←back to thread

Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

(playhearthstone.com)
2525 points hownottowrite | 9 comments | 08 Oct 19 09:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
johnchristopher ◴[08 Oct 19 12:16 UTC] No.21191363[source]▶
From https://www.pcgamer.com/blitzchung-removed-from-hearthstone-... a description of the incident :

> As Andy reported earlier today, Blitzchung did not back down after the sudden removal of the broadcast, during which he wore a gas mask and goggles before shouting "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our age!" Following the incident he released a statement elaborating on his stance, writing "I know what my action on stream means. It could cause me lot of trouble, even my personal safety in real life. But I think it's my duty to say something about the issue."

replies(2): >>21193676 #>>21193697 #
ummonk ◴[08 Oct 19 15:59 UTC] No.21193676[source]▶
Okay that explains it. I thought banning for 12 months was a little harsh for someone making a political statement once, but he knew what he was doing and doubled down on it.
replies(2): >>21194017 #>>21194291 #
1. hannasanarion ◴[08 Oct 19 16:54 UTC] No.21194291[source]▶
Why does the fact that the person making a political statement knew that they were making a political statement make their banning okay?
replies(1): >>21194607 #
2. 3minus1 ◴[08 Oct 19 17:20 UTC] No.21194607[source]▶
There's a difference between accidentally and knowingly breaking a rule. Regardless of if you feel the rule is fair or right, knowingly breaking is more egregious, e.g. manslaughter is not as bad as first or second degree murder.
replies(4): >>21194816 #>>21194877 #>>21195757 #>>21196475 #
3. xvector ◴[08 Oct 19 17:39 UTC] No.21194816[source]▶
What a ridiculous comparison. The rule he broke here was literally "don't offend any portion of the public." The rule you're referring to is much more justifiable.

If the rules are ridiculous, then the reaction to them should be to dismantle the rules and disavow the rule-makers.

4. CobrastanJorji ◴[08 Oct 19 17:43 UTC] No.21194877[source]▶
Knowing that you're doing something that is not in the interest of Blizzard or China and may bring you trouble is not the same thing as rule-breaking.

For example, I have a first amendment right to stand on the street and cry out "that store over there has awful working conditions," and I'm not breaking any rules, but I'm well aware that the store may well not let me in anymore.

replies(1): >>21195892 #
5. jammygit ◴[08 Oct 19 18:55 UTC] No.21195757[source]▶
You are claiming that morality is irrelevant if there is a rule involved, and your action is substantially worse if you break a rule for a moral reason deliberately instead of accidentally?
6. keithnoizu ◴[08 Oct 19 19:05 UTC] No.21195892{3}[source]▶
More like you go in the middle of the street and say, America shouldn't support south american dictators, and as a result all ISPs refuse you provide you with internet service. They're private companies they have the right do to so but good luck navigating todays world with out it.
7. Skunkleton ◴[08 Oct 19 19:55 UTC] No.21196475[source]▶
Sometimes the moral choice is to break the rules.
replies(1): >>21206153 #
8. ummonk ◴[09 Oct 19 18:16 UTC] No.21206153{3}[source]▶
Agreed. But you have to enforce the rules to make sure that people don't start breaking the rules over something trivial. The people making a moral choice to break the rules can live with a 12 month ban from the game.
replies(1): >>21242775 #
9. ◴[13 Oct 19 20:32 UTC] No.21242775{4}[source]▶