Yes it’s common for business to suspend people who have not been proven to do a crime. Even beyond businesses, it happens with cops and teachers who are accused of wrongdoing, which are government positions.
Yeah, I don't think cops getting the paid vacations for murdering people is quite the same as false accusations.
Not all cases of suspension involve killing someone, and also the cops are suspended regardless of being innocent or guilty, simply during investigation. If the cop is found innocent, it wasn’t murder, making your statement false. If it was actually murder, it means the cop was found guilty and will no longer be suspended but either face jail time or whatever punishment the judge sees fit. So no, they don’t get paid vacations after murdering someone, because that has to be proven. If you are simply against paid suspension, that is a separate issue, and one that I’d be inclined to agree with, or instead of being paid, just get subsidized for living expenses, like welfare.
It's fairly predictable whenever this happens that you see a lot of folks saying that a corporation has the right to do something as if that's the end of the argument.
Lots of folks sit secure in the knowledge this will never happen to them because not only do they not engage in such abhorrent behavior, they would never be stupid enough to put themselves in a position where they could even be accused of such.
Hopefully, for their sake, they will never be shown how absolutely naive this position is. As a person who has had to fight thru several years of unfounded accusations while in school and very nearly lost hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of work to a university's "right" to toss anyone out who faces an accusation, regardless o the specifics or foundation of said accusation, I have to say that anyone can find themselves in this situation and when you do, get ready to find out that you in fact have no friends, no confidants, and very little influence with which to combat the situation.
To be honest, at this point the only thing to do is to hope and pray that Zalae was guilty of the accusation. I know how that sounds, but given that punishment has already been visited, it's really the only just state of being. We used to embrace the concept "better to let ten guilty men go free than punish an innocent," and no, that concept was never meant to be applied ONLY to government. Now, accusations are assumed true unless you happen to occupy positions of power in one political party (not intending to open a political discussion, it's just that in the past 5 years, there have only been two individuals who I've seen been given the benefit of the doubt by the mob . . . one a former President and one the current President).
Someone brought up the example of Johnny Depp. That's probably the worst of all the public examples we've seen, as nearly every piece of evidence points to the conclusion that Depp was not only innocent as an accused abuser, but in fact a fairly prolific victim of abuse. I prefer to look at the example of Chris Hardwick, a man who spent years ultimately successfully defending himself from these accusations, though in the end his career was all but destroyed and the losses, both socially and financially, were barely countable. Hardwick's story shows exactly the combination of luck, resources, and effort needed to salvage a life once these accusations take off, and it's important to realize that he wasn't half guilty, or a little guilty. By everything we know, he wasn't remotely guilty.
Anyway, hope it never happens to you. You'll be singing a different tune by then, but no one will care.
EDIT: I do find it hilarious in a very sad way that folks who will lay down some of the most horrid insults toward Blizzard when they don't like a card game's meta are suddenly cool with it when the same company plays sole arbiter of punishment with a person's livelihood.
I don’t see how your example is any different. Johnny Depp was in fact found GUILTY in some cases and unable to appeal the trial. Yes there was a lot of evidence of his innocence but it’s still relevant and he is still fighting to actually be proven innocent.
I'm not understanding the position businesses are taking of terminating employees based on unproven allegations.
Or in this case, kicking a player from the tournament based on unproven allegations.
If he did it, blacklist him from all HS events for life.
Right now we have an allegation. It should be taken seriously, it should be investigated, and the truth should be determined. Hearthstone chose to jump ahead of that and go straight to the punishment phase based on just the allegation.
Think about this for a moment, and personalize it. You've worked hard at something your entire professional career. Now, you are about to get your big shot. An ex girlfriend/boyfriend, ex wife/husband, whatever, suddenly comes out with an allegation of wrongdoing on your part. You are then, with no proof and no chance to defend yourself, completely shut out from the job/career/opportunity that you have pursued for so long and dedicated yourself to. Does that sound fair? Does that sound right?
To me, it absolutely does not.
Give the man his day in court. If he is found guilty, bar him from all events. Strip him of titles if needed. Do not condemn him based on allegations, though. I'm disappointed in Blizzard, and society at large, as we are seeing more and more of these types of things happening.
Yes it’s common for business to suspend people who have not been proven to do a crime. Even beyond businesses, it happens with cops and teachers who are accused of wrongdoing, which are government positions.
I think it’s rather easy to understand actually. Sure it could seem unfair for the accused, but if that person is actually guilty, it would be very bad for the reputation of the organization because it is as if they were supporting a criminal. Organizations would rather take the safe approach, since in most cases, there is more backlash from NOT suspending the accused than there is from suspending them.
There are some exceptions to this case, if the accused is in an iconic or very popular position for example, such as with Johnny Depp. Johnny Depp was accused of domestic abuse, when it is likely he was actually the victim, but Disney suspended him regardless and faced MAJOR backlash because people couldn’t imagine pirates of the Caribbean without him. Hearthstone on the other hand is well fit to survive without Zalae so it not nearly as impactful losing him as it would be if they supported a domestic abuser.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
⚙
Learn More
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pools
✕
×
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Not all cases of suspension involve killing someone, and also the cops are suspended regardless of being innocent or guilty, simply during investigation. If the cop is found innocent, it wasn’t murder, making your statement false. If it was actually murder, it means the cop was found guilty and will no longer be suspended but either face jail time or whatever punishment the judge sees fit. So no, they don’t get paid vacations after murdering someone, because that has to be proven. If you are simply against paid suspension, that is a separate issue, and one that I’d be inclined to agree with, or instead of being paid, just get subsidized for living expenses, like welfare.
I don’t see how your example is any different. Johnny Depp was in fact found GUILTY in some cases and unable to appeal the trial. Yes there was a lot of evidence of his innocence but it’s still relevant and he is still fighting to actually be proven innocent.
https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/6994186002
Yes it’s common for business to suspend people who have not been proven to do a crime. Even beyond businesses, it happens with cops and teachers who are accused of wrongdoing, which are government positions.
I think it’s rather easy to understand actually. Sure it could seem unfair for the accused, but if that person is actually guilty, it would be very bad for the reputation of the organization because it is as if they were supporting a criminal. Organizations would rather take the safe approach, since in most cases, there is more backlash from NOT suspending the accused than there is from suspending them.
There are some exceptions to this case, if the accused is in an iconic or very popular position for example, such as with Johnny Depp. Johnny Depp was accused of domestic abuse, when it is likely he was actually the victim, but Disney suspended him regardless and faced MAJOR backlash because people couldn’t imagine pirates of the Caribbean without him. Hearthstone on the other hand is well fit to survive without Zalae so it not nearly as impactful losing him as it would be if they supported a domestic abuser.