Blitzchung broke the "no politics rule" and i don't need to prove it.
There is no "no politics" rule that blizzard can cite, or they would've. It's why the statement by Blizzard's president and Blitzchung both repeat the term "focus on the game" over and over again, and I've already explained at length how that standard can be applied to almost anything.
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.
The crux of the issue here is the cop's conduct, not X or Y. Whether or not blitzchung did a bad thing, and I will vehemently argue he didn't, either way blizzard's conduct is inconsistent. And the direction of the inconsistency points toward ulterior motives/corruption.
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.
If Blitzchung had come out in support of the chinese government and had been banned for that reason I'd still disagree with blizzard's decision on principle. Now I don't think for a moment that that would've happened, but I'm not averse to supporting people with opinions I disagree with when they are being wronged.
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).
The actions are exactly analogous. In both cases the players made a political statement on an official HS stream.
Brack, in his post (in the news), mentions "rules" that Blitzchung agreed to upon participation.
And inconsistency of rule application does not imply the rule is wrong, nor that ALL its applications are wrong.
Blitzchung did the right thing, but he broke the rule/principle of neutrality of the event (hence the punishment). The two things can co-exist together. No contradiction is implied.
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 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.
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.
Anyone claiming there's still corporate interests in this answer is just deluding themselves. Obviously there's corporate interests in their reaction. But it's not a conspiracy thing.
It's pretty simple, the recent actions by Blitzchung and the casters DID require some punishment, for 2 reasons:
1) rules were broken.
2) they cannot allow such a precedent: can you see all the players and casters using Blizz event for their own political agenda? Which is right? Which is wrong? Politics cannot be allowed in these events. Politics is divisive.
Hence why we can only discuss about how harsh the punishment was. Arguing anything else is pointless, and possibly silly.
In fact Jaraxxus is unplayed since i can't remember when.
Problem is he is an expensive card, gives very little Tempo swing, and its comeback power is poor.
He generates both Tempo and Value, but not in the same turn he is played, while also preventing enough survival for the turns he should provide his Tempo and Value.
I am not sure Wild Mecha'thun Warlock needs a guide, at this point in the game, since it is a kinda old deck, and everyone in Wild should know how it should be played by now.
Surely an extensive guide is always insightful, but i wouldn't bet it'd be interesting to the average OOC user.
Another story would be an extensive guide to sn1p-sn4p Warlock.
Indeed, HS is increasingly expensive, and I think it starts feeling forbidding for new players in Standard.
I am not sure what the best solution is, but probably the Classic set needs a rework, and I would be more radical than simply halving the cost.
Most of the Classic set is consistently useless in every expansion, and could easily be HoFed for good, just to clean things up.
With the exception of few cards, that should be reworked entirely, in order to give a solid option that should be always available, be it Neutral or Class (my typical example is Holy Nova, which is horribly useless, and has prompted the devs to continuously add new broken AoE to Priest through the years: just make Holy Nova a decent card!).
So, what would survive from such a process, should simply be made part of the Basic set, and call it a day. To be unlocked with Class levels (exactly as you unlock golden Basic now), so that new players have a way to be fairly competitive fast enough, through sheer farming.
At that point Standard sets can stay as expensive as they are now, generating the same revenues, while not being forbidding to newbies.
Halving the crafting cost of Wild-only cards should also be a thing, to encourage players to at least try the mode. And/or make HoF cards free for everyone.
Ah popup appeared about server maintenance planned for the 18th in EU.
Maybe it's related to the issue.
Brack, in his post (in the news), mentions "rules" that Blitzchung agreed to upon participation.
And inconsistency of rule application does not imply the rule is wrong, nor that ALL its applications are wrong.
Blitzchung did the right thing, but he broke the rule/principle of neutrality of the event (hence the punishment). The two things can co-exist together. No contradiction is implied.
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).
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).
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.
Yep, this page, but also the articles in the news section.
Hopefully, it's just a side-effect of downvoting and/or generic misunderstanding.
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 added my own comment in that thread.
Apparently, there's no way to open a ticket for such technical issues, it just tells you to go to the forums, wow...
Anyone claiming there's still corporate interests in this answer is just deluding themselves. Obviously there's corporate interests in their reaction. But it's not a conspiracy thing.
It's pretty simple, the recent actions by Blitzchung and the casters DID require some punishment, for 2 reasons:
1) rules were broken.
2) they cannot allow such a precedent: can you see all the players and casters using Blizz event for their own political agenda? Which is right? Which is wrong? Politics cannot be allowed in these events. Politics is divisive.
Hence why we can only discuss about how harsh the punishment was. Arguing anything else is pointless, and possibly silly.
Game randomly crashing on Android. Can't spot a pattern.
I don't mind Rexxar tbh. If anything, the colouring is much superior to the Basic portrait, and lines are more proportionate.
What i don't like so much is Uther: he looks less "epic" than the Basic portrait.
And Anduin's nearly identical to its Basic rendering.
Gul'dan wins my chart, but my Warlock counter is too low, and the best Warlock decks atm are not my cup of tea.
I repeat: team5 give us the legendary card of the damn Headless Horseman! (possibly viable, thank you).
Obviously the first one, unless we want to see the world from an idealistic point of view.
We also have to consider the precedent factor. Blizz must keep its neutrality at all costs.
I am not criticizing Blitzchung btw, just in case it was not clear.
I am saying the punishment is still pretty fair, for the visibility he gained, and for the high relevance of the matter he could remark.
No politics in an official gaming event. Easy rule.
Siding is always problematic, and you shouldn't really try to steer a neutral event on one side, or the other.
Or better, you can, but it is your own, personal responsibility, and you take the full consequences of your actions.
Point is, how exactly do you judge? As much as each case appears obvious to us, it isn't, especially if we detach from our western set of values.
Banned players gained a ban in exchange of visibility. It's pretty fair tbh. Revolutions are not free.
I want a fecking legendary card with the Headless Horseman.
HoFing freeze to see new freeze has barely any benefit for Standard (average quantity of playable freeze stays the same in time).
And threatens to make things increasingly worse in Wild.
New for the sake of new is just a bad policy.
Also, you HoF only staples or cards that are out of place according to class design: Frost Nova is none of that.
I doubt zephrys is the real problem.
In fact Jaraxxus is unplayed since i can't remember when.
Problem is he is an expensive card, gives very little Tempo swing, and its comeback power is poor.
He generates both Tempo and Value, but not in the same turn he is played, while also preventing enough survival for the turns he should provide his Tempo and Value.
Zephrys the Great and Sacrificial Pact are just the cherry on top of that.
Maybe a buff to 20hp could be all he needs, but risk is you make him a staple card in Standard.
Btw, you could actually turn the deck guide into a climbing and meta guide.
It would obviously start from the Mechathun perspective, but a focus on matchups and how to counter opponents would definitely be interesting.
I am not sure Wild Mecha'thun Warlock needs a guide, at this point in the game, since it is a kinda old deck, and everyone in Wild should know how it should be played by now.
Surely an extensive guide is always insightful, but i wouldn't bet it'd be interesting to the average OOC user.
Another story would be an extensive guide to sn1p-sn4p Warlock.
I may be wrong ofc.
Indeed, HS is increasingly expensive, and I think it starts feeling forbidding for new players in Standard.
I am not sure what the best solution is, but probably the Classic set needs a rework, and I would be more radical than simply halving the cost.
Most of the Classic set is consistently useless in every expansion, and could easily be HoFed for good, just to clean things up.
With the exception of few cards, that should be reworked entirely, in order to give a solid option that should be always available, be it Neutral or Class (my typical example is Holy Nova, which is horribly useless, and has prompted the devs to continuously add new broken AoE to Priest through the years: just make Holy Nova a decent card!).
So, what would survive from such a process, should simply be made part of the Basic set, and call it a day. To be unlocked with Class levels (exactly as you unlock golden Basic now), so that new players have a way to be fairly competitive fast enough, through sheer farming.
At that point Standard sets can stay as expensive as they are now, generating the same revenues, while not being forbidding to newbies.
Halving the crafting cost of Wild-only cards should also be a thing, to encourage players to at least try the mode. And/or make HoF cards free for everyone.