of what art they claim to be problematic and what not, than at least say every form of violence is bad, not just specific subsets of violence against specific subset of groups of people, this kind of group thinking is a sickness.
Please be more specific instead of just saying "some people."
Some people fits perfectly well, as it doesnt check any boxes.
Jan 26, 2019Posted in: Magic General
You're implying that men know just as much about sexism as women do, which is as baffling as saying that white people know just as much about racism as people of colour. I'd also recommend looking up the difference between systematic and individual sexism, because those are very different things.
I believe in the individual and judge people as individuals, not as groups.
Any human is an individual, not a group.
Thinking of groups is the most toxic a human can do to another, as it undermines and tries to devalue everything that makes up the individual that in its core is any human being.
Cruelty triumphing is "fine"? Cruelty is customarily considered a bad thing.
Garruk about to bash Liliana like a domestic violence situation, however, is an even worse thing because of the imagery involved.
Translating "domestic violence situation" into a magic card that is about 2 immensely powerful planeswalker fighting each other is utter nonsense, and is the perfect example of people trying to imply real life connections to something that has not even remotely any connection to such things.
Some people just try to see the absolute worst in everything and try to smear anybody that is not in their crosshair of "good" and "evil" people.
Its downright crazy as this road of thinking only leads to complete misguided hatred.
Some people might seek the good in things, what they enjoy and love, embracing the game for what it is, bringing people together.
Others just look for something to outrage about and the moment a person tries to set themselves above others and ignores the individual and puts people in boxes, they lost any connection to the real world.
Jan 26, 2019Cards with very special abilities are never truly BAD as they ask for special decks that can use the effects.Posted in: Magic General
There are plenty of cards that are actually just BAD in a objective view, and even they have a reason to exist, even if these are overall much more annoying to have around.
Mythic and rare cards that do something special are simply cards for people to find how to abuse them, and often enough can be used for good in a more casual approach of commander.
So they are really not BAD cards, just demand more attention and brewing around with a deck to make them work properly or as intended.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Nov 30, 2017TheOnlyOne652089 posted a message on If You Can't Take Criticism of Jeremy Hambly, You're Part of the ProblemThe deal with being in public and somewhat called "harassment" (and i clearly distinquish between a from a court defined harassment and a person just feeling they are harassed) , is that its really different pieces.Posted in: Articles
As a private person you have no impact on public that even remotely justifies that anyone attacks you directly.
However, as a public person, like a politician or as we have here, a cosplayer that actively presents their body in public on public events to players, its in your right to criticizes exactly that, which is the body, its presented in a sexualized manner, so commenting in that way is not even inappropriate (might not be your personal taste, but thats a different deal).
If a private person gets mails from random persons theres zero reason or justification, so thats an entirely different matter compared to someone that publicly pushes themselves into public opinion.
Its a really important part of projecting this matter to the context its presented in.
If i see a women feeding a baby and i tell her "You are a 6/10, i wouldnt even rape you" , it would be an unbelieavable inappropriate thing to say , but to someone that in public makes money by presenting their body ? If i tell that to a stripper ? Inapprioriate for sure, but still an entirely different deal, as context matters, the environment matters and if you do not want to expose to that, you are not forced, you can simply not do that job.
If you go to the extreme and outlaw any potenially rude comment, you restrict language by a great deal, so much that people cannot express anything without fear somebody will feel hurt or insulted, and if that justifies that your social media gets permanently flagged and you suffer for it, its a way more extreme response than the "rude comment" started out as.
The adult option would be to point the rude comments out and keep it on a apprioriate level of response, you can talk stuff out and discuss it to proof a point without going to war directly , and still keep in mind, that no person is outright evil, for such things.
And yes, the real sick people are the ones that perform the threats, thats just downright cruelty and has no other reason than pleasing a sadistic pleasure, and that is absolutely nothing a society has to, or should accept, but its a completely different animal to a critic from an public figure.
I am on the side to promote that individuals are responsible for what they are doing.
Jeremy didnt incite harassment, he did poorly phrased comments sure, but thats hardly crazy evil, its just rude and if you talk to him about that, yes ofcourse he knows himself its rude, and thats about it, you can stand above it and realize that something thats already enough, realize you gone a bit to far and the moment you are told so, you can better yourself, problem solved ; the sick people that continue to threaten , thats what remains, but thats adults, responsible for their actions, and any adult that isnt insane should have enough intelligence to not even do that to begin with.
Racist comments are a special kind of deal, just as gay-topics etc. etc.
Its highly controversial to many people and especially your work place is a context with special meaning here.
If i make a racial comment in private, thats it, nobody cares. If someone is insulted they can sue me, i get appropriate punishment, and/or we settle the topic before it escalates, thats the potential for discussion and understanding that is much more valuable than taking every little comment and blow it up like its a death threat right away ; its clearly not.
In your context part you clearly see context matters so much.
Context is key for this here.
All the screenshots are mostly out of context and look entirely different if you get the big picture.
Yes people are offended a lot, but its undeniably a thing you have to be able to deal with if you have any kind of public job, or open yourself up to that (and if you cannot deal with it, its simply the wrong job for you, as theirs issues with lots of jobs and you cannot just blame others for that, self-responsility is a thing, its not that others are always to blame for anything you do and anything you do will have an effect on others, if your job is in public, thats a given).
I think america in special a lot of people are highly influenced by what some special individuals say , so they build up some form of responsibility for what they say, simply because of that.
And i think, it again depends on context and what group you talk to.
In the case here the group of people is the magic community, people that watch Jeremys Channel, thats already a very small subsection again and people that enjoy trollish comments, so they are already open to that and have their own problems why they cannot control what they are doing (as no sane person would write a death threat email to anybody, but lots of people do, especially in heated discusions and extreme topics).
But here Jeremy cannot be at fault for what individuals end up doing, the targeted audience are adults, and should totally be able to control themselves.
Your last part.
I also think he could be much less rude in his comments and from his latest comments he acknowledges this, as often you have to be told you are going over the edge, and if its good to think about it (but again, its about critic and staying on a non-extreme course, you want discussion and not open war).
Lots of stuff i can relate to and the topic is simply overblown by extreme margins.
In the end, people said some mean things and others reacted to them ; thats actually all that happened, thats rude at best, but its not downright evil.
This topic would much easier and smoother be solved in a much smaller circle, or in private between these two.
Pulling it to public just makes things worse, by a lot and it doesnt serve anybody, be they right or wrong, in the end, this open warfare just damages the community and people will bunker themselves into even more extreme sides and become even more unable to discuss anything without directly insulting each other.
But one thing is guaranteed, this will be a hot topic for the rest of the week and probably the next one, and at some point, nobody will care anymore and just play Magic again.
Nov 30, 2017TheOnlyOne652089 posted a message on If You Can't Take Criticism of Jeremy Hambly, You're Part of the ProblemThe fact that a comment makes someone feel harassed doesnt mean it is harassment.Posted in: Articles
Just because someone feels insulted, its not automatic evil in nature.
Most important, he never told to her directly, you literally have to seek out his channel to see the comments, so you actively have to search yourself to see negative comments about yourself.
The indisputable issue are the sick minded individuals that go over the top and do exactly that, email directly, twitter to her directly etc. They do the harassment, they are 100% guilty for it, and they qualify for it, as they indeed take a sadistic pleasure in doing that, its among the most harmful type of troll.
Then theres a difference between private people and people in public.
As a private person nobody has any public interest in what i do and so comments about my person would be out of context.
The moment what you are doing is part of a community, like cosplay at a grand prix and doing pictures of that etc. You present yourself in public and so comments about exactly that are clearly presented.
That alone is no harassment and its just as important to clearly draw a line between what people truly say and what is casually said, simply put, if you are talking to a group of people for hours, chances are you will say something stupid and someone will feel insulted ; so it has to be viewed in context and not just "oh god, look what he said" , and finger point exactly that and ignore anything else.
And especially for Jeremys channel, its clearly a form of topics and talking that you might easily find offending, others do not, some think hes right about a bunch of stuff, and i believe you can easily see he has a bunch of points.
All the so called harassment can be put down to context that gives it a background, so that is what makes the topic a lot more slippery than just believing its all crystal clear.
The idea of thinking its downright crystal clear and theres only black/white in it, is already short sighted, as you have to see more of the picture to get a real glimpse of the actual truth.
Nov 30, 2017TheOnlyOne652089 posted a message on If You Can't Take Criticism of Jeremy Hambly, You're Part of the ProblemYea, if people truly think theres just 1 problem at hand, and that others, but ofcourse never themselves are a part of it, thats just ridiculous, as it is the kind of finger pointing that just wants to make someone else responsible for what you think is bad.Posted in: Articles
If someone truly feels harassed, seek the police, file a claim, prevent the harassment, thats what you can do as an adult, theres a little bit of responsibility for your own too.
Its not your job to defend your wife, if you truly want fairness, she can do that on her own and she should be absolutely able and willing to do so (and if she isnt, that is a problem you have to start working on).
Its always a big question mark, if you have to drag your personal issues into public.
That just makes everything worse, much worse, as you are suddenly exposed to people that choose sides and over dramatic defend it, no matter if it effects them at all.
The adult way to solve the issue would simply be if she started out to simply ask to stop exactly what she thinks is bothering her. Any responsible adult will accept that and change behavior if its reasonable, and if they dont, you file a claim against them, so they get judged by a neutral court (or you are proven wrong on your feeling of being harassed, thats also an option and as an adult your have to live with it).
Nov 30, 2017Theres critic and just phrasing opinions and as a form of entertainer and content provider he has a form of talking that a lot of people find offensive, but there is plenty of comedians i find offensive, but that doesnt make them in any way problematic.Posted in: Articles
Comments can easily be in bad taste and thats undeniable the case for Jeremy, but the real core of the issue to discuss is the small amount of truly idiotic people that take it to a true harassment and violent form of threats ; and the question to discuss would be if you as a content provider are truly responsible for what some sick individuals do , given they are adults, these people are the actual problem, and thats not Jeremy.
The same kind of sick individuals exist on the other spectrum too, some of them Social Justice Warriors that somehow feel Jeremy has to be "utterly destroyed" and death threats against him are "totally fine".
Seriously, its the same kind of sick individuals and its the CORE of a true problem which puts every little issue into full on overdrive roadkill.
It serves nobody and its a form of discussion that is very prevalent in the internet.
Its a culture of trolls and social justice warriors that simply cannot keep their actions behind a healthy line that keeps a minimum of civilized discourse alive.
If people get famous they undeniable have to have a tougher hide. The more people you know and the more people respond to you, the more bad comments you will accumulate.
Thats natural, and people will either like what you do or they will not.
Some of the sick people will downright hate you for whatever you do and this leads to the exact problem of people that think they have to act themselves , right now and fight what they think is the evil, everyone thinks they are in the right to do so and so nobody is able to self-reflect and see they are going over the top.
If matters settle down you could easily see Jeremy seeing himself that a bunch of stuff crosses the line , but bad taste comments and actual harassment should be dealt with in court and absolutely not in public for people to just judge and start their little lynch mobs in every corner burning whatever victim they just found.
So there is more than just one problem.
A lot of problems and everyone is part of some problem, if they see it, know it, or still deny it.
Nov 30, 2017Theres plenty of "good" men that started wars and killed people in the name of what they thought to be somehow the right thing.Posted in: Articles
The reality is, there are no "evil" and no "good" men, just opinions and people that push these ideology with violence over the other, who ever wins will be in the right, the other side clearly must have been wrong.
Its not the job of people to start a lynch mob and "destroy" other human beings and its downright pedantic to think that is in any way what "good men" should do.
Any problem has to be discussed and solved on the appropriate level.
Pushing topics in public only serves the trolls and media hype , people calling out for a single entity to be blamed for everything they think is bad.
The reality is, theres not a single bad person and everyone is usually to some degree responsible for what they do or do not do.
People really like to give small problems horrific names so they sound like much bigger problems, that leads only to despair and misery, it has no positive benefit for anybody, just pampers the ideology of people that really think they are the only legit form of judgment call, self-administered justice isnt the way to go and if you ever get in the situation to think someone is the personified evil, you are guaranteed wrong and simply ignore the other standpoint (so you become evil yourself, just to pretend to defend against evil, thats in no way a solution and only leads to a conflict in which everyone can blame anyone to be in the right and suddenly there are no good men left anymore).
Nov 30, 2017A very big issue is that different topics are brought together, while they simply do not fit.Posted in: Articles
Nazi and troll posters are two very different things and should never be put together, just to fuel a cause, thats selling your own arguments cheap and makes them one-dimensional black/white thinking again, which is good for nobody.
Also, there will be critic and negative critic as well, that has to be acceptable.
Nobody is forced to be overly positive about anything.
If you truly dislike something you can say so, and its value to the discussion that this is expressed and not just ignored, or even outlawed as something terrible wrong.
At the same time its very valid to criticize something and not come up with a solution on your own right away. I can critic a cook and not be able to make it better, thats totally fine and it must be legit to do so. The point of critic is that you should never need to justify for it, the receiver can take the critic and see it as an issue, or they dont, thats their cup of tea and its what an adult has to learn to deal with.
But here again, this changes a lot if someone is in private or its brought up in public and presented to a mob of people.
If you just honestly dislike cosplay and say so, thats fair, nobody forces you to like anything.
The "locker-room-talk" is a topic entirely for its own. Its something that is widely accepted and always was. Women to the same about men, they even do it among each other, it might just be more subtle than the direct approach of actually saying it out loud, even if its just in the "locker-room" (or in this case a youtube channel, or a bunch of twitter posts).
Its fine on its own.
What really pushes the topic to become a real issue is how stuff completely gets lost and out of control incited to be way bigger than what it really is (and yes, thats a terrible huge deal with the amount of media and the very real interest of media to promote topics into "highlights" and further push the mob to generate more horrific events to report about, its almost a self proclaiming prophecy, so its very difficult to truly say what amount of discussion is healthy and what is just talking it to bits and pieces, as many if not all topics will be seemingly super hot for the moment and meaningless the next week, as there is no real issue beside the illusion of talk at all).
How would an adult deal with bad talk about them in private ?
You confront the person and actually tell them to stop as its not ok for you.
Solves the issue, unless the person is actively not recognizing your problem.
In public it changes a lot.
Theres either somewhat anonymous people that jump on a topic train and pick sides, which very often leads to extreme reactions, way over the top (any threats via mail or any form of actual harm is absolutely no-go, no matter what the topic is, theres never a reason to choose violence to solve anything.
So if you talk in public, it will have an effect on people and it will polarize the people more and more. Thankfully lots of people can distinguish between a topic that truly effects them and just a rat catcher lynch mob , but some cant, and the poster shouldnt be responsible for these individuals, as almost anything could be seen as an incentive for violence, if the individual has some sick mind, theres an entirely different problem of its own (and yes, you have to ask yourselves why so many "troll" people exist and no matter the topic, they are harmful and actively ignore any productive discussion).
For the topic at hand, the first problem that ignited this into a public *****-fest was that it was brought to public at all.
Solving these kinds of issues should have been a thing between Jeremy and Sprinkle , in private or by her actively telling what bothers her, its just fair to do so, as it solves most issues and avoids outside people to intervene.
If that doesnt work out and somebody is not taking your arguments, you can take it to the police and to court to actively stop what bothers you with something like a protective injunction suit, which again should solve the issue at hand, instead of putting it up for debate to a lynch mob that just wants blood, no matter from who.
Its a very clear picture if a topic is just instantly brought to public, avoiding any legal options (or doing so later, in hopes the public opinion boosts your side).
See, if a topic is discussed in public, it will never be fair.
People pick side right away and defend it for whatever the cost, even if it doesnt effect them personally at all ; which brings the Social Justice Warrior term to fruits.
Yes thats a problem just as trolls.
Its good to have empathy, but its bad to jam ideals and ideology into a topic and mix topics entirely, just to proof a point that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Believe it or not, neither Jeremy nor Sprinkle are somehow "evil incarnate" , they arent and they arent "toxic" to the community.
The kind of topic and how much its media-hyped and exaggerated , thats an entire issue of its own and overshadows the problem they personally had to solve between each other and makes it like a community issue , which it isnt, the community is fine, theres very rare cases and problems to deal with and they shouldnt be ignored, but also not exaggerated into spheres they arent fit for.
And this is, about a game, a hobby, people enjoy playing the game and enjoy being part of a community, if this is taken to a level of social criticism it doesnt serve a purpose for the game it just harms the experience for everyone, as it puts a stigma to the game, that it neither deserves or justifies at all.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.