D&D 5E Don't Throw 5e Away Because of Hasbro

[AlViking]

Have you read anything I wrote? I'm not talking about whether or not they attacked or intimidated him. I'm talking about WotC employing them in the first place.

As I said before, I don't care if these particular agents were the nicest, most polite people in the history of the universe and the incident was delightful and everyone had tea and cakes. It was still a terrible idea for WotC to hire them.

Yes I read what you wrote and that wasn't what I asked. I asked if you actually listened to the podcast and got the story from the horse's mouth. As far as it being a terrible idea I just disagree. Companies have the right to track down what they consider stolen property if it's important to them to find out how it got into someone's hands. Calling the police would have been an even worse option so they went with a company that does this kind of stuff.

 

[Faolyn]

Yes I read what you wrote and that wasn't what I asked. I asked if you actually listened to the podcast and got the story from the horse's mouth. As far as it being a terrible idea I just disagree. Companies have the right to track down what they consider stolen property if it's important to them to find out how it got into someone's hands.

No, I haven't listened to the podcast because what I care about is the fact that the Pinkertons were hired in the first place.

The Pinkertons are not hired tract down stolen property. They are not detectives. They provide security and risk assessment.

Calling the police would have been an even worse option so they went with a company that does this kind of stuff.

So why not hire a company that doesn't have a reputation for intimidation? That would have prevented all of this.

 

[Hussar]

No, I haven't listened to the podcast because what I care about is the fact that the Pinkertons were hired in the first place.

The Pinkertons are not hired tract down stolen property. They are not detectives. They provide security and risk assessment.


So why not hire a company that doesn't have a reputation for intimidation? That would have prevented all of this.

Why hire the largest, most well known private investigation firm in America? I dunno. Probably teh same reason that EVERY ONE ELSE hires them. They are the largest, most well known firm?

 

[Faolyn]

Why hire the largest, most well known private investigation firm in America? I dunno. Probably teh same reason that EVERY ONE ELSE hires them. They are the largest, most well known firm?

And since they have a terrible reputation, why are you and others so shocked that people may not be happy with that decision?

 

[Mistwell]

No, I haven't listened to the podcast because what I care about is the fact that the Pinkertons were hired in the first place.

The Pinkertons are not hired tract down stolen property. They are not detectives. They provide security and risk assessment.

This is false.

There are MANY departments at the Pinkerton agency. The have a Protection department, with many sub groups. A Consulting department with many sub groups. And an Investigations department with many sub groups.

People, like yourself, often mistake all Pinkertons as being from the Protection department. Those are the guys historically often described as thugs by some, and who are sometimes armed. Even that is partially a myth. There is controversy right now about some rich people hiring private firefighter services to protect their homes in Pacific Palisades from the fires (successfully). That was probably part of Pinkertons Protection services. They do that. In fact, they invented the World's Fair Fire Department for the 64' World's Fair. And they're not armed and not thugs. Mostly just retired firefighters.

However, Protection is not who WOTC hired. WOTC hired from their Investigation department.

I know someone who worked in their Investigation department most of his life until he retired. He never left his desk. There are investigators who, like the two involved in this incident, do go out in the field. But they're not thugs looking to intimidate. They're actual private investigators working on investigation matters on behalf of corporations.

They literally have an entire sub-department dedicated to "tracking down stolen property". They are part of Loss Prevention. They are detectives. And in states which license them, they're literally licensed detectives.

People should step away from these images they have of this company that come from history and, more often, movies and TV. Pinkertons, particularly those outside the Protection department, are usually nothing like the image many people here seem to have of them.

 

[Imaro]

And since they have a terrible reputation, why are you and others so shocked that people may not be happy with that decision?

I'm honestly more shocked that people are dismissing the statements of the person actually affected and being more outraged than they are... I guess for them...

 

[AlViking]

No, I haven't listened to the podcast because what I care about is the fact that the Pinkertons were hired in the first place.

The Pinkertons are not hired tract down stolen property. They are not detectives. They provide security and risk assessment.


So why not hire a company that doesn't have a reputation for intimidation? That would have prevented all of this.

Obviously you're invested in making this a big deal so have at it but I have nothing more to add.

 

[Hussar]

And since they have a terrible reputation, why are you and others so shocked that people may not be happy with that decision?

The largest collection agency in America has terrible reputation? Color me shocked.

The funny thing is, had WotC hired some other collection agency, we'd be having EXACTLY the same conversation, just with different proper nouns.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And since they have a terrible reputation, why are you and others so shocked that people may not be happy with that decision?

You have transmuted "I can understand why they made that decision" into "I have no problem with the fact that they made that decision."

Understanding and approval are two extraordinarily different things.

 

[mamba]

You have transmuted "I can understand why they made that decision" into "I have no problem with the fact that they made that decision."

Understanding and approval are two extraordinarily different things.

not really, it is also a ‘I have no problem with it’ if you consider other comments