WotC may have sent the Pinkertons to a magic leakers home. Update: WotC confirms it and has a response.

Status
Not open for further replies.
They were apparently unable to talk to him until they sent professional agents to physically go to his house and ask him to talk to them over the phone.
That was entirely their fault, though. They admit that they used a number that didn't show a name when they called him and they didn't leave a VM. I would have ignored them as well, just like I ignore the myriad of spam and scam calls that come to my phone. If I don't know the name or number, it gets ignored.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That was entirely their fault, though. They admit that they used a number that didn't show a name when they called him and they didn't leave a VM. I would have ignored them as well, just like I ignore the myriad of spam and scam calls that come to my phone. If I don't know the name or number, it gets ignored.
Heck, I ignore calls from people I do know if they don’t leave a message.
 


"Wizards of the Coast says it “strongly refutes this depiction of events, which contradicts both the report from the investigation as well as the conversation between the individual and the Wizards of the Coast representative after the interaction in question.” The company also stated that “under no circumstances would we instruct any employee or contracted agency to intimidate an individual.”"
That's "plausible deniability." I put it in "" because the head of WotC security worked for Pinkerton and would be familiar with their tactics, so would not need to ask them to do what they are known to do.

And as for the report from the investigation not showing that, well companies hardly put damning things down in writing.

I'm not saying that I am taking Cannon's depiction of events at face value, but neither is what WotC said proof of anything to counter Cannon's depiction.
 
Last edited:

That's "plausible deniability." I put it in "" because the head of WotC security worked for Pinkerton and would be familial with their tactics, so would not need to ask them to do what they are known to do.

And as for the report from the investigation not showing that, well companies hardly put damning things down in writing.

I'm not saying that I am taking Cannon's depiction of events at face value, but neither is what WotC said proof of anything to counter Cannon's depiction.
Which is pretty much the interpretation I'm asking for: we can't assume either side is providing the full reality of what occurred.
 


If one doesn't send an overnight signature needed FedEx, or leave a voice mail (only wants the live call), or doesn't email... is there a reason for that besides not wanting to leave a record?
It could be WotC was worried he might go out his way to avoid contact with them if a voice mail was left. That's a possible reason.

Say they had done those other things (they apparently didn't), and wanted to reach out in person, it strikes me as kind of absurd for folks to expect them to send an employee. What's the lawsuit when someone on an office staff or warehouse staff has something to sideways on a house call they aren't trained to make and isn't in their job description?
Here in the United States, your employer is free to change your job duties at any time. The vast majority of workers do not have employment contracts specifically detailing their job descriptions. i.e. If my boss told me on Monday that she wanted me to start going to the homes of new employees to go over their benefit options then that would be part of my job now. Practically speaking, my employer isn't going to do that, but it's an option. i.e. There's not going to be any lawsuit because an employee is suddenly required to do something that wasn't on their job description when they were first hired. And going to talk to people isn't generally considered a dangerous activity you need special training for. Not even here in the United States.

What does someone who stuck their foot in your door to stop it from closing get charged with? (It feels like there should be something if they don't immediately take it out when you ask.) Would an armed person with their foot in the door who doesn't leave have potentially legally lethal implications in some states based on their particular castle doctrine laws?
Practically speaking, maybe trespassing, but the odds of anyone actually facing a conviction for this is pretty unlikely. Laws vary from state-to-state, in Arkansas, Texas, and California, there is no duty to retreat in your own home, but even then there are be some differences even among those states. Not knowing what state this happened in or being a lawyer makes it tough to answer that question.

People keep saying "send a lawyer". Who does a major law firm send to do things like talk to the person about where they got product if the things (WotC apparently didn't try) failed?
Not a lawyer. That's just expensive.

Where I live, "stand your ground" laws would allow the homeowner to use lethal force in that situation.
You're thinking of Castle Doctrine which exists in many states that do not have Stand Your Ground laws. In Arkansas, until 2021, you had a duty to retreat if possible, but that did not apply when you were at your home or your curtilage (the land surrounding your home that's regularly used for residential purposes).
 

People keep saying "send a lawyer". Who does a major law firm send to do things like talk to the person about where they got product if the things (WotC apparently didn't try) failed?
Law firms hire PIs to do a lot of those sorts of things. The lawyer(s) would not have just walked up to the door of a stranger and knocked on it. If they could get ahold of him over the phone, they might have asked him to come to the office to talk or even meet somewhere neutral.
 



Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top