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

[Mannahnin]

No. We know WotC sent the Pinkertons, hired “security” agents to collect over priced cardboard. We know they were not considered stolen, WotC said they’d compensate him.

We know wotcs communication didn’t include a simple email or certified letter.

That was, in my book, already wrong.

More than to collect the cards themselves, a big part of it was clearly getting the packaging so they could trace the leak back. As Cannon said in his report of the conversation, WotC was trying to "plug the hole".

I agree that they should probably have sent an overnight letter with signature confirmation before sending agents in person. I wonder if they were afraid that the text of any written communication would be posted for mockery or publicity. But even if so, that's still not a reasonable excuse. It's their responsibility to communicate professionally. IF they did indeed try to contact him through YouTube and he deleted their comments/didn't respond, sending people is more understandable and defensible, but while Snarf thought he recalled someone saying so, I haven't seen that confirmed.

As for as what we know goes, we also know that Cannon knew he wasn't supposed to have the cards weeks before the street date. Whether it was an innocent mistake on his dealer's part or not, by the time he was making videos to reveal them he knew he was doing something at least questionable.

 

[glass]

You get to keep the money in Monopoly or in real life? In real life you don't.

There is no money in real life, we are talking about cards. That someone already paid for. The point is the phrase "Bank Error in your Favour" obviously refers to a lucky windfall or serendipitous event, not a literal bank error. Very obviously so in this case, since WotC are not a bank (and neither are their distributors and retailers)!

There was no report of the Pinkerton peeps being armed. Cannon hasn't claimed they were

I could have sworn I read somewhere that they were, but I cannot be bothered to track it down now so I will stipulate that I do not know for sure that they were armed.

That's not how business works, though. That is, however, how you set a precedent, which may encourage others to do similars acts.

Yes, you can either get a reputation for being surprisingly cool with your fans (as GW has done recently in exactly the same circumstances). Or you can worsen your already tarnished reputation by going after a customer. The former is the precedent you want to be setting, not the latter.

I couldn't fathom how someone could think that I support WoTC.

Your couple of dozen* posts in this thread in support of their most recent monstrous actions might have something to do with it.

(* More than I can be bothered to count exactly.)

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

There is no money in real life, we are talking about cards. That someone already paid for. The point is the phrase "Bank Error in your Favour" obviously refers to a lucky windfall or serendipitous event, not a literal bank. Very obviously so in this case, since WotC are not a bank (and neither are their distrbutors and retailers)!

Actually, that wasn't clear. At least not to me.

I could have sworn I read somewhere that they were, but I cannot be bothered to track it down now so I will stipulate that I do not know for sure that they were armed.

Well, unless Cannon said it in one of his videos, you shouldn't believe it. At least that is what Cannon said in a recent video he uploaded to his YouTube channel. There seems to be a lot of claims, and according to the video he uploaded, he says not to believe it unless you hear him saying it in his video. He seems to think that some of the people writing these articles are putting things in that are click-baity. I completely agree with Cannon. It seems a lot of these writers, if not every single one of them, likes to use language to make things look negative.

Yes, you can either get a reputation for being surprisingly cool with your fans (as GW has done recently in exactly the same circumstances). Or you can worsen your already tarnished reputation by going after a customer. The former is the precedent you want to be setting, not the latter.

I don't think "cool & broke" is the goal of many companies.

Your couple of dozen* posts in this thread in support of their most recent monstrous actions might have something to do with it.

(* More than I can be bothered to count exactly.)

I mean, if you can't be bothered to count, why bother mentioning it? If you want to believe that I support WoTC for their recent actions, you are free to hold that opinion. I'm not going to challenge it. It's yours and you have a right to it. You may not like my opinion, but it is what it is. At the end of the end, your opinion of me and WoTc, and my opinion of Cannon and WoTC will change nothing regarding what actually happened. Maybe I'm wrong about it. Maybe I'm right about it. Doesn't actually matter in the end. It's just an opinion.

 

[Umbran]

In my experience, though, many highly-stressed people become hyper-aware of their surroundings and are able to pinpoint possible threats quite well. They don't inevitably become unaware of what's happening to them, unless, perhaps, they go catatonic with fear/panic--which doesn't seem to have happened with Cannon's wife.

The one time someone tried to push through my door--and yes, foot in the door and all--I was able to recount the events afterwards quite accurately

With respect, at this point, it is pretty well known that eyewitness testimony isn't really the most reliable. About half of all wrongful convictions are due to faulty eyewitness testimony, for example.
People might feel they are hyper-aware of their surroundings, and may even be so at the time. But memory doesn't actually keep the details like a digital camera. The memory is better at keeping the narrative - the story we tell ourselves about what happened - and sometimes the details aren't kept as well as we'd like to think. That goes especially when there's some call to justify the narrative.

 

[Faolyn]

With respect, at this point, it is pretty well known that eyewitness testimony isn't really the most reliable. About half of all wrongful convictions are due to faulty eyewitness testimony, for example.
People might feel they are hyper-aware of their surroundings, and may even be so at the time. But memory doesn't actually keep the details like a digital camera. The memory is better at keeping the narrative - the story we tell ourselves about what happened - and sometimes the details aren't kept as well as we'd like to think. That goes especially when there's some call to justify the narrative.

You cut of the part where I said that the events in my case were corroborated by the person who did it.

And anyway, we don't have WotC or the Pinkertons denying that the intimidation took place--just that WotC didn't tell the Pinkertons to use intimidation. And since the Pinkertons were created to intimidate people and have continued that trend over the years... I find no real reason to doubt Cannon's relatively mild claim on this. It's not like he claimed the Pinkertons threatened physical violence or drew a gun or something potentially more outlandish.

 

[glass]

Actually, that wasn't clear. At least not to me.

So you literally thought that Cannon got the cards from a bank? Frankly that seems unlikely. Even if you'd never played Monopoly (in which case you are a lucky sciuromorph - it is terrible), you did not need to get the exact reference to realise it was not meant literally.

I mean, if you can't be bothered to count, why bother mentioning it?

Because there are so many. The precise number is irrelevant (and growing all the time).

If you want to believe that I support WoTC for their recent actions, you are free to hold that opinion. I'm not going to challenge it.

It is not a matter of belief - you are supporting their actions with your posts, whether you meant to or not. And if you genuinely did not mean to you missed the mark by a country mile!

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

So you literally thought that Cannon got the cards from a bank? Frankly that seems unlikely. Even if you'd never played Monopoly (in which case you are a lucky sciuromorph - it is terrible), you did not need to get the exact reference to realise it was not meant literally.

That's just silly. Why would I believe he got the cards from a bank. You weren't even the original person to use the phrase. Not sure why you are so hung up on this. Faolyn and I discussed this. He explained it, and we moved on. You came along and re-complicated the whole phrase, and now here we are . How about we just move on without making assumptions about each other?

Because there are so many. The precise number is irrelevant (and growing all the time).

Exactly, so why even mention it. If you belief I support WoTC, that's your opinion and you have a right to it. I just don't see the need to mention the number of posts. It could have been one or a thousand. If you believe I support WoTC, you could have said that regardless of the number of posts.

It is not a matter of belief - you are supporting their actions with your posts, whether you meant to or not. And if you genuinely did not mean to you missed the mark by a country mile!

It's totally a matter of belief. You believe I support WoTC, and I already explained I don't. I just don't believe Cannon's version of events, and I explained why. Not supporting Cannon does not mean I support WoTC. Now, if you'd like to accuse me of not believing what happened was as bad as people make it out to be, go right ahead. You'd be right. I don't believe it is as bad as Cannon and the writers of these click-bait articles make it out to be.

Did something happen? Yes.
Did WoTC send Pinkerton employees to Cannon's house to retrieve cards? Yes.
The rest of the story seems to be exaggerated and Cannon doesn't appear to me to be a trustworthy source.

 

[LeviKornelsen]

I'm confused here by why people are speaking as if Wizards had any legal claim to the cards AT ALL.

1. Wizards sells the cards to dealers, distributors, etc. There's an agreement with those people that street dates will not be broken, but the cards have been sold to said dealers, etc. They are not at this point property of Wizards.

2. One of these people sells them on to said YouTuber, likely on accident, possibly on purpose. In doing so, the dealer has broken their deal with Wizards, and Wizards can be big mad at them if they like, but Wizards legitimate target here is the dealer.

3. Assuming this was on accident, the dealer may have a legitimate claim to try and get back the card from the youtuber, claiming it's their property, given in error.

4. The YouTuber was never ever part of the street date agreement; it's not binding on him, it has nothing to do with him. Again, that's beef Wizards can have with the dealer, not him.

Wizards can have reasonable beef with the dealer, the dealer can have beef with the youtuber, but Wizards seized things they do not own.

 

[Cadence]

Wizards can have reasonable beef with the dealer, the dealer can have beef with the youtuber, but Wizards seized things they do not own.

By seized, you mean, asked for it back in a manner he says he found intimidating (and Pinkertons showing up in suits to ask for things back does feel like something that would be intimidating to me), later talked nicely to him on the phone to explain (whether remphasizing the truth or gaslighting isn't clear), and offered compensation?

 

[Mannahnin]

I'm confused here by why people are speaking as if Wizards had any legal claim to the cards AT ALL.

1. Wizards sells the cards to dealers, distributors, etc. There's an agreement with those people that street dates will not be broken, but the cards have been sold to said dealers, etc. They are not at this point property of Wizards.

2. One of these people sells them on to said YouTuber, likely on accident, possibly on purpose. In doing so, the dealer has broken their deal with Wizards, and Wizards can be big mad at them if they like, but Wizards legitimate target here is the dealer.

This is a reasonable question. I'm unclear whether, if a seller is in breach of contract to sell particular goods, the recipient is genuinely entitled to keep them under statute. This seems like an easy shelter for misconduct and preventing anyone from ever getting stolen goods back, for example. Perhaps there's a clear line between "stolen" and "contractually forbidden to be sold", but it seems like a variety of illegitimate property transfers could be shielded and enabled under this standard, and the original owner left without recourse.

Wizards can have reasonable beef with the dealer, the dealer can have beef with the youtuber, but Wizards seized things they do not own.

Which may be why they didn't (and couldn't legally) seize them. They asked for them back, and offered compensation in the form of replacement product, which would rightfully have been the responsibility of the dealer who erroneously or wilfully broke their agreement. Maybe Cannon is indeed friends with his dealer, and didn't want to see the dealer suffer potentially consequences like being blackballed by WotC.