2019 Holiday Exchange!
A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on [ISD] Mayor of Avabruck, Howlpack Alpha
    Quote from coyotemoon722
    For some weird reason I feel that day/night may revolve around 1 of 2 things:

    1. Day will be odd number of lands in play, Night even.

    2. You cast a spell that makes it night, or day for that matter.

    Those are my two ideas, take it for what you will.

    Haven't read the entire thread, so apologies if this had already been brought up earlier.

    But what about Split Basic Lands? Something along the lines of...

    Basic Land - Swamp (Day) / Basic Land - Swamp (Night)

    - Whenever a split land is played, the owner may choose to put into play as the "Day" or "Night" version.

    - Whenever a "Night" land is played, until the end of turn it is "Night."

    - At the end of turn, flip all "Night" cards to "Day."

    Seems simple enough. Think Snow-Covered Lands. These lands impact cards in Innistrad, but outside of the block they have no functional impact.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Could we get some kind of retribution for the event decks?
    Quote from Eberbacher
    1. Wizzards has dates where they release the ban list, so this was the last date for them to ban it, which, after the last few month of tournament results, was something they wanted to do

    I think that is actually what some of us have concern with. Wizards knew the date any banned/restricted updates would be announced. Why release these decks right before that date if there was any possibility at all one or more of the cards included could be banned?

    Now that I'm thinking about this more - The Event Decks were released on the 10th. The Commander Decks were released on the 17th. Why didn't they just swap the release dates? Or, even better, swap the dates and then delay the Event Decks by one business day. That way the decks would have been released after the bannings were announced.

    It seems as though they had a simple way to resolve, or at least minimize, the whole issue. Although from responses in the other thread about this issue it would seem I am in the minority in thinking they could have handled the situation better.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Bad businnes ethic for WOTC
    Quote from Zytz
    Are you really saying that WoTC should have yanked the product because a portion of the population of a single competitive format might be affected by the bannings?

    TL;DR - you seem butthurt to the point of delusion.

    You didn't need to throw the insults in. Your point would or would not have been made just as easily without them.

    I'm not saying Wizards should have yanked the product altogether. Just that if they knew a banning was about to be announced, they could have delayed shipping the product, or at least thrown a sticker onto each case or something. Really, would that be too much to ask?

    And I'm not "butthurt" about anything here. I don't own any of these cards, and probably never will. I didn't lose money or suffer an inconvenience because of this. Its just a simple conversation about what all of us consider to be the right or wrong way to handle the situation Smile
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Bad businnes ethic for WOTC
    Quote from Count Dorku
    This isn't even remotely true. You can tweak the deck plenty. You just have to take the Mystics out as one of those tweaks.

    That honestly wasn't the point I was trying to make. I'm not sure if I'm not providing the right explanation, or if you are purposely skirting around the topic at hand.

    Forget the legalities part of it altogether, and let's just focus on the original question posed by the OP. Was this bad business ethics on the part of WotC?

    Dictionary.Com defines Business Ethics as "the study and examination of moral and social responsibility in relation to business practices and decision-making in business."

    If WotC knew in advance that they were about to make an announcement that would impact both the financial value and function of a product, is it ethical for them to go ahead and sell the product without disclosing that information? If I'm a consumer impacted by that announcement, would I consider WotC with holding that information from me to be in bad faith? Would I have reconsidered purchasing that product had this information been known to me? Will I have concerns about purchasing products from them in the future?

    We're talking a philosophical point of view. In your opinion, was what Wizards did morally right or wrong in terms of conducting business? That is again presuming they knew the bans were coming in advance.

    Ok, getting back to the Event Deck again real quick. It has been a little over 72 hours since the bans were first announced. The official product page for the New Phyrexia Event Decks still make no mention of one of the included cards being banned, nor does it mention that in order to play the "War of Attrition" deck in a tournament a unique set of rules must be followed. They still aren't provided all the information necessary for a customer to make an informed decision of whether or not to purchase the deck. And this is 3 days after the fact!
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Bad businnes ethic for WOTC
    Quote from Chaosworm
    So if the consumer wasn't aware of the fact that a banning announcement was going to come shortly after the product was released and some cards in the product were obviously too powerful for a format, it's WotC's fault and illegal?

    I don't think so.

    That wasn't my argument. That was a straw man argument on your part.

    Keep in mind that I'm not talking about WotC releasing a product to consumers that, given unforseen changes in the marketplace or tournament scene, said product could end up fluctuating in price or having cards banned from it some months down the road. No, that's not what I'm talking about at all.

    Did WotC knowingly sell a product (Event Deck) that they knew in advance would be worth less in value than advertised shortly after it was released? If the answer is yes, than it could be construed as deceptive advertising/marketing under the FTC.

    "Under the law, claims in advertisements must be truthful, cannot be deceptive or unfair, and must be evidence-based. For some specialized products or services, additional rules may apply." -- Bureau of Consumer Protection, FTC.Gov

    Even if you go look at WotC's page on the "War of Attrition" Event Deck it still currently states that it is designed for tournament play, and "Tailoring the deck involves balancing personal preferences and responding to what your opponents are playing."

    We all know now that last sentence to be untrue. You cannot tweak this deck at all if you plan on using it in tournament play. Again, did WotC know this in advance of releasing the product? Did consumers buy the deck thinking they could tweak it like any other tournament deck, when WotC knew they in fact could not? Even if they were undecided on the bans, why didn't they just wait another ten days before releasing these decks?

    That's my argument.

    Now to clear up my position somewhat, I want to state that I do not own any copies of the banned cards. I am/was in favor of the bans. I did not purchase an event deck. Although I did consider it, but decided it would be smarter to wait and see if the banhammer dropped.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Bad businnes ethic for WOTC
    Quote from UNBAN SHAHRAZAD
    There's been talk about banning Jace and Stoneforge for a while now. If a retailer wanted to roll the dice and gamble that those cards weren't going to get banned, then he got burned. But it's okay, there are still Jaces and Stoneforges in those packs!

    I think what we are arguing though is if its fair to let retailers roll the dice, when the house knows the dice are loaded?

    If Wizards knew these bans were coming, then they knowingly sold product to a consumer who believed the value of said product was greater than they knew it to be.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Bad businnes ethic for WOTC
    Quote from mondu_the_fat
    Why is this bad business ethics?

    They didn't cheat buyers. The banning only serves one format. You can always play another format, or ignore whatever B&R lists that exists and play casual.

    If Wizards knew in advance that they would be banning these cards, then it is very much a case of bad business ethics. In the case of the Event Deck, it might even be illegal (which I'm sure it borders on, hence the "exception" Wizards has made in regards to the Event Deck in Standard). It has to do with the value of the product or good(s).
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Mark Rosewater To Appear On Thoughtcast Audio Show
    Mark Rosewater is tentatively scheduled to appear as a guest on the MTGThoughtcast.com audio show. The date and details are still being ironed out, but it looks as though his appearence will be sometime between July 14th and July 21st. Just in time for Coldsnap!

    Keep in mind his appearance is tentative, and is subject to change.

    Please see www.mtgthoughtcast.com for more information.
    Posted in: Submit News
  • posted a message on Wizards vs. rancored_elf: the Resolution
    Ok. Please help me with understanding this Haloscope.

    Rancored Elf and Wizards are both forbidden from discussing the specifics on the settlement, correct? Wouldn't that be a "gag order," at least in the loosest sense of the term?

    When you say "there was no such order in this case" you are strictly speaking of a court's order, yes? Which would lead me to believe the gag order wasn't an order at all, but rather a condition in the settlement agreement itself.

    Forgive me if this has already been covered. I have about twelve pages worth of forum discussion to catch up on.
    Posted in: News
  • posted a message on Wizards vs. rancored_elf: the Resolution
    Quote from Haloscope »
    Hey Lightster,

    Well, we can all talk about the terms of the lawsuit - that's totally public information. Its the terms of the settlement that we won't be discussing. Actually, yeah, I did see that comment about precedents - but there's not much for me to say on the topic. Neither myself nor Daron have ever been privy to WotC's goals/thoughts/etc.

    - H

    I was under the impression that placing a gag order on any kind of court settlement was standard practice. Like a safeguard of sorts. Haloscope, is that not common pratice?
    Posted in: News
  • posted a message on Why does MODO suck so bad?
    All of my concerns of digital vs. physical objects went right out the window as soon as my son was old enough to start grabbing at things. Lost a ton of cards due to his constant desire to chew on things.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Wizards of the Coast vs. Daron Rutter: An Update
    Quote from Username »
    I'm waiting for something to happen too. Like Wizards dropping the lawsuit and admitting that they were being asses about the whole situation. Now that would be nice!

    I don't see that happening. WotC must surely know by now that this suit can only be categorized as a public relations nightmare. I can't see them losing even more face by announcing to the world that they were wrong, and the whole situation was brought by a lack of judgement on their end.

    I can see them pushing the case through in an attempt to further intimidate/scare R_E into trying to negotiate some kind of settlement. They'd probably drop the suit at this point if he agreed to not disclose any further information on unreleased products. This way they come off as the "good natured" corporation that, at the end of the day, was only out to protect their product, and not out to step all over the little man.

    Quote from Username »
    I remember that too... several years ago, in a MTG.com article, MTGNews was referenced in a non-negative manner because it had spoilers. Was there a change in Wizards' corporate policy?

    Spoilers posted in text version is not the same as posted playtest cards. Severity level of information leakage shoots way up.
    Posted in: News
  • posted a message on Wizards of the Coast vs. Daron Rutter: An Update
    I'm sure the high dollar amount they asked the court for is a scare tactic. They want to scare R_E into trying to settle with them, and if he does so, they gain tremendous leverage on him to give up the names of John Does 1-10.

    In my first Thoughtcast I discuss this matter in great detail.
    Posted in: News
  • posted a message on Wizards of the Coast vs. Daron Rutter: An Update
    Quote from Jiyor »
    This has been stated almost literaly a billion times before.And 10 whos to be exact.I'm guessing the playtest groups are made up of 10 people.

    Agreed, but it is worth repeating a billion times when discussing the situation. A lot of people, especially those that are just now finding out about the entire situation, don't seem to realize this at first. They see the situation in extreme black and white - Rancored Elf makes spoiler post, and Wizards sues him. They don't tend to look beyond that.
    Posted in: News
  • posted a message on Wizards of the Coast vs. Daron Rutter: An Update
    I still believe the entire reason for this lawsuit goes much deeper than someone simply posting spoilers of an un-released product. Someone leaked prototype materials, the source most likely someone from inside the WotC development team, and WotC wants to know who. Filing suit against R_E is the most effective way of uncovering the source.
    Posted in: News
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.