Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Party Invited To, Then Banned From Gaming Exhibition
esocid writes with this excerpt from TorrentFreak:
"Despite having booked and paid for their booth at Gamex, Sweden's largest gaming exhibition, the Pirate Party have been excluded from the action this week. The party, who say they were nagged for 2 to 3 months to book for the event, were this week informed they were too controversial and no longer welcome. ... [Pirate Party leader Anna Troberg] says that after the sales people from the exhibition pursued the party for months to participate, they decided to book and pay for a booth. ... 'I thought it was a bit strange, but in the afternoon, the pieces fell into place when the fair manager, Bear Wengse, phoned me and kindly, but firmly, announced that the Pirate Party was no longer welcome at the fair.' Wengse informed Troberg that the exhibition is a meeting place and not a venue for political conflict and the party's presence could cause problems, particularly since some of their work "could be perceived as criminal."'"
The point is: why would they even try to invite them? It isn't like three months ago the public opinion of something named "PIRATE PARTY" would be any diferent.
Oblivion Awaits
Will they get their money back? Because pursuing them so doggedly then banning them could probably also "be perceived as criminal".
Seriously, what trade show thought they would get away with a move that would piss off 90% of their exhibitors?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"hey guys! EA has a new game about pirates coming out, lets invite some pirate enthusiasts!!"
Good people go to bed earlier.
they decided to book and pay for a booth
I don't see the article mentioning a refund, I'm hoping this wasn't just a huge ploy from the start to take their money.
Booths at these kinds of things usually aren't cheap...
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
> they decided to book and pay for a booth. ... 'I thought it was a bit strange, but in the afternoon, the pieces fell into place
This is an example of either poor clipping, or intentionally inflammatory clipping. From having RTFA, the pirate party had called to get answers on a couple of practical issues, and the person they talked to sounded vague and extremely stressed out. THAT is what Troberg, as quoted in the actual article, thought strange.
In general, marketing and sales people have a tenuous grasp on reality.
sorry, hands are otherwise occupied...
I'm sure the organizers never wanted the pirate party there at all. But inviting them was a brilliant business move. For a whole host of reasons, from inflaming other exhibitors, getting those other exhibitors to spend more, encouraging another segment to exhibit, and impressing sponsors in the first place. Then, finally, supporting those that wanted the pirate party gone.
I'll bet it was the best period of business activity for the organizers. Welcome to playing one side against the other, and getting news-level advertising fory our show in the process.
Why is any of this surprising to anyone? It's just a gossip-tree and a rumour-mill at the business level.
Ooh, guess who's coming to dinner. Oh, sorry, they cancelled at the last minute.
The manager's name is Björn Wengse, not Bear Wengse. Björn is a common name that also happens to be the Swedish word for "bear".
More like Gaming "Unfair", amirite folks?
SYKE! HAHA!
Brings a new meaning to "con".
"Bear Wengse" should be "Björn Wengse". Poor journalism.
Has Anonymous gone out of fashion? I would have expected a mention of the fact that the web pages of the exhibition and the exhibition hall (Kistamässan) were DDoSed with a message from AnonOps Sweden stating (in Swenglish): Your decision to politically censor the pirate party, excluding them from gamex has not gone unnoticed by anonymous. That you would at the same time favor other parties does not improve the situation to your benefit.
"Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
You can make just about anything obvious if you decide to cherry-pick out the inconvenient possibilities. Consider this similar line of reasoning:
"What a stupid move by the organisers! Inviting the pirate party was always going to piss the exhibitors off. It would just attract the file-sharing crowd and make the event hostile towards big game studios. Basically, by inviting the pirate party, they would have jeopardised the exhibitors' contributing to this and all subsequent events, and irreparably damaged any currency or legitimacy they had with game developers.
But, that could have all been salvaged a little if they actually went ahead with the invite. At least then they get the file sharing crowd, and other pirate party supporters, which is no small consolation prize! But, they've turned around and banned them instead, which is just a giant 'fuck you' to all supporters of the pirate party, not to mention anyone in favour of free political speech. Now, the whole debacle is in the news, and the organisers have turned away both the exhibitors and the general public. They'll be lucky if they see half the attendance they had last year."
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I can't stop reading her name as Trollberg, the iceberg who sank the Titanic.
Problem?
considering someone else's intentional choices as undesirable or stupid on their part is almost always incorrect.
For an individual making some kind of personal choice, maybe. For a group/committee/government, or anyone trying to organise an event, not even close. I have both organised events and been part of committees in the past (often at the same time), and making stupid decisions, or failing to correctly predict something important, is not just difficult to avoid, it's part and parcel to the job.
I think what most likely happened was that whatever committee is responsible decided to send out invitations to various groups and political parties, but one of which is the pirate party. They didn't think particularly about weeding out particular parties for any controversial views, or names. They contacted these political parties to tell them that they're invited, and the political parties naturally spread the word that they'd be making an appearance. The big game studios caught wind, and pressured the organisers to ban them. The organisers, realising that the big game studios are necessary to the success of the event, decided to kowtow and bear the controversy.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
That's a good point. I agree with you.
Wow. I think you just made my day.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
(: hey, it's a good argument, that you made, with organizations having corrective elements as a part of the job. I was thinking of the show organizers as an individual -- being an entrepreneur, I do that sometimes.
*A* party, so the party *has*.
Good night.
I am not devoid of humor.