Quote from: THE_Leopold on April 26, 2023, 01:56:01 PM
The people in charge all passed through the ESG/DEI process, therefore they are vetted.

Very true.  That is WOTC's version of vetting.  We see the result of that.

Quote from: jhkim on April 26, 2023, 02:16:15 PM
They could well be lying, but according to WotC, they did ask for it back prior to sending them. Their statement to io9 was:

Quote from: Wizards of the CoastAs part of an investigation into the unauthorized distribution and disclosure of embargoed product, we repeatedly attempted to contact an individual who had received unreleased cards. After that outreach was unsuccessful, an investigator visited him and asked that he reach out to us as part of our investigation and return the embargoed product and packaging. He agreed to do both. The unreleased product will be replaced by us with the product he intended to purchase. We appreciate the individual's cooperation and the investigation is ongoing.

I don't know the individual or the situation, so I have no opinion on who is telling the truth here. I don't like WotC, but I still want to assess each claim.

I really tend to side with the person since I hate WOTC and their tactics and I really don't see a reason for the people to lie.

Quote from: THE_Leopold on April 26, 2023, 01:44:57 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 26, 2023, 01:39:47 PM
At this point the only logical conclusion I can reach is that someone inside Hasbro/WotC is deliberately trying to tank their stock prices for either insider trading* or revenge.**

Anything else requires a level of incompetence that beggars belief.

* intending to buy up shares cheap for a hostile takeover or has shorted the company so profits from their loss.

** ex. that guy who wanted WotC spun off into an independent company because that division was soaking losses for Hasbro as a whole and would be more valuable if it was independent... he was denied so, revenge?

not even WallStreetBets is hedging anything on Hasbro. If there was a short to be had those guys would be going hard due to the LULZ.

It is sheer incompetence at the highest level.

Robert Conquest had the answer a long time ago:  "The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies."

Quote from: jhkim on April 26, 2023, 02:16:15 PMThey could well be lying, but according to WotC, they did ask for it back prior to sending them. Their statement to io9 was

Then why not call the police? I'm not 100% certain about how the law works, but if somebody steals something from you, you can just ask the police to get it back.
Why the goon squad?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on April 26, 2023, 04:56:50 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 26, 2023, 02:16:15 PMThey could well be lying, but according to WotC, they did ask for it back prior to sending them. Their statement to io9 was

Then why not call the police? I'm not 100% certain about how the law works, but if somebody steals something from you, you can just ask the police to get it back.
Why the goon squad?

Because it's not stolen property, the youtuber got it sent instead of what he bought by error.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 26, 2023, 05:01:35 PMBecause it's not stolen property, the youtuber got it sent instead of what he bought by error.

Hmm, Im pretty sure there would still be legal precedent for retrieval. If an airport sent my buisness suitcase to the wrong guy, I think you can demand it back from them even if it was sent by accident.
Like I again disbelieve that WOTC "asked" and then needed to send "Private detectives". Because they could just demonetize his channel and keep doing it until he gave them back the goods.

I agree this sounds more like some internal politiking to intentionally do something stupid, as WOTC could easily get this guy deplatformed if they wanted.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on April 26, 2023, 05:18:08 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 26, 2023, 05:01:35 PMBecause it's not stolen property, the youtuber got it sent instead of what he bought by error.

Hmm, Im pretty sure there would still be legal precedent for retrieval. If an airport sent my buisness suitcase to the wrong guy, I think you can demand it back from them even if it was sent by accident.
Like I again disbelieve that WOTC "asked" and then needed to send "Private detectives". Because they could just demonetize his channel and keep doing it until he gave them back the goods.

I agree this sounds more like some internal politiking to intentionally do something stupid, as WOTC could easily get this guy deplatformed if they wanted.

Do you REALLY think this and the airport/airline sending YOUR suitcase to the wrong person are the same?

Try a better analogy because that's a false equivalence.

Try you bought a suitcase called X
Got sent the next season model called X-Aftermath
That's what happened, it's WotC's fault for sending it to the retailers. Or somewhere else along the supply chain, but there's NO sending to someone the property of other.

WotC needed to make the guy a sweet deal, cheaper and much better for PR.

It's going to depend on where the youtuber lives, which I couldn't determine with the few minutes I was willing to allocate searching, but under most laws in the US, if someone is sent merchandise they did not order, they are allowed to keep it.

Here's an example of relevant code

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/3009

39 U.S. Code § 3009 - Mailing of unordered merchandise

    U.S. Code
    Notes

prev | next
(a) Except for (1) free samples clearly and conspicuously marked as such, and (2) merchandise mailed by a charitable organization soliciting contributions, the mailing of un­ordered merchandise or of communications prohibited by subsection (c) of this section constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice in violation of section 45(a)(1) of title 15.
(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. All such merchandise shall have attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender.
(c) No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning communications.
(d) For the purposes of this section, "un­ordered merchandise" means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
(Pub. L. 91–375, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 749.)

From my recollection of my one business law class, I recall that the UCC says the same.

It seems to me that this would apply because he didn't ask for the cards he was sent, but I'd have to consult the case law to make sure that the law has been interpreted this way in the past.

I'm pretty certain that mistakenly sending the wrong material in response to an order would NOT fall under this section, which is designed to deal with 'inertia selling'. The intent of the sender is quite different. The buyer did solicit goods, they just got the wrong goods. On standard Contract Law principles, there was no contract to transfer ownership of the goods that were actually sent. This typically means that ownership is not transferred even though possession is transferred, at least not immediately. WoTC's agents' threatening behaviour to an innocent recipient is still tortious and possibly criminal, though.

Quote from: S'mon on April 27, 2023, 03:29:05 AM
I'm pretty certain that mistakenly sending the wrong material in response to an order would NOT fall under this section, which is designed to deal with 'inertia selling'. The intent of the sender is quite different. The buyer did solicit goods, they just got the wrong goods. On standard Contract Law principles, there was no contract to transfer ownership of the goods that were actually sent. This typically means that ownership is not transferred even though possession is transferred, at least not immediately. WoTC's agents' threatening behaviour to an innocent recipient is still tortious and possibly criminal, though.

Thanks for the clarification.  That's why I consult with a real lawyer when it matters.

I read a bit about this on another gaming news spot.  I'd guess he could at least get Pinkerton on criminal trespass and WotC on conspiracy because they hired the Pinkertons.  If it were me I know I'd be pissed enough to pursue it to the full extent of the law.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 27, 2023, 03:57:50 AM

Quote from: S'mon on April 27, 2023, 03:29:05 AM
I'm pretty certain that mistakenly sending the wrong material in response to an order would NOT fall under this section, which is designed to deal with 'inertia selling'. The intent of the sender is quite different. The buyer did solicit goods, they just got the wrong goods. On standard Contract Law principles, there was no contract to transfer ownership of the goods that were actually sent. This typically means that ownership is not transferred even though possession is transferred, at least not immediately. WoTC's agents' threatening behaviour to an innocent recipient is still tortious and possibly criminal, though.

Thanks for the clarification.  That's why I consult with a real lawyer when it matters.

I read a bit about this on another gaming news spot.  I'd guess he could at least get Pinkerton on criminal trespass and WotC on conspiracy because they hired the Pinkertons.  If it were me I know I'd be pissed enough to pursue it to the full extent of the law.

Greetings!

Yeah! S'mon is great! He knows his stuff! He knows all the Lawyer things. It is refreshing, and gratifying, to know a real lawyer. Far too many yahoos online like to run their mouth about the law, when in reality they don't know a damned thing.

S'mon is always sober, knowledgeable, and laser-sharp.

I'm definitely with you, my friend. I'd have WOTC, HASBRO, and Pinkerton on the hook BIG. Yeah, I'd think with a case like this, a good truckload of lawyers would be lined up, eager to get to work!

Of course, knowing me--if these Pinkerton clowns showed up at *my* door, well, I would have much more to offer them besides coffee. It is just boggling to me. Making my wife cry? Puffing their chests out, and being tough guys? On my property? Oh yeah, man. I would definitely have something else for them, for damned sure.

These Pinkerton clowns really need to think, and remember something--people in America get shot and killed at MacDonalds for serving cold French Fries at the drive thru window. How do they think a man might respond to these goons showing up at your door, seeking to intimidate and threaten you, making your wife cry, while acting like thugs?

That could very easily end up being a fatal mistake of assumptions on their part. A very bad morning for them, for certain.

Nonetheless, WOTC needs to be grilled hard for this,as well as Pinkerton and Hasbro. Sending Pinkerton thugs to people's doors? Just mind-boggling. All for their stupid MTG card game. Yeah, I hope the customer and victim in all this GETS PAID, and HUGE.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I wonder, do Pinkerton goons behave differently in the gun-toting South & Red States, than in more pacified parts of the country? Or do they go in expecting violence? I'm sure they're armed wherever concealed carry is legal. WoTC may have bad publicity now, but imagine if their thugs had killed a man on his own doorstep for receiving the wrong M:TG cards! 

Quote from: SHARK on April 27, 2023, 04:53:15 AM

Greetings!

Yeah! S'mon is great! He knows his stuff! He knows all the Lawyer things. It is refreshing, and gratifying, to know a real lawyer. Far too many yahoos online like to run their mouth about the law, when in reality they don't know a damned thing.

S'mon is always sober, knowledgeable, and laser-sharp.

Aw, thanks SHARK.  I teach Contract Law as well as Intellectual Property, including a lot of Business to Consumer (B2C), so restrictions on 'inertia selling' are familiar to me. Recently started teaching some basic Company/Corporate Law also.

Quote from: S'mon on April 27, 2023, 05:13:23 AM
I wonder, do Pinkerton goons behave differently in the gun-toting South & Red States, than in more pacified parts of the country? Or do they go in expecting violence? I'm sure they're armed wherever concealed carry is legal. WoTC may have bad publicity now, but imagine if their thugs had killed a man on his own doorstep for receiving the wrong M:TG cards! 

So from what I understand now, WotC sent the wrong package, dude opens it and whatever and has no idea these are cards that aren't supposed to actually be released. Instead of contacting him directly they send the Pinkertons to go get the cards. There is no search warrant or anything of the sort, they are a private security group and have no legal basis for search and seizure, correct? Since I live in a "red state" (Texas), I can tell you they'd be really polite knocking on any doors and ask nicely for return of the merchandise. If they were reasonable I don't think anything would happen other than them getting the cards back. If they got pushy or had an attitude, there'd probably be some door slamming, with an inevitable escalation to buckshot, depending on just how pushy they did get. In my neighborhood most people are pretty nice, but even people I know pretty well would be more than willing to use lethal force on their property if they felt threatened, even by me. I am sure the goons would understand this and act accordingly.

Fantasies aside, why didn't WotC just fucking ASK for the stuff back? Why send the gestapo? I don't get it.

Quote from: Brad on April 27, 2023, 05:55:15 AM
Fantasies aside, why didn't WotC just fucking ASK for the stuff back? Why send the gestapo? I don't get it.

Did they not do just that? It says that they tried to contact him (I assume by the e-mail or phone number he provided when buying the cards) and that they weren't able to reach him. Seems within reason that they would then send somebody to the address that he provided to ask him about it.
Shouldn't he also want the original product that he bought? I'm sure they're well within their rights to go to his address and ask if he'll give the cards back, and to also drop off the actual product. Whether they did it via intimidation or not is a whole other thing. If I was selling something to somebody and I sent the wrong item and he couldn't or wouldn't get back to me, I would certainly retrieve it were it within my means to do so.

Americans are a strange bunch in any case. Very strange civilisation!