No I am still operating under innocent until proven guilty.
However a serious allegation has been made and it needs to be investigated. As such his NPC has been suspended until the allegation is proven one way or the other.
1 Like
No you are not, you think itâs ok to punish someone based on an allegation before anything has been proved. That is not innocent until proven guilty.
Youâre blatantly following the guilty until innocent approach. Youâre just drawing a line at the severity of the punishment.
But where do we draw that line?
If I accused you of murder do you think you should be locked up while itâs investigated?
Do you think you should have a âpotential murderâ sign on your back? a temporary criminal record?
Where does it stop if we decided to treat people as if theyâve done something prior to proving it?
1 Like
I donât really follow all the gossip but it seems two NPCâs in the game are a reference to me. They are all over the place though. I was mentioned in South Park as well.
I would rather not be associated with people with questionable reputations though. There needs to be some bar.
Probably no one knows what Iâm talking about but it is irrelevant. I deal with massive amounts of people and I canât hear everyone out so I stick to people who know what theyâre talking about and I donât mean rio.
No, that most definitely is not the correct PR move.
Thatâs a risky PR move.
Blizzard doesnât stand to gain anything from being associated with a person who may or may not have done what heâs being accused of.
But they do stand to be neck deep in crap if they maintain their association and he turns out to be guilty.
So thatâs a pretty simple cost / benefit analysis, where Blizzard have nothing to gain and everything to lose. So theyâre of course immediately out. Every single company in the entire world reaches the exact same conclusion in almost all cases. Only in extreme cases where itâs some superstar does the cost / benefit analysis make it worth maintaining the association (Tiger Woods and Nike, for example).
Swifty is a nobody in the grand scheme of things. No company, and certainly not Blizzard, are going to risk losing brand value over him.
Like I said, itâs over.
3 Likes
Itâs not risky to do nothing and wait for the facts.
Itâs risky to jump to conclusions and preemptively take action.
This isnât just a Blizzard thing, itâs a life issue.
We are moving into this awful cancel culture, guilty until proven innocent mindset. It is terrible.
Remember this if youâre ever unfortunate enough to be in Swiftyâs position. Youâre nobody, no one cares about you, youâre alone and nobody wants to listen to your side of the story. Someone accused you of something, youâre done.
That is the world youâre striving for.
But this is currently the case in the UK. Most of those accused of murder are kept on remand until the case is tried.
Thatâs for when you have been charged or have a previous criminal history⌠not randomly accusedâŚ
And thatâs through the legal system. You know⌠the official place where these accusations belong?
Not on twitter.
3 Likes
My apologies they are kept in police custody whilst being investigated and then moved to prison once the next step is taken.
They are only moved to prison if they are believed to be guilty by people trained in the field.
It is. Blizzard donât want their name to appear in any news context of this particular subject. It doesnât really matter whether heâs innocent or guilty, itâs the association thatâs bad for Blizzard.
A news article containing the r word and Blizzard, thatâs not something Blizzard have an interest in, regardless of what the specifics are. They just need to distance themselves from that immediately.
Swifty is partnered with lots of other gaming companies as well. Nvidia, Razer, etcâŚ
Theyâll be doing the same, if they havenât already.
What youâre saying may be your own personal conviction, and thatâs cool, but your moral compass is not how businesses are driven. Sorry.
2 Likes
Taking action is how you get placed in the news.
Yeah⌠exactly my point. Thatâs the issue.
This entire scenario is driven entirely by morals.
We are never going to agree on this one so I am going to step out.
I think that removing the NPC due to the nature of the allegations is a just move and doesnât imply guilt or innocence. You disagree.
1 Like
No, thatâs your issue. I consider this standard practice.
You defended that stance by bringing up remand, a system that is designed to contain people with implied guilt.
Ok well thank you for jumping in to share your opinion that it doesnât matter if youâre innocent, thatâs life baby.
Like I said, I hope youâre not unfortunate enough to be in a position where you feel helpless and people assume youâre guilty.
Youâre free to enjoy your moral free video gaming daily activities.
Yes, because I got it wrong and should have said police custody not remand. Doesnât stop the fact that I think the removal of said NPC is the correct action in regards to this case.
This isnât âGuilty until proven innocentâ
The punishment for sexual assault is being imprisoned. Has the individual been imprisoned? No. Having an NPC removed from a video game is not the punishment for sexual assault, afaik there has been no âguilt assumedâ actions taken.
Other behaviours such as distancing from an individual are all social behaviours and operate entirely within the realm of free rules regarding interactions. This is commonplace whenever someone is accused of something. You could have someone who has been accused of biting children, and until their guilt is determined, youâll probably find nobody will let them babysit their kids - this is social sanctioning. You might find this unfair, but these individuals are completely within their rights to do this and your morals do not change this at all.
Itâs about risk, imagine if the suspect child biter did in fact bite any kids then left with them. The responsibility for that would fall squarely upon the heads of those who let their children with them knowing the risk. People arenât compelled to take risks because you feel itâs morally wrong.
5 Likes
So then why would you go out of your way to repost it and get people to see it when he clearly does not want it to be viewed? You absolutely inteded that comment in a bullying manner.
As for Shammoz, Dejarous, while its not on the nose bullying Shammoz is replying to a comment in a manner reinforcing Ănnaâs bullying comment. That is bullying.
Shammoz is a MVP which is why its especially wrong to more or less agree with what someone bullying another wow player, you are supposed to be a most valuable poster not egg on a bully.
I disagree, no reasonable person thinks this is bullying. If you do youâre massively biased or a bit precious.
Oh come on.
Are you serious?
He is being punished and having his character slated. That is a serious thing to have happen, especially when your entirely livelihood is now at risk and the reputation you have built up over the last 15 years is crumbling apart.
Give me a break.
âOh well he isnât in jail so hey⌠whats he got to complain aboutâŚ?â
Itâs SO easy to look at someone else and not feel bad for them, but 100% if this was happening to you youâd be pleading that people listen to you first.
Are you familiar with what happened to Johnny Depp?
1 Like