88
89

Cyberdemon531 is also banned from AGDQ (self.speedrun)

ProInfernape が 投稿

Cyberdemon recorded PvtCb's conversation with Klaige and now he has been banned from the event. I will post updates once more scoops about the banning get said.

Recorded Conversation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsK-duXi5CM

Update 1: There has been speculation of Cyber being banned for wearing the MAGA hat on stream as well

Update 2: The staff admitted they were wrong on the bannings but PvtCb and Cyberdemon are still banned for other reason which have not yet been said

Update 3: http://pastebin.com/52y1dkSa

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 255
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]spoffman7 44 ポイント45 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It should probably be mentioned that we actually have no idea why Cyberdemon was banned. He never said it was for filming the Klaige conversation, nor is he defending himself in any way. May have just gotten belligerent with the staff and is being intentionally vague to stir the pot.

[–]303Devilfish 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Cyberdemon stirring the pot? cmon, that's not the Cyberdemon I know..... LUL

[–]HansonWK 159 ポイント160 ポイント  (10子コメント)

So let me get this straight. Everyone is told no politics on stream. Some known trolls bring trump hats and instead of wearing them, they pass the hat around to try to circumvent the rules. Someone is told they are being banned for wearing the hat, but they didn't actually wear it they just brought it into the streaming room. The trolls know this is why they are being banned, but recorded the conversation and are trying to get people on their side because the person confronting them said he wore it when he didn't. It doesn't matter who wore it, it's the person who brought it in and passed it round. Instead of just the first guy being banned, they have now banned the other troll for his involvement.

Is any of that wrong?

[–]emc3142 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I believe three people did wear the hat on stream.

[–]TheOnin 78 ポイント79 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You forgot to mention that both of these guys were warned the moment they checked in that they were on final warning basis. Just like they were last GDQ.

[–]dafruntlein 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (4子コメント)

If the people from the stream are who I think they are, PvtCb didn't wear the hat at all, but got banned for such. Cyberdemon actually did wear the hat, and is now banned too.

[–]sprntgd 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (3子コメント)

They were both told upon receiving their badges that they were being treated with zero tolerance.

The others involved were probably warned. Those two had already been warned.

[–]RaitoGG 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (1子コメント)

As far as I saw PvtCb did neither bring nor wear the hat. So he's being banned for having passed on the hat.

[–]dmlf1 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is there somewhere in the VOD you can see him pass the hat?

[–]dmlf1 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Zero tolerance treatment isn't an excuse for banning someone for something they didn't do.

[–]bagelsocks [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The rules only ban politics as a topic of conversation. I'm surprised that they didn't just say "no politics". seems like an odd decision to me.

[–]dj0nk 74 ポイント75 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Wow a bunch of trolls got banned. Better cry about it on reddit to get attention!

[–]Rimm 40 ポイント41 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Try to stir up shit

Get appropriate response

"WAHHHH"

[–]AttackTheMoonShovel Knight RIP 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

muh freezed peach

[–]atomic_gingerbread 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Leave the MAGA hat at home. Charity events to fight cancer should not be politicized. Just because a coterie of journalists decided video games would be the site of the next culture war doesn't mean you have provide them with one.

[–]Razorshins 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Seriously, it's quite annoying. Every GDQ the big story seems to be who got banned. Fuck the drama, I appreciate all the streamers who come in, do a great run, and don't stir up shit or feel like they weren't given the attention they deserve. Which is almost all of them, so that's good.

[–]frownyface [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not just that.. there's a very concrete reason they take it extremely seriously:

https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/political-campaign-activities-risks-tax-exempt-status

In return for its favored tax-status, a charitable nonprofit promises the federal government that it will not engage in “political campaign activity” and if it does, IRS regulations mandate that the charitable nonprofit will lose its tax-exempt status.

[–]Brikachu 108 ポイント109 ポイント  (48子コメント)

If you wore the hat you deserved the ban.

If you brought the hat you deserved the ban.

If you didn't do either of these two things, you don't deserve the ban.

Trump may be a hot, spicy meme, but the point of the stream is not to divide your viewers into their political parties. It's to bring people together to fight cancer.

[–]Teridax_Cx 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I wonder how big of an issue this would be if they didn't get banned. Like would people be this furious over the hats if they just wore them and then got quietly told later on to not do that shit anymore.

[–]HansonWK 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They were quietly told not to do anything before the event started. They are known trolls and told they were on a one chance basis after various other things happening at other events.

[–]UnbowedUncucked 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

fight cancer.

Prevent cancer.

[–]xparasite9 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

more like give money to uyama to give 10% of it to a charity that gives 10% of THAT money to researchers that pretend to fight cancer.

[–]Cottontael -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Prevent cancer from developing fully.

[–]Grundsten 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (37子コメント)

I've read the rules, and nowhere does it mention explicitly, 'black on white,' that one cannot wear political apparel. The one thing mentioned is: "Avoid topics of conversation that are polarizing or controversial in nature. This includes but is not limited to things such as politics, religion, or other “hot button” topics that are innately divisive."

There is only one hit for the word 'politics' in the entire page and it's in that quote.

The only mention CLOSE to what rule the hat would infringe upon is the hat being construed as a medium for conversation, which would fall under the bullshit of 'semantics' which is a waste of time.

There is no 'black on white' rule in the entire rule page unless it was verbally stated, and at that point it goes against what was said in the recording, and would also not apply to everyone, unless everyone in the event was informed.

The only thing that makes this shit any sort of close to a proper handling of a ban is the following part of the rule page: "The nature of acceptable behavior, speech, and activity on stream is always at Games Done Quick staff discretion."

And that's not so clear cut as Klaige would believe it to be according to what was said.

[–]wote89 46 ポイント47 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm pretty sure the mitigating factor in this was that the guys who got banned were apparently flat-out told that they weren't getting a charitable reading of their actions. So, the fact that they did something that remotely toed the line was more than enough to warrant it.

[–]sprntgd 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (27子コメント)

"Signs, costumes, stuffed animals, grandstanding or similar distractions from the runner should be discussed with the runner and staff beforehand. This ensures that it is in line with the tone the runner wants to set for the run, and that staff is aware of what is going to happen so they can both confirm it is appropriate for the stream and that it is desired by the runner."

I'd say it falls pretty cleanly under that as well.

[–]Grundsten 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (26子コメント)

I actually agree with that, but I still stand by the opinion that it does not constitute a 'black on white' situation, since it doesn't specifically say anything about politics, which was what Klaige was making a point of.

That aside, is there any footage of PvtCb actually wearing the MAGA hat? Haven't seen any yet and my datacap doesn't really allow for willy-nilly streamwatching for more than a few minutes really.

[–]warm_hamSuper Meat Boy 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (23子コメント)

PvtCb never wore the hat - watched the VOD back and advanced every 5 seconds from the time the hats were taken out until the time they were put away.

Cyberdemon's ban is a fair one - he was on thin ice, he broke a rule by wearing the hat, that's that. PvtCb's ban doesn't make any sense at all.

[–]Grundsten 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (22子コメント)

The problem for me is that the supposed rule isn't even that clear cut to say it's ban-worthy or even warn-worthy in and of itself, unless every attendee got additional rules to read on-site. Klaige honestly comes off sounding with authority he seemingly doesn't have, considering how foggy the rules are on their page for this issue. I get that they were warned on-site that they were already on thin ice, but did they get additional rules set upon them that others did not? Or is the rule page the only existing ruleset for attendees? Because if the latter, I don't see why any of the people should be warned/banned for wearing that hat except for a clarification of rules, instead of an official punch on the card. It was in my opinion poorly handled, because contrary to what Klaige says, it certainly seems he's tripping with power over this whole ordeal with how thin a case it really is.

[–]warm_hamSuper Meat Boy 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

wearing political apparel is arguably a form of political discourse, which would therefore fall under a "divisive topic of conversation"

but the initial response was completely reactionary and should have been more carefully addressed by staff, especially because this is now distracting a lot of people from enjoying the marathon

[–]thewoodendesk [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

wearing political apparel is arguably a form of political discourse, which would therefore fall under a "divisive topic of conversation"

I mean, you're not allowed to wear a MAGA hat while voting because it counts as political campaigning.

[–]sprntgd 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think so. I saw the hats being passed around but don't remember him actually wearing one.

I think another question to ask is whether he knew that this was being planned, and was simply avoiding wearing the hat himself to try to skirt being directly involved and banned.

[–]bikki420 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's pretty black on white, unless you're on the deep end of the autism spectrum.

[–]Brikachu 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (5子コメント)

It very much sounds like they were warned beforehand and did it regardless. Rules don't mean anything--it's a private event and they reserve the right to kick out anyone they want.

Imo, passing out a bunch of MAGA hats and flaunting them around absolutely would be considered a "topic of conversation." Not all conversations are verbal.

[–]Grundsten 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (4子コメント)

There's some dispute over the whole 'take entrance fee, then boot the person out without refund over a non-existing rule or non-existing rule-breaking behaviour' being completely lawful. Private event, sure, but taking payment over admittance and then booting people out without a good reason is a grey area at best.

[–]wraith_ferron 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've worked for different conventions and events (anime, scifi, and gaming) in Virginia in the past, and all of them allow a person to be removed without reimbursement if they are in violation of any code of conduct or rule. It is nothing new, and is perfectly legal in Virginia.

[–]mzxruleszeldaspeedruns.com 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

there is an existing rule, the costume rule. you aren't suppose to be wearing anything in the streaming room that deliberately draws attention to you over the runners without the runners consent.

[–]bmilohill 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I disagree that it isn't explicit. I've not read the rules myself, and am basing this response purely on your post.

"Avoid topics of conversation that are polarizing or controversial in nature. This includes but is not limited to things such as politics, religion, or other “hot button” topics that are innately divisive."

This does explicit ban politics (and religion). What is less explicit is that it also gives them the ability to ban on any other divisive topic.

[–]RaitoGG -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

As far as I saw Demon wore it and PvtCb did neither wear nor bring it.

[–]Pharmakokinetic 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The hallmark of someone who deliberately stirs the pot: "I've got proof!"

Oh, you mean proof of the other party handling your deliberate misbehavior reasonably and very directly? Not one of you showing the DIRTY UNDERBELLY of whatever it is your civil disobedience "protesting" is trying to reveal?

Apparently PvtCb's a known shit stirrer (I was unaware) and Cyberdemon regularly tries stirring shit here too. Good riddance, especially if they were actively warned on the way in the venue because of previous behaviors. They pushed, and are now complaining that they are being pushed back on despite being told that it would happen. This is the behavior of a child.

[–]hotyaznboi 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, he does have proof that he never wore the hat (stream VOD). And proof that the admin directly lied about why he was being banned, and lied about possessing a screenshot of him wearing the hat (since he never did). If the admins were just honest about why they were banning him there wouldn't be a problem. If they lie and make up rules then I have a problem with how the event is being policed. There is also a small legal issue where they took his entrance money and are banning him from the event while lying about why they did so. Easily avoided by just refunding his entrance fee.

[–]coolmattyGDQ Organizer 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Runners don't pay registration fees.

[–]Fruckbucklington 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Are you ready to admit you are addicted to meth?

[–]benpacoBackyard Baseball, Superhot 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (11子コメント)

I'd like to preface this by saying I would think and hope that if someone had a Bernie poster, Gary Johnson t-shirt, or Jill Stein coffee mug featured prominently on stream, they would be banned as well.

With that being said, though, there is no legal obligation to do so. Even if the GDQ staff did not explicitly state a "no politics rule", this is well within their legal right. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" applies by default, whether or not a sign stating this explicitly is displayed. This rule also applies to all reasons that are not discriminatory against protected classes. The current protected classes as defined by the federal government are as follows:: Race, Color, Religion, Nation of Origin, Age (if you are 40 or older), Sex (which includes gender presentation and sexual orientation under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's definition), Pregnancy, Citizenship, Familial status (such as having children or not), Disability status, Veteran status, and Genetics. Political affiliation is not a protected class under the federal definition, and under Virginia's own state definition, it is also not a protected class. In D.C., political affiliation does become a protected class, but as far as I understand, this event occurs in Virginia and not Washington D.C.

If anyone would like further sources on this, the law firm Leech Early & Brewer has a wonderful spreadsheet that breaks things down easily and provides sources.

As far as I understand, the precedent exists that a refund does not have to be issued for any services if you are removed from the premises, though I cannot find hard law on that - I am simply basing that off of examples in sporting games in which a fan touches a fair ball, interferes with play, becomes drunk, refuses to follow instructions, etc. I do not know for a fact that this translates to a multiple day event such as this, however, and if anyone does know any legal precedent there please feel free to follow up to this, thanks.

TL;DR In most states in the nation, including in Virginia, and at a federal level, you are allowed to refuse service to someone based upon their political views. As I understand, they would not have to issue a refund for the same reason an ejected fan at a baseball game is not refunded, though I cannot find hard law on this issue.

[–]Fruckbucklington 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Just remember though, if you think this is a valid argument you are also supporting those Republican employers in 2012 who threatened to cut jobs if Romney didn't win.

[–]LadOkapi 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Unfortunately that's legal if you're employed at-will. I've seen people get fired for things a lot pettier than a political stance. Ah, the fast food power struggle...

[–]benpacoBackyard Baseball, Superhot [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I don't agree with this law as written, I think it's dangerous for both sides. Referring back to my first paragraph, I would personally urge the GDQ community that if this was an inappropriate showing, any other political statements should be as well, but that's just not how the law currently exists.

I don't think that Republican employers in 2012 should have threatened that, either, but hypothetically that is still within their rights as far as protected classes go. I would argue that those threats could fall within voter intimidation under Election Fraud laws, but that's something that I don't personally know much about, and further, that's a little bit more of a gray area in general (how much of a threat is an intimidation vs. a legitimate business decision, etc.)

[–]Fruckbucklington [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Agreed, my point was not about whether it is legal, merely whether it is just.

[–]patchupdate109 -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Here's an excerpt of the gdq rules on unacceptable behaviour:

Avoid topics of conversation that are polarizing or controversial in nature. This includes but is not limited to things such as politics, religion, or other “hot button” topics that are innately divisive

Trump is a hot button topic and those hats existed to stir the pot, I know that and don't care. But the transition and existence of trans people is both a hot topic (especially in light of the election), and at sgdq 2016 a runner (progamingwithed) brought up that his girlfriend was 2 years into her transition during a run.

If that isn't politically a hot topic subject, I don't know what is.

[–]YankeeFlash 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You can't be serious. Do you seriously not see the difference between displaying political symbols and mentioning that your girlfriend is transgender?

[–]patchupdate109 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I know they are different but they still are hot topics. If you want an example of how the trans thing was polarizing, look at the twitch chat during that part of the stream.

[–]benpacoBackyard Baseball, Superhot 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Again, my post was less against the rules as they stated them and more about if this would be allowed from a legal standpoint. In regards to your comment, I do believe that GDQ has the right to define "innately divisive" as they see fit. If they don't see something, such as discussing something going on in your significant other's private life, as "innately divisive" despite being a "controversial issue", they have the right to do nothing about it, in my opinion.

[–]Krixx 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (0子コメント)

TL;DW - Guy and friend spend $500 dollars each to attend event and purposefully break rules of said event. They are then banned from this event as consequence.That's all I got from this. Next time, maybe not do that.

[–]Kwahn 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (13子コメント)

He's a douchy teen anyway, skilled doom runner but good riddance

[–]emc3142 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (16子コメント)

This actually seems reasonably well handled by Klaige -- I'm not sure how else this could have been handled without bending the rules.

[–]wraith_ferron [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Listening to Klaige makes him seem like he was calm, trying to follow rules, and tried to be matter of fact without trying to antagonize. I have seen far worse at larger events.

[–]Comrade_Sprinkles_73 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So, is there a citation for Update 2? Because based on a lot of how this has been handled, I am assuming pure and utter bullshit lies until I see one.

[edit]Just a reminder, yet another incredibly biased pastebin by one of the banned parties is not evidence of GDQ Staff admitting fault[/edit]

[–]Molten__verified stream monster 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

striesand effect in full force here.

[–]PokecheckHozu 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I watch stuff like this to get away from politics. Because I deal with the shit elsewhere. I don't want to see this kind of shit at a charity event, regardless of who is being plugged. Shame on the people who started this. I sure as hell don't want those people around.

[–]TK_FourTwoOne 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (33子コメント)

Wasnt he wearing the hat on stream?

[–]MrLucky7s 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (26子コメント)

He claims he didn't, just that the hat was passed around the couch. I watched most of the thing I don't remember him wearing it, but I could've missed it.

EDIT: Thought this was referring to PvtCb for some reason, no idea if Demon had the hat on at any point.

[–]TK_FourTwoOne 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (16子コメント)

Which one is which on the couch. I dont know these people but twitter seems to be saying that cyberdemon was DEFINITELY wearing it on stream.

Ive watched 30 seconds and the 3 middle people on the couch have

Edit: both people on the right too

[–]Comrade_Sprinkles_73 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Gonna go out on a limb here and say that pretty much the entire couch is going to get banned for violating rules about not showing off political crap on stream.

Just a matter of what narrative the next one is going to craft. Considering reddit are the ones that support them, I suspect we'll find out that one of them is being banned because their bitch of an ex-wife made a check bounce because she wanted child support or something of a similar pro-reddit magnitude.

[–]HansonWK 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Doubt it, only the two who were banned were told from the beginning they are on a one chance basis for being known trolls and one of them being banned before. The others will likely get warnings.

[–]TK_FourTwoOne 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Alright calm down. Why are you calling out how ridiculous their hypothetical excuse that you made up for them is

[–]Comrade_Sprinkles_73 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Because the same crap happens every time there is a bit of drama and the guilty party is smart enough to know how to manipulate people on social media.

And reddit is one of the most easily manipulated communities. And seeing it happen over and over and over again is just depressing.

[–]dafruntlein 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (10子コメント)

What kind of manipulation are you talking about? None of the two posts so far are from the GDQ head honchos, but from tweets and videos the "innocent" (in your scenario) put out themselves. You've predetermined reddit as this easily manipulated hivemind that can only do wrong, and made your scenario based on that without actually looking at what's been presented.

[–]Comrade_Sprinkles_73 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Currently the entire basis of the first (alleged) idiot's "lawsuit" is pedantic "I wasn't wearing it." along with a link to where it is clearly visible on stream as evidence of not "wearing" it. Pedantic idiocy the likes of which even the writers of Van Wilder would call stupid

Now we have people being banned for being (reddit) detectives

[–]DLOGD 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (8子コメント)

How is that pedantic if it's clearly showing that they lied about the reason he was banned?

[–]Comrade_Sprinkles_73 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

If you pretend that the problem is that someone said they were "wearing" it even though the rule is clearly about showing political memorabilia on stream, then yes, it matters.

If you can put down the "Ha, I am technically correct and thus smarter than all of you <schluk schluk schluk>" for a moment, it is clear that it is completely meaningless and it is comparable to saying "Fuck you. I didn't attack him with a tire iron. This is clearly a breaker bar"

[–]Comrade_Sprinkles_73 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (6子コメント)

So he was passing around and showing off political memorabilia on stream.

[–]MrLucky7s 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (5子コメント)

As far as I understand and am aware, the hat belongs to him, but he didn't touch it during the stream. Another person on the couch pulled it out from his bag and started passing it around. EDIT2: Again this part is referring to PvtCb because my brain is slow late at night.

The vod is here, the hat gets passed around from 45:00ish mins to about a 1:05:00. Maybe he put it on later during the stream as I payed less attention ta that point.

EDIT: Apparently the hat is only on stream during the given timeframe, I reviewed the footage and pretty much everyone aside from PvtCb and the runner had the hat on at some point.

[–]dafruntlein 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Which one's Cyberdemon? I thought he was the one on the bottom right sitting down?

[–]SatchBoogie1 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I can't even read what the hat says on source quality. I would only know it's MAGA if someone had told me.

[–]MrLucky7s 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'd assume that it's quite recognizable to American audiences despite it's generic design.

[–]warm_hamSuper Meat Boy 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

even Twitch chat didn't pick up on the fact that they were wearing MAGA hats - you would expect them to gobble that shit up

[–]Touch_Of_Red [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I watched it when this whole thing blew up and that's also what I saw, although I have no clue who is who so I'm not sure who was justly/unjustly banned. The kid on the far left was wearing the entire time (during the ~20 min the hats were out) and at one point was wearing two. The kid sitting on the floor on the far right was wearing a hat for an extended period of time. It's also important to note that they both took the hats off and put them away at the same time, so it's pretty clear that something was said to them.

コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

    [–]suudoPortal (blha303) | VOD threads 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I'm not sure who's who, apparently the guy in the black shirt is Cyber, He puts it on at 40 seconds into the run, then he stacks other hats on top at 7:15 but you can still see the MAGA cap until he swaps it for the Ape Escape hat. Don't know how he thought it wouldn't be on the VOD, he had it on for 20 minutes

    [–]PokecheckHozu [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Oh hey, someone with actual proof instead of baseless speculation and/or arguing.

    [–]Ciretako [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    He probably is also rebanned because he called the AGDQ cocksuckers after his banned and threatened to take legal action.

    [–]Vaicheboa 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (11子コメント)

    Is it legal on America to record private conversations without consent and make them public? In Europe it's not.

    Other than that, I only see some kids with a toxic attitute teasing the hosts even if they didn't explicitly break a rule.

    Well, the first AGDQ controversy came in fast again.

    [–]Dgc2002 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Depends on the state. Some states are one party consent(at least one party in the conversation needs to consent to the recording) others are two party(both parties needs to consent to the recording.) Virginia(where AGDQ is) is apparently a one party consent state.

    [–]shillingINtheNAMEof 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Legality varies from state to state with regards to recording as well as informing the subject(s) of the recording of your activity. In Virginia, it's completely legal.

    コメントをもっと表示する (8 返事)

      [–]sguns 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Because nothing says prevent cancer like cutting people's healthcare.

      [–]thestickystickman [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      You say that as if the poor are actually people...?

      /s

      [–]SabinSuplexington 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      AGDQ17 gonna set the world record for banned runners in one GDQ event.

      [–]sporklasagna 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I love how they basically pulled this shit the MOMENT AGDQ started. It's such a transparent attempt to get attention.

      [–]JD_Crichton 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

      How dare they record a conversation!?!!?

      [–][削除されました]  (5子コメント)

      [deleted]

        [–]TK_FourTwoOne 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        nah it varies by state. VA is a one party consent state so as long as one person in the conversation is okay with it being recorded then it is allowed

        [–]tolkien_toker 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        These laws are about the availability of submitting such recordings for evidence. You're allowed to record whatever you want in the united states it just may be not be allowed in court.

        [–]Rounder8 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Depends on the state, actually.

        [–]catpor 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Virginia is a one party consent jurisdiction.

        [–]iiGingy -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Please learn: 1 party consent and 2 party consent.

        [–]scorcher117 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

        who is this guy and why was he banned?

        [–]shillingINtheNAMEof 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Someone took out a hat with a political statement and passed it around on-stream when such an article was categorically forbidden. The person who brought the hat (but did not present or wear it) and at least one of the people who did wear it have been banned.

        The person who brought the hat apparently was told that he was being banned for wearing it, and is trying to fight and obfuscate the ban with any excuse imaginable - "I wasn't actually wearing it therefore I didn't do anything wrong", "I'm so special that my political opinions make me a protected class and you can't ban me", "Freeze peach", etc.

        The recording in OP was taken by one of the people who wore the hat and also got banned.

        [–]kamanitachi 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

        A MAGA hat was passed around and the guy happened to be on the couch when it happened and so is being wrongly banned.

        [–]scorcher117 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

        MAGA?

        [–]kamanitachi 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

        Make America Great Again. Trump's slogan.

        [–]scorcher117 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (3子コメント)

        was that it? that seems like a pretty silly reason to be banned.

        [–]The_Beefcube 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        They had been warned multiple times for other things though, and according to the recorded conversation they were told earlier today that they would get banned if they caused any more trouble. So this seems more like a last straw thing than them getting banned just for bringing the hat.

        [–]UGMadness 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        They've been trolling marathon events for years and I guess this was their last chance and they blew it right off the bat.

        [–]kamanitachi 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Well apparently the guy who banned them was acting solo (without consulting the rest of management) and is a vocal Trump hater on twitter.

        There are also conflicting stories where apparently they were told to not wear political apparel, but at the same time that's not listed in any rules.

        [–]Greenecat -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (8子コメント)

        I guess agdq staff doesn't like it when you hold them accountable for wrongly banning people.

        [–]HansonWK 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (7子コメント)

        They were told no political things in stream. They brought a trump hat into the streaming room and passed it round. Doesn't matter who's head it went on, it's the people who brought it in who broke the rules.

        I'm really not seeing what agdq is doing wrong here. Sure, the rule is strict and I can see why people are upset over how it's a straight ban and not a warning, but it's not like they did nothing wrong...

        [–]Greenecat -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

        Doesn't matter who's head it went on

        Sure it does. They literally say it was on his head and that's why he was banned, even though the VOD clearly shows the opposite.

        It's ridiculous to make everyone guilty by association.

        [–]HansonWK 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (5子コメント)

        He brought the hat in and passed it round. Doesn't matter of he didn't actually wear it. He was already warned after being banned last year too.

        Why does it matter if he wore it? He knew it wasn't allowed in stream so tried to troll agdq by bringing it in and passing it round instead of wearing it himself.

        [–]Greenecat -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

        They literally said he's banned because he wore the hat. They even said they've got a screenshot of it. It's right there in the recording.

        You can twist it all you want, but he wasn't banned because of some guilt by association, he was banned for wearing the hat. By their very own words.

        And that didn't happen.

        [–]HansonWK -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

        The person who told him why he was banned said the wrong thing. He is banned because he was told not to wear the hat so instead he passed it around. Now they are trying to twist that into sounding like they shouldn't have been banned, but they still brought the hat in to troll agdq and are now being banned for it.

        'But i didn't actually wear it' isn't a good defence when they know it's not allowed on stream.

        [–]Greenecat 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

        He is banned because he was told not to wear the hat so instead he passed it around

        Bullshit. You're just making stuff up at this point. Pathetic.

        Just look at the OP. They're admitting they were wrong about his ban but are now saying he's banned for fucking with the pc's, something he also denies.

        Its clear they're just looking for a reason to get him banned and are changing it to suit their needs. The fact that you're still making up shit to try and explain his ban is hilarious.

        [–]HansonWK -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Trolls were told not to troll. Trolls decided to troll. Trolls are banned. Get over it.

        [–]Greenecat -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Yet he wasn't banned for that it seems. How strange...

        [–]wiiztec 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Was Cyberdemon going to run a game?

        [–]Ozarhok -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I'm disgusted at all of this misgendering. Cyberdemon531 is a SHE, please adress her as such.

        コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)