Activision Blizzard Cuts Ban of Pro-Hong Kong Gamer From One Year To Six Months (arstechnica.com) 78
"Activision Blizzard Inc., facing the threat of a boycott, reduced the punishment it meted out to a tournament player who voiced support for Hong Kong's pro-democracy demonstrators," reports Bloomberg:
The company's Blizzard Entertainment division originally barred the player from events for a year and stripped him of some $10,000 in prize money. But it said at the end of the week that it would cut the ban to six months and pay his winnings.
The reversal followed an uproar from customers and even U.S. lawmakers, who felt Blizzard was kowtowing to China by punishing the player. Some analysts worried the boycott might take a toll on a company that has already suffered recent upheaval... [C]ustomers and some Blizzard workers felt the reaction was too extreme. In the furor that ensued, several employees staged a protest at its offices in Irvine. They covered up a plaque that read "Every Voice Matters" and held up umbrellas -- a symbol of the Hong Kong protesters.
"In hindsight, our process wasn't adequate, and we reacted too quickly," J. Allen Brack, president of Blizzard Entertainment, said in the statement. Still, he added that "if this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same."
Long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo shares another update from Ars Technica: Additionally, the two Chinese broadcasters who interviewed (and possibly egged on) blitzchung during his shout of "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our age!" had been fired; they too have had their punishment changed to a six-month suspension from their jobs as official Hearthstone esports "casters."
The reversal followed an uproar from customers and even U.S. lawmakers, who felt Blizzard was kowtowing to China by punishing the player. Some analysts worried the boycott might take a toll on a company that has already suffered recent upheaval... [C]ustomers and some Blizzard workers felt the reaction was too extreme. In the furor that ensued, several employees staged a protest at its offices in Irvine. They covered up a plaque that read "Every Voice Matters" and held up umbrellas -- a symbol of the Hong Kong protesters.
"In hindsight, our process wasn't adequate, and we reacted too quickly," J. Allen Brack, president of Blizzard Entertainment, said in the statement. Still, he added that "if this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same."
Long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo shares another update from Ars Technica: Additionally, the two Chinese broadcasters who interviewed (and possibly egged on) blitzchung during his shout of "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our age!" had been fired; they too have had their punishment changed to a six-month suspension from their jobs as official Hearthstone esports "casters."
Not good enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
The suspension is one thing but not paying the guy the money he won fair and square is downright dirty.
Re:Not good enough. (Score:5, Informative)
The summary says they *are* paying him the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah, reading comprehension fail, been a long week. Tis similar to where I work, the company said a staff member was fired and then quickly back-tracked the next day and hey it's all a misunderstanding - he's not fired!!!
We are not an Chinese bitch (Score:2)
We are not an Chinese bitch
Re:Not good enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
His suspension should be 0 months, and they should apologize. And if facing a boycott might break their company, they should do it today.
Honestly this is an easy one. It's much harder to force the hands of some other american companies which are in so deep that they can't (yet) say no. Watching Activision fall might prompt some others to start thinking that it may be in their financial best interests to get the fuck out of China.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly this. The Chinese tyrants say that free speech does not include criticizing government policy. Fuck you China. That's the entire point of free speech. Everything else is secondary,
Re: (Score:2)
Get real, this is no esport, that is for the schmuck sheeple, this is evertising. Advertising for a game, with the gamers advertising products and products advertisements on display and ads to break up the evertising with more advertising.
They are really hard pressed to sell this advertising on top of advertising on top of advertising on top of advertising, the veritable Inception of advertising.
Face it this kind of rubbish is going to be extremely sensitive to advertisers, they can cripple it, in no tim
Re: (Score:3)
His suspension should be 0 months,
I'm fine with his suspension as it is. This seems about right. They have a policy against making political statements in the event, and he broke it, knowing what was going to happen. Everyone's asking Blizzard to make a big exception to the rules because it's involving China, and fuck China. I thought the original suspension + forfeit winnings was a pretty harsh punishment, but this seems a lot more fair.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary says they *are* paying him the money.
They are *NOW*. Considering that it took a massive outcry and a show of public support for them to change their mind there is absolutely nothing worth defending here. If you fall into a mud pit and then backtrack out of it, you're still downright dirty as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is their lawyers spoke to them as well. If you give something to someone, you cannot simply take it back.
The prize totals in a contest are promised winnings anticipated to be paid out but not paid out yet until the contests are over and contestants' final winnings will have been determined and any required paperwork completed. It does FEEL really bad and wrong in this situation, but you absolutely can take something back you haven't actually paid out yet - If you are under no obligation to pay
Re: (Score:2)
None of it is okay. Screw reducing the punishment, at this point a strong public apology along with some kind of penalty would be pretty minimal.
I don't believe them (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that they took so long to respond because they were negotiating with the Chinese government, not because they were considering the right thing to do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The idea that they get to "negotiate" with the Chinese government deserves at least a +1 funny (or +1 too sad for words).
Maybe they were waiting for instructions though.
"Negotiating" May Be Putting It Mildly (Score:5, Informative)
I think that they took so long to respond because they were negotiating with the Chinese government, not because they were considering the right thing to do.
There's actually some reason to believe that the statement was written by a native Chinese speaker:
https://mobile.twitter.com/SGB... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest I don't see it. Sure what the poster said makes perfect sense on its own. However I don't see the language and structuring any different than any other western written corporate apology (I'm sorry we got caught) letter. They may be perfectly correct for any other formal communication, but I don't see this as being out of line here.
Wait did I just sumarise my paragraph. I have this sudden urge to eat ramen.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
https://twitter.com/sgbluebell... [twitter.com]
But at least he gets to keep his "prizing [sic]".
To quote Jim Hightower (Score:4, Interesting)
"There's nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow stripe and dead armadillos."
Trying to steer this course won't mollify anyone angry with them, and will piss off supporters of the Chinese regime.
Why suspend the broadcasters? (Score:2)
Why suspend the broadcasters?
Why did they suspend the broadcasters? What did they do wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
They prompted him to say the words of support for HK
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
1. They are official Hearthstone announcers, which I assume means they work for (literally get paid by) Blizzard. That would mean that Blizzard can put them into whatever role it wants, or move them out of the announcing role. (As an aside though, those guys BETTER have gotten PAID for the work they already did as announcers.)
2. The announcers may have encouraged the guy to shout the slogans, which, if they work for Blizzard, seems like a stupid decision to let the
Re: (Score:1)
What did the announcers say? I've heard that generic account about "egging on" repeatedly. I have never heard what specifically they said, nor the specific context, nor what tone of voice they were taking.
"So, you seem to be wearing a costume, do you have anything to say about that?"
vs
"So, we encourage you to feel safe in voicing support of the righteous protests in glorious Hong Kong."
Until I know more, I'll assume Blizzard was in the wrong about them, because...it's a good bet. I'd go to Vegas with that b
Re: (Score:2)
My last paragraph was conjecture, and should have used the phrase "may have" rather than "seem to have".
I honestly don't know for sure, and I would not bet against you in Vegas on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Blizzard was in the wrong period. Even if it was:
""So, we encourage you to feel safe in voicing support of the righteous protests in glorious Hong Kong.""
They are a US company, they have to at least pretend they unwaveringly stand for core American principles like democracy and free speech whether that means not doing business in China or not.
Re: (Score:2)
they didn't interrupt him?
they should have counter-reacted?
Not good enough. Not even close (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not good enough. Not even close (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese people never were "free". ... before it was called China. ...
Perhaps in the stone age
Then came the first emporer under the Chin, then came Mongol invaders, then came European invaders, then came a Japanese invasion then came Mao
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why they shouldn't have been participating in their economy in the first place. First you toss out the evil dictator and THEN with a blanket of choice and democracy you convince them to bad decisions resulting in you gaining their money.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, the balance sheet says "no". You might get a "maybe" in three months, depending on the receivables, and peoples' memory of the affair.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:talk about blindly charging ahead. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll state the unpopular opinion. I dont think the ban is bad. I wouldn't want my gaming tournaments politicized. I stand with Hong Kong personally but I don't want politics in gaming any more than I want to hear the latest "Orange Man Bad" bullshit from the Oscars that Hollyweird pimps out.
Blitzchung did what he did. He accepted their would be consequences. I just think the consequences should fit and a 6 month ban is fine. They should NOT have taking his money. He earned that. Giving it back is the bare minimum Blizz should have done.
The casters I think should have been removed. They clearly knew what was happening and allowed it to happen, even encouraged it. That tarnished the tournament. If they had done a stream later with Blitzchung on their own time and channels then fine but that was an official Blizzard tournament event and stream. They way over stepped and broke trust with their employer. I would have fired them too.
Anyway, good on Blitzchung. He hasn't whined about any of this which tells me a lot about his character and his convictions. Blizzard coming down on him helps his cause more than hurts it. That's kind of the irony of all of this.
Re:talk about blindly charging ahead. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think if Blizzard had ORIGINALLY implemented this punishment against Blitzchung, this would have been either a minor or even a complete non-story. I suspect most people understand that, despite many believing the cause being just, it was obviously a highly charged political statement not appropriate for a gaming tournament, and that some punishment or censure was probably warranted. But Blizzard just came down way, way too hard, a seemingly obvious effort to appease the Chinese government.
Unfortunately for Blizzard, this partial backtracking just paints them as being just as cowardly, backing down not because they realize they were in the wrong, but because they're scared of a massive backlash at home. That they also resorted to heavy-handed censorship techniques such as shutting down forums or subreddits doesn't really say good things about them. Neither was it a good sign that they only reversed their decision when seeing that the furor didn't die down after a week. Even employees realized that their company's core values were dead. "Every voice matters" my ass.
Still, he added that "if this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same."
And the real problem they have is that I don't believe that for a single second.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally think that a lot of their development in
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure. Blitzchung didn't bust into the broadcast booth and make a protest speech, he was willingly interviewed by two employees of Blizzard who not only went along but encouraged his statements. Whether they were authorized to make that decision or not is an internal matter between them and their employer but nevertheless they, as representatives of their employer they implicitly granted him permission and explicitly encouraged him.
Unless their CEO wants to personally verify each and every thing a
Re: (Score:2)
I think if he'd said, "I want to thank all the brave fighters who are out there defending our freedoms from the hatr
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Which I suppose must mean that it "offends a portion or group of the public". Because Blitzchung is not in public disrepute and what damaged Blizzard's image was their response. I question whether it does offend a portion or a group of the public. It seems pretty straightforward and justifiable to say that Hong Kong should be restored.
It seems to me Blizzzard's response was solely to support (or not be seen to speak aga
Re: (Score:2)
I just think the consequences should fit and a 6 month ban is fine.
If compromise was acceptable, then Blizzard will know next time to double the ban duration and later halve it to satisfy both sides. Ask your to do your date and her girlfriend and negotiate down from there.
So compromise is not acceptable. Blizzard, or China, planned to pretend to compromise all along if there was some advantage. Fuck them both.
Couldn't ban players... (Score:1, Offtopic)
.. if gamers hadn't been stupid enough to send money to games they didn't own over the last 20 years. The fact we live in a god damn software non ownerhsip dystopia just becuase the general public of the world got internet, allowing companies not to give us complete local offline apps like the first 30 years of computing history, and the masses ate it up.
Courageous (Score:4, Insightful)
Protests are still propagating (Score:5, Insightful)
Reacted too quickly (Score:3)
"In hindsight, our process wasn't adequate, and we reacted too quickly,"
And their reaction to everyone's backlash may also be inadequate and too quick....
Its NOT a reversal (Score:4, Insightful)
reversal followed an uproar from customers and even U.S. lawmakers, who felt Blizzard was kowtowing to China by punishing the player.
Withdrawing the plans to reneg on prize winnings --- and
the reduction of 12 month suspension to 6 months is STILL a suspension.
Blizzard is still punishing him; this STILL looks like kowtowing to China --- they have only made the sanctions a bit less harsh;
he is still suffering an insult and in effect being screwed out of any chance of participation/wins and potential prizes or benefits from participation in events sooner than 6months.
We will lower your punishment, comrade (Score:2)
Now the People's Republic of Activision says never do it again or it's curtains for you, comrade.
P.S. God bless America, comrade.
Their principles are still in shambles (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pointless to shut the curtain once we've all seen what's behind it. In fact, they've just added a further layer of inconsistency. They obviously didn't come to an independent conclusion that they had been heavy-handed, they caved to public pressure. So in their misdirection over why they capitulated, they indicate their fundamental motives still stand, AND they are willing to try subterfuge to avoid changing them and further, lie about it.
A true reconciliation would have gone like this:
Until they step up and take some real measures to indicate reform, they ain't getting any more of my money (and so far they have a good amount)
Whoopee ding. (Score:2)
What courage.
English punctuation makes no sense. (Score:2)
As a foreigner, I always wonder what the English punctuation operator order is supposed to be.
So... the hyphen binds weaker or stronger than the space?
If it binds stronger, like in German, this is a gamer who is or plays "Kong", and is also pro-hong.
If it binds weaker, the ban of "Pro" is cut, and I have no I idea what Hong Kong Gamer does from one year to six months.
Can someone solve this? It really annoys me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And how about the people they have been giving 1000 year bans to for discussing this? (I'm not kidding. 1000 year gulag!)
Holy fuck, could they be any more transparent? They banned them for TEN CENTuries!
Re: They still look terrible (Score:1)
Re: They still look terrible (Score:1)
Don't we all have phones?
We learn each time this happens. (Score:1)
It's not as important to take sides or justify a side as to understand what's happening. I already understood corporations are too powerful and make socially bad or dangerous decisions.
I did not understand they were so cowardly.
The behavior of rolling this ban back and forth with weird inflammatory PR non-explanations is bizarre, unless you imagine the dissembling of an extreme coward. I wouldn't have expected someone powerful to also be cowardly, but in reality maybe it's the common case today. I wonder
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Chinese propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Free Hong Kong (Score:2)
Google Uyghurs
A complete lack of ethics. (Score:1)
Pandering to a ruthless totalitarian dictatorship which puts no value on the lives of its citizens is ethically bankrupt. Blizzard's complete lack of integrity is shameful.
Taiwanese casters (Score:1)
The two broadcasters who were involved are Taiwanese, not Chinese. Please see source: https://www.pcgamer.com/taiwan... [pcgamer.com]
But but but ... what about Pandaria? (Score:2)
Blizz must be praying to all the godz that China doesn't suddenly discover something objectionable in World of Warcraft's "Mists of Pandaria" expansion :-) I know, it's been out for a long time, but one never knows about those wacky Chinese.
I mean that in the nicest, most favorable, least objectionable way, of course. Who could possibly think of any bad way to depict those lovable Red Chinese?
Gander, meet goose (Score:2)
Just admit it. If this had been a player supporting some violent left-wing protest, take your pick these days, nobody would have said or done anything to punish the guy.
what is the difference? (Score:2)
What is the difference?
Why does he need any punishment at all?
They are still supporting Chinese gov and anti-free speech with this.