Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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

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.
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 urza9814 on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:03PM (1 child)

    by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:03PM (#608791) Journal

    What I expect will happen (which is probably, given the situation the best-case scenario for this guy) is that he will eventually be paid however much money he spent on in-game purchases. This may happen as a result of the bad PR or as a result of an out-of-court settlement after a lawsuit is filed. I also expect that he will never be re-instated.

    Playing a bit of devil's advocate here, because I do think a refund (potentially a partial refund) would be the proper course of action...however, it's also a somewhat dangerous precedent. People might decide once they tire of the game that they need to get themselves banned so that they can get a full refund on their way out.

    Part of this is the problem of digital items -- they don't wear out, they don't really depreciate. There's a couple solutions to that though. First, you can make the items actually "wear out" over time -- it's good for 1k uses, then you've gotta buy a new one. So if you've got 500 uses left, they'll give you a 50% refund. Or they could potentially base it on average usage -- if the longest active account is six years old, and you've played for three, then you get 50% back. Another option is a user marketplace, so you can come up with an actual fair market value for the item...although in that case you'd want a constant stream of new (and better) items to drive values down over time. Or you could link the item to some kind of physical good -- perhaps a special card with a redemption code which gets reactivated if the account is deleted. That way you can resell those cards to other players and WotC wouldn't have to get involved at all. But as long as the items are still just as valuable five years later as they were when you first purchased them, then it's reasonable to want a full refund for that purchase. Or I guess they could offer a warranty and give refunds within that warranty window.

    If companies are going to sell digital goods, they really need to consider how to handle refunds. Especially if those digital goods can only be used on their servers with their permission. Any item that fails to be usable for the intended purpose is defective and should be refundable, regardless of whether that good is physical or virtual.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:46PM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:46PM (#608849) Homepage Journal

    I think those are good ideas. However, it seems unlikely that (at least in the current environment) that sellers of such items will voluntarily liberalize their contract terms absent a legal requirement that they do so.

    I imagine that much of this would hinge on legal precedent regarding digital items and the first sale doctrine [wikipedia.org]. When we pay for such items, do we actually own them or are they licensed [wikipedia.org] to us? If the latter, what are the *terms* of such a license?

    This is especially important in circumstances like this, as the in-game purchases are useless outside the context of the game, as I (snarkily) alluded to in another post [soylentnews.org]:

    There may well be a claim WRT in-game objects he purchased, as he no longer has access to those. Whether he should be refunded his money for those or just sent a file with the results of a SQL query like 'SELECT * from [in-game-objects-purchased-table] where USER=[user]'.

    The "remedy" I suggest, while it quite literally provides the user with the "objects" purchased, is completely worthless in practical terms.

    Should this guy choose to file suit over the in-game purchases, it will be interesting to see how that plays out. If the agreement governing those sales do not meet the requirements as "licensed" goods, then he will likely have a good case for a refund. If, however, the objects are deemed "licensed" then the license agreement will likely cover whatever remedies are available to him.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr