A minor incident at the Riot Games Arena in Berlin this week highlights the dangers of messing with fans bearing signs, but Riot’s policies are in line with other sports leagues.
I think part of the difference with this is Riot is trying to have its cake and eat it too when it comes to being "the same as professional sports." They want to preach that they're NOT like professional sports when it suits them, but then lean on policies and other structures when it does.
If you spend your time building up the reputation for being inclusive and welcoming to all, supporting LGBTQ causes and elevating representation of minorities, you look hypocritical in situations like this, where anyone familiar with traditional sports goes "duh, no politics" and points at the policies that are already in place.
For many people who would be affected by this (either getting their signs taken away, or being hurt that signs were taken away) it doesn't matter that "other people already do it"; Riot has signaled previously that they were content to "take chances" — it's arguably in each case how much risk is involved — to be different.
I don't think Riot can get away with a "no politics with signs" rule because they've made it clear that they believe LGBTQ communities are marginalized. To their audience, taking away a LGBTQ sign contributes to that marginalization. In this situation, the sign is at least tangentially related to the broadcast ("Gaymers" as a general term) but if you don't have control or a limit, you open up risk for the signs to eventually impact the broadcast. Wrestling grapples (no pun intended) with this issue as well.
We saw how Overwatch League reacted to Pepe signage, and it's hard to have specific and enforceable rules beyond "we favor [group], they're cool." A lot of people don't like seeing this kind of enforcement strategy because depending on the scenario, they can justify why it's hypocritical.
The question becomes about which set of consequences are worse, and whose dollar they care about more: the people angry about LGBTQ signs, or the people who would get angry about a policy for a lack of LGBTQ signs. I'd imagine it's the latter.
All fair points. The point is that this is not "outside or normal" or "unprecedented." How it affects people, and how the public responds to Riot as a result, are other serious matters.
I think part of the difference with this is Riot is trying to have its cake and eat it too when it comes to being "the same as professional sports." They want to preach that they're NOT like professional sports when it suits them, but then lean on policies and other structures when it does.
If you spend your time building up the reputation for being inclusive and welcoming to all, supporting LGBTQ causes and elevating representation of minorities, you look hypocritical in situations like this, where anyone familiar with traditional sports goes "duh, no politics" and points at the policies that are already in place.
For many people who would be affected by this (either getting their signs taken away, or being hurt that signs were taken away) it doesn't matter that "other people already do it"; Riot has signaled previously that they were content to "take chances" — it's arguably in each case how much risk is involved — to be different.
I don't think Riot can get away with a "no politics with signs" rule because they've made it clear that they believe LGBTQ communities are marginalized. To their audience, taking away a LGBTQ sign contributes to that marginalization. In this situation, the sign is at least tangentially related to the broadcast ("Gaymers" as a general term) but if you don't have control or a limit, you open up risk for the signs to eventually impact the broadcast. Wrestling grapples (no pun intended) with this issue as well.
We saw how Overwatch League reacted to Pepe signage, and it's hard to have specific and enforceable rules beyond "we favor [group], they're cool." A lot of people don't like seeing this kind of enforcement strategy because depending on the scenario, they can justify why it's hypocritical.
The question becomes about which set of consequences are worse, and whose dollar they care about more: the people angry about LGBTQ signs, or the people who would get angry about a policy for a lack of LGBTQ signs. I'd imagine it's the latter.
All fair points. The point is that this is not "outside or normal" or "unprecedented." How it affects people, and how the public responds to Riot as a result, are other serious matters.