Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

[ray245]

Blizzard won't do anything about people using slurs in chat but will in this case? Please.

Probably because Blizzard sees their profitability will be less affected if already marginalised people are turned off from their games compared to losing access to the Chinese market.

[Broomstick]

I'm conflicted. The rules DO state that certain speech is not acceptable but at the same time the cause is a noble one. It's thorny

Blizzard won't do anything about people using slurs in chat but will in this case? Please.

Of course not - because slurs uttered (or typed) in chat won't affect their bottom line. The "slur" in the OP, however, very much could.

I don't hate Blizzard, but then, I never had any illusions that they were anything other than a company established to provide entertainment at a profit. I don't expect them to behave any differently than any other capitalistic corporation.

[Ziggy Stardust]

You do realise that China hasn't had to do anything in HK yet right? Please tell me you know HK and Macau has the most autonomy of Chinese regions and China hasn't had to let the troops leave their barracks right. Those cases of police defending themselves, are the HK police. See what I mean about ignorant. What has China done now aside from say some bad words to the rioters, er I mean freedom fighters.

I don't really want to get into a whole "thing" here, but why is the only qualification for China doing anything "sending the army in"? That seems like a frightfully naive viewpoint. As is acting like Hong Kong is so autonomous that the police and governing authorities of it aren't acting as proxies of the central Chinese government anyway. Regardless of what you think of what is going on in Hong Kong (I don't really feel like getting into an argument about that), it's rather ludicrous on its face to act like China is literally doing NOTHING (especially given this particular government's very well documented history of overreacting to basically any perceived threat or insult).

[Highlord Laan]

Fuck off and burn, you bootlicking, wet-fascist-asshole suckling little shit.

If he'd stood up and shouted "there is one china!" nothing would have come of it, since the only people offended would be people shareholders don't about while pathetic diarrhea squirts like ralin and kotik (lower case intentional) applauded.

As America's own President George W Bush once said, there ought to be limitations on freedoms. Like America, China's constitution upholds the right to freedom of speech. But no right is absolute, and if the governments of America and other so-called Western countries refuse to act responsibly by curbing harmful speech and other propaganda that threatens the rights and feelings of the Chinese people the Chinese government should and will take action to protect their sovereignty and uphold the public's well-being.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/opin ... -kong.html

The days when you are free to say things like this in public, online or otherwise, are coming to an end.

Fuck off, burn and die you fascist subhuman.

Or just drag your worthless sympathizing ass to your proper homeland. You'll fit right in. Now go crawling to your masters, scum.

[Zinegata]

I don't really want to get into a whole "thing" here, but why is the only qualification for China doing anything "sending the army in"? That seems like a frightfully naive viewpoint. As is acting like Hong Kong is so autonomous that the police and governing authorities of it aren't acting as proxies of the central Chinese government anyway. Regardless of what you think of what is going on in Hong Kong (I don't really feel like getting into an argument about that), it's rather ludicrous on its face to act like China is literally doing NOTHING (especially given this particular government's very well documented history of overreacting to basically any perceived threat or insult).

Because like 99% of Westerners you have no clue how the CCP actually works. China is actually a very decentralized country, with substantial local independence. That's why One Country Two Systems was very easy for them to implement.

The problem that you're not recognizing - along with literally 99% of the Western world - is that Hong Kong was never a democracy. It was always a autocratic money laundering outpost for an imperial master. The corporations which dominate Hong Kong basically choose who leads the territory based on a farcical "election" process. That's also why the transition from being a British colony to a Chinese special economic zone had involved so little drama. The HK elites simply stopped reporting to London, and instead started reporting to Beijing. Similarly, the police force was never some pro-democracy force that was directed by Beijing to start beating up protesters. The police had instead always been heavily linked to the Triad, acting as brutish enforcers.

Moreover, that you think Beijing will send tanks to quell the protests is frankly a very outdated view of how the CCP suppresses dissent. They won't send in the army or any tanks. They will instead very publically start dismantling the old HK elite as part of an "anti-corruption" drive, pour money to bring relief to those with actual economic problems, while privately and quietly getting rid of all the leaders of the "protests" who refuse to be satisfied by the work done. That's their standard playbook in the provinces to begin with - and it's one that has been extremely successful because it actually works for the most part.

Problem is, everyone keeps thinking that Chinese "repression" is more akin to what's happening in Xinjiang or what happened in Tiananmen, because the West's perception of China never outgrew its bigoted Cold War roots. In reality they already figured out that a heavy hand everywhere is counter-productive, and that the leaders closest to the problem *should* have the best idea of how to fix them. If said local leaders prove to be fuck-ups however - as is the case in HK - then Beijing pretty much shows them no mercy; in part to show "the people" that Beijing is looking out for them and not just some narrow elite.

[Tiriol]

I don't really want to get into a whole "thing" here, but why is the only qualification for China doing anything "sending the army in"? That seems like a frightfully naive viewpoint. As is acting like Hong Kong is so autonomous that the police and governing authorities of it aren't acting as proxies of the central Chinese government anyway. Regardless of what you think of what is going on in Hong Kong (I don't really feel like getting into an argument about that), it's rather ludicrous on its face to act like China is literally doing NOTHING (especially given this particular government's very well documented history of overreacting to basically any perceived threat or insult).

Because like 99% of Westerners you have no clue how the CCP actually works. China is actually a very decentralized country, with substantial local independence. That's why One Country Two Systems was very easy for them to implement.

The problem that you're not recognizing - along with literally 99% of the Western world - is that Hong Kong was never a democracy. It was always a autocratic money laundering outpost for an imperial master. The corporations which dominate Hong Kong basically choose who leads the territory based on a farcical "election" process. That's also why the transition from being a British colony to a Chinese special economic zone had involved so little drama. The HK elites simply stopped reporting to London, and instead started reporting to Beijing. Similarly, the police force was never some pro-democracy force that was directed by Beijing to start beating up protesters. The police had instead always been heavily linked to the Triad, acting as brutish enforcers.

Moreover, that you think Beijing will send tanks to quell the protests is frankly a very outdated view of how the CCP suppresses dissent. They won't send in the army or any tanks. They will instead very publically start dismantling the old HK elite as part of an "anti-corruption" drive, pour money to bring relief to those with actual economic problems, while privately and quietly getting rid of all the leaders of the "protests" who refuse to be satisfied by the work done. That's their standard playbook in the provinces to begin with - and it's one that has been extremely successful because it actually works for the most part.

Problem is, everyone keeps thinking that Chinese "repression" is more akin to what's happening in Xinjiang or what happened in Tiananmen, because the West's perception of China never outgrew its bigoted Cold War roots. In reality they already figured out that a heavy hand everywhere is counter-productive, and that the leaders closest to the problem *should* have the best idea of how to fix them. If said local leaders prove to be fuck-ups however - as is the case in HK - then Beijing pretty much shows them no mercy; in part to show "the people" that Beijing is looking out for them and not just some narrow elite.

Yeaaah... and how's that working out for Hong Kong right now, ths vaunted "China's really not bad, and BRITISH EMPIRE BAD, *I'm a smarmy asshole*? don't pay attention to the actual citizens protesting in millions" approach?

I don't give a flying fuck about this endless parade of whataboutism morons or "West is just bigoted against China!" claims. Same kind of arguments are used to justify modern Russian imperialism and same kind of idiocy has given rise to Far Right autocrats and Far Right populism across the globe. Blizzard has gone all stupid with this censorship and now it has royally exploded to their face with God alone knows how many people terminating (or at least TRYING to terminate; at this point it seems Blizzard has removed the deletion option entirely and even has the utter gall to demand ID PROOF, which still doesn't work) their Battlenet accounts. I hope their bottom line falls so far that an old Scrooge McDuck comic where the revenue line goes either through a hole in a ground becomes reality for them.

[Zinegata]

Yeaaah... and how's that working out for Hong Kong right now, ths vaunted "China's really not bad, and BRITISH EMPIRE BAD, *I'm a smarmy asshole*? don't pay attention to the actual citizens protesting in millions" approach?

You do realize that it was the Hong Kong local government that proposed the law that caused the protests to begin with, yes?

So what does the British have to do with any of this, other than the HK local government being consistently a bunch of suck-ups trying to impress their imperial masters?

I don't give a flying fuck about this endless parade of whataboutism morons or "West is just bigoted against China!" claims. Same kind of arguments are used to justify modern Russian imperialism and same kind of idiocy has given rise to Far Right autocrats and Far Right populism across the globe. Blizzard has gone all stupid with this censorship and now it has royally exploded to their face with God alone knows how many people terminating (or at least TRYING to terminate; at this point it seems Blizzard has removed the deletion option entirely and even has the utter gall to demand ID PROOF, which still doesn't work) their Battlenet accounts. I hope their bottom line falls so far that an old Scrooge McDuck comic where the revenue line goes either through a hole in a ground becomes reality for them.

You don't give a flying fuck because you're a bigot. "Whataboutism" is in fact the argument of bigots, invented by insecure Americans trying to hide all the ugly realities of their country by insisting other countries must somehow be worst.

[Xisiqomelir]

They are really taking it up the ass in social media now, and deservedly so.

#boycottblizzard is enormous on Twitter at the moment.

[mr friendly guy]

Is it ok for Blizzard to withhold all winnings from that player due to an overbroad Morality Clause? But I doubt that's really your point, which I don't have all that big an issue with.

You're right, my points made isn't so much related to this.

But I'm loving this fucking "whatabout"-ism shit going on here. "BUT WHAT ABOUT <who gives a fuck>" because it's genius. The same genius conservatives are using right now to defend Trump or really all manner of shitty things. Accountability starts somewhere. Blizzard is a major player in the market with a base that has a lot of respect for them as a company. A base that maybe isn't as good and moral as you think they should be for not dieing on every sword for every injustice out there. But hey, "all or nothing" right?

When did I give an indication I think Blizzard's base is as you describe "dying on every sword for every injustice out there." Are you referring to what I think of TRR. I don't know enough about him to think he is part of Blizzard's base.

Jesus, I'm having flashbacks to those fatnerds bashing Greta for that pic with bananas: "ZOMG THE CARBONFOOTPRINT OF THOSE. Hypocrisy! She must be totally wrong about everything."But hey, continue to just trash TRR here and defend a company that allows players to be banned for being trolled into saying Winnie the Pooh, permanently, while a slur riddled rant about Jews in WoW trade chat would be lucky to get you a 3-day.

Which I don't give a fuck about. I do however see you as the one shitting up the thread with a TRR vendetta attacking his hypocrisy vs his argument (which he really didn't have, he was just pointing something out) and you using it as a stump to rant about random bullshit.

You seem to be confused with defending the right to do something with the action itself. I don't recall defending or attacking Blizzard for what they did. In fact I did point out the limited ban on playing at Blizzard games for racial slurs was quite light compared to what is done in my own country in non E-sports, like last year.
https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... t-52750354

Which makes it a bit hard to construe me as a "defender" of Blizzard. But whatever.

As my debate with TRR, he did follow up with arguments afterwards, and if your point is that we criticise the arguments, then I did that when he clarified his position. I supposed it could be seen as a vendetta, although that was not my intent, but his holier than thou attitude was grating on my nerves.

[Mr Bean]

Can we tack back around from the racism and calls of racism back to what happened?


1. Hearthstone Grand Champion Ng Wai Chung during post game interview puts on mask in style of Hong Kong Protestors and says "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our age"

2. His two interviews seem very unconformable with this and after his statement they cut away

3. Blizzard deciding to throw down the hammer sighting a vague provision in their contract calling Ng Wai Chung's speech immoral to suspend him for one year and make him forfeit his prize money

Code: Select all

2019 HEARTHSTONE® GRANDMASTERS OFFICIAL COMPETITION RULES v1.4   p.12, Section 6.1 (o)

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 will result in removal from Grandmasters and reduction of the player’s prize total to $0 USD, in addition to other remedies which may be provided for under the Handbook and Blizzard’s Website Terms. 

4. Ng Wai Chung seems to accept this but the public at wide does not

5. Cue the last 48 hours of out rage, the calls from multiple Senators and some EU politicos and the boycott Blizzard situation

6. China mad that they did not go far enough pushes back

The current shit show where Blizzard is getting attacked from the American and other nations for bowing down to Chinese pressure and from China it seems the reaction is not going to be any better to Activision their parent company

[TheFeniX]

3. Blizzard deciding to throw down the hammer sighting a vague provision in their contract calling Ng Wai Chung's speech immoral to suspend him for one year and make him forfeit his prize money

The "best" part was them shittcanning the casters who were hiding under their desks when the kid went on his spiel. They blasted off and nuked the site from orbit and Winnie the Pooh still wants more blood. I guess they want Blizzard to smack the charred corpses around a bit or something.

I don't know how or if you even can inline twitter vids. Here's the link: https://twitter.com/InvenGlobal/status/ ... 2396710912 .I should care more about how Blizzard treats their athletes, but them just burning the whole thing to the ground in response shows they'll go to any length in their bid to give China the best handjob.

EDIT: I want to point out that, to me, them immediately going overboard and firing the interviewers who had nothing to do with it SHOWS they already know how China operates and were hoping the first overreaction would be enough to appease them. /Edit

And not that I hadn't given up on Blizzard years ago (as anyone with brain cells to run together should have) as capable of being decent: if you were a fan, someone who helped build them into the megalith they are, and then they suddenly say "thanks for all the money guys, but these OTHER people represent a bigger potential market, so we'll make sure to bow to them:" I can see how people are pissed.

But honestly, Actishit can just move their entire operation to China and fuck off for all I care. They're bringing nothing good to the medium. They can take EA and Ubisoft with them as well as they skip down the yellow brick road to Hell.

As my debate with TRR, he did follow up with arguments afterwards, and if your point is that we criticise the arguments, then I did that when he clarified his position. I supposed it could be seen as a vendetta, although that was not my intent, but his holier than thou attitude was grating on my nerves.

In retrospect, and on a slower re-read (because there's obviously some history there I'm not aware of), you weren't exactly poking TRR for a reaction. I applied the issues I have with your later posts to the former ones. I apologize for that.

That said, you're still working with a lot of whataboutism, rather than just demolishing TRRs argument and moving on. To each his own.

[Gandalf]

How much of this has come from the PRC as opposed to Blizzard trying to avoid what happened with the NBA?

[mr friendly guy]

How much of this has come from the PRC as opposed to Blizzard trying to avoid what happened with the NBA?

Last year Valve ban a player for using a slur against Chinese people after outrage and boycott by Chinese gamers.
https://www.scmp.com/tech/apps-social/a ... nned-major

I would say the gaming community would not be unaware of this incident and I suspect Blizzard would have wanted to do the same irregardless of the NBA incident.

[TheFeniX]

I have few issues with valve banning a player for overt racism (seriously: "ching chong" was a slur against Chinese even when I was a sprat) versus "I support an issue." Imagine the immediate reaction if he was dropping N-bombs.

And I can even, kind of, if I'm drunk, (if I gave a shit about game companies that shill sex and violence talking about "morality*"), support so called "morality clauses" for athletes. But Blizzard freaking out and canning the interviewers, literal bystanders in the fight, out of fear of losing Chinese monies? To me, that's a bit different than valve (admittedly, AFTER dragging their feet) banning someone for racism.

*Remember when Rockstar had the gall to claim Hatred was glorifying violence? Fucking Rockstar Games.

[Xisiqomelir]

How much of this has come from the PRC as opposed to Blizzard trying to avoid what happened with the NBA?

Excellent question. I'm pretty sure e-sports are still piddly compared to basketball, and I'm sure this was internal Blizzard nonsense, initially anyway.

The Party is definitely aware of it now though, and will surely take a keen interest if they walk back the ban or caster punishments. Impressive how Blizzard has created both the rock and the hard place and managed to stick their cock in-between them.

BlizzCon is less than 3 weeks away, I look forward to some spicy bullshit at audience Q&A time.

[TheFeniX]

Excellent question. I'm pretty sure e-sports are still piddly compared to basketball, and I'm sure this was internal Blizzard nonsense, initially anyway.

Uh..... there is a truckload of money and viewership concerning just League of Legends alone. I'm pretty sure e-sports, as a whole mind you, is kicking the shit out of everything sports related except handegg when it comes to both revenue and viewers.

BlizzCon is less than 3 weeks away, I look forward to some spicy bullshit at audience Q&A time.

Blizzard is likely already on high alert after getting BTFO out by "is this an April Fools joke?" guy concerning Diablo Mobile. I find it highly unlikely they will allow anything but canned questions this time around.

Sidenote: I fucking love the concept of BlizzCon. Literally, rubes paying money to get advertisements blown up their ass. It's like paying a cover-charge to enter a McDonalds.

[Straha]

Excellent question. I'm pretty sure e-sports are still piddly compared to basketball, and I'm sure this was internal Blizzard nonsense, initially anyway.

Uh..... there is a truckload of money and viewership concerning just League of Legends alone. I'm pretty sure e-sports, as a whole mind you, is kicking the shit out of everything sports related except handegg when it comes to both revenue and viewers.

The most commonly cited report about eSports, which is sketchy and inflated, estimates global eSports Revenue as about $1 Billion USD across all games this year. The MLB itself, not counting teams, makes $10 Billion a year, the Oakland A's makes $218 Million a year by themselves and are worth upwards of $1 Billion. The NBA makes $7 Billion in Revenue a year and every team is worth over a Billion. NHL Revenue (again, league revenue) is almost $5 Billion Dollars. The NFL is $25 Billion. NASCAR Tracks, just the tracks not including the league or individual teams, made about $1.1 Billion in Revenue last year.


I'm not going to go too deep into viewership because the viewership figures for most eSports events are unverified but for a 'global' sport the numbers are pretty piddling. The recent LoL championship was originally claimed to have 200 Million viewers, something that Riot then pushed down to just under 100 Million unique viewers without verification or clarification as to what or who counts (for instance, how long a viewer has to watch to be tallied and if having a streaming box open as an ad or on a landing page counts). By contrast the recent ICC Cricket World Cup had 706 Million Unique viewers. Formula One claims about 500 Million unique viewers over the season with ~100 Million watching most races (events which are under two hours and which are often at deeply inconvenient times for significant portions of the fandom). I'd keep going 'down' the list but by the point we get to active comparisons that are in the same ballpark in terms of viewership draw we're talking about regional sports, like national soccer leagues, and A. even most of those 'kick the shit' out of eSports and B. then it becomes a question of separating local audience from global drawing power which raises other thorny issues of comparison (none of which make it any better for eSports).

All of which is to say that while eSports may be 'booming' it's still a very niche activity contextual to what is around it and is chump change compared to most mid-tier to minor global competitive activities.

[Straha]

I should clarify: When I talk about the league revenues above I'm talking about the revenue that the league offices generate, and not the collective revenue of every participant in the league. Including that pushes all of the figures _much_ higher.

[Elheru Aran]

I should clarify: When I talk about the league revenues above I'm talking about the revenue that the league offices generate, and not the collective revenue of every participant in the league. Including that pushes all of the figures _much_ higher.

So esports aren't some kind of massive world dominating spectacle. Does that really excuse Blizzard's actions in this case?

[Straha]

I should clarify: When I talk about the league revenues above I'm talking about the revenue that the league offices generate, and not the collective revenue of every participant in the league. Including that pushes all of the figures _much_ higher.

So esports aren't some kind of massive world dominating spectacle. Does that really excuse Blizzard's actions in this case?

Not the argument being made. This is an aside about whether or not eSports is 'kicking the shit' out of other sports (as stated by Fenix) and a useful contextualization for what's going on with Blizzard viz-a-viz the NBA, and nothing more.

[SolarpunkFan]

Between this, the NBA thing and the Apple thing, I wonder if democracy might not have a bright future.

I'm not saying that democracy is going to vanish everywhere, but it might only play second fiddle in the future.

Like I said, I don't know why I'm even worried about that (maybe just plain old lizard-brain tribalism), but there you go.

(Apologies if this is too off topic)

[Ralin]

How much of this has come from the PRC as opposed to Blizzard trying to avoid what happened with the NBA?

I don't think you can draw a hard line between the two because I'm pretty sure the point to what happened with the NBA and other companies was to set a precedent for what happens if a company publicly speaks against China's interests or hurts the feelings of the Chinese people. I've seen posters online try to dismiss the Chinese government's reactions to things like this as 'tantrums' or some such, but in practice the stronger the negative reaction to slights the more companies that do business with China will be taught to self-censor themselves to avoid being punished in the future.

Between this, the NBA thing and the Apple thing, I wonder if democracy might not have a bright future.

I'm not saying that democracy is going to vanish everywhere, but it might only play second fiddle in the future.

Like I said, I don't know why I'm even worried about that (maybe just plain old lizard-brain tribalism), but there you go.

Maybe you should reexamine your own preconceptions, because you are implicitly saying that it's somehow undemocratic for companies to value their Chinese customers as much or even more so than their customers in America or elsewhere. Were you saying this when companies were changing their policies towards gay couples and firing employees for homophobic statements and opinions to avoid boycotts and cater to people who support gay rights? No? Then why is this where you draw the line?

[SolarpunkFan]

Then why is this where you draw the line?

How the hell should I know? Nothing makes sense to me anymore, not even myself.

[mr friendly guy]

Maybe you should reexamine your own preconceptions, because you are implicitly saying that it's somehow undemocratic for companies to value their Chinese customers as much or even more so than their customers in America or elsewhere. Were you saying this when companies were changing their policies towards gay couples and firing employees for homophobic statements and opinions to avoid boycotts and cater to people who support gay rights? No? Then why is this where you draw the line?

I always found this attitude funny. Someone, lets face it, its a westerner, will say, I want to boycott China over <issue x> until they change their view on <issue x> and I am going to try get my government to also do something about China to help that happens . If China doesn't like it, tough, its free speech wah wah wah. A concept China doesn't understand.

But if a Chinese citizen, says, I want to boycott western company over <issue y> until they change their views on it, and the Chinese government is going to notice our displeasure and going to act in ways we like because (frankly it gets them cheap political capital and its not threatening their rule), why... then its suppression of free speech and democracy according to some people.

I mean they can't have it both ways. If you think its better for China to have democracy and freedom of speech, a good place to start is not to be hypocritical if they use it to say something you don't like. I sometimes wonder if its because in these cases, it the Western side that blinked first before China did.

[ray245]

Maybe you should reexamine your own preconceptions, because you are implicitly saying that it's somehow undemocratic for companies to value their Chinese customers as much or even more so than their customers in America or elsewhere. Were you saying this when companies were changing their policies towards gay couples and firing employees for homophobic statements and opinions to avoid boycotts and cater to people who support gay rights? No? Then why is this where you draw the line?

I always found this attitude funny. Someone, lets face it, its a westerner, will say, I want to boycott China over <issue x> until they change their view on <issue x> and I am going to try get my government to also do something about China to help that happens . If China doesn't like it, tough, its free speech wah wah wah. A concept China doesn't understand.

But if a Chinese citizen, says, I want to boycott western company over <issue y> until they change their views on it, and the Chinese government is going to notice our displeasure and going to act in ways we like because (frankly it gets them cheap political capital and its not threatening their rule), why... then its suppression of free speech and democracy according to some people.

I mean they can't have it both ways. If you think its better for China to have democracy and freedom of speech, a good place to start is not to be hypocritical if they use it to say something you don't like. I sometimes wonder if its because in these cases, it the Western side that blinked first before China did.

I would like to point out this becomes an issue if the right to freedom of speech ends up suppressing the right of others.