Why have courts?

[Alael-madoran (Alael)]

We have courts on the forums:

[Timat-emerald-dream]

@Jalanili-moon-guard

wanting to give them like, rights, and money, and jobs without discrimination, and healthcare, and equality,

Thats all well and good but if you do it in a way that encourages them to not work and live off the pittance of welfare while doing JUST enough to keep getting that government check that does more harm than good.

@Jalanili-moon-guard

Meanwhile, in 2005, the RNC Chairman apologized to the NAACP on behalf of the party for exploiting racial polarization to win elections, so it sounds like generally Republicans get that the Southern Strategy was a thing too.

Because Republicans are incapable of doing and saying stupid things? They arent and are just as able to be dumbasses as Dems are

@Jalanili-moon-guard

The good people at Wikipedia have been kind enough to compile tons of studies, sources and historical information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy but I’m sure you’ve got some counter-links to infamously well-researched journals not at all based in opinion that write based on facts and not “things that everyone knows” so I’ll just leave you to it. I’ve said what I wanted to say on the subject.

I do but the issue is that people simply say “they are biased” and then dismiss them.

For example take a person like Ben Shapiro (popular conservative as of late it seems)

People think that because he is a conservative that anything he says is automatically racist and incorrect. So even if he does have good points, cites his sources, and makes good arguments it all goes over their heads…because he cant be trusts since he is a conservative.

This dispite the fact that many sources claimed by Dems are left leaning sources…they just dont admit they are left leaning and thus have the illusion of “unbiased trustworthy people”

So it makes having these kinds of discussions difficult.

[Lienthras-zuljin (Lienthras)]

@Timat-emerald-dream

I dont believe I said they have committed a crime. I said they could possibly be lying or exaggerating.

To you, “Innocent until proven guilty” means we can’t assume the guilt or malfeasance of someone until proven, yes?

So if that is true, then it looks hypocritical to me to usie that phrase as a shield while also proposing alternatives that presume the guilt of others. It’s a different standard.

(Of course, “innocent until proven guilty” is really the standard of judicial procedure in our country ie that courts presume innocence until someone is actually convicted, not a shield from negative public opinion)

@Timat-emerald-dream

COULD be…not ARE but COULD be.

Or maybe Bigfoot and the Yakuza teamed up, built an army of cyborgs, had the cyborgs infiltrate Blizzard, who then convinced Ion to implement the Mythic+ system, they gained sentience, started a Yakuza Cyborg Bigfoot War, then—

Just because something could happen does not mean it did happen, or that we should treat all possibilities as equally viable.

Here is the evidence for Blizzards malfeasance:

1. the State of California is pressing charges, which circumstantial indicates they think they have a strong case
2. If the statements the SoC made do not have evidence, then this will get a lot of people in trouble. Ergo it’s very likely they do have evidence

Is there evidence the victims are making it up? No. Maybe it’ll come out. But right now, it’s looking pretty bad for Blizzard.

Anyway we’re going around in circles. I’ve said my piece, have a nice day.

[Timat-emerald-dream]

@Alzaar-illidan

PR-speak from C-levels trying to protect their stream of millions is more relevant than first-hand accounts from past & present employees and the fact that in over 3 dozen public statements from them not a single one has called anything out as being wrong.

I dont think they are more relevant…I think they are the same relevancy in the since that the accusers and the accused both have the right to be heard and have their statements taken seriously.

@Alzaar-illidan

It’s pretty hilarious, you’re like a Fox teleprompter.

How so? When did thinking that both sides of an accusation have the right to be heard and considered become a “Fox Teleprompter” idea?

@Novik-westfall

Due to the 1st amendment we can state our opinion on this case and there is nothing you can do about it.

I know…I…have said that.

So…yea…high five?

[Xethorsiph-kelthuzad (Xethorsiph)]

@Timat-emerald-dream

I dont get why people rush to judgement and automatically label Bliz as guilty and horrible.

Because individuals are not courts. We can, at any point, examine the available evidence to reach our own conclusion, and we can change that conclusion at a later date. We are thus free to react in the moment, and adjust as more evidence comes into focus.

Right now, there is enough evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that Blizzard is no longer worth their patronage.

[Eezo-stormrage]

@Timat-emerald-dream

Forum Moderator Note: Removed comment in violation of the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity clause of the Code of Conduct .

… They exist? What the actual crap are they doing the rest of the time these forums are a dumpster fire? Or did this finally get ‘delegated’ like apparently everything else does at the company?

[Waidmann-gilneas (Waidmann)]

@Timat-emerald-dream

No at the moment its

“Cali said these people said”

Now we get to hear what Bliz says…thats how it works.

What the State of California did was the equivalent of a Grand Jury investigation. Where they gathered up evidence via witness testimony and reviews of Blizzards records. They found that there was enough evidence to move forward and bring the case to trial .

THis isn’t just about what people said to California , this is also about California going into Blizz and investigating documents.

[Timat-emerald-dream]

@Lienthras-zuljin

To you, “Innocent until proven guilty” means we can’t assume the guilt or malfeasance of someone until proven, yes?

So if that is true, then it looks hypocritical to me to usie that phrase as a shield while also proposing alternatives that presume the guilt of others. It’s a different standard.

Its not hypocritical though…

Maybe I should rephrase it this way for you.

“People have accused Blizzard of wrong doing. Before I make a judgement based on their accusation I would like to see how Blizzard defends itself”

Does that sit better with you?

@Lienthras-zuljin

Just because something could happen does not mean it did happen, or that we should treat all possibilities as equally viable.

Right…just because they COULD be telling the truth doesn’t mean they DID tell the truth.

@Lienthras-zuljin

Is there evidence the victims are making it up? No. Maybe it’ll come out. But right now, it’s looking pretty bad for Blizzard.

THIS

THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

There is no evidence they are lying because this just came out today. But it is possible that evidence could be presented that changes that in some way. However right now having heard half of the story it does look pretty bad for Bliz.

We freaking agree on that because that is WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING SHOULD BE THE MINDSET ALL ALONG.

[Reshyk-cenarion-circle (Reshyk)]

@Lienthras-zuljin

Here is the evidence for Blizzards malfeasance:

1. the State of California is pressing charges, which circumstantial indicates they think they have a strong case
2. If the statements the SoC made do not have evidence, then this will get a lot of people in trouble. Ergo it’s very likely they do have evidence

I agree with your post in spirit but I do take issue with this bit right here. That seems like circular reasoning to me and to follow down this road would lead us to the conclusion that anything and everything that the SoC accuses a person of, they must be guilty of. If that’s the case then it goes back to the question posed in the thread title, why have courts? It would imply that everything following a complaint is just theatre with a predetermined outcome.

I give this allegation more weight than most. But the mere presence of an allegation isn’t evidence of anything. The allegation itself offers numerous examples of real evidence that we don’t need to go to this authoritarian well.

[Jalanili-moon-guard]

@Timat-emerald-dream

For example take a person like Ben Shapiro (popular conservative as of late it seems)

People think that because he is a conservative that anything he says is automatically racist and incorrect.

It’s not necessarily that Ben Shapiro is always wrong, it’s that he, as someone who offers pure opinion takes, is a poor counter to actual facts on a site like Wikipedia.

It’s like if you started talking about the Civil War, and I started talking about what Rachel Maddow thought of race relations - Rachel Maddow is an opinion broadcaster. Bringing up her opinion doesn’t really counter historical fact.

If you’re going to say that things happened in history, the proof that you show of that is from sites that compile facts and cite historical events, not thinkpieces by people who offer opinions.

[Yucafrita-moon-guard]

If blizzard were to organize a disinformation campaign to attempt to influence the courts by swaying public opinion, that would be taken as intended legal interference.

[Reshyk-cenarion-circle (Reshyk)]

@Jalanili-moon-guard

If you’re going to say that things happened in history, the proof that you show of that is from sites that compile facts and cite historical events

I prefer scrolling down to the sources part of the wikipedia page and using the actual source. Wikipedia is well-curated enough that falling victim to vandalism is rare, but I do think it’s good to eliminate as many degrees of separation from the original source as possible. Same thing with opinion broadcasters. If they offer a statement beyond their opinion, it’s better to have some sort of source behind it that you can verify yourself. Some broadcasters are better at supplying those sources than others but it’s the same principle, remove as many degrees of separation as you can.

[Reull-remulos]

@Timat-emerald-dream

Accusations of sexual harassment coming from women should be believed regardless of evidence or getting a response from the other side because sexual harassment is so bad no one would possibly make it up”

Noone with an ounce of sense says that. I’m a woman and I dont say that. You are generalising and painting a bad picture of opinions. We are all entitled to opinions; some are good, some are not so good and often people speak from emotion rather than intellect, especially if they have been the target of harassment.

In my long working and private life I have been in that position, though not on what I would call a really serious level. I’ve had things said to me on my walk home from work that no man of any level of decency would say to a woman. I’ve been shall we say ‘physically interacted with’ in a way that I did not seek and did not want. I suspect that the number of women who have never experienced such things over their lives is very small. So yes, that can influence your opinion and it’s hard for it not to. But we can still stand above it and say that bad things happen, and if indeed they did in this matter then hopefully those responsible will be brought to a proper judgment.

[Timat-emerald-dream]

@Jalanili-moon-guard

It’s not necessarily that Ben Shapiro is always wrong, it’s that he, as someone who offers pure opinion takes, is a poor counter to actual facts on a site like Wikipedia.

I mean I hate to break it to ya but even the founder of Wikipedia says it is a poor spot for factual evidence.

But again why is it ok for some random journal to site a fact from history but when someone like Shapiro or Maddow cite a fact from history its wrong?

I agree they are opinion based…but they usually base those opinions on facts…which they cite.

@Jalanili-moon-guard

If you’re going to say that things happened in history, the proof that you show of that is from sites that compile facts and cite historical events, not thinkpieces by people who offer opinions.

Wikipeida has been proven time and again to be unreliable and even the sources that people cite in it are questionable at times. Especially on charged political issues where people with a lot of time and a driven opinion can change what is accepted and not accepts as “factual cites” on Wikipedia.

[Alzaar-illidan]

@Timat-emerald-dream

I dont think they are more relevant…I think they are the same relevancy in the since that the accusers and the accused both have the right to be heard and have their statements taken seriously.

And yet in this entire thread you’ve been going off about how those that’ve spoken out might be lying and that shouldn’t factor into public opinion. Funny how your idea of innocent till proven guilty only applies for the mega-corp but the individuals? nawh they probably perjured themselves in some grand scheme to attack Blizzard.

You’re trying to argue things that Blizzard has already conceded as truth. Their own statement admits that their company at least at some point created such culture. They’re fighting back against the belief that the findings of the investigation shouldn’t have been released, that their company had no effect on someone taking their life, and a rant with a bunch of Trumpian buzzwords thrown in about how evil the state of California is.

So at the end of this all, it comes down to if anyone believes the PR speak that the company has actually changed, or if they believe from the load of crap we’ve heard in the last few years that the status quo has remained? We’re not in a court, we’re not involved in any legal process. We’re free to make any judgements based on whatever information is available. And for a whole lot of folks, more than enough information is available to complete turn on a company that has already long since burned up all its consumer goodwill.

[Jalanili-moon-guard]

@Timat-emerald-dream

I mean I hate to break it to ya but even the founder of Wikipedia says it is a poor spot for factual evidence.

Obviously it’s not perfect, nothing ever could be. But there’s approximately a billion citations listed on that particular article, all of which can be referenced directly, as Reshyk mentioned.

Opinion piece authors might mention history, but they rarely cite and actually dig up a source for it.

[Ridiculous-illidan]

You don’t understand how courts work, that’s cool…but just cause you don’t understand something doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed to have opinions or talk about a subject.

Thanks for coming to my TEDtalk

[Timat-emerald-dream]

@Alzaar-illidan

And yet in this entire thread you’ve been going off about how those that’ve spoken out might be lying and that shouldn’t factor into public opinion

Again this is false.

They might be lying

or they might not be

You have to at this point believe that both are POSSIBLE

Because of that before jumping to conclusions I think it is prudent to hear what Bliz has to say when they make a formal defense for themselves and THEN decided who and what is a lie.

Why is that bad?

@Alzaar-illidan

and a rant with a bunch of Trumpian buzzwords thrown in about how evil the state of California is.

See I think you are coming from a position not of

“What is the truth in this matter”

but of

“How can I use this to further my political feelings/thoughts/ideals”

Because you keep saying “Trumpian” even though this is literally nothing to do with Trump…the only one brining him up is you.

@Alzaar-illidan

We’re not in a court, we’re not involved in any legal process. We’re free to make any judgements based on whatever information is available.

I know…I said as much.

I am simply stating my I feel my idea of holding major judgment calls and unsubbing from everything Bliz and Acti related until we get the whole picture from both sides is perhaps a better way of things.

I have said many times that if you want to cut ties right here right now then go for it.

@Alzaar-illidan

And for a whole lot of folks, more than enough information is available to complete turn on a company that has already long since burned up all its consumer goodwill.

I will be interested to see this. Bliz has been seemingly losing a lot to FF14 lately so we will see if this is any more of a hit to them. However I feel that in the end this will be settled and forgotten and most who are on here and are passionate about how evil Bliz is because of this will still be playing.

[Azuremi-proudmoore (Azuremi)]

In the court of public opinion they have already lost.

[Timat-emerald-dream]

@Jalanili-moon-guard

Obviously it’s not perfect, nothing ever could be. But there’s approximately a billion citations listed on that particular article, all of which can be referenced directly, as Reshyk mentioned.

Right but thats no different than claiming that say

“Big foot exists here are 10,000 accounts that say so, unless you debunk every one of them then its true”

Which is what basically Wikipedia is…a bunch of people say things and the things that get said the most get posted.

For basic info its actually not bad.

For divisive topics like politics not so much.

Also I believe that opinion people like Shapiro and Maddow cite the sources of their arguments quite a bit. There are some opinion people who dont I agree but Shapiro is usually pretty good about doing so. I dont watch Maddow as much as I used to, but I recall that she was another one that was decent about stating why she believes this or that.