Recently, Alex Bertoncini had his suspension
extended for providing alternate commentary, most of which was demeaning to
players, during an SCG live stream. Andrey Yanyuk’s article (http://www.draftmagic.com/2013/04/30/the-end-of-an-era-and-the-reach-of-the-dci/),
discussing his own ban and the reach of the DCI, stirred up more discussion about
the DCI’s role in punishing conduct outside an event hall. It’s obvious that
the DCI tends to treat the landscape of social media quite seriously when
considering inappropriate conduct, and it is well worth considering the
ramifications of these decisions.
The community has had two major reactions to the
DCI’s behavior. The first is that the DCI can and should protect its brand in
any way possible, and that the suspensions handed out are appropriate. The
not-exactly-opposite viewpoint is that it’s unacceptably Orwellian and a breach
of privacy to monitor our social media outlets for anything they may find
inappropriate and hand out punishments as they see fit.
We need to clarify first that it is absolutely
within the DCI’s rights, and realistically, their obligation to ban and suspend
players for offensive or inappropriate behavior outside of a tournament
setting. This may seem unfair to you, but remember that Magic is first and
foremost a business. The DCI exists to manage the competitive community of
Magic, and part of their responsibility, as with every organized body within
Wizards, is protecting the brand. (Also remember they are not beholden to
additional US jurisdiction, so none of this is illegal, as some seem fit to
claim.)
What does that mean,” protect the brand?” In this
context, the brand is the public perception of the organization. For reference,
consider the brand of DOTA (Defense of the Ancients) or COD (Call of Duty.)
When I mention those names, what comes to mind? A lot of you probably have
reasonably negative connotations with the two properties owing almost
exclusively to the behavior of the people that play them. Both titles have
considerably vitriolic communities where all sorts of terribly offensive slurs
are not uttered, but shouted and trumpeted with vigor in every available
channel. Very clearly the brands of these properties have been damaged by the
people playing them by sole virtue of the fact that we so strongly associate
this behavior with the online experience. You know that if you venture into a
public game, there’s a good chance you will be exposed to an environment you
want nothing to do with. There is assuredly a real number of people that have
been turned off of these titles for exactly this reason. These games have flourished commercially, but
they have done so in spite of their
player base’s behavior.
For a company like Wizards, it’s vitally important
that this type of association does not occur with Magic. Magic needs to be a
safe haven for its players, as the nature of the game requires far more
investment in terms of finances, time, and even intimacy than many others.
Players spend substantially money on Magic than they do on DOTA and COD, incredible
amounts of time, (often measured in years, or now, even decades,) as well as
social intimacy – if you are being ridiculed at a Grand Prix, you can’t just
turn off the computer and walk away. You have bought into the experience with
your physical presence, something online gaming does not ask of you.
We now understand that the DCI needs to ensure
that the Magic community is safe for its customers, who are typically more
vulnerable and sensitive to ridicule than an average consumer base. That community
includes Facebook, Twitter, Twitch.tv, website articles, and any other public forum.
Gone are the days where there was the “public” image of a game that was
observable through first party advertisements and media, and the “private”
image that was entirely different and essentially unmoderated by the company.
Wizards has a presence in all forms of social media, and they encourage their
players to connect and share through these same channels. This means that
Wizards now needs to make sure those communication channels are safe for mages
everywhere. The conclusion we draw then is that your Twitter account and public
Facebook messages are fair game for the DCI. They need to do a reasonable job
of keeping the community, in all of its forms, sufficiently friendly for
younger, newer, and vulnerable players. If you’re broadcasting information and
opinions that Wizards doesn’t like to a public audience, they are completely
within their rights to say “this individual’s behavior in public is damaging
our brand and threatens the atmosphere of our events, and we do not want them showing
up to our events and making players feel uncomfortable.” It may feel like an
overreach on Wizards’ part to monitor your social media, but calling a player a
faggot to his face at a GP will certainly get you booted, and your Facebook
post exclaiming the exact same thing can easily reach hundreds or even
thousands more.
There is certainly something Big Brother about the
silent monitoring of public media by Wizards of the Coast, however. The real
issue is not the action of their observation, but rather, that we don’t know
who they’re watching, when they’re watching, or what they consider to be
crossing the line. Part of the fear is that all of us, with the exception of
perhaps Reid Duke, has said or done something that could probably warrant
suspension. At this point some of my more gentle readers may be thinking
“surely I would never commit such a heinous act against a fellow mage!” Ask
yourself, though, have you never referred to poor players as “shitties,” or
similar nomenclature? Complained to your friends that “that fucking [demeaning
term] topdecked his 2-outer” or similar? If we’re honest with ourselves, we’re
all guilty of behavior that could warrant DCI action.
What constitutes sufficient audience and content
for your transgressions to qualify for penalization, though? Obviously people
like Brian Kibler and his Twitter ilk are under scrutiny, given the quantity of
their followers and their position as ambassadors of the game for newer players
everywhere. As the number of eyeballs decreases though, we find it more
difficult to determine if an individual’s actions have enough reach to attract
penalization. From what I understand, Alex’s stream only had roughly 50
viewers, which is hardly a notable number given many no-name streamers can
easily break 100 or 200. 50 is a very low floor. Likewise, shouting vulgarities
and slurs in a crowded room at a PTQ would certainly qualify as unsportsmanlike
conduct, but what about saying the exact same things while sitting at a table
in the corner talking under your breath to a friend? Again the same insulting
and inflammatory remarks, but this time spoken at reasonable volume amidst a
group in the middle of the same room as a judge happens to walks by? Recall @dr8sides
on Twitter. His remarks had an initial audience that was quite small, but it
was only after a series of retweets by quite a few players that his actions
came to be known by the DCI, and he ultimately received a rather harsh
punishment for what most of us would consider fairly benign commentary (perhaps
it could have even been construed as constructive criticism.) Meanwhile, I could
probably get away with writing some pretty scathing remarks on this tiny blog
without the DCI caring, unless it got picked up and spread across Twitter.
While Wizards of the Coast needs to make sure that
the public discussion and action involved with their property is within their decided
acceptable limits, none of us really know exactly what’s public and exactly
what’s acceptable. Further clouding the waters is that we’ll never get anything
explicit about what you can and can’t say, and what constitutes public or private.
Wizards can’t just draw up a list of bad words you’re not allowed to include in
a tweet that mentions card names. It’s an entirely contextual decision.
I don’t claim to have an easy solution to any of
this, and I don’t think you’re likely to find one. Wizards has made it clear
that they’re willing to nail you to the wall if you step over the line, and
they’re not telling us where that line is. Moving forward all I can do is urge
caution, and before you send that tweet, ask yourself if you’d be willing to
say the exact same thing to a head judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment