StarCity takes sides?

[Reindeercards]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/15476.html

[Adam Nightmare]

Not exactly.

Certainly, Rich has made his opinion clear, but he doesn't speak for the company any more than I do. If anything, SCG has made it apparant that they intend to stay neutral on this matter entirely, now that they've allowed the writers to start speaking their mind.

[Reindeercards]

Not exactly.

1) SCG chose to print this bias screed against unions in general and against this player's union in particular.

2) Might I direct your attention to the comments on the article where SCG's general manager heartily agreed with the article.

3) I'm not aware of SCG choosing to delete posts and ban users who questioned the balance of Evan's pro-union article. But that has happened in response to posts questioning the balance of this self-proclaimed "balanced" anti-union article by Hagon.

WotC hasn't chosen to be anti-union. But SCG isn't WotC.

[maarten]

I encourage readers to read all the comments on the SCG articles (in the forums) Both sides have brought some good points to the discussion, and in my view the 'doomthinkers' (us) win on points. (whether that is a good or bad thing I don't know)

[Adam Nightmare]

Granted, I haven't taken the time to read through the comments on the article. However, I'm confused why you would assume that SCG printing this article is any more of a signal of their opinion than them printing Evan's Magic Show where he praised the union. They've been pretty good about showing both sides, at least on the surface. I rarely go looking for more info in the forums, and I'm sure most readers are the same. I'm not overly impressed with the way I've seen SCG handle the whole issue, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they've taken a stand or anything, especially since WotC has been receptive to this group. Maybe I'll go check out the comments on the article, but I don't see this as a statement of corporate policy, at all.

[Ben Bleiweiss]

Not exactly.

1) SCG chose to print this bias screed against unions in general and against this player's union in particular.

2) Might I direct your attention to the comments on the article where SCG's general manager heartily agreed with the article.

3) I'm not aware of SCG choosing to delete posts and ban users who questioned the balance of Evan's pro-union article. But that has happened in response to posts questioning the balance of this self-proclaimed "balanced" anti-union article by Hagon.

WotC hasn't chosen to be anti-union. But SCG isn't WotC.

Mr. Reindeercards:

Sorry I'm addressing you by your forum account name (both on the StarCityGames.com website and on this website), but I unfortunately don't know your real first name. Either way, I have noticed that over the past few weeks, you have been extremely outspoken about your views regarding the changes to Organized Play, and the Player's Union. That is good! Strong opinions are needed in order to effect change, and change is clearly needed for the current situation brought about by the recent Wizards of the Coast Organized Play announcements.

There is a line, however, between being outspoken, and being unreasonable to the point of ignoring anything said by anyone who disagrees with your own opinion. Since the "story" about the changes to Wizards of the Coast Organized Play broke, we have printed articles that are both for and against the changes, all from the opinions of each individual writer. I find it distressing that you draw any sort of conclusion about our bias for/against the Player's Union, given that we've given airtime to multiple writers who wanted to weigh in with their opinions (both pro and con) about the recent changes to OP.

To address your points individually:

#1) 1) SCG chose to print this bias screed against unions in general and against this player's union in particular.
What reason would there be to censor either side of the pro/anti-union argument, as long as the article was written constructively? It is fine to agree/disagree with Rich's article, but it seems unreasonable to draw the conclusion that StarCityGames.com has a bias against the Player's Union, especially given that we published an (essentially) Pro Player's Union article on Friday (from Evan Erwin) and a neutral-stance article on Monday (The Ferrett).

#2) 2) Might I direct your attention to the comments on the article where SCG's general manager heartily agreed with the article.
That would be me, and my comment was, and I quote:

Best article so far this year.

I have always praised our writers when I felt they have delivered an especially well-written article, and I will consider to do so in the future. I again don't see what problem you have with me expressing my personal opinion about this article.

#3 3) I'm not aware of SCG choosing to delete posts and ban users who questioned the balance of Evan's pro-union article. But that has happened in response to posts questioning the balance of this self-proclaimed "balanced" anti-union article by Hagon.
I have been the one deleting posts on that thread, and the posts I am deleting are the ones that accuse Mr. Hagon of taking bribes/being paid off by WOTC for having written this article. Those accusations are completely ridiculous, and detract from discussion of the article. We do not allow slander and libel in our forums, and the forums for this article have been moderated as such.

If you'd like to discuss this matter further, I would be happy to speak with you via e-mail - please feel free to contact me at ben@starcitygames.com.

- Ben Bleiweiss
- General Manager - Acquisitions and Inventory, StarCityGames.com

[Reindeercards]

Dear Mister Ben,

I quoted the paragraph where the author claimed to be balanced, wrote "Balanced?", and wrote "liar, liar, pants on fire". Perhaps not my most eloquent post ever but a heart-felt opinion nonetheless.

If you feel that is deserving of deletion and a ban from your site, it is within your rights to do so no matter how ridiculous your decision happened to be. You can even come here and try to defend your blatant bias when it comes to defending WotC on every issue that comes down the pike.

It could be that you're truly blind as to how biased you are or it could be that your close business association with WotC on many levels makes you feel defensive. It doesn't really matter. I feel no need to discuss this further in an email with you. However, any time you wish to come to an open forum and try to defend your bias, feel free to drop by. Its always good for a laugh.

edit to clarify: a laugh at you, not with you.

[gleemax]

I'm throwing in with Reindeercards on this one. It doesn't bother me that they would write a bias article and defend it. What does bother me is that they want to censor what real opinions people have about their article by deleting posts and then coming here and starting trouble. I wonder if he tried to get Reindeercards's post deleted by contacting our moderator. Even if people are saying they think he was paid off by wizards, they have a right to say that. If it’s not presented as fact, but as opinion, it’s not liable. And I really doubt there were people saying “I know he was paid by Wizards to say this”. Really, while SCG has a strong connection to WotC, they have an even stronger connection to the Pro players. While magic can easily claim Joes support Magic as much or more about than Pros, SCG can’t make the same claim. Who do they think is buying all those singles they’re over pricing? Whose paying to read those exclusive articles. Pro are SCG’s market and they should be more wary about this. While a strike against Wotc wouldn’t phase the company, a strike against SCG would certainly be the end to this internet giant. It’s not like Pro’s can’t get their cards from other internet sites.

[Reindeercards]

I'm throwing in with Reindeercards on this one. It doesn't bother me that they would write a bias article and defend it. What does bother me is that they want to censor what real opinions people have about their article by deleting posts and then coming here and starting trouble. I wonder if he tried to get Reindeercards's post deleted by contacting our moderator. Even if people are saying they think he was paid off by wizards, they have a right to say that.

Well, they don't have a right to say that on the SGC website. SGC holds the right to edit their forums for content.

My post was accusing the article of not being balanced despite its claim to be balanced plus the personal and professional endorsement of the article by the head of SCG...yet that post got deleted too.

Is the article balanced? Balanced articles don't cause multiple people to post in the SCG forums, then have their posts deleted and get them banned from the forum.

Taking a look at some excerpts from the article...

Now we come to what in some ways is the most interesting fallout from The Announcement – the putative creation of a Player’s Union. What’s most intriguing about this is that it’s been formed by such an intelligent group of people. This is a significant handicap in trying to form a Union, since one of the main purposes is to polemicize the group’s position, and fight exclusively for the benefit of the members to the exclusion of all others...

the negotiating stance of any union begins with the notion that the other side is the Enemy, is full of stupid, ignorant vicious liars who exist solely to make the member’s lives miserable...

In fact, some have even come out and said outright that there should be a levy (not to be confused with a Levy) at each PT, so that the lesser players can effectively line the pockets of the good ones. The sheer naked greed of this beggars belief.

Mr. Bleiweiss would have us believe that this is great writing and balanced writing. But would this style of writing have gone up on their website if it had been a rant against WotC?

I mean if someone had written an article looking at the HUGE profit margin of WotC, as we looked at one one of the threads here, and wrote about the sheer naked greed of WotC, how companies exist exclusively to fight for the benefit of their stockholders and their customers be damned...would a ranting article like that go up unedited on the SCG website?

Again looking at an excerpt from the article

Then comes the real biggie. Every so often, someone pops up and asks, ‘Who are we representing?’ The stock answer is ‘The Players,’ but, bright souls that they are, some have not accepted this at face value. ‘What do we mean, The Players?’ Let’s find out.

Does this group represent Kitchen table players ? No, absolutely not.
Multiplayer groups ? Absolutely not.
FNM new players? Absolutely not.
FNM old hands? Absolutely not.
Prereleasers and occasional PTQ-ers? Absolutely not.
Regular PTQ players who never qualify? Absolutely not.
PTQ players who have been to a couple of PTs and not won money? Absolutely not.
Level 2s and 3s who get to a couple of PTs each year and don’t quite get on the train ? Nope.
How about the Level 4s then, you know, the actual Pros? No, because most Level 4s haven’t won a PT and most Level 4s won’t win a PT.

So who the hell do they represent? Simple. They represent a special interest group of extremely talented, smart, and successful players who have already reaped significant benefits (and I’m not just talking financially) from the game. They represent players who would like to see vastly more money available at the pinnacle of the game, and by that I don’t mean $500 for 65th. 65th is for losers, and come to that so is 23rd and 17th and 12th. No, this is a club for Winners, ladies and gentlemen... the players who would willingly divvy up a grand of their own money to go toe to toe with the best in the business.

As Evan pointed out, this particular rant is factually wrong. Would SCG put up a factually wrong article ranting against WotC?

The job of SCG's editor is to catch problems like this before the article is "printed". Will the editor do his editoral job now and go back into the article to note a correction on this point? Perhaps, but I wouldn't hold my breath...because it doesn't play into their website's bias.

[Reindeercards]

Perhaps Mr. Bleiweiss could grant us an article, either here, at his column at magicthegathering, or on his website. He could tell us how the reduced number of PTQs (and the resulting reduced card sales) is expected to benefit the bottom line of SCG and how their PTQ players will be better served by not being bothered by having to travel to all those pesky events. And how much better the front page of SCG will be when its not filled with content about the non-existent PTQ and Champs events.

[Ben Bleiweiss]

The sheer amount of incorrect information contained the last few posts has compelled me to come back and set the record straight. Please, if you're going to complain - at least have facts, and not outright lies.

I quoted the paragraph where the author claimed to be balanced, wrote "Balanced?", and wrote "liar, liar, pants on fire". Perhaps not my most eloquent post ever but a heart-felt opinion nonetheless. If you feel that is deserving of deletion and a ban from your site, it is within your rights to do so no matter how ridiculous your decision happened to be.

A lie. From our forum rules:

1) Be civil to other forum users. Don't engage in name calling, flame wars, or other malcontent behavior.

2) Stay on-topic in threads. Off-topic posts will be deleted. Also, try to avoid posting one-line posts - if your entire post amounts to one sentence, it's probably not worth posting.

Your post was deleted because it violated rules #1 and #2 - it was uncivil, was certainly name calling, and was a one-line post that did not add to the discussion. Anyone who wants to check out the thread can see that there are dozens of dissenting opinions and arguments against Rich's article, and none of those have been touched. This is because those posts are constructive and are not flames.

If you feel that is deserving of deletion and a ban from your site

Balanced articles don't cause multiple people to post in the SCG forums, then have their posts deleted and get them banned from the forum.

Another lie. Not a single person has been banned from our forums as a result of this thread.

You can even come here and try to defend your blatant bias when it comes to defending WotC on every issue that comes down the pike.

Another lie. I have a personal history of taking WOTC to task, publically, when they screw up. Just a few examples:
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/12147.html (WOTC screwing up Ravnica Block Constructed)
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/12145.html (WOTC messing up Regionals attendence)
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/11055.html (WOTC and problems with their Promo Card Program)
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/9663.html (WOTC and problems with the PTQ circuit)
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/8098.html (WOTC and their inability to design for White)
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/7289.html (Taking WOTC to task for - holy cow, bad timing on announcements! How topical!)
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/6519.html (More about WOTC and White)

These are entire articles dedicated to decrying things Wizards has been doing wrong - I can point to dozens of more articles I've written that, in part, have public criticisms of WOTC decisions and policies.

I don't know what you are trying to prove here, other than making statements on the record that I can prove are lies. According to your profile, you are a 44 year old man. You should know better than to go onto a forum, post a message of "liar, liar, pants on fire" and expect that post not to get moderated.

- Ben Bleiweiss

PS: RE: Gleemax's post

Even if people are saying they think he was paid off by wizards, they have a right to say that. If it’s not presented as fact, but as opinion, it’s not liable. And I really doubt there were people saying “I know he was paid by Wizards to say this”.

People were literally making posts accusing Rich of taking the WOTC graft to write this article. Yes, people writing "I know he was paid by Wizards to say this" was exactly the type of post I deleted off the thread, because they are completely off-topic, and would only serve to derail intelligent discussion about the article in question.

[Jeff]

[deleted]

[mercenarybdu]

I encourage all readers to put the content they are reading all the time under a microscope as not all of it is right all the time eternal rumors or not. SCGs isn't taking sides at this time as long as it isn't cutting into their bottom line of making enough on the secondary market.

Remember that this is only Rich Hagon's Article so that is only one person's view over the dozen of writers on that site. So you are absolutely wrong at this present time.

[sin_plague]

considering this forum, and this site, is a place for players to voice their opinions about the recent changes to magic... and what that entails... whatever your thoughts might be... personal confrontations between owners/operators of other sites should probably be handled on that site... or perhaps in private e-mail

that being said, I have to agree with Ben Bleiweiss' stance on the matter... through every article I've ever read of his, he has no problems with 'taking WoTC to task'

Reindeercards... we want to attract people, especially those like Ben who have influence and a readership, to support this site and our cause... spouting unfounded insults and gossip mongering should not be a method to do this... you will do nothing but damage the image that this site is striving to put forward... one of cooperation and trustworthiness

likewise, other people flat out accusing someone of 'colluding' is something that should not be posted here... and, btw, everyone has the right to post here... be it Ben Bleiweiss, Richard Garfield, or my great grandmother... but we would prefer those posts to be constructive and conducive to the Players Union position... anything else only hurts our position...

kind of like misplaying... you should probably stop doing it

[gleemax]

[deleted]

Lol, that's funny even if you didn't mean it that way. Edit: Oh, I guess he actual was censored, he must of said something real bad. Nevermind I thought we was just trying to be funny.

As to Ben, well I mean if people actually were saying "I know he took a bribe" I guess that is liable and something to take down. I don't really know what they said since they were deleted. But if they really were straight out attacking the guy, I can see why they were deleted.

However, after reading the forums of several of your articles, including the ones you presented here. I have found alot of replys that could violate rules #1 and/or #2 and some that straight out did. However these were not deleted (obviously). Would it be fair to say that you guys are at least moderating the thread for this particular article a little more than usual? Most likley because it's such a controversal thread?

Also, thanks for coming here and supplying your side of the story, even if we still disagree, it's nice to know both sides. I know alot of casual guys who certainly hold the opinon of the article in question, and I guess it's nice that you guys are showing that side even if goes against what alot of your customers may feel. It would be unfair of you to censor your writers, but maybe you could allow an editor styled piece to dispute some of his claims. I guess the real problem is that pro-union guys didn't write anything more elegant than "WotC paid him off". That's more of a disapointment for the community. I know you guys are trying to stay neutral, but remember what happend to Azrael (Dogma).