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

Screenshot 2024-08-31 at 11.21.33 PM.png

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.


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.

Screenshot 2024-08-31 at 11.17.45 PM.png
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ownership of the cards here was in question though,...hence why I assumed lawyers would be more useful than Pinkertons.
I haven't yet said WotC did anything wrong...just that if there's confusion legally over who owns the cards, a lawyer may be more useful than Pinkertons.
To me, it seems more likely than not that WotC had already received legal advice, either from their own lawyers or ones that they hired.

On the issue of who had what sort of proprietary claim to the cards, that seems to depend on the details of (i) the property and contract law of the jurisdiction where it took place, and (ii) the terms of various contracts, and (iii) the knowledge of various parties, including the youtuber who received the visit from the Pinkertons.

For instance: in English law, mistaken payments of money may give rise to a constructive trust over the received money in the hands of the recipient: Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd - Wikipedia

In Australian law, a thief is at least sometimes said to hold the stolen property on constructive trust (I can't cite the cases off the top of my head).

If A holds property on constructive trust for B, and then C takes title to the property from A with knowledge (actual or appropriately imputed) of B's claim, C may also hold on constructive trust for B.

In those circumstances, B might be entitled to an order against C for reconveyance of the property back to them.

I don't know the relevant details of this Pinkertons/MtG scenario. But to me, confident assertions that the youtuber had a stronger proprietary claim over the cards than WotC did seem a bit overdone. Some of the posts in this thread are just legally incorrect, or at least overly simplistic, treating the typical case of transaction between distributor, retailer and end consumer as if it is applicable in all circumstances, when it is not.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

To me, it seems more likely than not that WotC had already received legal advice, either from their own lawyers or ones that they hired.

On the issue of who had what sort of proprietary claim to the cards, that seems to depend on the details of (i) the property and contract law of the jurisdiction where it took place, and (ii) the terms of various contracts, and (iii) the knowledge of various parties, including the youtuber who received the visit from the Pinkertons.

For instance: in English law, mistaken payments of money may give rise to a constructive trust over the received money in the hands of the recipient: Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd - Wikipedia

In Australian law, a thief is at least sometimes said to hold the stolen property on constructive trust (I can't cite the cases off the top of my head).

If A holds property on constructive trust for B, and then C takes title to the property from A with knowledge (actual or appropriately imputed) of B's claim, C may also hold on constructive trust for B.

In those circumstances, B might be entitled to an order against C for reconveyance of the property back to them.

I don't know the relevant details of this Pinkertons/MtG scenario. But to me, confident assertions that the youtuber had a stronger proprietary claim over the cards than WotC did seem a bit overdone. Some of the posts in this thread are just legally incorrect, or at least overly simplistic, treating the typical case of transaction between distributor, retailer and end consumer as if it is applicable in all circumstances, when it is not.
Thanks for the analysis. I am not sure who had the greater proprietary claim over the cards...hence my opinion that someone who is an expert on the law should be involved first. As you write above, there are some maybes and mights.

That being the case, even though it's reasonable to assume that WotC got legal advice, from the point of view of the customer, a letter from WotC legal explaining the situation, with relevant law citations, seems more appropriate than a surprise visit from the Pinkertons. Lets him know due diligence has been done.
 


I am not sure why it would somehow be preferable to send lawyers aggressively after a customer, coating the customer a lot of time, money and stress for a worse result....?

You don't hire lawyers to do private investigation. Also, I'm not sure it would be any better to open your door and see these guys standing outside. ;)
images (6).jpg
 

You don't hire lawyers to do private investigation. Also, I'm not sure it would be any better to open your door and see these guys standing outside. ;)
View attachment 379532
Again, they were hired to retrieve the merchandise. No investigation needed; WotC knew where the merchandise was. Is that clear now?

And no, there wouldn't be a need to have 7 lawyers showing up. Registered mail seems like it would suffice.
 

Again, they were hired to retrieve the merchandise. No investigation needed; WotC knew where the merchandise was. Is that clear now?

And no, there wouldn't be a need to have 7 lawyers showing up. Registered mail seems like it would suffice.

According to Gizmodo, WotC claims they asked for the product back multiple times. I don't think we know how this was done. And as far as I know, the youtuber doesn't dispute this claim. WotC also claims this was part of an investigation into stolen property. And we have no evidence to the contrary.

I know people like to just naughty all over WotC, but if no party to an incident disputes a claim, shouldn't we consider the claim valid?
 

/snip.

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?

Sort of.

The Pinkerton thing is one of many examples that people routinely bring up to “prove” how WotC is evil. Except when we actually look into it, it’s far from clear. But people are absolutely convinced of WotC’s dastardy. And it gets repeated over and over again and any attempt to reduce the rhetoric is met with “apologist” claims.

We’ve seen exactly this in this thread.
 

According to Gizmodo, WotC claims they asked for the product back multiple times. I don't think we know how this was done. And as far as I know, the youtuber doesn't dispute this claim. WotC also claims this was part of an investigation into stolen property. And we have no evidence to the contrary.

I know people like to just naughty all over WotC, but if no party to an incident disputes a claim, shouldn't we consider the claim valid?
I didn't say the claim that they tried to reach out wasn't valid. IIRC, they never actually reached him though; hence why I mentioned registered mail. If my recollection is false, I will be glad to take that back.

It should be noted, though, that by the time the Pinkertons show up at the guy's door, the investigating part is over...as evidenced by the fact that they know where to send the Pinkertons. At that point, it's about retrieval, yes?

To be clear, I don't like to "just naughty all over WotC"; I have no strong feelings on them one way or another.
 

I didn't say the claim that they tried to reach out wasn't valid. IIRC, they never actually reached him though; hence why I mentioned registered mail. If my recollection is false, I will be glad to take that back.

It should be noted, though, that by the time the Pinkertons show up at the guy's door, the investigating part is over...as evidenced by the fact that they know where to send the Pinkertons. At that point, it's about retrieval, yes?

To be clear, I don't like to "just naughty all over WotC"; I have no strong feelings on them one way or another.
My understanding of investigation side was they knew where to get them, thanks to the content creator's videos (if no videos had been made, possibly he could have just kept them anyway with none the wiser?) - but the investigation was to find where in supply chain it broke down ending up with the creator having the cards - possibly the boxes and / or cards have batch numbers / serial IDs or something that would allow them to trace back, or they could talk to content creator as to where he got them and again trace back etc.
Thus I understood retrieving the cards as being part of the investigation, but not a sign it was complete.
 

So, you're not done then?

As for facts, who's spinning?

Mod Note:
@Eric V - After the previous moderation in this thread, continuing the personal approach is... unwise of you. The fact that you weren't personally moderated earlier doesn't mean you are safe to engage similarly.

@Oofta - If you are done, please actually be done. From out here, it looks like you are allowing yourself to be baited into continuing. If you find you cannot stop engaging, it can be arranged for you.

Everyone, please be more thoughtful in your approach to this topic. Further evidence that you can't stop making it personal is going to get folks removed from the discussion.
 

Trending content

Related Articles

Remove ads

Trending content

Remove ads

Top