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).

[sin_plague]

a short thank you to raph or whoever stepped in to edit jeff's posts

[MagicRage]

It's understandable for some people to have a sympathetic view of WotC's decisions, especially someone like Rich who has worked with them even if it is only on a freelance basis.

The biggest problem with the article was the negative light in which he portrayed the Players Union. But at the same time, there are surely a fair number of forum users out there on places like SCG or MTGSal who think the Players Union is stupid and/or worthless. You can argue Rich's opinion is incorrect (and I think it is) but he's not alone in having that viewpoint.

Evan was probably the most noteable forum poster to set Rich's article straight and I hope the The Magic Show this week or next addresses some of Rich's comments from his article, particular his negative view of the Union.

[Shadowhunter483]

I personally liked the way rich stated his opinion on the union. I don't agree with him, but I liked the way that he stated his opinion and was civil about it. I will admit that his article was angled against the union, but I liked the way he explained his point of view and again was civil about it.

[janos_wuryon]

Those who think the formation of a group ( union if you will) to represent the opinions of any large group is absolutley the right thing to do when members of the group feel they are suffering due to the decisions of those who disregard them. I have never been to a pro tour, I rarely play in PTQ's, I do travel to GP's and I signed up to voice my opinion and contribute to the "union" because it is what every tournament player should do. A bunch of stray emails from individuals don't carry much wieght but a goup 1000 people all saying the same thing will make business stop and take notice.

on to point 2 Places like SCG have an obligation to post content relevent to Games they promote/support. They are not taking sides, no matter how ignorantly slanted an article they print may be. If SCG decided to side against either interest it would be business suicide. The entire secondary magic market is fueled by sub pro tournament players. Casual people dont spend 60 a piece on Goyf's but the guy going to the extended GP sure will. They cant side against us any more than they could risk trashing WOTC exclusivley.

[TobiH]

Okay, let's go:

First of all, Rich's article is absolutely great! … Well, it desperately needs to be because it is plain wrong on quite a few topics.

Following, I will list five things Rich got wrong and compare them with the actual views of the Union – as far as the Union does have something even resembling one official position (and Rich is dead right on the problems regarding unity and intelligence).

1) As opposed to what Rich writes, the Union wants gimmicks, exciting locations, and certainly doesn't want to exchange those for a little bit of extra prize money. To quote the document Frank Karsten has prepared for the meeting in Kuala Lumpur:

An interesting matter is the one of exotic locations. Some players have voiced that they don’t care where they are playing; some pros seem to prefer more prize money rather than a more extravagant site in a capital city. Others (the majority, it seems) have voiced that they want more excitement in events, with better experiences, and cool, interesting exiting locations. For example, Hawaii or Okinawa. Having the Pro Tours in exotic locations really adds to the dream, the glory, of attending one and entices PTAs [Pro Tour aspirants] more. Memphis is not exactly attractive for a prestigious event like Worlds. The location matters especially for the PTAs, as their main goal is to have fun going to exotic locations with a bunch of friends (and secondly having the chance of winning some money). In other words, the whole "play the game, see the world" thing. Lastly, people are much more receptive about the game if you can tell them about tournaments in exiting places like Hawaii or Okinawa; it simply makes for much better informal advertisement. Therefore, there should be a preference for exotic locations, while at the same time they shouldn’t cost much, so perhaps exotic locations in developing countries with cheap venues could be pursued.

Please note that representatives of the Union will – at times, especially for purposes of discussion – voice their personal (sometimes differing) opinion, but will represent the views of the majority of its members when acting as spokesman for the Union. I believe Rich has confused one and the other quite a bit when writing his article.

2) A buy-in system has been suggested, but, as of now, it's only that – a suggestion that is still being discussed. It is not really part of the Union's "charta" or agenda.

3) The Union wants to achieve a fair payout system – not the top-heavy monstrosity that Rich discusses. Again, citation needed?

A system with Pro Player Club levels should stick, but with 5-step levels instead of 10-step levels (i.e., 35 points and 45 points should also constitute a level-up). This way, the differences are not that large and players will have more to play for at Worlds.

4) The Union does not consider WotC its enemy and…

5) …the Union encourages every player to join and take part in constructive discussion. It is not at all a lobby of the "super pros" to bully for their own selfish interests! Or even more official, again from Frank Karsten's text:

The players and WotC have the same goal: we all love the game, we are personally invested in it, we try to do what we think is best for the game, and want it to be as enjoyable as possible for everyone. […] We are scared that players become less competitive and less willing to spend both time and money on the game because there is less to aim for. The union wants to explain - hopefully working together with WotC - to Hasbro why we think cutting a PT and announcing these changes unprofessionally does affect the image of the game in the long run and will negatively impact their profits.

[BurnBait]

Here's a fact of life, friends. If you burn down everyone with a different opinion than yourself, when it comes time for you to be the dissenter, your ideas won't survive three minutes with a heat shield. Even if the majority of you -us- think rich is wrong, consider everything he's said. Don't take for granted that just because you don't agree, he's the pinnacle of misinformed sentiments. If for no other reason than to think up witty comebacks, read his article again. Consider each point he makes, and how he may be right. And if you still see no flaw in what he perceives to be broken, know, at least, WHY he said its stability is in doubt. On the other hand, if you think he may have a point (and it's certainly possible- no one and no organization are perfect), work to fix the problem. Even those you consider to be your opponents in beliefs may teach you something.

[rickiep00h]

I also noticed in this weeks article, Rich came very close to writing that he made an oops and didn't really do his homework. He's not necessarily on our side, but he's probably more neutral and informed of both positions now than when he wrote the initial article.

[Ragette]

Firstly, i would just like to tell reindeercards that it is physically impossible for SCG to take sides as it is a business, not a sentient being, all this article proves is that the writers of SCG have different opinions to one another and to ourselves.

Secondly, alot of what TobiH said was true with regards to his points being wrong or mis-informed. casual players and pro's are invested into the game as much as each other, and i dare say that we need each other for the game.

[nirvana]

McLaren deny missing winter testing session is risky


Hamilton and Button have three further track testing sessions to test the MP4-26

McLaren insist their new car will not suffer early-season teething problems - despite missing the first winter testing session for the 2011 season.
The new MP4-26 will be launched on 4 February, a day after the first official testing session ends in Spain.
It means McLaren have three chances to test its reliability before the opening grand prix in Bahrain on 13 March.
"We are reasonably confident we can get all the reliability we need," said McLaren engineer director Paddy Lowe.
Team principal Martin Whitmarsh said the decision to delay the testing of the MP4-26 was to give drivers Jenson Button and Lewis Hamilton "the best possible package" for Bahrain.
It means the British team will head to the first of four winter sessions at Circuit Ricardo Tormo in Valencia between 1-3 February with a standard 2010 chassis and a limited number of updates, while rivals Red Bull and Ferrari will unveil their new models for on-track testing.

JAKE HUMPHREY'S BLOG
The clock is ticking for the new season and March will be here in a flash
Red Bull did not test the constructors' championship-winning RB6 in the first winter testing session of 2010 and suffered early-season problems when Sebastian Vettel lost the lead at the Bahrain Grand Prix because of a spark plug problem, finishing fourth as a result, before retiring in the following race in Australia with a wheel problem.
But Lowe remained optimistic that McLaren's rigorous in-house testing will ensure there is no risk of major teething problems for the first race of the season.
"It's always a balancing act between how much mileage you are going to cover from a reliability issue and from a set-up point of view working with the new car," he said.
"Then you are trading against development time in the lab, wind tunnel and office. In terms of reliability impact, more and more work is done in the lab, typically on a dynamoteter (a device which measures force), to prove the major mechanical systems on the car.
"We are more confident that we can hit the ground running with a reliable package without doing thousands and thousands of kilometres on the track. You always learn something from mileage but it's a trade."

McLaren finished second in the constructors' title last year
This season's cars will adopt a number of technical changes including the adoption of moveable rear wings as well as the return of the Kers power-boost system, which had been voluntarily suspended last season, as used by McLaren in the 2008 season.
Lowe believed the new rules introduced by world governing body FIA make it difficult for McLaren to gauge their development against their competitors.
"It's a stressful time for all the engineers from this point onwards and first qualifying at the first race where you really understand where you are," he added.
"Everybody has no reference to what level of absolute performance is needed.
"We are confident with what we have done. The team have worked well over winter and we think we have a good car, but that will probably be true of our competitors.
"We have taken some estimates as to what level of performance we need to be at and we are on track for that. But time will tell whether that is sufficient."





_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
escort bruxelles
adult cams

[Sponsored content]