Poll of the Day > If you didn't already have enough reasons to hate WotC . . .

(+) Yeah! (+)

. . . Here's another one.

https://youtu.be/PRPNIR52_MU

I remember when TSR was evil and WotC were the good guys, creating the OGL and being friendly to their fans.
I guess it's inevitable that any D&D company eventually becomes TSR. (-_-)
I've been done w/ them since 2008, when they felt the need to shit on the most popular version of D&D that ever existed to promote the new edition (it was such sweet karma watching it fail spectacularly).

i don't see anything wrong with this, because there isn't

it's pretty common that companies hire organizations to recover stolen property or property that isn't meant to be released yet.

he wasn't even raided, either. they know knocked on his door, he answered. they asked for the shit they were hired to recover back, he gave them to them. that's not a raid.

don't think these people actually know what a raid is.

it's like calling the recent Pokemon card recovery a raid when the dude contacted tpc themselves about it.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

i don't see anything wrong with this, because there isn't

it's pretty common that companies hire organizations to recover stolen property or property that isn't meant to be released yet.

he wasn't even raided, either. they know knocked on his door, he answered. they asked for the shit they were hired to recover back, he gave them to them. that's not a raid.

don't think these people actually know what a raid is.

it's like calling the recent Pokemon card recovery a raid when the dude contacted tpc themselves about it.

I think the part you're missing is that it's a fucking card game, not nuclear codes. Some guy having a couple packs of cards a few weeks early has basically no negative impact. It just a gross overreaction. it's not stolen property. If the seller paid WotC, and the guy paid the seller, nothing was stolen. If they want to sue the seller and blacklist them from distributors, fine I get that. Sending goons to someone's house is way beyond reasonable.

*Consumer steals/leaks property of a company*
*Company protects property*
Community: WTF why are you so evil!!!!1!!!

calling the fucking pinkertons of all people for asset recollection is overkill, though. those guys will skirt and abuse the law to harass you for years, they're literally known for violence

Ozmose posted...

I think the part you're missing is that it's a fucking card game, not nuclear codes. Some guy having a couple packs of cards a few weeks early has basically no negative impact. It just a gross overreaction. it's not stolen property. If the seller paid WotC, and the guy paid the seller, nothing was stolen. If they want to sue the seller and blacklist them from distributors, fine I get that. Sending goons to someone's house is way beyond reasonable.

It was triggered by him doing an video (unboxing?) about his card packs.
They could've just sent him a notice asking him to take down the video or private it until X date or something. Him merely owning the cards that were mistakenly shipped out early doesn't do them any harm.

papercup posted...

*Consumer steals/leaks property of a company*
*Company protects property*
Community: WTF why are you so evil!!!!1!!!

He didn't steal it. He ordered cards, and someone in their supply chain fucked up.
And taking them from him was totally unnecessary. Was he even compensated for them, since he paid for them?

ConfusedTorchic posted...

i don't see anything wrong with this, because there isn't

it's pretty common that companies hire organizations to recover stolen property or property that isn't meant to be released yet.

he wasn't even raided, either. they know knocked on his door, he answered. they asked for the shit they were hired to recover back, he gave them to them. that's not a raid.

don't think these people actually know what a raid is.

it's like calling the recent Pokemon card recovery a raid when the dude contacted tpc themselves about it.

"After his wife asked them to wait outside, Cannon says that they forced themselves at least partially through the door and prevented her from closing the door all the way. "

They were pretending to be cops.

Revelation34 posted...

They were pretending to be cops.

Basically, WotC hired a company with a looong history of harassment, abuse, and violence to recover something from a YouTuber who received it early by accident, by 100% legal means, and who was under no NDA obligations. After making almost no effort to actually contact him through legitimate channels or otherwise address the issue by civilized means or through official channels. And then those agents engaged in harassment, abuse, and implied threats of violence to get what they wanted... in spite of the fact that, because of how US postal law works, they had literally no legal right to do so (you're not actually obligated to return a product if it's accidentally sent to you prior to the street release date - you're only culpable if you deliberately took action to acquire it ahead of time).

WotC essentially overreacted to a relatively meaningless leak for PR reasons, and in the process created a PR clusterfuck of astronomical proportions. It may be the worst thing they've done recently - which is incredibly impressive considering they've spent the last few years acting like cartoonish supervillains.

At this point a fire that burns down their entire office and kills half their staff would probably do less damage to the company than they've been doing to themselves.

I saw the acronym and thought of War of the Chosen, then I thought to myself "that's fair'

The internet is very, very happy to bandwagon together to hate on a large corporation acting shittily, especially when using anti-union groups.

I'm really looking forward to a shitty PR saying they rolled a 1 in handling things.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Basically, WotC hired a company with a looong history of harassment,

they were fuckin villains in red dead redemption 2 because they were even worse back then!

shadowsword87 posted...

The internet is very, very happy to bandwagon together to hate on a large corporation acting shittily, especially when using anti-union groups.

On the plus side, at least they haven't pissed off two massive fanbases with a history of constant outrage, very long memories, holding grudges, nitpicking literally everything, and dramatically overreacting to things.

Oh, wait.

We were planning to use them as villains in an upcoming campaign

Ozmose posted...

I think the part you're missing is that it's a fucking card game, not nuclear codes. Some guy having a couple packs of cards a few weeks early has basically no negative impact. It just a gross overreaction. it's not stolen property. If the seller paid WotC, and the guy paid the seller, nothing was stolen. If they want to sue the seller and blacklist them from distributors, fine I get that. Sending goons to someone's house is way beyond reasonable.

none of this matters, it's still property that is not meant to be available, or even announced as coming.

it doesn't matter if it's a trading card or a yacht.

and again, asset recovery is a thing. they didn't blast down the door and go in guns blazing and tearing everything apart. it's not the police, lmfao.

they go there, ask for the thing, and they either get it, or they don't. if they don't, then they go to the courts to get it. they will get their product lmao.

the fact that no one actually cares that asset recovery was used is telling in how normal of a thing it is. the thing that isn't normal, and is what everyone is actually talking about, is who they specifically hired to do it. i'm sure if they just used assets biz, it wouldn't have even been a headline anyone would read.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

none of this matters, it's still property that is not meant to be available, or even announced as coming.

under FTC regulations unordered merchandise is considered a gift and the recipient is not required to return it. doesn't matter if it's not meant to be available, the law protects consumers here pretty strongly here

https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/what-do-if-youre-billed-things-you-never-got-or-you-get-unordered-products#unordered

PO already explained this, are you blocking him or something

yeah, you don't have to return it

it says nothing about them actually coming to get it, and there's the loophole.

you still disregarded the fact that you still don't have to cooperate with them even if they do, as i also said.

because you don't have to return it even if they come to get it

of course they will try to get it, what i'm arguing is the law itself, where WotC is objectively in the wrong

papercup posted...

*Consumer steals/leaks property of a company*
*Company protects property*
Community: WTF why are you so evil!!!!1!!!

*Consumer buys Magic cards*
*Accidentally given unreleased packs*
*Sends union-busting gang after the guy to retrieve the stolen property*

You:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/4/3/AAbsMXAAEbjj.jpg

Hot take: WotC is probably run by sweaty antisocial nerds who have 3 emotions in total and have no idea how to control any of them

Revelation34 posted...

"After his wife asked them to wait outside, Cannon says that they forced themselves at least partially through the door and prevented her from closing the door all the way. "

They were pretending to be cops.

Sounds like a simple case of unlawful entry and impersonation of a police officer.

agesboy posted...

because you don't have to return it even if they come to get it

yes?

that's what i fuckin' said bro

agesboy posted...

of course they will try to get it, what i'm arguing is the law itself, where WotC is objectively in the wrong

no

the law doesn't stop them from asking for it back, just that they can't demand you pay for it afterwards

you do not have to give it back to them even if they ask. i wasn't ever arguing against that.

you asked why i ignored po earlier

it's because he was wrong.

Its weird that they sent the Pinkertons instead of like calling the youtuber or something first

ConfusedTorchic posted...

the law doesn't stop them from asking for it back, just that they can't demand you pay for it afterwards

from the FTC's website:

By law, companies cant send unordered merchandise to you, then demand payment. That means you never have to pay for things you get but didnt order. You also dont need to return unordered merchandise. Youre legally entitled to keep it as a free gift.

he didn't order the new cards, he ordered the old cards. it's within his legal right to keep the new cards AND request a refund for the old cards, or keep the new cards and demand they also send him the old cards. the regulations are intentionally broad in order to protect consumers from scams, but it also ends up protecting them from mistakes made by the seller

i never fucking argued against that what the hell do you not understand here
ConfusedTorchic posted...

you do not have to give it back to them even if they ask. i wasn't ever arguing against that.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

you still disregarded the fact that you still don't have to cooperate with them even if they do, as i also said.

my fuckin god dude can you read

the thing i'm arguing is that it's not illegal for them to ask for the shit back.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

they go there, ask for the thing, and they either get it, or they don't. if they don't, then they go to the courts to get it. they will get their product lmao.

they will not get their product because they have no legal recourse. you were saying as a fact they would get their product back. the only reason they got it back this time was because the guy was already open to returning it if they just asked

agesboy posted...

they will not get their product because they have no legal recourse. you were saying as a fact they would get their product back. the only reason they got it back this time was because the guy was already open to returning it if they just asked

this isn't true though.

again, the law you posted only prevents them from sending you something unsolicited and then demanding payment for it.

it does not stop them from asking. it does not stop you from refusing their request. and it will absolutely not prevent them from going to the courts and charging you with theft.

why is it theft?

because you paid for it. you didn't get what you received, yes most companies will just let you keep it because it's not worth it for them to pursue legally.

but you still didn't actually get what you paid for. you got something else, something you aren't supposed to have.

disagree with it if you want, you'd be correct in that, but again: the law is only for unsolicited goods and then demanding you pay for them afterwards. (e.g: they ask him to pay for those boxes, in addition to the boxes he did order)

another fun way they can sue you for is to pay the difference in cost between the item you ordered and the item you received, along with all associated legal fees that will be astronomical...or you could settle if you just return the product.

like dude you can just google this and find a near endless supply of websites explaining that the ftc explanation of the law is dangerously misleading in its attempt to make it understandable for the layperson. but you still cannot keep an item sent to you in mistake.

wait, how can WotC sue for theft when they weren't even in possession of them at the time of the mistake? "breaking street date" isn't a fuckin legal term, it's part of the contract between the distributor and WotC, a contract the customer never agreed to. WotC sold them to the distributor, the distributor sold them to him. that's the distributor's fault and THEY are breaching contract, but WotC cannot allege theft

even assuming you're correct on the other matter, WotC does not have any kind of leverage over him

ConfusedTorchic posted...

none of this matters, it's still property that is not meant to be available, or even announced as coming.

it doesn't matter if it's a trading card or a yacht.

and again, asset recovery is a thing. they didn't blast down the door and go in guns blazing and tearing everything apart. it's not the police, lmfao.

they go there, ask for the thing, and they either get it, or they don't. if they don't, then they go to the courts to get it. they will get their product lmao.

the fact that no one actually cares that asset recovery was used is telling in how normal of a thing it is. the thing that isn't normal, and is what everyone is actually talking about, is who they specifically hired to do it. i'm sure if they just used assets biz, it wouldn't have even been a headline anyone would read.

Helly wrong again? Even after the relevant quote of an article is posted.

if WotC had a legal basis to reclaim the cards, they would have called the cops. they didn't, so they called the Pinkertons. using a company notorious for being hired killers and liars (they've had people executed by committing perjury) shows how little confidence they had in their own claims

ConfusedTorchic posted...

the law doesn't stop them from asking for it back, just that they can't demand you pay for it afterwards

you do not have to give it back to them even if they ask.

The problem is - and the point that you keep conveniently and repeatedly ignoring - is that they didn't just ask politely and he decided to return their product because it was the right thing to do. They used outright fraud and implied threats of violence to coerce behavior out of him. Which, you know, is kind of illegal.

In other words, the agents hired by WotC actually committed multiple crimes, while the YouTuber was completely within his rights to do everything he did. That's why people are reacting to the excessive reaction with outrage and calls for boycott and firings. WotC wasn't in the right - they were 100% in the wrong.

The YouTuber actually has a strong case to press charges (and he could potentially win millions). He almost certainly won't pursue it though, because he's likely not going to be able to retain better lawyers than Hasbro can hire, he's probably not in a position in life where he can engage in lengthy legal battles that span years and punitively bankrupt people just to uphold a moral and ethical principle, and it's probably not a good idea to stand up to the sort of people who send armed thugs to your house when you've got a pregnant wife.


But it's not a day ending in Y unless helly is devoting all of his energy towards being definitively and aggressively wrong about something, so it's no surprise how strongly you're trying to defend the company using Mafia tactics to punish someone who leaked scanned card images a few weeks early.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The YouTuber actually has a strong case to press charges (and he could potentially win millions). He almost certainly won't pursue it though

imo he just probably likes the game, tbh. this guy spent 4k on magic cards all at once. i get the feeling his tolerance for WotC bullshit is pretty high, and this case just stressed the camel's back

afaik the case is mostly shut now because he voluntarily surrendered the cards, but holy shit he could potentially sue for multiple things due to the pinkertons

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The problem is - and the point that you keep conveniently and repeatedly ignoring - is that they didn't just ask politely and he decided to return their product because it was the right thing to do. They used outright fraud and implied threats of violence to coerce behavior out of him. Which, you know, is kind of illegal.

Kind of? If true, WotC just outed themselves as gangsters.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The problem is - and the point that you keep conveniently and repeatedly ignoring - is that they didn't just ask politely and he decided to return their product because it was the right thing to do. They used outright fraud and implied threats of violence to coerce behavior out of him. Which, you know, is kind of illegal.

nope. they did not do this.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

In other words, the agents hired by WotC actually committed multiple crimes, while the YouTuber was completely within his rights to do everything he did. That's why people are reacting to the excessive reaction with outrage and calls for boycott and firings. WotC wasn't in the right - they were 100% in the wrong.

they really did not though. slight implications aren't a crime, especially when the implications are nothing more than "oh big scary man talking to me"

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The YouTuber actually has a strong case to press charges (and he could potentially win millions)

he could win nothing, because he does not have a case. he would more lose since, if he didn't give them back, he would be sued into oblivion for theft.

sorry po, but you're wrong as fuck here my guy. stop gut reacting.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But it's not a day ending in Y unless helly is devoting all of his energy towards being definitively and aggressively wrong about something, so it's no surprise how strongly you're trying to defend the company using Mafia tactics to punish someone who leaked scanned card images a few weeks early

you're right, it's not a day in y that helly ever loses an argument. but po frequently gets his shit kicked in on days ending with y, ive noticed throughout the years.

you really are not as smart as you like to get people to assume you are.

moreover, your original claim is still wrong lmfao.

How would he be sued for theft? Nothing was stolen

Notice how he's ignoring how I already proved him wrong?

because he would be in possession of something he never paid for, despite paying for something.

if he got his order, and then received the other things, it would be able to be treated as a gift in that case, and falls under ftc protection.

that still doesn't make it illegal for the company to ask for it back, like po would have you think otherwise.

agesboy posted...

"breaking street date" isn't a fuckin legal term, it's part of the contract between the distributor and WotC, a contract the customer never agreed to.

yes, it isn't. not sure what you think that has to do with anything since it was never brought up

anyways, again, all that ftc law does is make this

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/10/law-and-unordered

example illegal.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

the thing that isn't normal, and is what everyone is actually talking about, is who they specifically hired to do it. i'm sure if they just used assets biz, it wouldn't have even been a headline anyone would read.

and i already addressed the rest.

i'm guessing no one even knows of any other asset recovery firms, despite there being as many as there are ants.

just search for asset recovery firms around your area, you're gonna be suprised.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

yes, it isn't. not sure what you think that has to do with anything since it was never brought up

anyways, again, all that ftc law does is make this

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/10/law-and-unordered

example illegal.

po should probably read it too, but we all know he wont and will continue to dig a hole.

the consumer has done literally nothing illegal since whether something is released or not doesn't legally matter- that's a contractual issue between WotC and the retailer. in the worst case scenario that you're praying for, they'd still probably have a window of like 30~ days to return the cards, since this was all spawned due to the retailer's mistake and not borne out of intent... which is how long it'd take before the cards have been officially released

to turn the card back on you, the link you just posted is about unordered goods seeking payment in a scam, not misordered goods, right? that's not applicable here. post actual laws about goods that were sent in error and what the consumer's legal responsibilities are in that specific situation.

well, i'm done

someone else tell helly he's an idiot

agesboy posted...

to turn the card back on you, the link you just posted is about unordered goods seeking payment in a scam, not misordered goods, right? that's not applicable here. post actual laws about goods that were sent in error and what the consumer's legal responsibilities are in that specific situation.

...you don't say.

it's almost like

ConfusedTorchic posted...

all that ftc law does is make this

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/10/law-and-unordered

example illegal.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

but again: the law is only for unsolicited goods and then demanding you pay for them afterwards. (e.g: they ask him to pay for those boxes, in addition to the boxes he did order)

ConfusedTorchic posted...

again, the law you posted only prevents them from sending you something unsolicited and then demanding payment for it.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

the law doesn't stop them from asking for it back, just that they can't demand you pay for it afterwards

ConfusedTorchic posted...

the thing i'm arguing is that it's not illegal for them to ask for the shit back.

Unordered Merchandise

Whether or not the Rule is involved, in any approval or other sale you must obtain the customers prior express agreement to receive the merchandise. It is unlawful to:

1. Send any merchandise by any means without the express request of the recipient (unless the merchandise is clearly identified as a gift, free sample, or the like); or,
2. Try to obtain payment for or the return of the unordered merchandise.

It's still immoral and horrific PR.
Which is the better argument.

shadowsword87 posted...

It's still immoral and horrific PR.
Which is the better argument.

yes!

i've not once disputed that because christ who even sees that they're going to send the pinkertons and goes, "ok"

why do you even approve that, are they in some weird contractual obligation to use them for these things or what

shadowsword87 posted...

It's still immoral and horrific PR.
Which is the better argument.

I'm trying to envision the meeting where this idea was proposed and everyone went "Yeah, that sounds like a great plan. I can't see anyway this will go wrong."

ConfusedTorchic posted...

...you don't say.

it's almost like

Unordered Merchandise

Whether or not the Rule is involved, in any approval or other sale you must obtain the customers prior express agreement to receive the merchandise. It is unlawful to:
1. Send any merchandise by any means without the express request of the recipient (unless the merchandise is clearly identified as a gift, free sample, or the like); or,
2. Try to obtain payment for or the return of the unordered merchandise.

So Amazon broke the law when they sent me something I never ordered?

yes, technically. it's why they usually tell you to just keep the item. it's not really worth it for amazon to pursue that stuff just on the sheer scale of their operations.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

why do you even approve that, are they in some weird contractual obligation to use them for these things or what

"Robin M. Klimek, who has been the Director Security Risk Management at Hasbro, Inc. for 12 years, was previously the Director of Supply Chain Security Practice at Pinkerton Consulting & Investigations."

... is mine and a lot of other people's guesses.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

yes, technically. it's why they usually tell you to just keep the item. it's not really worth it for amazon to pursue that stuff just on the sheer scale of their operations.

I never reported it. It was something I had ordered like 6 months before but for some reason they resent it. I would have needed what they sent again eventually so I kept it.