←back to thread

Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

(playhearthstone.com)
2525 points hownottowrite | 8 comments | 08 Oct 19 09:23 UTC | HN request time: 1.272s | source | bottom
Show context
FillardMillmore ◴[08 Oct 19 12:44 UTC] No.21191608[source]▶
So we are at the point where American video game developers are banning people from e-sports competitions for their comments over a domestic issue in a foreign country? Because the Chinese government probably didn't like his comments, that counts as 'public disrepute'? This is just wild to me.
replies(2): >>21191753 #>>21193372 #
taytus ◴[08 Oct 19 13:00 UTC] No.21191753[source]▶
It is wild, but it's also part of their own rules: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGVTuRlXkAA0ovF?format=png

Honest question: Can we call this unfair if it was already laid out as part of their rules?

replies(4): >>21191970 #>>21192008 #>>21192020 #>>21192039 #
1. groby_b ◴[08 Oct 19 13:27 UTC] No.21192020[source]▶
Yes. You presuppose that all rules - via their nature of being rules - are automatically fair. They aren't. Especially not if they're not arrived at by consensus, but unilaterally laid out.
replies(3): >>21193382 #>>21194119 #>>21196033 #
2. fragsworth ◴[08 Oct 19 15:32 UTC] No.21193382[source]▶
Let's highlight the absurdity of the presupposition with an extreme example that they might understand: what if there's a rule that says "Black people are not allowed to play"?

They're saying we should just assume it's fair? What kind of idiotic notion is this?

3. bdowling ◴[08 Oct 19 16:38 UTC] No.21194119[source]▶
Creating rules by consensus is actually a terrible way to ensure that those with views counter to the majority are treated fairly.
replies(1): >>21195407 #
4. groby_b ◴[08 Oct 19 18:28 UTC] No.21195407[source]▶
It works better than fiat rules. That's kind of why we have democracies. (Well, not in China. So maybe that's the point)
5. taytus ◴[08 Oct 19 19:18 UTC] No.21196033[source]▶
I never said I thought the rules were fair, I meant the banning.

Their product, their rules, you break the rules, then you accept the consequences.

replies(1): >>21197655 #
6. ClumsyPilot ◴[08 Oct 19 21:48 UTC] No.21197655[source]▶
Except they are not. They are nebulous catch-all clauses applied on a whim.
replies(1): >>21198270 #
7. taytus ◴[08 Oct 19 23:06 UTC] No.21198270{3}[source]▶
Then do not accept them. Who is forcing people to become pro gamers or playing games of a company they don't agree with the TOS?
replies(1): >>21201826 #
8. ClumsyPilot ◴[09 Oct 19 10:39 UTC] No.21201826{4}[source]▶
Ah, that old chestnut, yes.

The day you can hold a corporation accountable for breaking their own terms of service is the day I will come around to this argument.

As things stand, they can have an obligation to keep your data secure, have system with massive security holes, loose your data resulting in you being a victim of fraud, and the company will not pay a penny.