Riot warns League of Legends streamers and players to avoid 'sensitive topics' on the air

FlyByKnight

Riot warns League of Legends streamers and players to avoid 'sensitive topics' on the air

Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/riot-warns-league-of-legends-streamers-and-players-to-avoid-sensitive-topics-on-the-air/

With the League of Legends World Championship Group Stage competition set to begin on Saturday, Riot Games has issued a statement calling on casters and players to avoid discussing "sensitive issues" during livestreams.
"We serve fans from many different countries and cultures, and we believe this opportunity comes with a responsibility to keep personal views on sensitive issues (political, religious, or otherwise) separate. These topics are often incredibly nuanced, require deep understanding and a willingness to listen, and cannot be fairly represented in the forum our broadcast provides," global heead of League of Legends Esports John Needham said. "Therefore, we have reminded our casters and pro players to refrain from discussing any of these topics on air."

Read the full story on PC Gamer

Wizardry

People should all ban together to warn Riot to stfu or everyone leaves.
Then see what they have to say when their wallets have no money in them.
I bet they sing a new song and dance then.
Too often,these game businesses think they are big shots can do whatever they want,tell people how to act move think,talk,like PUPPETS all because there is money involved.

The sad reality is all these people must act like puppets because they are bound by the $$$.Remove the money,the streamers are gone,remove them and the followers are gone,soon the game dies.Way too many young people are growing up trying to make a living from playing video games.

If Riot..Blizzard did not have all these people trapped and chained to the money,people would stand up and not take shit from them ever.

Aeander

I'm sure that has nothing to do with their 100% ownership by Tencent.

Phry

After the latest statement from Blizzard that exposed their utter hypocrisy, i can't say i am too surprised, Tencent absolutely does not want this 'disobedience' to spread, of course, i have to wonder if Epic will stand by their words about not banning/silencing players if Fortnight players also begin demonstrations of their own in favour of Freedom for Hong Kong.

mmolou

DMKano said:

Riot is a Chinese owned company - no surprise. 

They can get bent together with Blizzard.

Anyone who stands in support of any country that still runs concentration camps can fuck right off.

So that includes America/Americans as well then?

flizzer

 This might be the future.  China uses it increasing financial power to stifle dissent around the world including the West.   It seems these companies have no problem with that.   Will gamers agree?

TiamatRoar

mmolou said:

DMKano said:

Riot is a Chinese owned company - no surprise. 

They can get bent together with Blizzard.

Anyone who stands in support of any country that still runs concentration camps can fuck right off.

So that includes America/Americans as well then?

By "country"  he means government in this context. In which case, to answer your question, hell yes. Fortunately the American impeachment inquiries are already ongoing.

AlexanderVendi

Things are much worse in iraq..

Quizzical

So long as people are warned in advance and the rule is enforced equally regardless of whether a statement is for or against a given position, I don't see a problem.  The problem is when you don't state things like this up front and then later make up the rules that you will apply retroactively.

TiamatRoar

Quizzical said:

So long as people are warned in advance and the rule is enforced equally regardless of whether a statement is for or against a given position, I don't see a problem.  The problem is when you don't state things like this up front and then later make up the rules that you will apply retroactively.

The rule never said "no politics".  It just said they may punish anything offensive at Blizzard's discretion.  Which means that, yes, at their discretion, he was offensive.

....and that's where the problems start, because taken in the context of the situation (where it's a pro democracy statement about human rights that mainly the dictatorial censoring murdering torturing and yes, absolutely evil Chinese government would find "offensive"), by punishing him for that role, Blizzard is basically saying,

"At our discretion. Blitzcheung's pro democracy human rights statement is offensive to the repressive evil Chinese government and we will punish him for it accordingly."

What they should do is punish themselves under such logic considering their "every voice matters" motto (of course, their official apology said "Every voice matters, HOWEVER...", but that's a whole other can of LOLZ and WTFs).

"At Blizzard's discretion" is a variant of "making things up" too and they punished him after the statement rather than warn him so their "rule" actually meets your "unless they make up the rules that are applied retroactively" (dis)qualification.

Quizzical

TiamatRoar said:

Quizzical said:

So long as people are warned in advance and the rule is enforced equally regardless of whether a statement is for or against a given position, I don't see a problem.  The problem is when you don't state things like this up front and then later make up the rules that you will apply retroactively.

The rule never said "no politics".  It just said they may punish anything offensive at Blizzard's discretion.  Which means that, yes, at their discretion, he was offensive.

....and that's where the problems start, because taken in the context of the situation (where it's a pro democracy statement about human rights that mainly the dictatorial censoring murdering torturing and yes, absolutely evil Chinese government would find "offensive"), by punishing him for that role, Blizzard is basically saying,

"At our discretion. Blitzcheung's pro democracy human rights statement is offensive to the repressive evil Chinese government and we will punish him for it accordingly."

What they should do is punish themselves under such logic considering their "every voice matters" motto (of course, their official apology said "Every voice matters, HOWEVER...", but that's a whole other can of LOLZ and WTFs).

"At Blizzard's discretion" is a variant of "making things up" too and they punished him after the statement rather than warn him so their "rule" actually meets your "unless they make up the rules that are applied retroactively" (dis)qualification.

Blizzard didn't say "no politics" ahead of time.  Riot just did.  Riot is handling it properly.  Blizzard didn't.  This article is about Riot's announcement.  Let's not confuse the situations.

TiamatRoar

Quizzical said:

TiamatRoar said:

Quizzical said:

So long as people are warned in advance and the rule is enforced equally regardless of whether a statement is for or against a given position, I don't see a problem.  The problem is when you don't state things like this up front and then later make up the rules that you will apply retroactively.

The rule never said "no politics".  It just said they may punish anything offensive at Blizzard's discretion.  Which means that, yes, at their discretion, he was offensive.

....and that's where the problems start, because taken in the context of the situation (where it's a pro democracy statement about human rights that mainly the dictatorial censoring murdering torturing and yes, absolutely evil Chinese government would find "offensive"), by punishing him for that role, Blizzard is basically saying,

"At our discretion. Blitzcheung's pro democracy human rights statement is offensive to the repressive evil Chinese government and we will punish him for it accordingly."

What they should do is punish themselves under such logic considering their "every voice matters" motto (of course, their official apology said "Every voice matters, HOWEVER...", but that's a whole other can of LOLZ and WTFs).

"At Blizzard's discretion" is a variant of "making things up" too and they punished him after the statement rather than warn him so their "rule" actually meets your "unless they make up the rules that are applied retroactively" (dis)qualification.

Blizzard didn't say "no politics" ahead of time.  Riot just did.  Riot is handling it properly.  Blizzard didn't.  This article is about Riot's announcement.  Let's not confuse the situations.

Oh, oops, didn't see that you didn't mention any company so my mind just assumed Blizzard and forgot this was a riot thread.

I suppose it's not surprising.  I'd expect Ten Cent to know how to handle PR regarding China and toe the line better than Blizzard.  They probably have much more experience in such matters

petersnowz

Wizardry said:

People should all ban together to warn Riot to stfu or everyone leaves.
Then see what they have to say when their wallets have no money in them.
I bet they sing a new song and dance then.
Too often,these game businesses think they are big shots can do whatever they want,tell people how to act move think,talk,like PUPPETS all because there is money involved.

The sad reality is all these people must act like puppets because they are bound by the $$$.Remove the money,the streamers are gone,remove them and the followers are gone,soon the game dies.Way too many young people are growing up trying to make a living from playing video games.

If Riot..Blizzard did not have all these people trapped and chained to the money,people would stand up and not take shit from them ever.

Gj summing up society, thats exactly why u do what ur told at ur job...

Quizzical

TiamatRoar said:

Quizzical said:

TiamatRoar said:

Quizzical said:

So long as people are warned in advance and the rule is enforced equally regardless of whether a statement is for or against a given position, I don't see a problem.  The problem is when you don't state things like this up front and then later make up the rules that you will apply retroactively.

The rule never said "no politics".  It just said they may punish anything offensive at Blizzard's discretion.  Which means that, yes, at their discretion, he was offensive.

....and that's where the problems start, because taken in the context of the situation (where it's a pro democracy statement about human rights that mainly the dictatorial censoring murdering torturing and yes, absolutely evil Chinese government would find "offensive"), by punishing him for that role, Blizzard is basically saying,

"At our discretion. Blitzcheung's pro democracy human rights statement is offensive to the repressive evil Chinese government and we will punish him for it accordingly."

What they should do is punish themselves under such logic considering their "every voice matters" motto (of course, their official apology said "Every voice matters, HOWEVER...", but that's a whole other can of LOLZ and WTFs).

"At Blizzard's discretion" is a variant of "making things up" too and they punished him after the statement rather than warn him so their "rule" actually meets your "unless they make up the rules that are applied retroactively" (dis)qualification.

Blizzard didn't say "no politics" ahead of time.  Riot just did.  Riot is handling it properly.  Blizzard didn't.  This article is about Riot's announcement.  Let's not confuse the situations.

Oh, oops, didn't see that you didn't mention any company so my mind just assumed Blizzard and forgot this was a riot thread.

I suppose it's not surprising.  I'd expect Ten Cent to know how to handle PR regarding China and toe the line better than Blizzard.  They probably have much more experience in such matters

I'd attribute it more to Riot learning from Blizzard's mistake.  I'd also expect the next Blizzard tournament to have a more explicit "no politics" rule.

IceAge

Quizzical said:

TiamatRoar said:

Quizzical said:

So long as people are warned in advance and the rule is enforced equally regardless of whether a statement is for or against a given position, I don't see a problem.  The problem is when you don't state things like this up front and then later make up the rules that you will apply retroactively.

The rule never said "no politics".  It just said they may punish anything offensive at Blizzard's discretion.  Which means that, yes, at their discretion, he was offensive.

....and that's where the problems start, because taken in the context of the situation (where it's a pro democracy statement about human rights that mainly the dictatorial censoring murdering torturing and yes, absolutely evil Chinese government would find "offensive"), by punishing him for that role, Blizzard is basically saying,

"At our discretion. Blitzcheung's pro democracy human rights statement is offensive to the repressive evil Chinese government and we will punish him for it accordingly."

What they should do is punish themselves under such logic considering their "every voice matters" motto (of course, their official apology said "Every voice matters, HOWEVER...", but that's a whole other can of LOLZ and WTFs).

"At Blizzard's discretion" is a variant of "making things up" too and they punished him after the statement rather than warn him so their "rule" actually meets your "unless they make up the rules that are applied retroactively" (dis)qualification.

Blizzard didn't say "no politics" ahead of time.  Riot just did.  Riot is handling it properly.  Blizzard didn't.  This article is about Riot's announcement.  Let's not confuse the situations.

Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public,

From my point of view: "Brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public" , is exactly what Blitz did. 

Am I wrong?

Quizzical

IceAge said:

Quizzical said:

Blizzard didn't say "no politics" ahead of time.  Riot just did.  Riot is handling it properly.  Blizzard didn't.  This article is about Riot's announcement.  Let's not confuse the situations.

Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public,

From my point of view: "Brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public" , is exactly what Blitz did. 

Am I wrong?

That's a vague catchall, not a clear "no politics" rule.  If you mean no politics, then say no politics.  Announcing that you think Hearthstone is a fun game will offend a portion of the public, but surely wouldn't result in a ban.

Kyleran

Quizzical said:

TiamatRoar said:

Quizzical said:

TiamatRoar said:

Quizzical said:

So long as people are warned in advance and the rule is enforced equally regardless of whether a statement is for or against a given position, I don't see a problem.  The problem is when you don't state things like this up front and then later make up the rules that you will apply retroactively.

The rule never said "no politics".  It just said they may punish anything offensive at Blizzard's discretion.  Which means that, yes, at their discretion, he was offensive.

....and that's where the problems start, because taken in the context of the situation (where it's a pro democracy statement about human rights that mainly the dictatorial censoring murdering torturing and yes, absolutely evil Chinese government would find "offensive"), by punishing him for that role, Blizzard is basically saying,

"At our discretion. Blitzcheung's pro democracy human rights statement is offensive to the repressive evil Chinese government and we will punish him for it accordingly."

What they should do is punish themselves under such logic considering their "every voice matters" motto (of course, their official apology said "Every voice matters, HOWEVER...", but that's a whole other can of LOLZ and WTFs).

"At Blizzard's discretion" is a variant of "making things up" too and they punished him after the statement rather than warn him so their "rule" actually meets your "unless they make up the rules that are applied retroactively" (dis)qualification.

Blizzard didn't say "no politics" ahead of time.  Riot just did.  Riot is handling it properly.  Blizzard didn't.  This article is about Riot's announcement.  Let's not confuse the situations.

Oh, oops, didn't see that you didn't mention any company so my mind just assumed Blizzard and forgot this was a riot thread.

I suppose it's not surprising.  I'd expect Ten Cent to know how to handle PR regarding China and toe the line better than Blizzard.  They probably have much more experience in such matters

I'd attribute it more to Riot learning from Blizzard's mistake.  I'd also expect the next Blizzard tournament to have a more explicit "no politics" rule.

Exactly, they didn't issue this "clarification" until after Blizzard took it on the chin last week, wouldn't be surprised to see similar announcements by other firms and organizations in the future.

Gaming has always tried to keep itself distanced from religion and politics, with heavy moderation of unpleasant or unpopular topics which might disrupt the enjoyment of their customers.

Not just gaming either, how many here work for employers who keep a tight lid on these two subjects, only permitting discussion in very neutral, all inclusive conversations?

My employer has a large, well financed PAC, which they regularly solicit employees to join and contribute to.

Guess which political party they strongly support? Both of them pretty much equally.

Playing both sides of the fence? Not really, the PAC contributes funds and lobbies politicians who have the abilty or show interest in supporting matters which potentially impact the firm's core  business.

Business in general tries it's best to focus on making money and avoid controversies which might impact their ability to do so.






.

Elsabolts

Ok is this about Hong Kong or who Sheapard Smith sleeps with ?

IceAge

Quizzical said:

IceAge said:

Quizzical said:

Blizzard didn't say "no politics" ahead of time.  Riot just did.  Riot is handling it properly.  Blizzard didn't.  This article is about Riot's announcement.  Let's not confuse the situations.

Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public,

From my point of view: "Brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public" , is exactly what Blitz did. 

Am I wrong?

That's a vague catchall, not a clear "no politics" rule.  If you mean no politics, then say no politics.  Announcing that you think Hearthstone is a fun game will offend a portion of the public, but surely wouldn't result in a ban.

So I am right, but you just come up with theories, based on personal beliefs.

He used Hearthstone to go into a "public disrepute" & "offended a portion or group of people" .

I mean if it wasn't the case, then be sure that Blizzard would unban him completely. But hey, seems you know better then their lawyers. As a matter of fact, seems Americans do have this "we know better" attitude. Better then even them self, lol.

TiamatRoar

IceAge said:

Quizzical said:

IceAge said:

Quizzical said:

Blizzard didn't say "no politics" ahead of time.  Riot just did.  Riot is handling it properly.  Blizzard didn't.  This article is about Riot's announcement.  Let's not confuse the situations.

Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public,

From my point of view: "Brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public" , is exactly what Blitz did. 

Am I wrong?

That's a vague catchall, not a clear "no politics" rule.  If you mean no politics, then say no politics.  Announcing that you think Hearthstone is a fun game will offend a portion of the public, but surely wouldn't result in a ban.

So I am right, but you just come up with theories, based on personal beliefs.

He used Hearthstone to go into a "public disrepute" & "offended a portion or group of people" .

I mean if it wasn't the case, then be sure that Blizzard would unban him completely. But hey, seems you know better then their lawyers. As a matter of fact, seems Americans do have this "we know better" attitude. Better then even them self, lol.

Lawyers? This was a matter of public relations, not legality.  ....although Blizzard using lawyers for a decision that's clearly about public relations would explain how they managed to screw it up so badly.

IceAge

As a side note, i'll just leave this here : 



Blizzard's shareholders are from around the world. They want money. 

If you want loyalty to US Government and "principles" , yes , that's correct : Hire a dog ..

TiamatRoar

Then I'll just paraphrase Southpark.  You gotta give up some of your ideals and freedoms if you want to suck on the warm cash cow of China.

IceAge

TiamatRoar said:

IceAge said:

Quizzical said:

IceAge said:

Quizzical said:

Blizzard didn't say "no politics" ahead of time.  Riot just did.  Riot is handling it properly.  Blizzard didn't.  This article is about Riot's announcement.  Let's not confuse the situations.

Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public,

From my point of view: "Brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public" , is exactly what Blitz did. 

Am I wrong?

That's a vague catchall, not a clear "no politics" rule.  If you mean no politics, then say no politics.  Announcing that you think Hearthstone is a fun game will offend a portion of the public, but surely wouldn't result in a ban.

So I am right, but you just come up with theories, based on personal beliefs.

He used Hearthstone to go into a "public disrepute" & "offended a portion or group of people" .

I mean if it wasn't the case, then be sure that Blizzard would unban him completely. But hey, seems you know better then their lawyers. As a matter of fact, seems Americans do have this "we know better" attitude. Better then even them self, lol.

Lawyers? This was a matter of public relations, not legality.  ....although Blizzard using lawyers for a decision that's clearly about public relations would explain how they managed to screw it up so badly.

..and yet, if the ban was not legal, imagine the same people will go like "The ban was not even legally because the so called term which Blitz broken, was not in their ToS". And then, forums would be full of "SUE THEM!!". 

IceAge

TiamatRoar said:

Then I'll just paraphrase Southpark.  You gotta give up some of your ideals and freedoms if you want to suck on the warm cash cow of China.

Pff Be my guess.

A lot of companies and people are giving up some of their ideals and freedoms to suck on the warm cash cow of USA! 

How is it that there's only China money in all this world? USA money no? Or are you guys assuming that they are "all clean"?

TiamatRoar

IceAge said:

TiamatRoar said:

IceAge said:

Quizzical said:

IceAge said:

Quizzical said:

Blizzard didn't say "no politics" ahead of time.  Riot just did.  Riot is handling it properly.  Blizzard didn't.  This article is about Riot's announcement.  Let's not confuse the situations.

Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public,

From my point of view: "Brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public" , is exactly what Blitz did. 

Am I wrong?

That's a vague catchall, not a clear "no politics" rule.  If you mean no politics, then say no politics.  Announcing that you think Hearthstone is a fun game will offend a portion of the public, but surely wouldn't result in a ban.

So I am right, but you just come up with theories, based on personal beliefs.

He used Hearthstone to go into a "public disrepute" & "offended a portion or group of people" .

I mean if it wasn't the case, then be sure that Blizzard would unban him completely. But hey, seems you know better then their lawyers. As a matter of fact, seems Americans do have this "we know better" attitude. Better then even them self, lol.

Lawyers? This was a matter of public relations, not legality.  ....although Blizzard using lawyers for a decision that's clearly about public relations would explain how they managed to screw it up so badly.

..and yet, if the ban was not legal, imagine the same people will go like "The ban was not even legally because the so called term which Blitz broken, was not in their ToS". And then, forums would be full of "SUE THEM!!". 

Okay?  You gave a hypothetical that if Blizzard didn't have lawyers and did illegal things, things would be even worse.  Congratulations on that bit of insightfulness, I guess?

IceAge

TiamatRoar said:

IceAge said:

TiamatRoar said:

IceAge said:

Quizzical said:

IceAge said:

Quizzical said:

Blizzard didn't say "no politics" ahead of time.  Riot just did.  Riot is handling it properly.  Blizzard didn't.  This article is about Riot's announcement.  Let's not confuse the situations.

Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public,

From my point of view: "Brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public" , is exactly what Blitz did. 

Am I wrong?

That's a vague catchall, not a clear "no politics" rule.  If you mean no politics, then say no politics.  Announcing that you think Hearthstone is a fun game will offend a portion of the public, but surely wouldn't result in a ban.

So I am right, but you just come up with theories, based on personal beliefs.

He used Hearthstone to go into a "public disrepute" & "offended a portion or group of people" .

I mean if it wasn't the case, then be sure that Blizzard would unban him completely. But hey, seems you know better then their lawyers. As a matter of fact, seems Americans do have this "we know better" attitude. Better then even them self, lol.

Lawyers? This was a matter of public relations, not legality.  ....although Blizzard using lawyers for a decision that's clearly about public relations would explain how they managed to screw it up so badly.

..and yet, if the ban was not legal, imagine the same people will go like "The ban was not even legally because the so called term which Blitz broken, was not in their ToS". And then, forums would be full of "SUE THEM!!". 

Okay?  You gave a hypothetical that if Blizzard didn't have lawyers and did illegal things, things would be even worse.  Congratulations on that bit of insightfulness, I guess?

Thanks! You are not better btw! We both discuss a political thing which has NO place in games.