Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Social Media Posts may Cost You Your Games

posted by martyb on Monday December 11 2017, @05:20PM   Printer-friendly
from the big-brother-is-morally-judging-you dept.

sigterm writes:

On December 7, a Magic: The Gathering player with a YouTube channel called "UnSleevedMedia" ( https://www.youtube.com/user/mtgheadquarters ) was banned for life from the game by the Hasbro subsidiary Wizards of the Coast for allegedly harassing others in the MtG community on social media. As a consequence, he immediately lost access to all the virtual items he's previously purchased while receiving no refund, and he may no longer play online, partake in tournaments, or cover events on his YouTube channel (details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIh3ykLBzOM ).

The ban was issued after articles appeared on gaming news sites Polygon ( https://www.polygon.com/2017/11/29/16709796/magic-the-gathering-cosplayer-harassment-youtube ) and Kotaku ( https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/11/magic-subreddit-on-lockdown-after-cosplayer-quit-due-to-alleged-harassment/ ), where a cosplayer accused UnsleevedMedia operator Jeremy Hambly of persistent harassment. (Note: While the articles report on the controversy, neither present any actual evidence for either side.)

While Mr Hambly claims that the allegations of threats and harassment are demonstrably false, and that the evidence against him is based on excerpts from Twitter/Facebook posts taken out of context, he now says he's uncovered something quite chilling while investigating the case: evidence that employees at Wizards of the Coast are trawling the Internet looking for social media activities going back years in search of conduct they might find "objectionable".

In at least one instance they've allegedly requested and gained access to a closed Facebook group only tangentially related to the MtG community, and then issued bans and warnings based on the contents of conversations therein. This includes a one-year ban against professional player Travis Woo, who has now effectively lost his job. Mr Hambly presented the evidence for these claims in a YouTube video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGFcLvDRJNQ ) on his other channel, "The Quartering" ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwE_ODI1YTbdjkzuSi1Nag ).

In response to this, he has started a change.org petition ( https://www.change.org/p/hasbro-wizards-of-the-coast-must-reinstate-travis-woo-jeremy-hambly ) asking people to boycott all Hasbro products until such time as the bans are reversed. His main argument is that corporations should not be allowed enforce End User License Agreements that dictate what a person may or may not say or do in their spare time on social media.

(Disclaimer: I've signed the petition, as I wouldn't like to see a future where a Twitter spat could cost someone their Steam games.)

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Social Media Posts may Cost You Your Games | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 83 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @10:04PM

    by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Monday December 11 2017, @10:04PM (#608468) Homepage Journal

    This is one of those weird situations where everybody is correct. It just matters how you look at it, and what people decide is more important.

    1) User has a right to be a jerk.
    2) Hasboro has a right to kick the jerk off the network.
    3) User has a right to complain about it and publicize being kicked off, and to try to raise a stink.

    Now it is up to "the market" and "the public" to decide which side is more sympathetic: "I should be able to play my game without being harassed by jerks" vs "I'm not spending any money on a platform where I may lose it without recourse."

    I suspect that the public will be more sympathetic to Hasboro because everybody has dealt with jerks before and if they only went after the most drastic jerk then it's "fair." However, we'll see what the court of public opinion says in time.

    I won't speculate on potential outcomes, but I imagine it will come down to a calculation by Hasbro as to what course of action will maximize (or at least mitigate the loss of) profit for them. Alternatively, a judge/jury may decide.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2