The Steve Situation

[Thomas David Baker]

So.

Wizards has reviewed Steve's ban in light of some new statements which they didn't have at the time of the initial decision.

They have decided not to alter Steve's suspension.

Personally I feel like Steve's 3 year ban is way out of whack with what went on.  He may not be a saint but I don't feel like anything he did merits being barred from Magic for three years.

I think the reason the committee has come to that conclusion it has is simply because they don't know Steve.  They know there was this guy and he was drunk, they know he was wrestling over a box with some other guy and they know blood was split, and they know he was DQ'ed in Rome.  If you didn't know the person all that was true about, you'd probably want them banned too.

But ultimately I think we all know that Steve is largely a victim of circumstance here.  Sure, he can be censured for getting involved in that situation at all.  But banning someone entirely for three years is not a suitable censure.

There's a few mitigating factors here that just won't (and even can't) have occurred to the Wizards committee:

(1) Steve is extremely pacific and the last person to engage in violence.  (He's too lazy!)

(2) Getting drunk at a prerelease or other London Magic event is (or was?) commonplace, even expected.  (I'm not making a value judgment here in any direction, I'm just imagining Americans who don't know Steve reviewing the case and thinking of him as a lone drunkard belligerently charging at random Magic players.)

(3) No offense to Martin who is a fun guy, but if you hear there's been a physical fight between Martin and Steve you pretty much know what has gone down, if you know them.

For all these reasons I feel like we need to do something else to get Wizards to see sense on this issue.

My idea is to get up a petition and have people that have played in tournaments with Steve sign it.  I'm not asking anyone to say that Steve is a saint, just that you don't consider him violent or aggressive and that you think his ban is overly harsh.

Would you sign it?

[Charlie Grover]

Yes

[Gary Lynch]

Twice!

[Thom Richardson]

I'd definatly sign if you do this, but sadly i don't think it would help.

if you look at it from wizards point of view, a large part of their core market are children. there is loads of value for them in being seen to be tough on violent behaviour and little value in reviewing his case whether he is innocent or not.

which sucks becuase while i dont think steve is free from all responibility here, it is completly unfair that he should be banned for being attacked by a drunk guy.

can't succeed if you dont try though

[Daniel Royde]

Yes,
Also, if you give me the email address of that guy with the funny name, or whoever's relevant, then I'll happily send an email since surely that has more force than just signing my name.

[Gary Lynch]

Me too. I actually really miss Steve.

Daniel Royde said:

Yes,
Also, if you give me the email address of that guy with the funny name, or whoever's relevant, then I'll happily send an email since surely that has more force than just signing my name.

[Amar Dattani]

Yes. 

That Ginger One said:

Yes

[Paul Hodgson]

Yes

[wv]

As a witness to the bloody incident that resulted in the ban, I'd say Steve definitely didn't deserve a 3 year ban and will more than happily sign / email as required.

[ross miles]

yes

[James Mills]

Yes

[Ben Titmarsh]

Yes

[Kieran Symington]

I'll sign it - though I'm not sure you're going to be able to get any sort of review on this. It's not as though you could even force a judicial review of their judgment in the European Court of Justice (though that would be awesome!)