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

[Count_Zero]

They have disputed the whole intimidation thing. They said it doesn’t match the report they received, the instructions they gave, or the conversation Cannon had with a Wizards rep afterward.

And that requires me to give both the Pinkertons (who wrote the report to Wizards) and Wizards the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not inclined to give Wizards the benefit of the doubt, and I don't trust the Pinkertons at all ever - and as demonstrated by the stories I linked about the shooting in Denver, just because the Pinkertons were given instructions doesn't mean they followed them and doesn't mean they wouldn't lie to Wizards about it in their report. I do trust Linda Codega's reporting.

The scenario that is most generous to Wizards that feels most plausible to me is the Pinkertons either didn't follow their instructions, or the instructions had an unintended loophole that permitted the intimidation (i.e. "Use reasonable measures to retrieve the cards" - and the Pinkerton agent determined threatening someone with felony charges was "reasonable") and WotC or Hasbro's legal department basically gave the instruction that contradicting the formal report from the Pinkertons in any public statements that weren't under oath would open them up to considerable liability, so they repeated the Pinkertons' lies.

 

[Cadence]

I'm sure his intention was to buy the MotM cards and not the Aftermath cards, so yes.

Serious question - I thought that there was something in one of the posts by the YouTuber that made that not entirely clear. But it's been a while and I can't recall. Anyone have any recollection?

But! That doesn't matter. Because you're not obligated to return material that you paid for, even if they sent you the wrong thing. Nor are you obligated to not make a video about it.

Not a serious addition to the thread - Is it etiquette or ethics or morals that includes doing the right thing even when not required to do so by law?

 

[Hex08]

Okay. So here's the deal.

How many of you have thought about the Pinkertons ... sorry, the Pinkertons ... and can actually say anything about them in the last 100 years without googling them? Really? I know that someone out there does, but I am quite positive that the majority of you who are so dead set on saying BUT THE PINKERTONS have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Quick history lesson- the Pinkertons have some cultural footprint for two main reasons. The first is because of movies and shows set in the Old West. For those who are unfamiliar with the specifics, there wasn't a whole lot of government in the Old West, so Pinkerton Agents were the people that were hired, for the most part, to protect corporate interests - protect railroads, shipments, money shipments, etc. They had a well-deserved reputation as being tough-as-nails, and, for the most part, were considered ... if not the good guys, then certainly part of the solution in terms of making that area habitable. While we do a lot of revisionist history and romanticize the outlaws now, for the most part it was the Pinkerton Agents that were allowing regular people to serve some semblance of normal life. This wasn't always a great thing- there's a reason we want the use of force to be publicly accountable, but it wasn't a bad thing for the time.

The other reason we know of them is through the labor wars of the late 19th and early 20th century. Again, this was before we had a lot of professional police forces and before we had federal police (such as the FBI). They served their corporate masters and were indisputably on the wrong side of history. But that was 100 years ago.

What are they now? Part of a larger conglomerate based out of Sweden. Yep. Sweden. Did you know that? And what do they primarily do? Risk management (like this), investigations, and protection for corporate entities.

But the idea that the Pinkertons are some sort of "big bad" is just not accurate. At all. What? Do you know someone who drives a Volkswagen or wears Hugo Boss? How about a company that is involved with Dow Chemical (or, heck, Union Carbide, a wholly owned subsidiary)? Does business with IBM? Drinks Fanta? If you use Bayer aspirin, do you ever think about IG Farben? How do you feel about eating that Chiquita Banana? Do you ever feel weird eating that Nestle candy? If you get a Ford truck, do you ponder the namesake? How about Monsanto- come for the GMOs, stay for the Agent Orange.

I hope the point is clear. If you don't like the Pinkertons (which are just part of a larger conglomerate), then you should do two things- first, remember that they are always hired to do something, so maybe consider the corporate entity that hired them instead of just defaulting to a narrative that is severely outdated. Second, at least try and use something from the last hundred years.

Finally, as for the actual issue.

Private investigators show up at place. Demand return of products that could not possibly have been released. Products are returned. PIs provide contact number.

Company then provides free stuff for the inconvenience.

Person earns clicks.

The end.

Sorry Snarf, you are usually pretty good at adding nuance to the topics you engage in on these boards but here, in part, you failed on that front. You give a brief summary of The Pinkertons, even if it started a bit snarky, which does help to add some history to the conversation (did you Google any of that info?). That they are owned by a Swedish conglomerate or Santa Claus isn't really relevant to the discussion.

Where the fails really happen are the comparison of The Pinkertons to other companies and "the actual issue". First, yes many (maybe most or all) companies have engaged in "bad" behavior but you seem to be implying that if someone chooses to call to account one "bad" company then they should hold them all accountable. That is just an unrealistic standard, no one can be aware of everything and even if they were everyone has to pick their battles or people wouldn't be able to function in modern life. Second, you reduce "the actual issue" to a few sentences and then just hand wave it away. That comes across as dismissive.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Serious question - I thought that there was something in one of the posts by the YouTuber that made that not entirely clear. But it's been a while and I can't recall. Anyone have any recollection?

Considering The Aftermath cards weren't released, I would assume his intention was to buy the released cards. However, having reread the original article, it may be that we have been going off an incorrect assumption.

Oldschoolmtg thinks he knows how the mix up happened—and says that he believes it’s a complete accident he received these cards ahead of time. He said that he purchased the booster boxes from a friend of his who is “not really a Magic player” and is much more invested in other Trading Card Games (TCGs) like Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokémon. Because the earlier set of cards was titled March of Machine and was released on April 21, oldschoolmtg suspects that his supplier simply didn’t realize that the cards he was selling (titled March of the Machine: The Aftermath) was a different, unreleased set.

It may be that he paid for the March of the Machines aftermath cards and his seller sent them to him earlier than he should have. It's a bit unclear, though. It could be he intended to by the released set and got the unreleased set instead. The writer of this article makes a very poor effort at clarity.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And that requires me to give both the Pinkertons (who wrote the report to Wizards) and Wizards the benefit of the doubt.

Not really. It involves not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt, because all parties have pretty good reasons to lie, but also not assuming behavior not in evidence because of who the person is.

I'm not inclined to give Wizards the benefit of the doubt, and I don't trust the Pinkertons at all ever - and as demonstrated by the stories I linked about the shooting in Denver, just because the Pinkertons were given instructions doesn't mean they followed them and doesn't mean they wouldn't lie to Wizards about it in their report. I do trust Linda Codega's reporting.

The scenario that is most generous to Wizards that feels most plausible to me is the Pinkertons either didn't follow their instructions, or the instructions had an unintended loophole that permitted the intimidation (i.e. "Use reasonable measures to retrieve the cards" - and the Pinkerton agent determined threatening someone with felony charges was "reasonable") and WotC or Hasbro's legal department basically gave the instruction that contradicting the formal report from the Pinkertons in any public statements that weren't under oath would open them up to considerable liability, so they repeated the Pinkertons' lies.

That seems like more of a stretch to me than the Pinkertons were cops about it bc that’s the mindset of most people who want to do that particular job, and the clout chaser was chasing clout, so he exaggerated “guys with thug rep were a bit rude and verbally pushy” into “big scary thugs intimidated me and my wife and it’s a big deal”, in order to both get clout and force Wizards to not only not do anything about it but to also send him free stuff beyond the value of what he originally purchased and make his viewership leapfrog into a new bracket of popularity.

It’s usually over-simplified to insist on an interpretation wherein only one “side” has done anything wrong.

 

[Faolyn]

Not a serious addition to the thread - Is it etiquette or ethics or morals that includes doing the right thing even when not required to do so by law?

I think it highly depends on the situation. Personally, I'm not inclined to be upset because (a) Hasbro is such a ginormous company; (b) he didn't steal them or, presumably, pay less for them than he should have; and (c) didn't do anything unscrupulous with them, like try to sell them to someone else, use them unfairly in a game, etc.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm going to ignore the rest because as I've said, I'm just trying to find some common ground first. If we can't agree on some basics, we're not actually having a conversation. We're just talking past each other.

Can we also agree that he is knowledgeable about Magic The Gathering card game?

Here, I'll put in another statement to see if we can agree on it. Cannon received March of The Machines: The Aftermath cards by error (not his fault).

Yes, and yes.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

They have disputed the whole intimidation thing. They said it doesn’t match the report they received, the instructions they gave, or the conversation Cannon had with a Wizards rep afterward.

Even Cannon said the interaction was "nice and laid back" with the rep.

When he got on the phone with the Wizards of the Coast representative, oldschoolmtg says that the man was “apologetic” and they needed all the product back in order to “plug the hole.” He describes the interaction as “nice and laid back,” and it appears as if Wizards of the Coast was “apologetic” about sending literal Pinkerton agents to his house.

 

[Count_Zero]

That seems like more of a stretch to me than the Pinkertons were cops about it bc that’s the mindset of most people who want to do that particular job, and the clout chaser was chasing clout, so he exaggerated “guys with thug rep were a bit rude and verbally pushy” into “big scary thugs intimidated me and my wife and it’s a big deal”, in order to both get clout and force Wizards to not only not do anything about it but to also send him free stuff beyond the value of what he originally purchased and make his viewership leapfrog into a new bracket of popularity.

Why are you assuming the person with the YouTube channel is a "clout chaser chasing clout"? By that logic, I have a YouTube channel, so I would also be a clout chaser chasing clout, and so would the people who run this site.

And again, I also trust Linda Codega to have done her due diligence in their reporting, including verifying information with people before going to publish - without necessarily putting the fact-checking (checking with neighbors, that sort of thing), into the article.

To re-iterate, just 3 months ago, Wizards lied and lied a lot, when the OGL changes blew up in their face. They did a make-good through releasing the SRD under a Creative Commons license, and had their influencer meetings as the beginning of the process of restoring trust, but not much had come out of that yet - they had not taken further actions based on those meetings to restore that trust. Then this happened, and Wizards' responses are reminiscent of the same things they said when they screwed up on the OGL. So, they have yet to take steps to restore their lost trust and appear to be engaging in the kind of behaviors that caused them to lose that trust in the first place.

As far as the Pinkertons go - there's the reporting I brought up earlier from the incident in Denver. And then, there's their active involvement at present in strikebreaking which, as a person who is a member of a union, makes me further disinclined to trust them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why are you assuming the person with the YouTube channel is a "clout chaser chasing clout"? By that logic, I have a YouTube channel, so I would also be a clout chaser chasing clout, and so would the people who run this site.

It isn’t rational to assume logic that hasn’t been extrapolated and then tilt at it.

And again, I also trust Linda Codega to have done her due diligence in their reporting, including verifying information with people before going to publish - without necessarily putting the fact-checking (checking with neighbors, that sort of thing), into the article.

I don’t.

To re-iterate, just 3 months ago, Wizards lied and lied a lot, when the OGL changes blew up in their face. They did a make-good through releasing the SRD under a Creative Commons license, and had their influencer meetings as the beginning of the process of restoring trust, but not much had come out of that yet - they had not taken further actions based on those meetings to restore that trust. Then this happened, and Wizards' responses are reminiscent of the same things they said when they screwed up on the OGL. So, they have yet to take steps to restore their lost trust and appear to be engaging in the kind of behaviors that caused them to lose that trust in the first place.

This doesn’t logically lead to the conclusion that it’s safe to assume bad faith in an unrelated situation.

As far as the Pinkertons go - there's the reporting I brought up earlier from the incident in Denver. And then, there's their active involvement at present in strikebreaking which, as a person who is a member of a union, makes me further disinclined to trust them.

I’m struggling to even find anything about a reputation of lying, which is the thing in question.