Deleted

its not like they have 5 games per yearbastards are well prepered for boycott

Oh, good idea, thanks for the reminder. I'm pretty much on autopilot when it comes to HB Monthly subscription.

Aaand pause :)

make sure you've also cancelled your Humble Monthly purchase since it literally has an Activision game in it.

No...
All 3 revealed titles are published by Activision titles in it. Not just CoDWWII, the Crash & Spyro remakes as well.

Why would you cancel it for one game when there are multiple games in a bundle?

Just put 100% to charity and only farm the games for cards, problem solved.

Can confirm (via brother and a friend), however you can still delete your account, but they will only do so if you provide photo ID for verification, and if what I stumbled on in google is correct, also 30 days for processing. Which is a dumbfounding move given the whole facial recognition tech controversy in China.

(If English is too difficult for you, or for those looking for a shorter summary, just skip to the second post below.)

Blizzard punished a player with unreasonable severity for a mostly innocuous statement, despite having no valid reason according to their guidelines to do such. Further, they rather impressively misutilized a guideline they did have listed to fit the bill, despite their usage of such (as well as their statements in regards to that usage) logically providing the assertion on their part that pro-Hong-Kong political statements are anti-China and being anti-China is being anti-Blizzard, as attacks against China hurt Blizzard's image.

They then engaged in many other behaviors which are already considered deeply unprofessional among western perspectives, such as attacking inherently unrelated individuals, engaging in pervasive censorship, and refusing to make acknowledgement of the matter. Moreover, there's the fact that their behaviors were completely in line with that of how the Chinese government approaches things- a government that ranks extremely high in their civil rights violations (nevermind being responsible for the civil rights circumstances in Tibet, which ranks 2nd in the world [after Syria] for human right violations), as well as ranking high on many other negative benchmarks..

Fundamentally, they've repeatedly made the clarification that they are operating in step with China. Even without noting the many issues China faces itself, nor noting that Hong Kong's perspectives are actually in line with the perspectives the Chinese populace once had before the government violentally oppressed all opposition, there's the fact that China's current approach goes in direct oppositon to the expectations associated with the UK's handing over of Hong Kong to China, an agreement which doesn't end for another decade.

From Hong Kong's perspective, they've Taiwan, Tibet, etc to look to to see how terrifying being fully under China's control can be. To have such a potential future looming only a decade away, and seeing China already pressuring their nation to fundamentally change their societal structure and rights, it's entirely reasonable for Hong Kong to be protesting so severely.

From a western standpoint, not only do we have to acknowledge how China's influence on Hong Kong goes against both western and typical international standards, but we have to identify with Hong Kong, which has a similar social perspective to western societies. To see that under attack, and to see a US company actively supporting that to levels which far exceed typical western sensibilities, that's going to ensure a negative western response.

In fact, similar circumstances are what led to the US finally joining into WW2, despite initially disassociating themselves with it. The US had first completely avoided the matter, but then started providing passive support (such as providing supplies and assistance in embargoing Japan) to the Allies. After some time, Japan became desperate, and attacked Pearl Harbor, which finally led to the US officially commiting to the war and dedicating active military resources to it.

So, in both situations, the US felt the urge to support like-minded nations, but didn't really feel a strong enough personal connection to actively dedicate themselves to the matter. Once the risk struck home in a very clear way, however, the US- and more importantly, the general opinion of its population- became much more favorable towards outright criticism, with a push towards active involvement.

The details and thereby the scope differ but, the fundamentals are the same. The reaction here [insomuch as it has extended to a rise in broader concerns over Hong Kong] presumably is so strong because suddenly the US is having to acknowledge that risks faced by other governments can also influence them. The reaction gains strength from the fact that the Chinese government never makes any attempt to disguise their authoritarian, expansionistic, rights-ignoring behaviors, and because the Chinese government persistantly feels they have a right to behave as blusteringly and dominatingly as possible on a global stage [which does rather calls the behavior of Trump to mind].

Thus, despite human nature being to detach from such issues when they're not immediately relevant, China keeps pushing such matters in our faces. Add in our ability to identify with Hong Kong to begin with, and the shocking severity of what Hong Kong may be facing, and the general uneasiness that China's unrestrained, aggressive expansion is already causing to begin with, and there's no wonder there's negative sentiments to the matter.

The core of the matter is, of course, that Blizzard acted in a manner which was fundamentally inappropriate to western standards, regardless of specific context. The actual context being what it is, only served to amplify the matter, and Blizzard's continuing poorly handling of the situation (or, if you prefer, "Very Chinese Government-like handling of the matter") is what has allowed this to continue escalating to the point of becoming something which has a life of its own.

Why bring political into interview Hearthstone?

While most games have it in their ToS that political matters should not be brought up at all [Blizzard did not, in fact, have this fairly standard clause in their ToS, which is what made the matter an issue to begin with, even before the severity of punishment was factored in], something which reflects the majority opinion of your own nation and does not express any hostility or discrimination or other negative aspects, generally is not considered as political statements, even within such standard guidelines. It'd be on par with saying "FUCK YEAH, USA" or "Happy new years, fellow people of Finland, may our great nation be a shining beacon within the EU for all the days to come!" or something.

That is, it expresses a pro-national viewpoint, but with no secondary elements involved [ie, the diminishment of other nations or ethnicities]. There's obviously a bit more of a political factor involved in this, so it's not a directly comparable matter, but typically ToS is there to prevent misbehavior and antagonism, not to crack down on freedom of speach or pro-nationalism. Even if the intensity of his statement was much more prominent than usual, it still falls under acceptable behavior.

Blizzard, on the other hand, has, as previously noted, directly identified themselves with China, to the point of emphasizing that point of association. This, along with other elements, means that Blizzard is directly stating that they're in opposition to the people and nation of Hong Kong. Meaning that, instead of taking a poltically neutral stance on the matter, they actually are the ones expressing a strong political opinion and engaging in negative behaviors related to such a perspective.

In short, their punishment of Blitzchun ends up being both hypocritical and a distasteful misuse of a position of power to force an agenda (an agenda which runs contary to not only western sensibilities and well beyond the borders of what westerners typically consider appropriate for a company to get involved in, but which indicates a broader perspective that Blizzard is actively acting as a political agent of China at the expense of other regions.)

As for the "why", it's normal human nature to want to express oneself on such matters, especially when the cirumstances are (as I touched on above) so very stressful and desperatation-inducing. It's pretty easy to excuse someone on their venting frustrations on negative matters directly relevant to themselves, especially when they do so in such a casual and non-offensive manner. It's far less clear why a US company would want to bring Asian politics into their games, or take such a zealous stance on a political issue which does not directly affect them.

true true

you are right

Doesn't help the image.

6 months is still far too long for something like that. It would be understandable for cheating or spreading hate or violence in the message. For promoting freedom and human rights, even if against the rules, a warning should be quite enough for the first time.

I was waiting for Trump to tweet about it, but I guess it doesn't involve an US citizen getting ripped off so we have to settle for 2 other politicians, altho nicely from both parties.

https://twitter.com/sgbluebell/status/1182817588147052544

The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision

If you believe this, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Well, that's just the most insincere, BS-filled response they could have come up with.
(Edit: Forbes touches on the same broad points I make below, with less detail but clearer presentation. Rockpapershotgun also covers the matter, with more detail than Forbes, and with more emphasis on certain points than my post. Alternatives options for those who find my presentation lacking in accessability.)

Here, I've filled in a few of the missing details:

We interview competitors who are at the top of their craft to share how they feel except when we don't like what they feel. We want to experience that moment with them. Hearing their excitement is a powerful way to bring us together with China.

Over the weekend, blitzchung used his segment to make a statement about the situation in Hong Kong—in violation of rules he acknowledged and understood despite the fact that none of our guidelines actually prohibit this action, and this is why we took action.
[..]
If this had been the opposing viewpoint- y'know, despite the fact that an opposing viewpoint would be required to come from other members of the same nation, and would have to directly oppose civil freedoms (as that is the only element clearly being promoted here), which in itself should be a perspective we ourselves refuse to support, given our own pro-freedom mottos and the rights-favoring location from which we're based- delivered in the same divisive (against Chinese authoritarianism) and deliberately low-key way that opposes what China wants
[..]
With regard to the casters, remember their purpose is to keep the event focused on the tournament. This requires them to have psychic abilities in regards to the people they are interviewing, and to absolutely not allow any opposition to China's agendas, even in situations where it is humanly impossible to prevent such actions.

Seriously, that entire post just oozes contempt, insincerity, and a confidence in the lack of intelligence of their fan-base.
That's not to say the framework isn't passable, but their choice of phrasing and the concepts they focus on makes their actual perspectives blatantly clear. Put another way, while maintaining the same core framework I could rewrite several sections with the result of the statement being respectably presented. Those necessary edits can't, however, be put down to mistakes in phrasing, as noone would make that many iffy comments by accident, nor would they hold to such an unapologetic tone throughout, unless their underlying perspective was genuinely insincere.

One of the major issues in this matter is that by opposing pro-Hong-Kong statements (which, as I noted in a post above, isn't inherently offensive, and would be let slide by most any other nationality) is that by making such an opposition, one directly supports China as having full control over Hong Kong's internal affairs and perspectives. Otherwise, such a comment couldn't, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered divisive.

Even if we accept the now-highly-doubtful belief that Blizzard isn't pandering to China, it'd still be absurd for them to claim that this matter isn't directly based in the fact that China is involved. No other nationality would have been punished for such a statement because, again, the statement in and of itself is innocuous. The issue Blizzard has is with the broader associated perspectives relating to Hong Kong and China. And, again, supporting your own nation should never be considered divisive, unless it's done in opposition to another ethnicity or political group. That clearly didn't occur here. Hence, the issue is in inference, that Pro-Hong-Kong means Anti-China. To have that perspective to begin with, means you've already taken a political stand on the matter.

All this before we get to all the elements of hypocrisy on Blizzard's part, and the clear pro-China favoritism.
Honestly, by this point, the best thing Blizzard could do to renew faith would be to get this company president, with his rather distasteful conduct, to step down. 'course, going off the stock listing linked above, this hasn't actually affected Activision stock to any real degree. So maybe they'll just keep trying to sweep it under the carpet.

Again, if Blizzard's guidelines had used more standard ToS phrasing for such matters, and if their response had been much more low-key, it'd be a different story. But what've gotten here is way-over-the-top, entirely unjustifiable, and followed by unreasonable excuses and continued conduct issues. By this point, there's just no reason to have any faith in Blizzard as a company.

Just a reminder that Blizzard's entire justification is that Blitzchan's comments "hurt Blizzard's public image", not that they were disruptive/inappropriate/etc. Even before we pick apart anything else, we have to acknowledge that, from the start, Blizzard has stated that being pro-Hong-Kong is anti-Blizzard. Since they keep refusing to explain such associations, or why their casters should be psychic, or why being pro-Hong Kong is so much worse than being pro-any-other-country, or anything else..

All we've really seen from Blizzard so far is evasion and excuses (and hypocrisy), without any sincerity, apology, or proper justification.

The difference is Roman citizens were totally and utterly free.

But that guy knows nothing of Blizzard or international operations ... wait, he's the one in charge of setting those up in the first place.

Gamers will always support companies doing something like that I think.

The only reason they ask for that is so people trying can be reported to the Chinese government.