Still, Blitzchung and the two casters deserved an appropriate reaction.
Why? Because they broke the "rules"? Again, and for the last time, the rule they cited is a catchall clause that can be applied to literally any one of the participants in GM.
"Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image"
If i say I'm offended by Purple's constant head-scratching or the typo in Bunnyhoppor's name, that is enough to fulfil the condition of the provision, so long as I'm the person with the appropriate authority within the company. Should all of the players in GM be banned for breaking the rules?
The actual reaction was possibly too harsh, but asserting Blizz should have accepted passively what happened is just utterly wrong.
If they really wanted to kowtow to Beijing without being transparent flaming hypocrites they should have rewritten their contracts and put out a statement explicitly telling competitors not to make political statements.
Instead they tried to pretend Blitz broke the rules, and their paper-thin attempt to justify this based on the current rules just makes them look that much worse.
I don't know what happened with the US players, but it doesn't change an inch about the above.
They broke the same "rule", arguably more egregiously by adding "boycott blizzard" and received no punishment whatsoever.
If you say that's not relevant then you're conceding that you don't give a lick about consistent application of the rules you cite as justification.
If your actual position is that Blizzard can do whatever it wants, no matter how hypocritical and contradictory, just say that instead of citing the rules.
The alleged double-standard cannot be used as an excuse for Blitzchung.
Except that's not the argument. You haven't even provided the argument that blitzchung did anything wrong, but even if you had made that case, obviously the reason to point out the double standard is to show that only certain people are being punished for this supposed wrongdoing, which is itself a bad thing.
Blizzard not applying its rules consistently is an argument against these rules, not in favour of the behaviour they are supposedly trying to prevent. If a corrupt cop is turning a blind eye towards certain criminals, pointing that out isn't an argument in favour of crime, it's an argument against corruption & hypocrisy.
Blitzchung broke the "no politics rule" and i don't need to prove it.
If a cop turns a blind eye against X, he may be corrupt, yet his action against Y can be correct, and according to sensible rules. And corruption does not affect the quality of the rules, when they are correctly upheld.
My argument is based on the (unproven) impression that many in the community believe that since Blitzchung did a brave/right thing, Blizz had no rights to punish him (them).
If the assumption is incorrect, you can ignore all my posts, if it is not, the double-standard is not a counterargument.
Corporate corruption is connected to the Blitzchung event, but, i reiterate, it doesn't move by an inch the point about him. It is a different argument, and it requires Blitzchung action being proved equal to that of the US players (which i ignore).
I believe that consumers have a great deal of power over companies provided they vote with their wallet to punish bad corporate behaviour. If a company is behaving like shit, maybe stop supporting it.
I totally agree with this. Just logging into any of their games or watching them on Twitch is supporting them (with numbers), so all those that are going to join the protest are really ready to totally quit? How many will do such thing instead of just keep playing/watching and spam some "support HK" around the internet?
It's the difference between taking real action and just call out good words. Not that words aren't important, but they'll hardly change things if left alone (history has already proven that so many times).
At that point the rules just exist to deflect legal liability, they're not a reflection of any sort of values the company pretends to uphold.
Well, I though that this was clear to everyone since the beginning. Every company that is quoted on the stock exchange has only one goal: profit. Eveything else is there just for the sake of marketing. If anyone belived Blizzard would uphold their "values" after the original founders (Michael Morhaime and Chris Metzen, mainly) have all left and everything has passed into Activision's hand... than I envy you because you still belive at fairytales.
This is a terrible argument from apathy. If we're suddenly going to stop pretending to believe in Blizzard's PR spin then why bring up their rationalisations and rules to begin with? Just be honest and say that you believe corporations are an unstoppable evil that we just have to learn to accept and stop pretending there's any sort of moral reasoning behind your stance other than "might makes right".
I believe that consumers have a great deal of power over companies provided they vote with their wallet to punish bad corporate behaviour. If a company is behaving like shit, maybe stop supporting it. Just look how quickly Gillette jumped off the toxic masculinity bandwagon after their stocks tanked in the wake of one single male-bashing ad.
Hell, look how quickly Blizzard backpedalled on Blitzchung's punishment now that they're being universally condemned by western media and hearthstone players alike.
Corporations are amoral entities, that's why it's up to the consumer to reward moral businesses and punish immoral ones. Otherwise, it'll always be a race to the bottom, to the most exploitative business model they can legally get away with.
Still, Blitzchung and the two casters deserved an appropriate reaction.
Why? Because they broke the "rules"? Again, and for the last time, the rule they cited is a catchall clause that can be applied to literally any one of the participants in GM.
"Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image"
If i say I'm offended by Purple's constant head-scratching or the typo in Bunnyhoppor's name, that is enough to fulfil the condition of the provision, so long as I'm the person with the appropriate authority within the company. Should all of the players in GM be banned for breaking the rules?
The actual reaction was possibly too harsh, but asserting Blizz should have accepted passively what happened is just utterly wrong.
If they really wanted to kowtow to Beijing without being transparent flaming hypocrites they should have rewritten their contracts and put out a statement explicitly telling competitors not to make political statements.
Instead they tried to pretend Blitz broke the rules, and their paper-thin attempt to justify this based on the current rules just makes them look that much worse.
I don't know what happened with the US players, but it doesn't change an inch about the above.
They broke the same "rule", arguably more egregiously by adding "boycott blizzard" and received no punishment whatsoever.
If you say that's not relevant then you're conceding that you don't give a lick about consistent application of the rules you cite as justification.
If your actual position is that Blizzard can do whatever it wants, no matter how hypocritical and contradictory, just say that instead of citing the rules.
The alleged double-standard cannot be used as an excuse for Blitzchung.
Except that's not the argument. You haven't even provided the argument that blitzchung did anything wrong, but even if you had made that case, obviously the reason to point out the double standard is to show that only certain people are being punished for this supposed wrongdoing, which is itself a bad thing.
Blizzard not applying its rules consistently is an argument against these rules, not in favour of the behaviour they are supposedly trying to prevent. If a corrupt cop is turning a blind eye towards certain criminals, pointing that out isn't an argument in favour of crime, it's an argument against corruption & hypocrisy.
At that point the rules just exist to deflect legal liability, they're not a reflection of any sort of values the company pretends to uphold.
Well, I though that this was clear to everyone since the beginning. Every company that is quoted on the stock exchange has only one goal: profit. Eveything else is there just for the sake of marketing. If anyone belived Blizzard would uphold their "values" after the original founders (Michael Morhaime and Chris Metzen, mainly) have all left and everything has passed into Activision's hand... than I envy you because you still belive at fairytales.
Blizzard is obviously operating by a PR&legal playbook. You see the same kinds of common themes in the statement by Blizzard's president and Blitzchung.
I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of (re)negotion took place and these statements by the casters (written by blizzard) are part of the deal. I don't think they really care about how transparent this all is to gamers, if you ask me the main audience for these statements is the investors.
If nothing else, I take an immense amount of schadenfreude from the fact that the stated reason for banning Blitzchung ("distracting people from the game") has backfired spectacularly, and now the twitch chat in GM is just wall-to-wall political commentary.
What about Subdue? I found it to be a good card (not in your deck, since I lack to many of both Epics and Legendarys), and it's cheaper than big game Hunter, while also synergizing with wild Pyromancer and Shrivalla.
I think that anybody can easily agree with the Hong Kong situation and the need to set things right there. Those (like myself) that have a critical eye on this "boycott Blizzard" wave are just pointing out that what Blitzchung did was simply in the wrong contest and the actions taken on him and the casters, even if harsh, are something that should have been done to keep safe the neutrality of a gaming tournament.
If literally no actions were to be taken, anybody could decide to just use the visibility offered by such a massive event to make political proclamations. How messy could that become? How enjoyable would it be for a viewer to get flooded with such statements every time?
Of course China's money had an importance at how fast and how hard Activision Blizzard acted (it will be naive to think otherwise), but enforcing a punishment on those who broke such an important thing like the neutrality of an e-sport event was the right thing to do.
Why didn't Blizzard ban the three US hearthstone collegiate players who held up a sign in support of Hong Kong one day after Blitzchung's banning? If this was about setting a standard that no political messages are allowed, why weren't they punished at all?
If you look at the actual PR statement by blizzard, they repeat over and over again that Blitzchung and the casters were punished for not "keep(ing) the focus on the game". https://news.blizzard.com/en-us/blizzard/23185888/regarding-last-weekend-s-hearthstone-grandmasters-tournament This is a preposterous standard to apply. If this were the line then Frodan and Amnesiac should have been yeeted a few weeks ago for discussing the player's love life: clearly of no relevance to the game.
No, no no, y'all taking an obvious lie at face value. Come now. Even if you blithely assume that you're being given the real justification, at the very least then you have to concede that the standards are NOT being applied evenly, and draw your inferences from there.
Even if there was side-corporate influence in the punishment, rule-breakers acted knowing their consequences, and that's it.
Pretending Blizz should have acted condescendingly, because of just cause, now that is naive. And honestly unfair.
If corporate decisions are dictating if/when players get punished for the same "transgressions" (and again I have to stress that Blizzard has put such a broad clause in the contract that they can ban people at their discretion), then clearly the rules aren't being applied evenly.
At that point the rules just exist to deflect legal liability, they're not a reflection of any sort of values the company pretends to uphold.
If they saw fit to ban blitzchung, they should've done the same to the US players. They didn't, so they're not enforcing their rules, which makes it perfectly reasonable to question whether this decision was made in order to comply with the rules..... or if the rules were bent over backwards to justify a corporate/political decision.
I don't see what's "condescending" about holding companies to the values they espouse and cutting through their PR doublespeak to point out hypocrisy and lies. Expecting them to apply the same standards to all players is the opposite of "unfair".
I think that anybody can easily agree with the Hong Kong situation and the need to set things right there. Those (like myself) that have a critical eye on this "boycott Blizzard" wave are just pointing out that what Blitzchung did was simply in the wrong contest and the actions taken on him and the casters, even if harsh, are something that should have been done to keep safe the neutrality of a gaming tournament.
If literally no actions were to be taken, anybody could decide to just use the visibility offered by such a massive event to make political proclamations. How messy could that become? How enjoyable would it be for a viewer to get flooded with such statements every time?
Of course China's money had an importance at how fast and how hard Activision Blizzard acted (it will be naive to think otherwise), but enforcing a punishment on those who broke such an important thing like the neutrality of an e-sport event was the right thing to do.
Why didn't Blizzard ban the three US hearthstone collegiate players who held up a sign in support of Hong Kong one day after Blitzchung's banning? If this was about setting a standard that no political messages are allowed, why weren't they punished at all?
If you look at the actual PR statement by blizzard, they repeat over and over again that Blitzchung and the casters were punished for not "keep(ing) the focus on the game". https://news.blizzard.com/en-us/blizzard/23185888/regarding-last-weekend-s-hearthstone-grandmasters-tournament This is a preposterous standard to apply. If this were the line then Frodan and Amnesiac should have been yeeted a few weeks ago for discussing the player's love life: clearly of no relevance to the game.
No, no no, y'all taking an obvious lie at face value. Come now. Even if you blithely assume that you're being given the real justification, at the very least then you have to concede that the standards are NOT being applied evenly, and draw your inferences from there.
Even if there was side-corporate influence in the punishment, rule-breakers acted knowing their consequences, and that's it.
Pretending Blizz should have acted condescendingly, because of just cause, now that is naive. And honestly unfair.
That's false. The changes were obviously made with chinese censorship standards in mind (no overt sexuality, blood and bodyparts). They tried to pass it off as 'making the game more child-friendly' because telling western audiences that their card game was changed to comply with chinese diktats would've gone over as well as a lead balloon.
The sad thing is that people fell for this obvious lie, as it goes to show how far the west has gone down the slippery slope of censorship and puritanism.
The content had nothing to do with it - so a nearly identical stunt pulled by an American college should have the same penalties, then, right? Except they weren't penalized at all ...
Yeah, I call full on shenanigans with this one. Blizzard knew exactly what they were doing, and it was all about China. They are just sad about how much backlash they have gotten, and they are desperately trying to stop the bleeding.
I think that anybody can easily agree with the Hong Kong situation and the need to set things right there. Those (like myself) that have a critical eye on this "boycott Blizzard" wave are just pointing out that what Blitzchung did was simply in the wrong contest and the actions taken on him and the casters, even if harsh, are something that should have been done to keep safe the neutrality of a gaming tournament.
If literally no actions were to be taken, anybody could decide to just use the visibility offered by such a massive event to make political proclamations. How messy could that become? How enjoyable would it be for a viewer to get flooded with such statements every time?
Of course China's money had an importance at how fast and how hard Activision Blizzard acted (it will be naive to think otherwise), but enforcing a punishment on those who broke such an important thing like the neutrality of an e-sport event was the right thing to do.
Why didn't Blizzard ban the three US hearthstone collegiate players who held up a sign in support of Hong Kong one day after Blitzchung's banning? If this was about setting a standard that no political messages are allowed, why weren't they punished at all?
If you look at the actual PR statement by blizzard, they repeat over and over again that Blitzchung and the casters were punished for not "keep(ing) the focus on the game". https://news.blizzard.com/en-us/blizzard/23185888/regarding-last-weekend-s-hearthstone-grandmasters-tournament This is a preposterous standard to apply. If this were the line then Frodan and Amnesiac should have been yeeted a few weeks ago for discussing the player's love life: clearly of no relevance to the game.
No, no no, y'all taking an obvious lie at face value. Come now. Even if you blithely assume that you're being given the real justification, at the very least then you have to concede that the standards are NOT being applied evenly, and draw your inferences from there.
I think that anybody can easily agree with the Hong Kong situation and the need to set things right there. Those (like myself) that have a critical eye on this "boycott Blizzard" wave are just pointing out that what Blitzchung did was simply in the wrong contest and the actions taken on him and the casters, even if harsh, are something that should have been done to keep safe the neutrality of a gaming tournament.
If literally no actions were to be taken, anybody could decide to just use the visibility offered by such a massive event to make political proclamations. How messy could that become? How enjoyable would it be for a viewer to get flooded with such statements every time?
Of course China's money had an importance at how fast and how hard Activision Blizzard acted (it will be naive to think otherwise), but enforcing a punishment on those who broke such an important thing like the neutrality of an e-sport event was the right thing to do.
I don't want to sound cocky, but the distribution of upvotes and downvotes on this matter is disheartening.
It's like the majority of people here in this community expects you can LAWFULLY break the RULES about neutrality, if you break them for a good reason (and get away with it, with no further action being taken).
It's like saying it is lawful to rob if you are poor, and everyone should let you.
Consequently, it implies allowing anybody at these events coming out and explicitly support some kind of political agenda. Can you imagine the absolute mess?!?
Partying for a rebel, as i do in this case, is absolutely legitimate, but that can't mean one also expects no consequences, especially in a Neutral, international environment, that has nothing to do at all with said rebellion.
I hope i misunderstand people's mindset.
I think it's absurdly naive to take Blizzard's face-saving PR statement at face value and assume that they're JUST applying their rules and nothing more. The fact that they backpedalled on Blitchung's prize money and suspended the casters instead of firing them goes to show that the actions they took initially were not necessarily the result of following the rules to the letter.
And lets be very clear here: the "rule" that blitz violated is an extremely broad cover-your-own-ass clause which blizzard can invoke at any time to punish a player for anything. Had they so chosen they could have kicked Thijs for drawing smiley faces on oranges last week after he beat Orange. It's not a bleeding coincidence that the ONE time Blizzard comes down like a ton of bricks is when someone brings up politics in the 100 acre woods.
If you genuinely believe this had nothing to do with Chinese censorship, I have a bridge to sell you and it's got Heffalumps and Woozles and everything.
Blitchung kicked out of GM
Blitzchung broke the "no politics rule" and i don't need to prove it.
If a cop turns a blind eye against X, he may be corrupt, yet his action against Y can be correct, and according to sensible rules. And corruption does not affect the quality of the rules, when they are correctly upheld.
My argument is based on the (unproven) impression that many in the community believe that since Blitzchung did a brave/right thing, Blizz had no rights to punish him (them).
If the assumption is incorrect, you can ignore all my posts, if it is not, the double-standard is not a counterargument.
Corporate corruption is connected to the Blitzchung event, but, i reiterate, it doesn't move by an inch the point about him. It is a different argument, and it requires Blitzchung action being proved equal to that of the US players (which i ignore).
Blitchung kicked out of GM
I totally agree with this. Just logging into any of their games or watching them on Twitch is supporting them (with numbers), so all those that are going to join the protest are really ready to totally quit? How many will do such thing instead of just keep playing/watching and spam some "support HK" around the internet?
It's the difference between taking real action and just call out good words. Not that words aren't important, but they'll hardly change things if left alone (history has already proven that so many times).
Blitchung kicked out of GM
This is a terrible argument from apathy. If we're suddenly going to stop pretending to believe in Blizzard's PR spin then why bring up their rationalisations and rules to begin with? Just be honest and say that you believe corporations are an unstoppable evil that we just have to learn to accept and stop pretending there's any sort of moral reasoning behind your stance other than "might makes right".
I believe that consumers have a great deal of power over companies provided they vote with their wallet to punish bad corporate behaviour. If a company is behaving like shit, maybe stop supporting it. Just look how quickly Gillette jumped off the toxic masculinity bandwagon after their stocks tanked in the wake of one single male-bashing ad.
Hell, look how quickly Blizzard backpedalled on Blitzchung's punishment now that they're being universally condemned by western media and hearthstone players alike.
Corporations are amoral entities, that's why it's up to the consumer to reward moral businesses and punish immoral ones. Otherwise, it'll always be a race to the bottom, to the most exploitative business model they can legally get away with.
Blitchung kicked out of GM
Why? Because they broke the "rules"? Again, and for the last time, the rule they cited is a catchall clause that can be applied to literally any one of the participants in GM.
"Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image"
If i say I'm offended by Purple's constant head-scratching or the typo in Bunnyhoppor's name, that is enough to fulfil the condition of the provision, so long as I'm the person with the appropriate authority within the company. Should all of the players in GM be banned for breaking the rules?
If they really wanted to kowtow to Beijing without being transparent flaming hypocrites they should have rewritten their contracts and put out a statement explicitly telling competitors not to make political statements.
Instead they tried to pretend Blitz broke the rules, and their paper-thin attempt to justify this based on the current rules just makes them look that much worse.
They broke the same "rule", arguably more egregiously by adding "boycott blizzard" and received no punishment whatsoever.
If you say that's not relevant then you're conceding that you don't give a lick about consistent application of the rules you cite as justification.
If your actual position is that Blizzard can do whatever it wants, no matter how hypocritical and contradictory, just say that instead of citing the rules.
Except that's not the argument. You haven't even provided the argument that blitzchung did anything wrong, but even if you had made that case, obviously the reason to point out the double standard is to show that only certain people are being punished for this supposed wrongdoing, which is itself a bad thing.
Blizzard not applying its rules consistently is an argument against these rules, not in favour of the behaviour they are supposedly trying to prevent. If a corrupt cop is turning a blind eye towards certain criminals, pointing that out isn't an argument in favour of crime, it's an argument against corruption & hypocrisy.
Blitchung kicked out of GM
Well, I though that this was clear to everyone since the beginning. Every company that is quoted on the stock exchange has only one goal: profit. Eveything else is there just for the sake of marketing. If anyone belived Blizzard would uphold their "values" after the original founders (Michael Morhaime and Chris Metzen, mainly) have all left and everything has passed into Activision's hand... than I envy you because you still belive at fairytales.
Blitchung kicked out of GM
Still, Blitzchung and the two casters deserved an appropriate reaction.
The actual reaction was possibly too harsh, but asserting Blizz should have accepted passively what happened is just utterly wrong.
I don't know what happened with the US players, but it doesn't change an inch about the above.
The alleged double-standard cannot be used as an excuse for Blitzchung.
That's what i'm criticizing (assuming it is a real mindset in the community).
ThatsAdmirable Cancels BlizzCon Casting, Sottle Still On Board, American University Hearthstone Team Forfeits Matches
Blizzard is obviously operating by a PR&legal playbook. You see the same kinds of common themes in the statement by Blizzard's president and Blitzchung.
I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of (re)negotion took place and these statements by the casters (written by blizzard) are part of the deal. I don't think they really care about how transparent this all is to gamers, if you ask me the main audience for these statements is the investors.
ThatsAdmirable Cancels BlizzCon Casting, Sottle Still On Board, American University Hearthstone Team Forfeits Matches
If nothing else, I take an immense amount of schadenfreude from the fact that the stated reason for banning Blitzchung ("distracting people from the game") has backfired spectacularly, and now the twitch chat in GM is just wall-to-wall political commentary.
Singleton control dragon paladin.
What about Subdue? I found it to be a good card (not in your deck, since I lack to many of both Epics and Legendarys), and it's cheaper than big game Hunter, while also synergizing with wild Pyromancer and Shrivalla.
Blitchung kicked out of GM
If corporate decisions are dictating if/when players get punished for the same "transgressions" (and again I have to stress that Blizzard has put such a broad clause in the contract that they can ban people at their discretion), then clearly the rules aren't being applied evenly.
At that point the rules just exist to deflect legal liability, they're not a reflection of any sort of values the company pretends to uphold.
If they saw fit to ban blitzchung, they should've done the same to the US players. They didn't, so they're not enforcing their rules, which makes it perfectly reasonable to question whether this decision was made in order to comply with the rules..... or if the rules were bent over backwards to justify a corporate/political decision.
I don't see what's "condescending" about holding companies to the values they espouse and cutting through their PR doublespeak to point out hypocrisy and lies. Expecting them to apply the same standards to all players is the opposite of "unfair".
Blizzard President J. Allen Brack Issues Statement on Grandmasters China Controversy
You guys should add Blitzchung's response
https://twitter.com/blitzchungHS/status/1183023851917271040
Blitchung kicked out of GM
Even if there was side-corporate influence in the punishment, rule-breakers acted knowing their consequences, and that's it.
Pretending Blizz should have acted condescendingly, because of just cause, now that is naive. And honestly unfair.
Blizzard President J. Allen Brack Issues Statement on Grandmasters China Controversy
That's false. The changes were obviously made with chinese censorship standards in mind (no overt sexuality, blood and bodyparts). They tried to pass it off as 'making the game more child-friendly' because telling western audiences that their card game was changed to comply with chinese diktats would've gone over as well as a lead balloon.
The sad thing is that people fell for this obvious lie, as it goes to show how far the west has gone down the slippery slope of censorship and puritanism.
Blizzard President J. Allen Brack Issues Statement on Grandmasters China Controversy
The content had nothing to do with it - so a nearly identical stunt pulled by an American college should have the same penalties, then, right? Except they weren't penalized at all ...
Yeah, I call full on shenanigans with this one. Blizzard knew exactly what they were doing, and it was all about China. They are just sad about how much backlash they have gotten, and they are desperately trying to stop the bleeding.
Blizzard President J. Allen Brack Issues Statement on Grandmasters China Controversy
I would have been fine with the whole message.. if it was actually written by J. Allen Brack but further research has discovered something else.
Proper Translators figured out that it was written by a non-native English Speaker because of how the statement is structured.
Add the suspicious time it was posted (a logical time for local Chinese time) just furthermore makes this seem more and more fishy.
Adding lies to the pile of lies they have made, does not resolve the whole issue.
I'm really wondering how Blizzcon will turn out this year. If it does not boycotted.
Quest Trading - Play A Friend!
Battletag: Alex13c#2882
Region: EU
Trade Only?: Yes, you go first. I can show quest .
Tomb Invader
This is just the 'Card of Shadows' card back turned upside down. Prefer the classic ToT card back tbh.
Khadgar
Being released during a short time event, I highly doubt it that Blizzard will ever make it possible to get it again.
Wild Event
Huh, nothing to see here ^^
Legacy
I am so mad that they changed Felstalker and Queen of Pain. I really loved the art for them but the power of censorship is great, ngl.
Fleshshaper + Mutate is a problem
It's a bot, hence the link at the bottom of its post.
Just report it.
Blitchung kicked out of GM
Why didn't Blizzard ban the three US hearthstone collegiate players who held up a sign in support of Hong Kong one day after Blitzchung's banning? If this was about setting a standard that no political messages are allowed, why weren't they punished at all?
If you look at the actual PR statement by blizzard, they repeat over and over again that Blitzchung and the casters were punished for not "keep(ing) the focus on the game". https://news.blizzard.com/en-us/blizzard/23185888/regarding-last-weekend-s-hearthstone-grandmasters-tournament This is a preposterous standard to apply. If this were the line then Frodan and Amnesiac should have been yeeted a few weeks ago for discussing the player's love life: clearly of no relevance to the game.
No, no no, y'all taking an obvious lie at face value. Come now. Even if you blithely assume that you're being given the real justification, at the very least then you have to concede that the standards are NOT being applied evenly, and draw your inferences from there.
Blitchung kicked out of GM
I think that anybody can easily agree with the Hong Kong situation and the need to set things right there. Those (like myself) that have a critical eye on this "boycott Blizzard" wave are just pointing out that what Blitzchung did was simply in the wrong contest and the actions taken on him and the casters, even if harsh, are something that should have been done to keep safe the neutrality of a gaming tournament.
If literally no actions were to be taken, anybody could decide to just use the visibility offered by such a massive event to make political proclamations. How messy could that become? How enjoyable would it be for a viewer to get flooded with such statements every time?
Of course China's money had an importance at how fast and how hard Activision Blizzard acted (it will be naive to think otherwise), but enforcing a punishment on those who broke such an important thing like the neutrality of an e-sport event was the right thing to do.
Blitchung kicked out of GM
I think it's absurdly naive to take Blizzard's face-saving PR statement at face value and assume that they're JUST applying their rules and nothing more. The fact that they backpedalled on Blitchung's prize money and suspended the casters instead of firing them goes to show that the actions they took initially were not necessarily the result of following the rules to the letter.
And lets be very clear here: the "rule" that blitz violated is an extremely broad cover-your-own-ass clause which blizzard can invoke at any time to punish a player for anything. Had they so chosen they could have kicked Thijs for drawing smiley faces on oranges last week after he beat Orange. It's not a bleeding coincidence that the ONE time Blizzard comes down like a ton of bricks is when someone brings up politics in the 100 acre woods.
If you genuinely believe this had nothing to do with Chinese censorship, I have a bridge to sell you and it's got Heffalumps and Woozles and everything.
Blitchung kicked out of GM
Yep, this page, but also the articles in the news section.
Hopefully, it's just a side-effect of downvoting and/or generic misunderstanding.