@fatalbanana: Oh I see, when you said "ensures more incidents like this will happen in the future" you weren't referring to the actual ArenaNet firing incident, you were referring to the harassment.
Considering other plausibilities is essential in understanding the nuance (played out word, I know) of a situation like this though, often times in spite of taking the situation for granted by leaving it at whatever take seems plainly obvious to you. I think that applies to precisely this situation as well in fact. It's far from being a binary green or red.
If you believe ArenaNet, they already made their decision before the mob became... well, a mob.
Don't believe em if you want. It's certainly plausible that they did in fact cave to the fervour and only said that to cover their ass. It's also plausible that the people who (not referring to you here) see this as kowtowing to nasty hate-filled gamerz really really want that to be true, so fuck anything to the contrary.
Also! It's possible they caved to the anger from their community specifically, and not the harassers. It's pretty worthwhile distinguishing between the two.
Any fucking outcome would've emboldened the harassers though, one way or another, fired or not fired. The idea that this situation means they could now increasingly succeed in getting devs fired however, is some grade-A fear-mongering. There was an actual situation here that warranted some kind of diciplinary response in the eyes of ArenaNet.
Even then, it was something of an outlier, and you'd expect other companies to have their own hypotheticals for this kind of situation. Like, what fuckin doomsday scenario do people seriously envision that this sets such an example for, such that all of a sudden companies are gonna start firing devs left and right now. Fuckin, come on.
The past two days have been women devs saying their companies have received a massive uptick in complaints that those women work there, and that they should be fired. One was literally about to be fired until their supervisor noticed that whoever has been mass-spamming these complaints screwed up in some cases and the name literally only said %FEMALENAME.
So they're doing the same type of shit they've been doing before, and no company's had enough of a lack of due diligence and oversight to actually fall for it. Great!
@soggybobcat: I know and agree, which is why I'm not complaining about the arenanet firings, because we've all agreed that what you say has consequences, so being an unreasonable asshole to a customer on Twitter can get you fired. This is the precident that was set with the Orth and Olin firings, so why are GB and everyone upset about it now?
Those firings happened 3/4 years ago it's obvious things have changed since then. Also, two examples of something happening is not a "precedent".
She was fired because of the backlash not because of what she said. She has said things like it in the past without a peep. This time just happened to catch fire. The reason this is being talked about so much has more to do with how ArenaNet reacted towards a mob of angry twitter kids crying that she should get fired because the mean lady was rude. I don't care about what she said I don't know why it makes people angry but apparently, she hit a nerve with some people. Do I think she handled the situation well? no. Is it a fireable offense? not even close but that's not the point.
ArenaNet kowtowing to these people sets a gross example on how these things should be dealt with. Their response saying "As a company, we always strive to have a collaborative relationship with the Guild Wars community. We value your input. We make this game for you" solidifies that for me. The customer is not always right, and they shouldn't have a say in who and who doesn't work at the company. Emboldening these people just ensures there will be more incidents like this in the future. If they don't like something someone else said it's ok to harass them and/or their employers till they are fired. That's, why this is an issue that needs to be talked about.
By the way, the Orth and Olin firings though there is nuance there that I'm not willing to go into they also shouldn't have been fired all of these things can be true. Not sure why it is important here but there you go.
If you believe ArenaNet, they already made their decision before the mob became... well, a mob.
Don't believe em if you want. It's certainly plausible that they did in fact cave to the fervour and only said that to cover their ass. It's also plausible that the people who (not referring to you here) see this as kowtowing to nasty hate-filled gamerz really really want that to be true, so fuck anything to the contrary.
Also! It's possible they caved to the anger from their community specifically, and not the harassers. It's pretty worthwhile distinguishing between the two.
Any fucking outcome would've emboldened the harassers though, one way or another, fired or not fired. The idea that this situation means they could now increasingly succeed in getting devs fired however, is some grade-A fear-mongering. There was an actual situation here that warranted some kind of diciplinary response in the eyes of ArenaNet.
Even then, it was something of an outlier, and you'd expect other companies to have their own hypotheticals for this kind of situation. Like, what fuckin doomsday scenario do people seriously envision that this sets such an example for, such that all of a sudden companies are gonna start firing devs left and right now. Fuckin, come on.
@boonsong: he defended someone's first amendment right to be a racist, and suggested labeling someone as a monster because they have ignorant views when they're almost a 100 years old might not be super productive. People that says racists things are stupid and repugnant, but they're still allowed to be racist.
It's infuriating seeing "First Amendment rights" and "freedom of speech" and not understand what it actually means in a legal sense. Freedom of speech just means you can't be censored by the government. Private entities - like, for instance, Giant Bomb - can police speech in whatever way they wish, no one's rights are being trampled on.
Freedom of speech is also not equality of speech, nor does it mean consequence-free speech.
And that legal sense is distinct from freedom of speech as a philosophical principle, where one such application of said principle would be tolerating Price and Fries's statements.
Because ya, ArenaNet technically did nothing wrong here legally, but that's so besides the point when their actions are so clearly heavy-handed.
@ape_dosmil: The modern gay liberation movement has its basis in the Stonewall Riots. The riots were anything but civil.
This is a common thing that people--even well-meaning progressives--say to marginalized groups. "It takes time. We can't change society too quickly. We have to be civil." It shows a lack of understanding and a type of white-washing of the actual history of liberation movements. These movements and the actions associated with them are BASED ON the disruption of the status quo.
Civility can be a potent tool for the powers that be in maintaining their positions and activities. Give an inch for the sake of decency and lose a mile on your life.
But the more I think about it, the more I think civility may have developed a bum rap. Who said civility had to be synonymous with toothlessness, that exact brand of civilty that plays party to political wheel-spinning and chicanery by the aforementioned powers that be. Being polite doesn't have to mean being milquetoast. Pushing civility and dignity doesn't have to go hand-in-hand with incrementalism, the same way you don't need to tear shit up to advocate for rapid change.
There's a time to be uncivil, but it's not all the time.
Not really. Her firing can be considered separately from his, where his could be seen as less fair or whathaveyou. It doesn't have to be a paired judgment.
When we're talking about 'how arenanet reacted to this debacle' it is IMO completely impossible to separate the two firings. They were not isolated events. To consider one without the other is lying by omission.
Wait, what. I'm not saying ignore one of them, I'm saying you can think her firing was justified and that his wasn't.
So she can be culpable for her getting fired, but Fries's firing can be seen as unjustified. Like, it doesn't have to be a group-deal all-or-nothing when it comes to agreeing with ArenaNet's actions, such that when you consider Fries getting fired as well, if you happen disagree with it, it doesn't mean all of a sudden you have to stop believing that Price getting fired was acceptable.
Same goes for the opposite too, if that's how you roll (Fries justified and Price unjustified).
Also I do want to re-iterate what others have said: Whether or not Price's comments were justified is like 5% of the point here. What ANet did in reply to her and to Peter Fries was unconscionable. Any argument about her being the culpable one goes out the window when you consider him, too. Most commenters who are mad about the coverage of the events seem to suspiciously leave that out.
Not really. Her firing can be considered separately from his, where his could be seen as less fair or whathaveyou. It doesn't have to be a paired judgment.
One argument I want to cross off as a defense for Price: "artists should have the freedom to express themselves freely."
Yes. And if you do that in a public space, others will react freely, since that is how freedom and expression work. If you feel a comment doesn't help/advance you, then leave it or politely say "I wish it was as simple." People van claim you're being a dick by leaving their comment 'to the wayside, but it's totally acceptable to say that they're not familiar with all the details and that you don't have time to explain.
The moment you start being a dick like Price did to some guy on Twitter... man, it's real hard to defend that as artistic freedom.
It isn't artistic freedom, but it is within the purview of freedom of speech as a principle (yes, I know freedom of speech is kinda tiring to talk about, and for some reason some people in the West are keen to make it a partisan issue). Yes, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence in a free and open society, but consequeces like her (and the dude) getting fired run against the principle of free expression.
And look, where you fall on this issue obviously will come down to your individual beliefs, no fuckin doubt, but I happen to believe that people should have the stupid things they say sorted out in social spheres through conversation, not by having their livelihood attacked. I'm sure they'll both land on their feet (hopefully), but it's shitty that just talking trash meant they're out on their ass out of a job and no longer working on the game they were involved in. That fuckin sucks!
Gosh, I'll never get tired of "pointing out something sexist is the real sexism." It's such a bad attempt at sidestepping the issue it's almost funny.
This mentality sets up a game where the first person to shout "SEXIST!" wins moral superiority, whether they're right or wrong.
If people can't literally consider a claim, then homie we ain't havin a conversation.
But if your whole argument against something being sexist is "it's not sexist, and bringing up sexism in the first place is the REAL sexism" then you're not looking to have a conversation in the first place, you're looking to not have to talk about tough subjects or concede that sexism isn't just "I am going to loudly proclaim that women are inferior to men."
That's a whole lot of asserting about intent and belief to a pretty broad degree there. Denying that something is sexist and even suggesting that an accusation of sexism has elements of sexism itself is in no way an automatic marker of those things you suggest.
It's possible for someone to be wrong in defending against an accusation of sexism, absolutely, and it's also possible for someone to be wrong in understanding an act to be sexist. That's all.
Do you really think that asking 'hey have you tried branching dialog' to a 10 year narrative design vet is not patronizing?
Besides the fact that that's not really how he presented his perspective, nah, not patronizing or indirectly malicious. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with a developer's perspective on game design, which is precisely what happened.
And yes, dialogue choices purely for role-playing purposes is a basic-ass way of helping to let a player create a character that's compelling to them. Saying that it's probably not possible to create a compelling player-character in an MMORPG full stop (or cRPG for that matter) is 100% not a sentiment that's fucking above criticism.
She expressed an opinion, someone else replied with theirs.
Was it necessary to reply to her tweets? Motherfucker is anything anyone does necessary? Get into the existential weeds with questions like that. Was it necessary that she posted a tag-along Twitter thread to a Reddit AMA?
Unsoliticited, sure, the same way any response on any forum and comment section (unless explicitly requested) is unsolicited (not to mention unnecessary).
It wudn't right they both got the axe without a warning in my opinion, even if it was technically within ultimately acceptible parameters on the part of an employer, but people trying to fault Deroir for this are 100% wrong. Polite disagreement and engagement with a developer in a public forum (because Twitter) is absolutely acceptible behaviour.
Her freaking out? Also fine. ArenaNet can make whatever calls they want, but Price ain't in the business of customer service, straight-up. Were the things she actually said fine? No. They were fucking egregous. I'm sure there's an element of saltyness after just being fired, but everything I've seen from her since (as well as things from before this incident) make her seem like she's got a bonafide sizably awful chunk to her personality (don't forget people are a lot more than the bullshit they post on Twitter). But so fucking what. If you enjoy her work, then keep on keepin on.
Granted, as an employee it's probably best to understand how your employer expects you to behave with its customers, whether you're a creative or not, and whether you believe that should even matter or not. All ideals aside, you work for a business that has their own idea of what's what, so it pays in the long run to find out what the fuck can get you fired. That's the most practical take-away from this whole debacle tbh.
TheHT's comments