GW 2 Devs/Playerbase Twitter Discussion

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Lanhelin.3480" said:

> On the other side, after reading the [Polygon article](https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/9/17549492/arenanet-jessica-price-guild-wars-2-writer-fired "Polygon article") and especially the answer MO gave Polygon there, it at least raises the question of how to properly react to an (internally felt so) attack? Because women always were strengthened in the past years to be able to act and react properly on their own, they were encouraged to be more self-confident and not to just swallow everything but point to it, without the need to ask for the help of a man or the "patriarch" or an institution like a company (which would be like crying and calling one's big brother).

>

> So, ANet's internal policy seems to be: if an employee gets attacked by someone or feels like getting attacked, she/he must not defend her-/himself offensively and publicly but run away and ask the protective managers for help - who then decide whether their feelings were "right" or not and whether a counterattack is the right step or not. Since the relationship between ArenaNet and the community according to MO in the article is "wonderful", it probably is the main target to keep it wonderful and any action that could possibly harm this wonderfulness would rather not be taken? Do I assume this correctly?

 

There were a million ways JP could've reacted, especially when Deroir made a second post APOLOGIZING if he offended her. Then instead of her also apologizing for over-reacting, we got this whole situation. A counter attack is never the right step for rational, intelligent, adults. Fun fact: in the past JP blocked people she disagreed with, that's her ultimate defense on social media against anyone that she sees offensive. Yet this time instead of blocking someone she went overboard...

[Camaro Charr.2805]

I am not going to rehash what has already been said with my formulated my opinion on the situation. (I probably fall in line with the 90%.) I will say that while I have no experience with the job, I imagine trying to keep us happy is exhausting. No matter what is accomplished some percent of the player base will always express discontent with the change or outcome. I would hope that the industry prepares its employees for those stressors.

[thruine.8510]

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

>

> Dungeons are a perfect example. Anet knows exactly what percentage of the population actually ran dungeons. I'm willing to wager it's not as high as people that like dungeons think it is. So they get a lot of loud feedback coming from a small percentage of the playerbase. However, even in that case....originally dungeons weren't very rewarding at all. So based on feedback, Anet added rewards to dungeons making them profitable and people did run them. Probably not most people in the game, but there was a dungeon running community that ran them all the time. Whatever percentage of the playerbase that is. Anet felt they could replace dungeons with Fractals and for the most part, that was successful. A lot of people liked Fractals and ran them. Dungeon rewards were gutted. People complained and though it did take some time (as things do in most bigger businesses) Anet restored much of the dungeon rewards. To this day they're far closer to the original profit than they are to the nerfed profit. Anet listened. They also changed HoT significantly based on complaints. they changed the WvW borderlands based on complaints and even ran polls so that WvW people could get involved in some of the decisions more directly.

 

What I'm referring to is from the perspective of a newer player such as myself. Its not the actual dungeon but their importance to the new player experience. In my experience, it makes the whole game look shoddily made and certainly one in which feedback is ignored when you go back to see why is this piece of content is purposely rotting. If anyone's played the personal story (why MMOs have these to begin with is a debate itself) then you all know it makes no sense. Not any. Like I mentioned previously in another thread or earlier in this one, Caithe thanks the player for bringing Destiny's Edge back together when you can have no idea who these people are as you've met them once before then and that was windowed through observing your race 'mentor'. My last character did none of the dungeons and so that brief meeting of Logan (in his case) meeting back up with them and storming off. Even the idea they just observed you from afar in a leadership role falls flat since you never lead anything. You just follow a character around and obey while everyone treats you like the very ability to do that is amazing. Overplaying basic capabilities instead of actually offering chances to show you possess them is never a good sign.

 

Regardless of where people think the dungeons and such should be, giving the new player the impression that only when you have bought two expansions will they care for your feedback doesn't exactly induce the notion that they care for it at all. Clearly they do not. At least now because its repeated more than once that they dislike revisiting older stuff because the idea of new players doesn't occur to them or something. Maybe unwanted without jumping to the current day perhaps. Those who have been playing or even just skipped it all perhaps are listen to but I challenge anyone to show where a newer player would feel cared or catered to going through core then expansions. But like I said, I don't usually engage in feedback because I don't think there's usually feedback wanted. I can't make them care about content when they've clearly said they don't care about this content before I ever arrived on the scene. Just as I can't believe they care about current content when they've showed me nothing with older content. All that story stuff should have been placed into the personal story itself to flesh it out because as it stands now, its terrible. If you take the time or even care to investigate the game's past elsewhere then you can see why things are done as they are and perhaps gain enough knowledge to piece the story together to make sense as I have up to a point. This is what I see as a design team steering the players to what they care about not necessarily what the players care about. Its no surprise majority would favor something when you've said there's no point looking back. I can imagine if you've played since launch, you've probably seen all that stuff when it was new and was getting updates so why continue to do so if you've moved on is totally understandable. But if you play like me or try to, then you try to play through all the old before the new. This game is a mess from that perspective and its known with still nothing to remedy it. Even someone that plays like me isn't going to wait 30 to 40 minutes to play a piece of content you don't even know you need until you're at the end of that element to even know its needed. I knew the second time through but again, not willing to invest the time waiting. And this is something which did garner feedback for almost the life of the game with still having a messy and sometimes incomprehensible personal story intro to the wider game. I had planned to never do it again with another character. Its pointless to keep hoping for a different experience when two have been bad.

 

I think its rather impressive you are able to see the issues with the game and how they've been resolved over the years no matter when you start. Its rather disappointing though when you do that to still have such roughness in those old parts. I know people like to rag on WoW but you will never have a situation where you have something broken like this for the entire existence of the game. They've just recently gone back to make further improvements and that's some really old stuff. A game that is very much structured in when feedback is wanted and when feedback will probably fall into a manhole. I'm sure they want feedback all the time too but I don't feel its as dishonest about it. Ragefire Chasm isn't buggy and ignored when last I played at least. And if it was, I'd be pretty confident they'd fix those issues, even though a large portion has moved on and is encouraged to with level boosts. But there is still professionalism enough with the team there to not want any part of their game feel ignored to the degree as this game. There just doesn't seem to be the same pride and I suspect its not a developer decision but a management one.

 

I listen to a podcast (Colin's Last Stand was the name, I think) on this whole Price stuff and I think I rather agree with him. We don't have to be so extreme on one side or the other. I personally don't think Price's firing is a bad thing but I can see the benefit if you can get her to see where she was wrong. I just don't believe you can for whatever reason. I think that's really sad to view the world that way on her part. If ArenaNet had given both the chance to keep their jobs and apologize, I don't believe she would have taken it. I don't think she's capable at this point of seeing how she may have gone a bit overboard in who had offended her and who hadn't. I think Peter would have apologized. Now you can say it would all be just for show and perhaps that's true. But for what he said, that would be so easy to walk back. Rightly or wrongly to me it looks like he lost his job solely to appease the masses. The continued lack of directly addressing his actions continues to show me that. I think this is just a bad management style from MO even if its true we don't know everything but there is something with one or more of the executives that should be fixed. At least when you factor in other viewpoints of past developers. But as this podcast was talking about, we don't all always have to have pitchforks yelling and screaming at every little perceived slight. Someone has to be the bigger person and sad as it is to say, I don't think the Twitter and Reddit masses are capable or even care to try. I felt bad for Derior because he was a fan of Price's but never understood why anyone else would feel attacked. And that's just for a fan getting a bad interaction with the person they admired. That's where I feel bad. Her comments on Twitter are just Twitter to me. I see that sort of reply to people all the time there. I've seen people see an attack on them because of race or gender which isn't there and a whole lot of attacks that are solely about those things. Its full of people having the ability to say something when it doesn't necessarily mean they should say something. I think Derior's situation was made worse by others. Where before someone he admired treated him poorly to then feel responsible for something he isn't because everyone else wanted to feel attacked for some strange reason. Maybe this idea that we must all think and act the same and when someone like Price doesn't its time to attack and become what she is and what they supposedly hate about what she did. I never think seeing someone belittled means attempting to do the same. For all that happened, she still walks away without learning anything while a fan felt worse than they might have before without all the help he received. Of course I think no one actually cared to start with but that's the internet where people can get riled up about something they forget as soon as there's something else to be riled up about.

 

I'm going to say this as its probably the last time I will comment on the whole thing. I think games are at a weird place. We all see movies and shows where the folks behind them do their thing and we like or dislike it. People can act like they've personally been attacked after watching one but regardless of being able to do that, its something that can't and won't be fixed. Most aren't like Lucas for instance and will go back to change things in a film to appease someone or themselves even. We get their vision and their art. The same used to be true for games. We saw the developers' vision. One reason so many franchise titles first games are so good is because they are pure in that regard. Possibilities are open and until they actually do the sequel can be anything where they always hit the wall of limiting those previous possibilities. Now we have MMOs where that vision gets all mudded up with thousands of people's idea of what it should be. Which is encouraged and its not having as much benefit in that regard to me. My first MMO experience was pretty much the vision of that design team which I still have fond memories of. RPGs first game in series are some of my favorite. That's not to say having fans' ideas makes a game lesser than it could be but a lot of the art certainly has gone out of it to me. At least where it comes to me liking or not liking something because it could be the design teams passion or it could be suggestions from fans. But mixing creatives with the internet and not having fallout isn't surprising. The more we as players are invested the more we spend and so instead of creating something you believe in and hope people respond to we get something crafted solely for the money. And while true they are all about money there's something pure about that first game which the second can never quite get right. Exceptions certainly exist but MMOs have certainly suffered which is surprising given they are giving the fans what they want. You'd think they'd be much more successful having all that fan interaction if this is really what fans are wanting.

 

There's little reason for me to invest fully into a game to the point its the main focus of my gaming time like they were years ago. I'm bowing out of this conversation as I've nothing more I care to add to it. I'm also bowing out of GW2. I'll probably log in for daily rewards or something for a bit but I think its time to move on. Not solely because of this incident with Price and the reaction of the fanbase (or just the internet... I don't know which is which any more) since as I said I think the way the game's earlier stuff has been left is terrible for the most part. Its a real lack of caring what your new players may think or experience. I've gotten my newest main out of the bad personal story and moving on into Season 2 and HoT which I hoped would at least still be relevant enough for ArenaNet to ensure past problems have been removed or addressed but looking at the years things have been left I can only assume that they've moved on as soon as a new expansion came about or something. This is one of the few games I play where I never see past content every once in awhile get some update of some kind. But its apparent its majority rules and if the majority moved on then so has ArenaNet (also a reason to think mob mentality can play a big part with the higher ups on things such as Price). Its not oh this person got fired so now I'm quitting. Maybe a part but I probably would have moved on anyways and this just accelerated things.

 

One thing I picked up on from Price's actual points about narrative in the game is having characters speak about the commander as always finding a way because they'll keep resurrecting you till you do reminded me of that fight with the dragon at the Pale Tree back in season 2. How I thought what a crappy encounter back when I first did it and if that's what I have to look forward to for every thing to come, I just don't care for that. While its good to have the resurrections done so you don't have to replay large amounts of stuff over and over, I walked away from that encounter thinking it was bad because I couldn't point to anything I learned from it to take into the next encounter of its nature. I expect to have the game teach me to progress through it but if I have more encounters where they just happen with no knowledge to apply so that they just resurrect until done encounters, I'm just not caring for that. The game just isn't what I thought it was when first starting it where the more you played the better you got at it. To start to run up the type of encounters I found in season 2 further going into HoT and PoF. So its for those reasons I'm finding different things to play. Lots of single player games I haven't played which is probably best than playing the single player content of MMOs anyways. I'm not sure who their audience is but of all of them if you like single player stuff then I've come to expect SWTOR type quality. At least their eight class story lines. After that they become the single multiplayer weird combo most of the rest are including this one. Those parts at least mesh with this idea of single content but still a MMO. All my previous MMO was as solely group content as the main focus but even WoW is wanting to tell stories more prominently. I can give them that since their endgame is rather beefy. However, even that one doesn't sound appealing so maybe the next MMO i play will be solely MMO without single player content.

 

And so I'm off after another endlessly (perhaps needlessly) long post. And any snarky comments wanting my stuff will just have to make do without since I wouldn't even know what may or may not have some merchant who uses them or messed around with the forge to see what I could toss away for kicks. Its long but luckily its most likely the last.

 

[Edge.4180]

> @"Healix.5819" said:

> She's made some more comments on twitter.

 

(sigh)

 

Price has an odd take on reality. I would really hate to see the world through her eyes. Her narcissism is off the charts and, considering her chosen profession, her apparent inability to find the correct meaning behind the statements of others is alarming.

[fizzypetal.7936]

> @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> > @"fizzypetal.7936" said:

> > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> > > > @"fizzypetal.7936" said:

> > > > I do wonder, if *part* of the reason JP & PF were let go is because ArenaNet were concerned JP's Twitter posts, while wearing the company badge, might open them up to libel/slander lawsuits.

> > > >

> > > > [https://twitter.com/Delafina777/status/991198656266059779](https://twitter.com/Delafina777/status/991198656266059779 "https://twitter.com/Delafina777/status/991198656266059779")

> > > >

> > > > In this thread, it can be inferred, that she was accusing Marvel of racism. Jebro waded in on that one.

> > > >

> > > > EDIT: spelling

> > >

> > > Possible, but jumping to cool one hot potato by stoking the heat for another by way of constructive dismissal.. I am not convinced they are that foolish. Maybe there are just some things we are not meant to be privy to

> >

> > I'm not sure JP or PF suing ANet was much of a consideration for ANet- from what I've read, the pair of them worked in a state that had 'at will' employment laws. So ANet were well within the law in letting them go.

> >

> > I did say *part* - meaning possibly one of the many considerations. It may be that ANet felt it necessary to limit the liability JP, and by association, PF, were exposing ArenaNet to. I'm sure ANet would rather be putting their resources to game development/play and not to paying solicitors fees defending against defamation lawsuits.

> >

> > I do agree with you on one thing - there are aspects of this that we should not or are meant to be privy to. :)

> >

> > EDIT: spelling/grammer corrections

>

> Well I will be totally honest and declare I have no clue what US state has which employment laws, but even an employee working within the boundary of an "at will" state will have rights to protect against employment law abuses, not that I am saying any such thing took place here. But to let go or fire a vet game dev for his part in this sad state of affairs is still a mystery to me, which is why I did say a few posts back that actually was he fired or under the circumstances had his resignation accepted... anyhow we not paid to make those decisions for ANET, I just hope the rest of the company can rise above all this and keep focused and moving forward.

 

At Will Employment ([Wiki Description](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment "Wiki Description")) is brutally unfair to employees as there are very few exceptions - generally, descrimination. JP gave ArenaNet a pretty good defense against such a claim with her tweets. PF - likely collatoral damage. Can't punish one person for behaving in a way ArenaNet felt violated their rules and not punish the other, who gave the appearance publicly, of supporting that behaviour. JP could certainly argue sexism there.

 

It will be interesting, going forward, to observe how these events will impact the way in which devs, writers and ArenaNet personnel in general, engage with the community via the forums, social media and in game. Some may argue there isn't enough communication from ArenaNet with the players as it is. It would be a real shame if the communication from ArenaNet, over time, becomes virtually non-existent because of what happened with JP & PF.

[maddoctor.2738]

> They knew--or at least had a responsibility to know, in 2018--what would happen to a female game dev who was fired in response to an exchange about **sexism**. It would have been bad enough if they had just fired me and announced I was fired.

and

> And their silence in condemning the harassment is profoundly telling.

 

This woman still doesn't get it. I really don't understand how there are people in this thread and elsewhere defending her.

If anything she used the sexism card without any provocation, and the one that was doing the harassment was her.

Funny how she chose to "mute" those she doesn't follow now. I guess now she tells her false story to the press.

I really wish no company ever hires this person again :(

[KGS.9842]

> @"Lanhelin.3480" said:

> On the other side, after reading the [Polygon article](https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/9/17549492/arenanet-jessica-price-guild-wars-2-writer-fired "Polygon article") and especially the answer MO gave Polygon there, it at least raises the question of how to properly react to an (internally felt so) attack? Because women always were strengthened in the past years to be able to act and react properly on their own, they were encouraged to be more self-confident and not to just swallow everything but point to it, without the need to ask for the help of a man or the "patriarch" or an institution like a company (which would be like crying and calling one's big brother).

>

> So, ANet's internal policy seems to be: if an employee gets attacked by someone or feels like getting attacked, she/he must not defend her-/himself offensively and publicly but run away and ask the protective managers for help - who then decide whether their feelings were "right" or not and whether a counterattack is the right step or not. Since the relationship between ArenaNet and the community according to MO in the article is "wonderful", it probably is the main target to keep it wonderful and any action that could possibly harm this wonderfulness would rather not be taken? Do I assume this correctly?

 

Well I think this is a pretty good policy actually even if it's true. If a person feels attacked they might react out of hand. This will both give them a bit of time to cools off before they take action and give them the perspective of someone less biased on the situation (because let's face it you will be biased in favor of your coworkers).

If this procedure did indeed exist and JP had followed it, maybe she would have realized that her feelings were not right, and all this wouldn't have happened.

Because I think we can pretty much agree that her feelings of being attacked were not _right_.

[Zaxares.5419]

Wow. This is the first time I'm hearing about this debacle. After doing some reading up about the whole situation, I guess my stance on the whole issue is this:

 

1. I think ANet went a bit too far in firing Jessica and Peter. Their responses on Twitter were unprofessional (Jessica's unnecessarily harsh language towards Deroir in particular. Having read through Deroir's posts, I can't see anything antagonistic in what he said. I thought Peter was a bit curt, but not harsh enough to warrant dismissal. A caution, at most), but the situation could still have been resolved with a mea culpa from Jessica and Peter. Things were taken too personally, and everybody just needed to take a step back, apologize and get back to business.

 

Now, I don't know if there may have been any other extenuating factors that went on behind the scenes at ANet HQ that led to their dismissal. Some people here have said that Jessica has had a history of making similar inflammatory responses online, and perhaps this is something that was taken into account. We've all had that person at work who does great work, but is an absolute pain to work with. I'm not saying that Jessica IS this person, but if she was, this might simply have been the last straw. There comes a point where having a productive, but unpleasant, person at a company starts to impact on the morale and productivity of the team as a whole. So again, I'm not sure if this WAS the situation at ANet, but if it was, I suppose ANet might have had enough. As I said just above, I still think that the dismissals were too much, but I guess we'll never know.

 

2. I actually think Deroir was right in his initial response. ANet COULD have a better personality pasted onto the Commander if they had kept the old Personality trait from back when GW2 first released. Remember how you could make your character Diplomatic, Barbaric, Charming etc. based on the dialogue choices your character made? All you'd need to do is have different lines (and potentially little alternate outcomes in certain scenes) for the PC to say based on their current Personality. Ultimately the story will still end up in the same place, of course, but you can give the illusion of choice and personality simply by altering the way in which the PC responds. Single player RPGs have been doing this since forever. Does anyone remember that one grouchy Charr that was mouthing off to Rox in Silverwastes, and you had the option to put him in his place if you were also a Charr? Do more stuff like that, but tie it to your character's Personality. Of course, I understand that the tradeoff for this would be much more writing and voice capture needed, but I'm just pointing out that the option is there, if ANet wants to go down that road.

[Einlanzer.1627]

The way the media is spinning this is insane and a sure-fire sign that something is really, really off in our culture. I'm a liberal guy, and JP clearly has issues with arrogance, sexism, and entitlement - things that routinely cause problems for people in the real world regardless of their sex or background. Unfortunately, that's something that gets pandered to and enabled when you're a woman or a minority, which helps to escalate those traits and turn them into a toxic personality that cares very little about social mores, or even objective reality.

 

I mean, really, how dare she act like a victim when there are millions of people who would love the privilege of working in the gaming industry.

 

The big mistake Anet made was being so pro-diversity that they overlooked her personality when bringing her on board and even coddled it early on. Diversity is important, but when someone has been radicalized in the way she has, that's a pretty good sign they have deep-seated personality issues and will cause problems. And the absolute last thing you should do is enable it by giving them power.

[Lanhelin.3480]

> @"KGS.9842" said:

> > @"Lanhelin.3480" said:

> > On the other side, after reading the [Polygon article](https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/9/17549492/arenanet-jessica-price-guild-wars-2-writer-fired "Polygon article") and especially the answer MO gave Polygon there, it at least raises the question of how to properly react to an (internally felt so) attack? Because women always were strengthened in the past years to be able to act and react properly on their own, they were encouraged to be more self-confident and not to just swallow everything but point to it, without the need to ask for the help of a man or the "patriarch" or an institution like a company (which would be like crying and calling one's big brother).

> >

> > So, ANet's internal policy seems to be: if an employee gets attacked by someone or feels like getting attacked, she/he must not defend her-/himself offensively and publicly but run away and ask the protective managers for help - who then decide whether their feelings were "right" or not and whether a counterattack is the right step or not. Since the relationship between ArenaNet and the community according to MO in the article is "wonderful", it probably is the main target to keep it wonderful and any action that could possibly harm this wonderfulness would rather not be taken? Do I assume this correctly?

>

> [...]

> Because I think we can pretty much agree that her feelings of being attacked were not _right_.

 

Do we? No doubt. Can we? I don't think so. While we can argue and agree or disagree about her tweets or her visible reaction, her feelings like anybody one's are hidden and thus always are true and not debatable.

[Arzurag.7506]

Hopefully, this is over now.

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"Arzurag.7506" said:

> Hopefully, this is over now.

 

Until she comes back from vacation. Because you know, after doing a ton of damage to many people, treating yourself to a vacation is the best thing to do ;)

[Defias.1892]

> @"dontlook.1823" said:

> > @"Defias.1892" said:

> > > @"dontlook.1823" said:

> > > You are completely missing the point here. But that's okay. This is all said and done with. And that's really too bad.

> >

> > Please, enlighten me, what is the point of your rant.

>

> LOL, I don't owe you anything. That's the problem with more than half of you people here.

 

Unwilling to see reality and unwilling to articulate your points. What is the true problem here?

[Soa Cirri.6012]

Here's what Jon Stewart has to say about firing people over a tweet on [10/20/2010](

"10/20/2010"):

> KING: They're asking this: what you thought about CNN, us, firing Rick Sanchez after he called you a bigot?

>...

>STEWART: Should they have fired him for that? No.

>KING: You think they made a mistake?

>STEWART: ...Fire somebody if you don't think they're doing a good job as a news person... you know, they fired a woman for Tweeting something on her thing on her blog. They fired Sanchez for saying what he said. I think it's absolute insanity. I think this idea that people have to be held to account for everything that comes out of their mouths as far as their livelihoods is concerned -- does he do a good job? Were you pleased with his job? Or was it an excuse to -- you know, to get rid of him?

>...

>STEWART: And, again, the idea that they would have fired him for calling me a bigot. I think if that's the reason, hire him back tomorrow... I'm sorry, that is a nasty thing to say. I don't think he actually means that. But I don't think that's a fireable offense... again, I became an easy excuse for people up top who wanted to get rid of a show that was sort of low ranked to do that. Believe me, if I had that kind of power in the world, we'd leave in a much different world. Cancer would be ice cream.

 

This debate isn't new. But it seems impossible for people to separate the subject from the issue, and so the polarities are divided along false lines.

* Side 1: JP is terrible, so it must be right to fire her

* Side 2: It was wrong to fire JP, so she must not be as bad as people think

The alternative few people seem to consider is this: JP _is_ terrible, but it's _still_ wrong to fire her.

 

JP _may_ be "narcissistic, sexist, and entitled," and I have seen little indication to the contrary. But this isn't about, "is JP a bad person," it's, "is it the job of a company to punish people for their personal etiquette and ethics (as opposed to their professional etiquette and ethics)?"

 

The assumption for those who say "yes" is not only that there is no division between an employee's personal and private life, but also necessarily that a company has the right to judge "politeness" and can be trusted to make correct moral judgments. But a company's prerogative is not to make correct moral judgments; it is to generate profit. A company cannot be relied upon to do "the right thing" for the sake of what is "right," especially when what is right contravenes the pursuit of profit. And yet many say that ANET firing JP is precisely the most financially judicious thing to do, and posit, therefore, that firing her is "right."

 

There's a sort of Objectivist bent to this line of thinking, that acting as moral police when it conveniently aligns with a company's interests is "right," while ignoring the possibility that it might be abusive. There are many ways in which this this principle can be abused, and has been abused, and for so much full-throated confidence to be voiced in support of it is extremely disconcerting.

 

It's easy to support the firing of someone who seems awful. But what's interesting in the case of JP is that, right or wrong, she certainly seems to believe that her personal ethics justify her speech. Most people seem to disagree with her personal ethics, as do I. But in the future, there might be someone whose ethics you agree with who receives the same treatment; will everyone who supported the decision this time around be so supportive next time?

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > They knew--or at least had a responsibility to know, in 2018--what would happen to a female game dev who was fired in response to an exchange about **sexism**. It would have been bad enough if they had just fired me and announced I was fired.

> and

> > And their silence in condemning the harassment is profoundly telling.

>

> This woman still doesn't get it. I really don't understand how there are people in this thread and elsewhere defending her.

> If anything she used the sexism card without any provocation, and the one that was doing the harassment was her.

> Funny how she chose to "mute" those she doesn't follow now. I guess now she tells her false story to the press.

> I really wish no company ever hires this person again :(

 

The more I have read and, the more postings that appear just makes me believe that this is someone that really does just thrive on the controversy of it all.

To me she comes across as someone stuck on her own ego trip and has a really tough time accepting the fact that others can and are able to challenge her with differing opinions. Once this occurs, she simply throws out aggressive tone followed up by some kind of ism for dramatic effect, in this case it was sexism...because a male responding with zero gender angle must be trying to be sexist I guess..

I think she places more importance on the number of Twitter Followers she has rather than her professional conduct and the employer she represents and the more I read into this debacle the more I am beginning to think their was already tension between ANET and JP prior to her posting out her 25 para pro tips work related content.... MO said they were already aware of things all that day.. was JP having issues with ANETs communication policy and was having to bite her lips too often and emotion was reaching superheated status.. was this the straw that broke the camels back that she actually referring to was this then calculated and deroir was just the missing ingredient in creating a perfect storm.. an opportunity to big to pass up, so she set the tone, picked the narrative and set the foundations ablaze... then when flames were rising enough she set her sights on burning the whole house down.... gees I should be a story dev :)

 

JP likes to think she speaks truth to power, but all I seem to find is her using the same approach to her rants and when it causes the controversy she picks the narrative, opens the throttle and goes full force, attacking anyone who puts themselves in harms way and then when its garnered enough new followers and support she brings out the "ima gunna insta block any random that doesn't agree with me", whilst choosing an ism to double down on.

 

To me this kind of person is akin to the school kid we all loved to hate.. you know the one that would go around acting like an idiot, name calling and thinking they are untouchable, but when someone dared step up and stand their ground the kid runs to the principle and cries bullying and passing blame. These kinds of people are as bad an issue as those that actually are guilty of these kinds of offences.

JP has no remorse, she cares little if anything for what really happens to anyone else caught up in this, I don't just mean people like Deroir or Inks, I mean all the others within ANET left to try and pick up the pieces and carry on trying to work while JP sets about trying not just bite at the hands that fed her, she wants to burn it all and anyone inside is just collateral damage.

If you cry wolf enough times, eventually your creditability will wane and it only serves to harm those causes that are striving to fight these kinds of injustices everyday. How can someone claim to be fighting for these causes when they can't even acknowledge they are the cause.. as I said previous, you don't fight injustice by being unjust.

So for me now when someone says JP should not of been fired .. I just think Karma is a dish best served cold and PF was just the first piece of collateral damage, not that she cares.

[Zephyr.5382]

> @"Hesacon.8735" said:

> How are you guys still talking about this? Two devs are out of a job and Anet now has to find 2 new employees. Seems like everything else must have been said in 60 pages, plus reddit, plus other topics.

[MMAI.5892]

> @"Lanhelin.3480" said:

> On the other side, after reading the [Polygon article](https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/9/17549492/arenanet-jessica-price-guild-wars-2-writer-fired "Polygon article") and especially the answer MO gave Polygon there, it at least raises the question of how to properly react to an (internally felt so) attack? Because women always were strengthened in the past years to be able to act and react properly on their own, they were encouraged to be more self-confident and not to just swallow everything but point to it, without the need to ask for the help of a man or the "patriarch" or an institution like a company (which would be like crying and calling one's big brother).

>

> So, ANet's internal policy seems to be: if an employee gets attacked by someone or feels like getting attacked, she/he must not defend her-/himself offensively and publicly but run away and ask the protective managers for help - who then decide whether their feelings were "right" or not and whether a counterattack is the right step or not. Since the relationship between ArenaNet and the community according to MO in the article is "wonderful", it probably is the main target to keep it wonderful and any action that could possibly harm this wonderfulness would rather not be taken? Do I assume this correctly?

 

Without touching too much on situation at hand, since most anything that can be said about it has, I don't think MO's statement has to be interpreted in that light. The issue, I would say, is learning when to say something and when to not. There's a difference between rude and abrasive customers and harassment and stalking. The former is never fun to deal with, but in any job that has an employee interacting with customers, chances are that employee is going to have to deal with people like that. In those cases, escalating the situation with equal attitude is going to accomplish exactly nothing. An employee can both keep their calm and not be a doormat. Be firm, be polite, and if the situation goes beyond the employee's ability to rectify it, then you kick it higher up the chain of command.

 

If things escalate into stalking and harassment, flying off the handle will rarely solve the problem either. At that point, it is important to notify your employer because if the person(s) try to contact your work or continue their behavior through work channels, the company can shut that down and perhaps aid in filing police reports, etc, if necessary.

 

However, mean comments on the internet are not necessarily stalking or harassment. They might rage inducing, cruel, and completely out of line, but there is no law against being a jerk. Secondly, and I consider this a good rule in general, don't assign motive and intention to another person when you can't prove it. Feeling like you're being attacked is not the same as being attacked or threatened, and generally, if a person misjudges a person's motives and intentions, an apology is in order.

[Evon Skyfyre.9673]

Verbal PVP, they should setup a leaderboard.

[Biff.5312]

 

> This woman still doesn't get it. I really don't understand how there are people in this thread and elsewhere defending her.

> If anything she used the sexism card without any provocation, and the one that was doing the harassment was her.

> Funny how she chose to "mute" those she doesn't follow now. I guess now she tells her false story to the press.

> I really wish no company ever hires this person again :(

 

She said/did those things in a venue that is private and belongs to her.

 

The fact that you'd 'really wish' that someone would basically be impoverished and die says a lot. Let's see how you like losing your job because of a private conversation. The thought-police aren't just coming for people you don't like. They're coming for you too.

[Ephemiel.5694]

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> Here's what Jon Stewart has to say about firing people over a tweet on [10/20/2010](

"10/20/2010"):

> > KING: They're asking this: what you thought about CNN, us, firing Rick Sanchez after he called you a bigot?

> >...

> >STEWART: Should they have fired him for that? No.

> >KING: You think they made a mistake?

> >STEWART: ...Fire somebody if you don't think they're doing a good job as a news person... you know, they fired a woman for Tweeting something on her thing on her blog. They fired Sanchez for saying what he said. I think it's absolute insanity. I think this idea that people have to be held to account for everything that comes out of their mouths as far as their livelihoods is concerned -- does he do a good job? Were you pleased with his job? Or was it an excuse to -- you know, to get rid of him?

> >...

> >STEWART: And, again, the idea that they would have fired him for calling me a bigot. I think if that's the reason, hire him back tomorrow... I'm sorry, that is a nasty thing to say. I don't think he actually means that. But I don't think that's a fireable offense... again, I became an easy excuse for people up top who wanted to get rid of a show that was sort of low ranked to do that. Believe me, if I had that kind of power in the world, we'd leave in a much different world. Cancer would be ice cream.

>

> This debate isn't new. But it seems impossible for people to separate the subject from the issue, and so the polarities are divided along false lines.

> * Side 1: JP is terrible, so it must be right to fire her

> * Side 2: It was wrong to fire JP, so she must not be as bad as people think

> The alternative few people seem to consider is this: JP _is_ terrible, but it's _still_ wrong to fire her.

>

> JP _may_ be "narcissistic, sexist, and entitled," and I have seen little indication to the contrary. But this isn't about, "is JP a bad person," it's, "is it the job of a company to punish people for their personal etiquette and ethics (as opposed to their professional etiquette and ethics)?"

>

> The assumption for those who say "yes" is not only that there is no division between an employee's personal and private life, but also necessarily that a company has the right to judge "politeness" and can be trusted to make correct moral judgments. But a company's prerogative is not to make correct moral judgments; it is to generate profit. A company cannot be relied upon to do "the right thing" for the sake of what is "right," especially when what is right contravenes the pursuit of profit. And yet many say that ANET firing JP is precisely the most financially judicious thing to do, and posit, therefore, that firing her is "right."

>

> There's a sort of Objectivist bent to this line of thinking, that acting as moral police when it conveniently aligns with a company's interests is "right," while ignoring the possibility that it might be abusive. There are many ways in which this this principle can be abused, and has been abused, and for so much full-throated confidence to be voiced in support of it is extremely disconcerting.

>

> It's easy to support the firing of someone who seems awful. But what's interesting in the case of JP is that, right or wrong, she certainly seems to believe that her personal ethics justify her speech. Most people seem to disagree with her personal ethics, as do I. But in the future, there might be someone whose ethics you agree with who receives the same treatment; will everyone who supported the decision this time around be so supportive next time?

 

Gonna ignore the fact she did this to 3 partners, has been doing it to every male that has a different opinion AND she was fired from her previous job thanks to staff complains for THIS EXACT SAME THING?

 

It doesn't matter AT ALL if she thinks it was right, it wasn't. If someone says 2+2=7 and insults the opposite gender for disagreeing, are you going to defend that because the person is so blind to reality that they think they're right?

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"Ephemiel.5694" said:

> It doesn't matter AT ALL if she thinks it was right, it wasn't. If someone says 2+2=7 and insults the opposite gender for disagreeing, are you going to defend that because the person is so blind to reality that they think they're right?

 

I'm not ignoring anything. The frequency is irrelevant to the principle, whether it's one time or a hundred. But your reductio ad absurdum is helpful.

 

So they say 2+2=7 and insult someone for disagreeing? Well, math is an abstract concept, just as ethical beliefs are. How do you really "prove" that it's wrong? 2+2=7 is only wrong within the most popularly accepted standard of maths. So in other words, when they say 2+2=7, they're wrong according to what is popular. But does popular consensus automatically make something "right"?

 

We are all, to a degree, blind to reality when it comes to moral judgment. No one of us has a monopoly on, or exclusive access to, knowledge of right and wrong. To punish someone for their profession of belief is to assert that your beliefs are correct, and theirs aren't. JP is asserting that she's right and everyone else is wrong. You're asserting that she's wrong, and you're right. But how do you prove that exactly? The more abstract the belief is, the more impossible it becomes to prove.

 

So let's say it doesn't matter that they're wrong, and it only matters that they're impolite. So then it becomes ANET's prerogative to judge what is polite? Etiquette is another abstract, and largely arbitrary standard: nebulous and highly localized. What seems impolite to someone may seem perfectly fine to someone else. For example, I find your use of capitalization pretty impolite. But I don't expect an apology for that because, not only am I unlikely to get it, I recognize that you feel justified in being impolite for the sake of your statement of belief. But if you refuse to apologize, does that mean ANET should ban you?

 

I would say no, they shouldn't. But many of the arguments in support of the firing could be used to justify such a ban.

[Reimia.8741]

Jessica and Mike should have to 1v1 in PvP to decide who the victor is. MMO's need a trial by combat.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> Here's what Jon Stewart has to say about firing people over a tweet on [10/20/2010](

"10/20/2010"):

> > KING: They're asking this: what you thought about CNN, us, firing Rick Sanchez after he called you a bigot?

> >...

> >STEWART: Should they have fired him for that? No.

> >KING: You think they made a mistake?

> >STEWART: ...Fire somebody if you don't think they're doing a good job as a news person... you know, they fired a woman for Tweeting something on her thing on her blog. They fired Sanchez for saying what he said. I think it's absolute insanity. I think this idea that people have to be held to account for everything that comes out of their mouths as far as their livelihoods is concerned -- does he do a good job? Were you pleased with his job? Or was it an excuse to -- you know, to get rid of him?

> >...

> >STEWART: And, again, the idea that they would have fired him for calling me a bigot. I think if that's the reason, hire him back tomorrow... I'm sorry, that is a nasty thing to say. I don't think he actually means that. But I don't think that's a fireable offense... again, I became an easy excuse for people up top who wanted to get rid of a show that was sort of low ranked to do that. Believe me, if I had that kind of power in the world, we'd leave in a much different world. Cancer would be ice cream.

>

> This debate isn't new. But it seems impossible for people to separate the subject from the issue, and so the polarities are divided along false lines.

> * Side 1: JP is terrible, so it must be right to fire her

> * Side 2: It was wrong to fire JP, so she must not be as bad as people think

> The alternative few people seem to consider is this: JP _is_ terrible, but it's _still_ wrong to fire her.

>

> JP _may_ be "narcissistic, sexist, and entitled," and I have seen little indication to the contrary. But this isn't about, "is JP a bad person," it's, "is it the job of a company to punish people for their personal etiquette and ethics (as opposed to their professional etiquette and ethics)?"

>

> The assumption for those who say "yes" is not only that there is no division between an employee's personal and private life, but also necessarily that a company has the right to judge "politeness" and can be trusted to make correct moral judgments. But a company's prerogative is not to make correct moral judgments; it is to generate profit. A company cannot be relied upon to do "the right thing" for the sake of what is "right," especially when what is right contravenes the pursuit of profit. And yet many say that ANET firing JP is precisely the most financially judicious thing to do, and posit, therefore, that firing her is "right."

>

> There's a sort of Objectivist bent to this line of thinking, that acting as moral police when it conveniently aligns with a company's interests is "right," while ignoring the possibility that it might be abusive. There are many ways in which this this principle can be abused, and has been abused, and for so much full-throated confidence to be voiced in support of it is extremely disconcerting.

>

> It's easy to support the firing of someone who seems awful. But what's interesting in the case of JP is that, right or wrong, she certainly seems to believe that her personal ethics justify her speech. Most people seem to disagree with her personal ethics, as do I. But in the future, there might be someone whose ethics you agree with who receives the same treatment; will everyone who supported the decision this time around be so supportive next time?

 

It would appear that part of the job was to not abuse customers and business partners. She did a poor job of this particular duty and so was let go.

 

If you personally choose to not associate with someone because they are engaging in activities that are repugnant to you...is it punishing them, or are you just excercising your right to choose with whom you wish to associate?

[Edge.4180]

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> JP _may_ be "narcissistic, sexist, and entitled," and I have seen little indication to the contrary. But this isn't about, "is JP a bad person," it's, "is it the job of a company to punish people for their personal etiquette and ethics (as opposed to their professional etiquette and ethics)?"

 

As I'm sure you know, with at-will employment in the United States a company can cut ties with you for any reason, except for reasons of religion or race.

 

We can debate whether we personally felt a firing was warranted. But honestly.. the more Price lashes out and and spins a false narrative about the events surrounding her dismissal, the less I can blame anyone for not wanting to have her on their team. Someone earlier criticized the use of "buzzwords" like "toxic" and "narcissist" - I'm sorry, but those are simply words used as descriptors, and in Price's case they appear to fit very well.

 

Look, in the end we all have the option of supporting or not supporting a company because of the way it runs its business. But I sincerely believe that anyone who is ready to throw away their enjoyment of Guild Wars 2 (assuming they're enjoying the game) over the activities of Price really should take a careful, objective look at these events before acting on the impulse to leave.

 

Let's not forget that Price literally celebrated the death of another human being (John Peter Bain, aka "TotalBiscuit") at a time when family and friends were mourning him, so.. call me crazy, but she doesn't strike me as a person who will sincerely appreciate you sacrificing your enjoyment on her behalf. And (as we've seen) heaven help you if you ever offer a contradictory opinion to hers, regardless of whether you're a fan (I'm assuming you're aware that Deroir referred to Price as a "god" on his Twitch channel while lavishing praises on her the day before Price turned the ire of herself and her 10,000 Twitter followers on him because he attempted to engage her in a civil discussion).

 

As far as her supporters go, I find myself wondering how these events would be viewed if instead Price was the male and Deroir was the female who got smacked down for daring to disagree with certain points of a developer's post.

[Julischka Bean.7491]

> @"Biff.5312" said:

>

> > This woman still doesn't get it. I really don't understand how there are people in this thread and elsewhere defending her.

> > If anything she used the sexism card without any provocation, and the one that was doing the harassment was her.

> > Funny how she chose to "mute" those she doesn't follow now. I guess now she tells her false story to the press.

> > I really wish no company ever hires this person again :(

>

> She said/did those things in a venue that is private and belongs to her.

>

> The fact that you'd 'really wish' that someone would basically be impoverished and die says a lot. Let's see how you like losing your job because of a private conversation. The thought-police aren't just coming for people you don't like. They're coming for you too.

 

I hate myself for responding to this. I really, really do. How was she in a venue that is private and belongs to her? She was on Twitter. Everyone knew she was an Arena Net dev. That does not sound very private to me.....even though she was off work, she was still representing her company.

 

To me, private means nobody but those who you want to see your tweets see them..or... you are not under the banner of Arena Net ala using a pen name ..female Asura Rule for example.

 

There, I said what I said, and I am going to play the game.

Lisa.