WotC Greg Tito On Leaving WotC: 'It feels good to do something that doesn't just line the pockets of *****'

We reported earlier that WotC's communications director Greg Tito had left his 9-year stint managing the Dungeons & Dragons brand for a political appointment as Deputy Director of External Affairs for the Washington secretary of state's office.

Greg Tito Leaves Wizards of the Coast

Greg Tito, formerly the communications manager in charge of overseeing messaging for the Dungeons & Dragons brand, is departing Wizards of the Coast for a career in the public sector. Tito announced that he would be joining the Washington secretary of state's office starting this week, ending an...

www.enworld.org

In a surprising turn of events, Tito criticized his former employers, saying "It feels good to do something that doesn't just line the pockets of a**holes." He later went on to clarify "Sorry. I meant "shareholders".

Tito is now Deputy Director of External Affairs for the Washington Secretary of State office in Olympia, WA.

 

[Nikosandros]

Woah.

So I did mention I regret mentioning this. Again, there is nothing new (which was my point). And yet...

@Ulorian - Agent of Chaos I will reiterate what I said before; having tried to provide some legal analysis the first time this went around, I learned that it doesn't matter. Beliefs are what they are and won't change.

ETA- @Staffan Unless you are very comfortable with the federal laws and the laws of the jurisdiction where this occurred, I would be hesitant to make sweeping statements about the issues and what can, or can't, be done.

Personally, I haven't read your previous legal points, so - at least in my case - it is not that they don't matter, is that I'm not aware of them. In a message boards like this there are many threads and they tend to go on for quite a while. Even if you want to follow a topic, a lot on information will be lost.

 

[Oofta]

That's where we differ. The product does not belong to Wizards. The store has bought it. Not being allowed to sell the product is a civil matter between Wizards and the store, and has nothing to do with the buyer. The only party Wizards should be able to bring legal power to bear against is the store. If they want something from the buyer, they have to come to an agreement with him, but they have no right to demand anything from him, anymore than they can make any demands about the PHB on my bookshelf.

You seem to be under the impression that the store is just acting as a Wizards storefront, with inventory being owned by Wizards until it's sold to a customer. That's not how things work. Stores buy things from distributors and publishers. It is then theirs. They may or may not be limited in what they can do with them by contracts, but it's still theirs. Breaking a street date is a civil matter, not a criminal one.


Not their property.

It does belong to the buyer. He paid for it. It is his.

The owner of the cards, not the holder.

That's kind of like saying that if I go to the bank and withdraw cash, I get to keep the money. Hint: I don't get to keep the money.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Personally, I haven't read your previous legal points, so - at least in my case - it is not that they don't matter, is that I'm not aware of them. In a message boards like this there are many threads and they tend to go on for quite a while. Even if you want to follow a topic, a lot on information will be lost.

Not going through that again, trust me. It was an attempt to be nuanced (because we don't have all the facts) and people responded by yelling at me about whatever they googled. IIRC, they were googling an FTC guidance on unsolicited gifts which have become an issue due to scams (which you don't have to return, by the way, but that's neither here nor there).

But basically, we would need to know the actual fact pattern- things like, "Who got the cards originally, and how?" "What was the transaction from the original person to Dan?" "What was Dan's knowledge when he received the cards?" "Was there a contract regarding the embargo date, and if so, what are the terms?"

Actual facts would play very heavily into determining if there was possible civil or criminal liability under relevant state and federal law. But without those facts, you can't make a determination. So anyone saying that they know, for sure, what law(s) would apply is not accurately relaying the lack of predicate knowledge that we have.

ETA- and I will further add that since Dan and WotC both seem to have put this behind them, I am not sure why we are arguing this on their behalf. Verbal calisthenics?

 

[Nikosandros]

Not going through that again, trust me. It was an attempt to be nuanced (because we don't have all the facts) and people responded by yelling at me about whatever they googled. IIRC, they were googling an FTC guidance on unsolicited gifts which have become an issue due to scams (which you don't have to return, by the way, but that's neither here nor there).

But basically, we would need to know the actual fact pattern- things like, "Who got the cards originally, and how?" "What was the transaction from the original person to Dan?" "What was Dan's knowledge when he received the cards?" "Was there a contract regarding the embargo date, and if so, what are the terms?"

Actual facts would play very heavily into determining if there was possible civil or criminal liability under relevant state and federal law. But without those facts, you can't make a determination. So anyone saying that they know, for sure, what law(s) would apply is not accurately relaying the lack of predicate knowledge that we have.

ETA- and I will further add that since Dan and WotC both seem to have put this behind them, I am not sure why we are arguing this on their behalf. Verbal calisthenics?

OK, fair enough. IMO, it would have helped if the news articles had been clearer, but I haven't found any that was. Then again, I shouldn't complain too much. I'm used to the Italian press which tends to be gossipy and light on factual details even on matters of great importance.

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh no won't someone think of the poor multi billion corporation.

 

[Nikosandros]

ETA- and I will further add that since Dan and WotC both seem to have put this behind them, I am not sure why we are arguing this on their behalf. Verbal calisthenics?

About this specific point, it seems that this something that is very common here. After all, isn't much of the discussion about Greg Tito's posts also something of the sort?

 

[Eric V]

You get a collection agency to retrieve property a person is not entitled to.

This is what the lawyers would be for: to determine what the person is entitled to, legally, and what (in this case) WotC can do, legally.

As many people point out above, the issue is with the store that sold them; as far as the buyer is concerned, he bought them fair and square.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's kind of like saying that if I go to the bank and withdraw cash, I get to keep the money. Hint: I don't get to keep the money.

Why not?

 

[Eric V]

That's kind of like saying that if I go to the bank and withdraw cash, I get to keep the money. Hint: I don't get to keep the money.

It's really not like that, I'm afraid.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

About this specific point, it seems that this something that is very common here. After all, isn't much of the discussion about Greg Tito's posts also something of the sort?

It's like the Ship of Theseus for the internet era.

If you're beating a dead horse, but someone steals your dead horse and replaces it with an identical dead horse, and you continue the beating...