TRACY KING / SCEPTICAL ANALYSIS
OPINION
Gamer and science enthusiast Tracy King dissects the evidence and statistics behind popular media stories surrounding tech and gaming @tkingdot
U
nlessyoulookforthem,politicsaren’tusuallyobviousin
mainstreamvideogames.Developersandpublishers
wanttoreachthelargestpossibleaudienceso,aswith
any other businessandproduct,gamesdevelopersliketoavoid
controversy. Butwhathappenswhen‘avoiding’politicsinvolves
actively takingthesideofanauthoritarianregime?
Enter Blizzard.You’veprobablyheardbynowthatprofessional
Hearthstone playerNgWaiChung,akaBlitzchung,waspunished
by Blizzard forundertakinga protestduringa tournament.His
words explainhispolitics,‘liberateHongKong’.Inresponse,
Blizzard bannedhimfora year(laterreducedtosixmonths)
and confiscatedhis 2019 winnings(whichwerethenreinstated
after a backlash).Blizzardcitedsomeofthetournamentrules,
which say that‘engaginginanyactthat,
in Blizzard’s solediscretion,bringsyouinto
public disrepute,offendsa portionorgroup
of the public, orotherwisedamagesBlizzard’s
image’ is forbidden.
I’m not here todebatethemeritsoftheHong
Kong protests, buttoexaminewhetheresports
players are allowedtousetheirplatformfor
political protest, and whether Blizzard’s response to this specific
protest is fair or equitable.
Protests during sporting events aren’t new. In August this
year at the Pan American Games, fencer Race Imboden, and
women’s hammer winner Gwen Berry both used their moment
in the podium spotlight to protest Donald Trump. The Olympics
committee is ‘considering’ sanctions. In 2016, American footballer
Colin Kapernick started an entire movement, #TakeAKnee, in
protest against racism and gun violence. In 1996, American
basketball player Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf was heavily sanctioned
for refusing to stand for the national anthem. Sporting history is
fullofathletesusingtheirplatformforprotest.It was inevitable
thatesportswouldjointhem,andalsoinevitablethat punishment
wouldbetheresponse.
Butforthepurposesofenforcingitsrulesabout disrepute
andoffence,isBlizzardbeingobjectivehere?Well,no. China is a
majormarketforHearthstoneandalsohasa government that
likestocensor,andthere’snochancethatBlizzardis unaware of
thissituation.
Butthere’salsonochancethatBlizzardasa company doesn’t
havepolitics.It hasanequalopportunitiespolicy,anenvironment
policy,andpublishedcorevaluesthatinclude‘think globally’ and
‘everyvoicematters’.Theseareallexamplesofpolitics. When
decidingwhatqualifiesassomethingthat‘offends a portion or
groupofthepublic’,Blizzardhasto actively take
thesideofChina.That’snotpolitically neutral.
I wouldalsoarguethatBlizzard has done
moretodamageitsimagethan Blitzchung.
ByBlizzard’sownadmission, its original
punishmentwasoverkill.That’s not to say it
waswrongtosanctionatallthough. Blizzard
couldn’tdonothing,becausethen it would be
open season for political protests of all sorts at its tournaments,
from the left, right and everything in between. Doing nothing
would be taking the side of the Hong Kong protests, by omission.
But by being so heavy-handed, Blizzard made it look like it’s on
China’s side, and that’s not okay.
That said, if Blitzchung truly cares about Hong Kong then
Blizzard’s overreaction is the best outcome that could have
happened. By making the sacrifice, Blitzchung has created
publicity and support for his cause where otherwise it wouldn’t
have existed. The games community wasn’t going to pick up the
mantle of Hong Kong without a martyr, and Blitzchung is it.POLITICAL PROTESTS
Tracy King analyses Blizzard’s sanctioning of a Hearthstone player
for protesting against the Chinese government at a tournamentBlizzard couldn’t do nothing,
because then it would be
open season for political
protests of all sorts