WotC Being Sued By Magic: the Gathering Judges

Wizards of the Coast, which, as you likely know, produces the enormous collectible card game Magic: The Gathering (as well as RPGs like D&D) is on the end of a class action lawsuit filed by a small group of M:tG judges (Adam Shaw, Peter Golightly, Justin Turner, and Joshua Stansfield). The suit alleges that WotC failed to pay minimum wage, provide meal or rest breaks, reimburse business expenses, maintain accurate payroll records, and more. M:tG judges are volunteers, but the filing appears to allege that the degree of supervision and control exercised by WotC was enough to create an employer-employee relationship instead. The M:tG judges are demanding a jury trial.


Click on the image for the full 23-page document
Screen Shot 2016-04-22 at 13.54.41.png
 

log in or register to remove this ad

<snip>

But, claims that it is somehow unethical to seek redress when you believe you have been wronged is just bizarre. The whole point of civil law is to decide this sort of thing. Was the person (or people) in fact wronged in some way, and what should be done to redress that wrong? It's baffling to me to think that this specific complaint is automatically unethical just because they volunteered for something. If, and please, take note of that if, WotC was violating labour laws by creating a volunteer position, then not redressing that would be unethical. If WotC is taking advantage, illegally, of volunteers, then that needs to be addressed.

Notions of "well, I said yes to X, therefore anything that happens after that is my own responsibility" is a moral black hole.

Interesting.

It depends upon the manner of redress one seeks. Other methods of redress have been mentioned, by me, and I think others.

Again, you return to legal recourse and the right to legal redress. Again, I will state I will not argue either side of that issue. Because quite simply, I believe under US law they have the legal right to do so. But again, legal right does not equal moral justification.

I believe that in a case such as this, if the judges became aware of illegal activities, they had other ethical and legal courses they could have taken.

Also, responsibility is not a one party or another. In this case both parties, IMO, held responsibilities and therefore are not unlimited in their ethical choices for redress. And I do not see how such a belief leads to a moral black hole.

But, I do see how a view that when one is wronged that they have an universal right to legal recourse could lead to a society ripe for excessive litigation, bureaucracy and moral decline.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Interesting.

It depends upon the manner of redress one seeks. Other methods of redress have been mentioned, by me, and I think others.

Again, you return to legal recourse and the right to legal redress. Again, I will state I will not argue either side of that issue. Because quite simply, I believe under US law they have the legal right to do so. But again, legal right does not equal moral justification.

I believe that in a case such as this, if the judges became aware of illegal activities, they had other ethical and legal courses they could have taken.

Also, responsibility is not a one party or another. In this case both parties, IMO, held responsibilities and therefore are not unlimited in their ethical choices for redress. And I do not see how such a belief leads to a moral black hole.

But, I do see how a view that when one is wronged that they have an universal right to legal recourse could lead to a society ripe for excessive litigation, bureaucracy and moral decline.

But, again, you have no idea what was done. Did they try other means? Who knows? Is this the first thing they tried? Perhaps, but, again, unlikely. It's far, far more likely that they actually tried talking to WotC first to redress what they saw as a wrong doing and nothing happened. I'm pretty confident in saying that people don't plunk down the time and money to sue someone as a first option most of the time.

Really? You don't see how "I agreed to X and anything that happens after X is my own responsibility" isn't a moral black hole? I can think of all sorts of current events occurring on college campuses involving women that might disagree with you.

Sorry, but, the universal right to legal recourse has been part and parcel to virtually every civilisation for thousands of years. A viking was far, far more likely to sue you than sack your village, just as an example. There is absolutely no "moral decline" in anyone attempting to redress what they view as a wrong by appealing to a neutral party. That's how the system is supposed to work. Earlier an example was given of simply quitting and then going online or other venues to complain about your treatment. Only problem there is, it's effectively blogging. You have no proof. It's simply an appeal to the public.

I'd much, much rather have people present whose job it is to determine the truth, whatever that truth is. If WotC did nothing wrong, then the case will go away and no problem. If WotC did do something wrong, then they should stop whatever it is they are doing. In any case, since we're talking about morals and ethics, you are morally bound to address wrongdoing simply to prevent it from happening to someone else.

Since we don't know the events leading up to this case, i'm not going to simply presume that they jumped on the litigation bandwagon, just because. I'm actually going to assume good faith on all parties and presume that an amicable solution wasn't possible, thus, now, we go to litigation. Because, quite frankly, that's how the system should work. IANAL, but, I'm pretty sure that if the first thing they did was go to a lawyer, that lawyer would advise them to try to resolve things before suing. After all, if they didn't, then WotC could simply turn around and play victim. "Hey, what? We didn't know you were this unhappy. If you had just talked to us, we could have saved everyone all this time and money. Why didn't you talk to us?"

There are processes that are followed when you sue someone. Failing to follow those processes can lead to your suit not being successful. Presuming that the lawyer these guys got is worth his salt (and if he's willing to go to court with a pretty big company, I'd hope he is) he's not going to just jump on the litigation bandwagon on the say so of a few guys.
 

I'm not sure what harm from my statements are being discussed.
Yes, a lot of good has come from lawsuits. In our country, so has a lot of harm. We (the USA) are fortunate in that we have such a system to address grievances. But it does not mean that every grievance should be addressed in such a manner.

Take a look at these links, and see if you can start to understand why one can consider many lawsuits to be frivolous or harmful;
-The Examiner
- The Economist
- Answers.com



Where did I ever imply such a thing? Just because a parent IS legally responsible (according to US law), doesn't mean they need to be a lawyer (though with the implications from my links above, its not such a stretch in the USA).

Is it reasonable to expect a parent to be conversant in the law? Depends upon if the laws are reasonable. But I don't care to debate if US laws are reasonable. Not the point of this thread or of interest to me.

Well, there goes my dream of going to America, freeing all unfairly incarcerated minorities, fight to have all baseless patents invalidated and give all victims of frivolous suits a fighting chance. Turns out you have enough lawyers to do that they are just too deep in debt to afford it...

But exactly how does this suit relate to it?
 

There are processes that are followed when you sue someone. Failing to follow those processes can lead to your suit not being successful. Presuming that the lawyer these guys got is worth his salt (and if he's willing to go to court with a pretty big company, I'd hope he is) he's not going to just jump on the litigation bandwagon on the say so of a few guys.

How do you know their lawyer is necessarily a he? n_n
 



Really? You don't see how "I agreed to X and anything that happens after X is my own responsibility" isn't a moral black hole? I can think of all sorts of current events occurring on college campuses involving women that might disagree with you.

Again, you once more say I am making a statement that I have not made. No point is saying more about that.

... There is absolutely no "moral decline" in anyone attempting to redress what they view as a wrong by appealing to a neutral party. That's how the system is supposed to work. Earlier an example was given of simply quitting and then going online or other venues to complain about your treatment. Only problem there is, it's effectively blogging. You have no proof. It's simply an appeal to the public.

Moral decline does not come about from someone appealing to a neutral party, it comes by ignoring one's own complicity in a situation and seeking legal recourse to resolve all of one's problems.

I'd much, much rather have people present whose job it is to determine the truth, whatever that truth is. If WotC did nothing wrong, then the case will go away and no problem. If WotC did do something wrong, then they should stop whatever it is they are doing. In any case, since we're talking about morals and ethics, you are morally bound to address wrongdoing simply to prevent it from happening to someone else.

So you much rather prefer that any disagreement between two parties should be handled by a court of law? And you see no moral decline in such an approach. So, since we disagree, are you going to sue me and let a neutral party decide who's right? I think the answer is no. So... where the line? Do you draw that line based upon the law, or do you use some other guidance?

Since we don't know the events leading up to this case, i'm not going to simply presume that they jumped on the litigation bandwagon, ... <snip> ... Presuming that the lawyer these guys got is worth his salt (and if he's willing to go to court with a pretty big company, I'd hope he is) he's not going to just jump on the litigation bandwagon on the say so of a few guys.

Again, I don't care if it's legal or not. You keep going there. Legal action does not equal ethical action.
 

Lord Entrails said:
So you much rather prefer that any disagreement between two parties should be handled by a court of law? And you see no moral decline in such an approach. So, since we disagree, are you going to sue me and let a neutral party decide who's right? I think the answer is no. So... where the line? Do you draw that line based upon the law, or do you use some other guidance?

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...gic-the-Gathering-Judges/page17#ixzz47BLyr6tl

I believe there's a fallacy in there. You are looking for an absolute where none exists. "Any"? No, of course not. I would hope that the overwhelming majority of issues can be resolved without involving lawyers. Of course. But, just because some disagreements can be handled without lawyers does not automatically mean that all should be.

Note, your example doesn't follow since your disagreement does no harm to me whatsoever. So, it would be impossible, outside of formal debate I suppose, for a neutral party to get involved. However, if the complaint here is found to be valid, then harm is actually being done. We have labor laws for a reason. If this actually was an employer/employee situation, then, there are all sorts issues that come in. Minimum wage for one, a law which exists for several very good reasons. Earlier someone mentioned the idea of going on strike. However, as volunteers, you cannot form a labor union, only employees can do that. Thus, the volunteers are being denied their right to group arbitration. Never minding things like health care benefits, unemployment insurance issues, etc. etc.

There are a huge number of ways that WotC could be harming all the judges. If the complaint is proven valid, then WotC is doing harm to thousands of people. Since you insist on putting this in moral terms, do you not have a moral imperative to determine the truth of that? If harm is, in fact, being done, are you not morally compelled to step up and protect others? Simply walking away does nothing to resolve the issue for anyone else. WotC simply replaces you and moves on, continuing to harm thousands of people.

OTOH, the suit could be thrown out and WotC has done nothing wrong. Fantastic. Everyone's happy. Either way, how is it not ethically imperative to determine the truth?
 

I believe there's a fallacy in there. You are looking for an absolute where none exists. "Any"? No, of course not. I would hope that the overwhelming majority of issues can be resolved without involving lawyers. Of course. But, just because some disagreements can be handled without lawyers does not automatically mean that all should be.

Note, your ... <snip>...

OTOH, the suit could be thrown out and WotC has done nothing wrong. Fantastic. Everyone's happy. Either way, how is it not ethically imperative to determine the truth?

I don't see how I was supporting any absolute. But doesn't matter. You agree with me, just because someone can, doesn't mean someone should. i.e. their is something other than the law that should determine one's actions.

And I don't see how the plaintiffs will be happy if the suit is thrown out.

Imperative? Seems too strong a word to me. Not every disagreement has a moral imperative to determine the truth. And this is where we disagree. You see that their was significant harm, or the potential for significant harm, that occurred. I don't.
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top