Blizzard responds to Swifty ban incident

Swifty livestreams events with his guild on occasion and even hosts parts of the stream himself. Being the WoW gamer celebrity that he is, his stream attracts a good number of viewers. His own YouTube video response to his ban acknowledges between 4,000 and 5,000 people were watching his livestream. People flocked to the server, and the disruptions began. A number of players, including Swifty, were banned. Over the course of the day, Blizzard reviewed the information and decided to unban Swifty.
We recently monitored a situation where a large number of players intentionally disrupted access to multiple realms by gathering together and mass-spamming game emotes. In some cases, individual players spammed an emote upwards of 30,000 times.
As a result, some accounts found to be active participants in this activity were permanently banned. Upon further review, we have made the determination to reduce some of these permanent bans to temporary suspensions. We're currently in the process of identifying all offenders who acted to purposefully disrupt game service and will administer proper action to each participating account.
We're dedicated to providing a fun, stable, reliable gameplay environment for our players. While an exception was made in this case, accountholders who intentionally participate in events that contribute to realm instability will be subject to significant account actions, up to and including a permanent vacation from the game.
Please keep discussions related to this action within this thread. Related discussions outside of this thread will be locked, deleted, and/or fed to Murlocs.
Have fun and please remember to play responsibly.
As a result, some accounts found to be active participants in this activity were permanently banned. Upon further review, we have made the determination to reduce some of these permanent bans to temporary suspensions. We're currently in the process of identifying all offenders who acted to purposefully disrupt game service and will administer proper action to each participating account.
We're dedicated to providing a fun, stable, reliable gameplay environment for our players. While an exception was made in this case, accountholders who intentionally participate in events that contribute to realm instability will be subject to significant account actions, up to and including a permanent vacation from the game.
Please keep discussions related to this action within this thread. Related discussions outside of this thread will be locked, deleted, and/or fed to Murlocs.
Have fun and please remember to play responsibly.
Even as the internet erupted in a torrent of "Unban Swifty" posts, supported by Swifty's own YouTube video comment on the situation, Blizzard's wheels were already turning to get Swifty and some other players unbanned. Many players were still left with their bans, however; Bashiok assured the community that the bans that were not overturned were justified.
None at all. We took appropriate measures to review existing suspensions and address them appropriately, and as stated in the original message, anyone found to be involved with intentionally disrupting the service will be receiving the appropriate action taken against them.
I think there are situations where people are very loud about something, they happen to be right, and we address those situations appropriately. But one doesn't influence the other. We're more than willing to make unpopular decisions if they're the right ones to make.
I think there are situations where people are very loud about something, they happen to be right, and we address those situations appropriately. But one doesn't influence the other. We're more than willing to make unpopular decisions if they're the right ones to make.
To further clarify, Bashiok posted a final "we've reviewed the evidence" statement. He wanted to make it clear that Blizzard had looked at the evidence, realized it had made a mistake, and corrected the Swifty ban. It was not an "exception" -- a word that suggests Swifty was "in the wrong" for what he did.
It looks like there's some confusion regarding our original message -- in large part due to some poor word choice.
Just to clarify, the decision to change some of the bans to suspensions was actually a correction, not an exception. We reviewed the activity and felt that based on the evidence, the original decision to roll out the ban hammer was incorrect, and the appropriate action, for those bans that were undone, would have been to issue a suspension.
The key words are "based on the evidence," not "based on the activity." The activity of intentionally trying to crash a realm is exceptionally ban-worthy, and we won't hesitate to permanently ban accounts that are involved in that kind of malicious behavior. However, we tend to base the degree of disciplinary action on the evidence we have indicating to what degree the account in question is involved. That was not done for some of the accounts that initially received a full ban, so we corrected the initial mistake and reduced the ban for those accounts to a suspension.
For those concerned with this particular issue, I hope this clarifies things somewhat. I've edited the original post to hopefully avoid similar confusion moving forward.
Just to clarify, the decision to change some of the bans to suspensions was actually a correction, not an exception. We reviewed the activity and felt that based on the evidence, the original decision to roll out the ban hammer was incorrect, and the appropriate action, for those bans that were undone, would have been to issue a suspension.
The key words are "based on the evidence," not "based on the activity." The activity of intentionally trying to crash a realm is exceptionally ban-worthy, and we won't hesitate to permanently ban accounts that are involved in that kind of malicious behavior. However, we tend to base the degree of disciplinary action on the evidence we have indicating to what degree the account in question is involved. That was not done for some of the accounts that initially received a full ban, so we corrected the initial mistake and reduced the ban for those accounts to a suspension.
For those concerned with this particular issue, I hope this clarifies things somewhat. I've edited the original post to hopefully avoid similar confusion moving forward.
We took our time putting out this story because, frankly, we wanted to see where it would go. It is quite clear from Swifty's history with World of Warcraft that he wouldn't have wanted to intentionally cause mayhem (on the scale that happened, anyway) and that his intentions were pure, if unknowingly misguided. To be fair, Black War Bear runs can crash servers, and it is a common understanding that orchestrating server crash events is a definite no-no in Blizzard's eyes.
The Swifty controversy, if you can call it that, is an exercise in the temperament of community reaction. I like Swifty because he brings a fun angle to the game I play. I like Blizzard because, well, it has the keys to the castle. When events like Swifty's livestream debacle happen, we can and should expect the people in charge to look at the facts. Blizzard was already in the process of unbanning and making decisions before Razer asked Blizzard what was going on. When Blizzard realized that Swifty's streaming event was not malicious, it rectified the ban.
If people are wondering why "non-celebrity" WoW players kept their bans, look at the facts -- people spammed emotes and actually tried to and succeeded in causing server disruptions. It seems that Swifty, while at the center of the controversy, didn't do anything wrong.
The news is already rolling out for the upcoming WoW Patch 4.2! Preview the new Firelands raid, marvel at the new legendary staff, and get the inside scoop on new quest hubs -- plus new tier 12 armor!Filed under: Blizzard, News items






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 8)
Jack Spicer Jul 19th 2011 1:10PM
I am aware that it is available elsewhere on the interwebz, but some more information in this article concerning the incident that led to this ban (and not only the fallout) would be a great addition.
Khoonda Jul 19th 2011 1:16PM
Much agreed. I missed any news of this "event" and would like more info on what it was, what it tried to do, and what it ended up doing.
bdew Jul 19th 2011 1:30PM
+1. This post is a great example of non-journalism, after reading it i haven't got the slightest clue what it's talking about.
Abbi Jul 19th 2011 1:37PM
Shame not to see more realistic and balanced "report" regarding this incident.
I followed this early on and can say that you wont find the same "evidence" now you could earlier. Videos/sound have been edited. The actions were done to more than one server, you can hear and see the Swifty character laughing. The actions went from one server, then after crash to a second then a THIRD. One doesn't have to have many brain cells functioning to realize after the first or second time the consequences.
Was he treated differently? Would you or I be banned? Sure we would be banned and it would be reconsidered.
Many more unfair things of importance in the world than some pseudo-celebrity of a internet game getting his account banned for being frankly a jerk. Those that continue to proclaim his actions were unintentional wont be convinced otherwise. Its easier for Blizz to unban him than to deal with the manufactured fall out. Blizz is taking the path of least resistance, sure they caved. This was going to be a pain for them. Unfortunately those frenzied by his live stream to follow and spam will probably be the ones who's bans stay. Ban the mindless follower not the person encouraging it......makes sense to me, yep. (note that was sarcastic)
This is one of those things about gaming that is good for a rofl till you realize it only highlights that our "fantasy" world suffers from all the same unfairness and character flaws as our real world.
I'm sure he is a "nice guy" but oh my if he is half the person that people are making him out to be he would NOT be editing videos/sound to make himself look more "innocent" - he would be stepping up saying "Oh my did I mess up, I'm stupid please forgive me".
How about it Swifty - time to man up?
Just keep him off my server!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS Razor not impressed at all....
The Dewd Jul 19th 2011 1:37PM
I haven't followed it very much but I *think* Swifty is some sort of WoW semi-celeb (i.e. he's not famous outside of WoW?) and had some sort of giveaway event sponsored by his sponsor (whoever it is). He hid a level 1 toon in some capitol on some server and it was a giant game of hide-n-seek.
Apparently, once he was found, tons and tons of his fans converged on that one server - and either crashed it or almost crashed it. Some idiot ringleader took over and, against Swifty's wishes, got people to jump from server to server, spamming emotes, etc, crashing those servers as well.
Swift was just running a fun community event and his ban was undone/reversed as a result. The idiots who intentionally spammed emotes to try to crash servers are gone and good riddance to them.
(some of this may be inaccurate; please correct me if it is)
gewalt Jul 19th 2011 1:42PM
ya, I have no idea wtf this article is about.
Hurbster Jul 19th 2011 2:02PM
Yup, no idea who this chap is.
Eregos ftw! Jul 19th 2011 2:17PM
Yes, swifty is a WoW 'celeb' and is usually a nice guy in his youtube (i.e. NOT a jerk like TotalBisctuit).
What he did was host a livestream, and so many people were there that they crashed the server. In his livestream, he joked about it, and told people to go onto another server to crash it too. This got a Blizzard response, where immediately after he said that crashing the server wasn't his intention.
Whether this deserves a ban, I'm undecided.
vocenoctum Jul 19th 2011 2:29PM
I suppose it comes down to who is responsible for the servers being purposefully taken down. It says that he was unbanned, but it should also say who WAS banned, IMO. Otherwise it's easy to take it as Blizz-Caved.
From what I read, orchestrators (his guild, if not him) were encouraging members to make hunters/warlocks so that the pets would add to the server load.
You can't tell now due to all the video's of the time being edited at this point, and the heresay is back and forth one when and what Swifty actually knew/did. But someone should be banned for crashing three servers.
Seperate from that, Razor should drop the guy, if he wants to rep their products with guildmates like this, then it reflects on them.
Fragments Jul 19th 2011 3:15PM
Abbi: While I agree with most of your comments, it should be noted that Razor is most definitely NOT unhappy with Swifty. Look how much attention he got! And now everyone gets to hear the name Razor.
abbiwowmail Jul 19th 2011 5:01PM
Fragments: LOL I meant I am not impressed by Razor. Actually I saw their infantile responses while looking for a b-day present for my son. Given their obvious corporate maturity of about 8 yoa.... I will do the only protest that counts...buy another brand.
Zapwidget Jul 19th 2011 7:12PM
Alright, I have no idea who this guy is. I don't know what he did. This article is all I've seen or heard about him.
Who: "Swifty livestreams events with his guild on occasion and even hosts parts of the stream himself. Being the WoW gamer celebrity that he is, his stream attracts a good number of viewers."
Swifty is a WoW celebrity that livestreams events that attract viewers.
What: "Swifty, along with numerous other players, were banned due to server disruption violations"
"Over the course of the day, Blizzard reviewed the information and decided to unban Swifty."
Swifty and a lot of other folks were banned, but the ban decision was later reversed.
Why: "Just to clarify, the decision to change some of the bans to suspensions was actually a correction, not an exception. We reviewed the activity and felt that based on the evidence, the original decision to roll out the ban hammer was incorrect, and the appropriate action, for those bans that were undone, would have been to issue a suspension."
The ban decision was reversed because the evidence proved it was unwarranted.
When: Recently is implied. It ouldn't be news otherwise.
How: Magic. Blizzard magic. as to the How of the server crashes: "the emote spamming and influx of players brought down many servers."
What exactly are you expecting? When I read an article in the news about a celebrity getting arrested I don't expect to get a full filmography and rap sheet in the article.
Just because you do not like the decision that was made does not make the story poorly written. All the information you need to know was presented. Also, it does not mean the story, which is a presentation of facts, is unbalanced because it did not insert any ideological snippets condemning one side or glorifying the other. In fact, the lack of such snippets shows quite the opposite.
Revanel Jul 20th 2011 1:14AM
"Shame not to see more realistic and balanced "report" regarding this incident."
@Abbi
Wonderful post. But, honestly, WoWInsider is known for slanting its articles any which way it wants. They don't write from a neutral perspective in the slightest. Just keep that in mind.
Aspirisis Jul 19th 2011 1:11PM
Question regarding suspension/banning. Does Blizzard refund your money if you're banned? Say you just bought a 6 month renewal and 1 month in, you're banned...will Blizzard reimburse you your money or are you out it? Same with suspensions...is your account considered "active" meaning you're still going through your subscription time even though you're unable to play?
WaterRouge Jul 19th 2011 1:15PM
No they don't because you/them (person banned) agreed to their terms when you signed up for WoW. And their terms say anything they say/do goes whether you like it or not.
Gaurisk Jul 19th 2011 1:24PM
Guests thrown out of hotels for behavior typically don't see refunds, although hospitality laws vary from state to state. Banning or suspension of an account for violation of the agreements we all enter into upon login don't fall under the same category of law, but the same principle should apply. We're guests in somebody's privately owned virtual property, and the owners and management have the right and responsibility to show disruptive guests to the door.
KingWolf14 Jul 19th 2011 1:34PM
I stopped playing my account in February of this year, and in April, I saw I was billed not only for March, but April as well, thinking I took my card information off Battle.net. I called Blizzard JUST to make sure I don't get billed again, but to my pleasent suprise, their operator reimbursed my 30$ for the two months I didn't play, seeing I haven't logged onto my account since February.
I am not sure if a ban is different in terms of reimbursement, but if that is any indication, I am sure they would give money back.
Sencho Jul 19th 2011 1:35PM
By buying time with Blizzard you are renewing your contractual obligations to uphold the ToS and EULA as Blizzard sets them. If you do something that earns a ban you have violated that relationship and naturally forfeit all monies you put forward. Several hundred years of case law make this point very, very clear.
Chetti Jul 19th 2011 3:58PM
Not playing for your personal reasons, and a mishap on the billing end where they charge a card that either you forgot to remove or that you did remove yet somehow was still able to be billed (computer glitch and all) is different from buying time or paying with a card on file and getting banned. Blizzard support is well worth the wait on the phone, it takes forever but they'll help you out as best they can. In the case of a billing mishap, they issued a refund. I doubt they'd consider buying time then getting a ban to be a "mishap" of the same caliber and issue any refunds. The same would apply to suspensions of however long, its not the biling departments fault for the actions of a player in the game. Some lost playtime seen as lost money may make a player act (somewhat) better.
Bended Jul 20th 2011 12:16AM
"By buying time with Blizzard you are renewing your contractual obligations to uphold the ToS and EULA as Blizzard sets them. If you do something that earns a ban you have violated that relationship and naturally forfeit all monies you put forward. Several hundred years of case law make this point very, very clear."
Not saying that I disagree... (I have no doubt that blizzard has the right to retain the monies)but
What is your definition of SEVERAL? I know there is no set # as to when you can use several. I would say more than 3. These trials that you speak of are not THAT old. At least, not the ones that the US government take into consideration.