GW 2 Devs/Playerbase Twitter Discussion

[TexZero.7910]

> @"Ephemiel.5694" said:

> 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?

 

You're missing the point of what they brought up.

 

Too many people are polarizing and intentionally dividing based on a very tribal With or Against when it's pretty clear that there's more likely than not a larger subset somewhere in the middle who acknowledge the incident as poor for all parties but also wished for a more tempered middle ground solution (if it's possible). Which is why they used the Stewart interview in question as proof to this. It's not about what she said or how we all feel about it. What it should come down to is job performance, was this in some way shape or form going to negatively impact that ? From the administrative side of things, Mike came to the conclusion that either it had or would and that left him with only the worst possible action he could take in termination.

 

[Evon Skyfyre.9673]

> @"Reimia.8741" said:

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

 

DEVELOPER COMBAT!!!

 

FIGHT LOL

[ayethe.9425]

i support what the ceo did those devs were out of line and what they are doing now even shows the mike was right in firing them

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> 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?

 

Her job, as I understand it, was to write game narratives. The job you described is component to a completely separate heading of "Customer Service" or maybe "Community Manager." To suggest that every dev with a twitter account must be both seems unrealistic. After all, game devs tend to be, quite often, introverted and asocial. Generally that's why they pursue dev work, otherwise they would have taken more classes in "communications" and fewer in "programming," or "literature."

 

Gamers tend to take for granted the job community managers do. Being pleasant and polite and helpful 24/7 is not a universal ability; it is a skill, for which arguably most people are not well equipped. It is a skill expected of CS, but generally not expected of devs.

 

As for "association," ANET is an employer, not a friend. Friendships and professional relationships are, by necessity, entirely different from one another. A mutual friendship can be based on things like similar beliefs, interests, and perspectives. Generally, a work relationship is based on competence and skill, not on ethical beliefs. For example, you can decide you don't want to be someone's friend if they become an atheist, but if your employer fires you for the same reason, they're liable to be sued.

 

> @"Edge.4180" said:

> 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.

 

ANET is, under the auspices of US law, entitled to do a lot of things, but that doesn't necessarily make those things "right," by any means.

 

> 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.

 

I agree that those terms appear to fit well, but until we have people from inside the dev team saying "she was a nightmare to work with," or something of the like, that sympathy for her co-workers is drawn entirely from an assumption. We are on the outside looking in. There could be an entire saga of interactions between JP, MO, the devteam, and anyone else, but unless a reliable source gives witness to those interactions (and I do not consider JP a reliable source, at least not without corroboration) we cannot have a full picture to judge.

 

> 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.

 

I agree in both directions. Until MO spoke, there were people who were apparently going to boycott the game over JP's tweets. Now, I've had friends leave the game over balance changes, guild changes, WvW changes—things that actually matter to a player. Those make sense to me. But anyone in game who doesn't care about twitter or the forums is completely unaffected by JP in either direction. This forum thread is ultimately a tempest in a teapot, and if everyone ignored Twitter and Reddit, nothing would have happened.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> > 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?

>

> Her job, as I understand it, was to write game narratives. The job you described is component to a completely separate heading of "Customer Service" or maybe "Community Manager." To suggest that every dev with a twitter account must be both seems unrealistic. After all, game devs tend to be, quite often, introverted and asocial. Generally that's why they pursue dev work, otherwise they would have taken more classes in "communications" and fewer in "programming," or "literature."

>

> Gamers tend to take for granted the job community managers do. Being pleasant and polite and helpful 24/7 is not a universal ability; it is a skill, for which arguably most people are not well equipped. It is a skill expected of CS, but generally not expected of devs.

>

> As for "association," ANET is an employer, not a friend. Friendships and professional relationships are, by necessity, entirely different from one another. A mutual friendship can be based on things like similar beliefs, interests, and perspectives. Generally, a work relationship is based on competence and skill, not on ethical beliefs. For example, you can decide you don't want to be someone's friend if they become an atheist, but if your employer fires you for the same reason, they're liable to be sued.

>

> > 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.

>

> ANET is, under the auspices of US law, entitled to do a lot of things, but that doesn't necessarily make those things "right," by any means.

>

> > 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.

>

> I agree that those terms appear to fit well, but until we have people from inside the dev team saying "she was a nightmare to work with," or something of the like, that sympathy for her co-workers is drawn entirely from an assumption. We are on the outside looking in. There could be an entire saga of interactions between JP, MO, the devteam, and anyone else, but unless a reliable source gives witness to those interactions (and I do not consider JP a reliable source, at least not without corroboration) we cannot have a full picture to judge.

>

> > 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.

>

> I agree in both directions. Until MO spoke, there were people who were apparently going to boycott the game over JP's tweets. Now, I've had friends leave the game over balance changes, guild changes, WvW changes—things that actually matter to a player. Those make sense to me. But anyone in game who doesn't care about twitter or the forums is completely unaffected by JP in either direction. This forum thread is ultimately a tempest in a teapot, and if everyone ignored Twitter and Reddit, nothing would have happened.

>

 

If I had suggested that part of the job was being pleasant, polite, or helpful to customers you might be correct. But I did not. Not being actively abusive towards your company's business partners and customers is a responsibility for all employees.

 

There is no great skill involved in not typing something abusive. This is easily demonstrated by sitting at a keyboard without touching it.

 

Employment is a form of association. Lets turn this around then, is it wrong for an employee to leave a job because they no longer want to be associated with the company?

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Biff.5312" said:

> 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.

 

Great spin on things there, are you also a narrative designer? Notice what she said, she STILL sees this entire deal as "sexism" and she still sees herself as the victim of harassment, although in both cases she is the offender. As for me wishing that she doesn't find a job, don't worry they pay her money to tell her own carefully crafted story to the media. Also, it wasn't a private conversation and no I won't lose my job based on twitter discussion because I'm an adult and was brought up by my parents to be a decent human being. I was raised to respect the one I'm talking to and to take responsibility for my actions, that's something your family teaches you first and foremost, some parents apparently did a horrid job.

But I do hope, like miss JP, you never lost anyone you care about, a family member, a friend, or even a person you admire and respect to cancer. Because if you did, and you still side with this kitten then I don't know what to say other than shame on you too.

[KGS.9842]

> @"Lanhelin.3480" said:

> > @"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.

 

Sorry maybe I didn't phrase this very well.. What you say is true of course.

I am speaking from the position of an observer, and it appears to me that she _felt_ attacked somehow. Then lashed out because of that, and then instead of realizing that she wasn't attacked she just doubled down, started insulting people and got fired.

In this sense her feeling was wrong, and I assume that normal people don't react that way when a fan theirs wants to start a dialogue. Thus the merits of the procedure in my original post. A very very aggravated (pls don't twist my words) similar condition is called paranoia, when you feel that things are out to get you.. and that feeling is "wrong", but for mentally healthy people usually all it takes is to calm down and realize that there are alternative interpretations to the situation you are in, and then you can react more appropriately.

[Edge.4180]

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> I agree that those terms appear to fit well, but until we have people from inside the dev team saying "she was a nightmare to work with," or something of the like, that sympathy for her co-workers is drawn entirely from an assumption. We are on the outside looking in. There could be an entire saga of interactions between JP, MO, the devteam, and anyone else, but unless a reliable source gives witness to those interactions (and I do not consider JP a reliable source, at least not without corroboration) we cannot have a full picture to judge.

 

I agree, although I can honestly say I would be mortified to work alongside someone who behaved the way Price did, regardless of how talented she may be or the quality of the work she produces. There's something to be said for not being a rotten person.

 

I'm more of the thinking that I feel sad for the employees at ArenaNet, primarily because of Price's current behavior. She appears to be actively attempting to harm the studio through her comments in both interviews and Twitter.

 

Warning people away, painting it as an awful place to work and do business with, describing legions of fans, developers, professors and recruiters whom she claims are rallying to her side.. for someone who suggests she cares about all the people she brought into ArenaNet, she has a funny way of showing it, because I can't imagine that her post-firing actions are doing wonders for their sense of job security as Price attempts to bring ArenaNet down around them. Who needs a friend like that?

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> There is no great skill involved in not typing something abusive. This is easily demonstrated by sitting at a keyboard without touching it.

 

That's something of an oversimplification. If things were so easy, heated arguments wouldn't exist—after all, not retaliating with hostility and condescension is as easy as staying silent. But as anyone who has worked CS can tell you, it is far from easy to maintain a calm demeanor when you feel you've been provoked, and the experience over time can be utterly and emotionally crushing. Now, it is entirely possible that JP is lying about feeling provoked, but until it becomes possible to retroactively read her mind, we can't prove how she felt at any point in time.

 

We can all judge her character as a human being for how she reacted, but the worst we can conclude from that is that we don't like her. Some people probably even hate her. But I fail to see how a couple of employees being hated justifies their firing. In devwork, popularity on the basis of character is irrelevant to the content they create.

 

> Employment is a form of association. Lets turn this around then, is it wrong for an employee to leave a job because they no longer want to be associated with the company?

 

It depends. If a surgeon who disagreed with a hospital's insurance practices decided to leave in the middle of an urgent operation when the patient has their chest laid open, I'd have some questions.

 

But let's be honest: this is 2018. Just about the only reason someone would give up a paycheck these days would be for a bigger paycheck. You could argue then that their rationale is greed: does that mean greed is good, Gordon Gekko?

 

> @"Edge.4180" said:

>Who needs a friend like that?

I agree. But I have no interest in being JP's friend. But I am interested to see how the Living Story pans out.

[Spacewalrus.2398]

> @"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.

 

How in the world is a "public twitter profile" a private venue? Especially when she associates herself clearly as an employee of ANet and puts up a string of tweets in reply to an AMA she just participated in.

 

If she didn't want any discussion on the matter then the option to make the twitter account private is there. The very fact that she hasn't made it private still is quite telling to me personally.

 

> @"Biff.5312" said:

> 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 don't want her to die. And I doubt the user you replied to wants her to die either. Some people like to exaggerate.

 

Also, again. Wasn't a private conversation.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

>

> 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?

 

My take at this point is that I find myself agreeing to some degree with JP's stance on social issues, though I always want to fact-check individual issues before making up my mind. I also understand her apparent belief that if she doesn't talk harshly to people, they don't pay attention. However, I believe that her choice of language does more harm than good. For me, at least, that stance is not going to change no matter what I think about any hypothetical other person's ethics.

[Loukious.7346]

Ok this is going to be my last thought on this whole thing.

 

Do I think ANet was in the right for firing JP? YES. She has shown a lack of concern not only for ANet's public image (remember she has "ANet Narrative Team" on her twitter bio) but also how potential customers view them. Not just the incident with Deroir and Ink. But her history of tweets including with the TB incident. Also how she reacted continually with everything that came from the Deroir incident.

 

PF firing? IDK. I don't know what was discussed behind closed doors. Did he make some comments that showed he didn't read into everything? Yes. Did he mess up? Yes. Was it fireable? Not really. But once more there must be more to his firing than what WE know. Everything else is just speculation by ALL of us.

 

My thoughts on this whole "it's her twitter, her safe space" BULLSHIT. If you have an open twitter page AND put you job on your twitter bio even when OFF hours you are a representative of your company. I'm going with what I know here and will use it to describe how JP is all in the wrong. I'm former US military. No matter where I am or whether or not I am on duty I am a representative of the US AND the military. So if I make a comment on a foreign country on social media (EX: I am in Thailand and make some comment on social media about how crappy the country is). Guess what? If in my bio on social media I say (US military). Now not only am I bad mouthing this country that are welcoming us, I am now making the rest of the military look like we all think this way (Whether or not everyone agrees with me). Also the military has rules on social media posts. If it's a private page (closed down, only certain people allowed to see, but has no markings showing I'm military) and I make that same comment "oh in Thailand and the country is a cesspool" (sorry anyone from Thailand I honestly love your country, but was the first one that popped in my head). Then it's just me as a person saying this. Now if it's the same comment BUT how JP's page was (open to everyone, anyone can see what is posted AND says things like "US military") Now I am representing not only myself but the military and the US.

 

So how does this apply to JP? Well most companies now have addendums to their paperwork when you are hired. Stating that Social Media can be used for or against firing. So if you do something on Social Media while making yourself seem to be a representative of the company, then anything that can harm the companies public image can be used in your release from your contract. Example of this: Few years back a waitress at a local eatery in my hometown went on a tirade. She posted that while waitressing at this restaurant some Veterans came in and got a free meal on Veterans Day. They left her like 30 bucks. Seems there were 5 of them. So she got pissed cause while getting a free meal they "cheaped out on her tip". She then went on an anti Veteran rant. She had all over her social media she worked there. Company fired her. Most people applauded the firing. Others were angry. Some people pointed out that it was her "private" page. Except it was never private. She posted it for the world to see. So the restaurant posted their social media rules with her initials next to it. In this section they said if on social media they worked for them, then they (the employee) was a constant representative of them (the restaurant). This is what MOST employers now have in their employment agreements.

[Greyraven.4258]

Just wanted to pass along another insightful post from one of the Game jouro sites that isn't deleting every replay that doesn't back JP......which are few.

 

 

>I'm just reading a news feed and Daniella Greenbaum was fired (forced to resign) from Business Insider for writing a column suggesting Scarlett Johanson should be able to play a trans man. Which shows both how easy it is to lose your job and how journalism has devolved into click-bait activism.

 

>Sanity does not produce enough controversy for those hate peddlers. Which is also why those ghouls at Forbes are grave dancing over Totalbiscuit's grave.

 

Bottom line is like it or not......the masses (who journos usually insult and patronize) are starting to wake up to what is being perpetrated on them, they are beginning to understand that if individuals or corporations don't Kowtow to the Authoritarian Virtue police, they will be drug through the streets and digitally lynched by the corporate face of Social Justice, who are using 1984 as a playbook instead of a cautionary tale......as I said before what gaming journalism is doing is working themselves out of a job.

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> My take at this point is that I find myself agreeing to some degree with JP's stance on social issues, though I always want to fact-check individual issues before making up my mind. I also understand her apparent belief that if she doesn't talk harshly to people, they don't pay attention. However, I believe that her choice of language does more harm than good. For me, at least, that stance is not going to change no matter what I think about any hypothetical other person's ethics.

 

I'm sorry, I should have clarified: Most people disagree that _her ethics justify her speech_.

Although in terms of this thread, I think it also seems fair to say that most disagree with her ethics as well.

[Einlanzer.1627]

> @"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 is when they are representing their company and their job and are talking primarily to people who are customers of the company she works for. People get fired for this sort of thing all the time and there's usually nothing controversial about it.

 

Now, I don't necessarily disagree there's a bigger ethical dilemma surrounding this topic, but I honestly don't think this case is the best example of it, nor do I think JP should be used as a poster child for when companies get out of hand. She behaved poorly and had to face consequences. End of discussion.

[Evon Skyfyre.9673]

Something I have wondered about is why would ANY dev use their real name online? Given the climate and attitude, and how easily people can be harrassed, I would flat out refuse to the point of resigning if need be. I worked for a retail outlet for electronics, and at one point they wanted our full names on our tags. We refused, the powers that be, said we had to or.. we chose or..., the company changed their minds and recinded the policy. So why in the name of Tyria would a dev knowingly advertise their full name? I ask because allowing the use of personas instead of actual names, would sheild them at work, and blend with us using a username, and give them back control of their true identity when they are at home. Another question, are devs encouraged to display where they work, or is that a personal choice, on social media. It has been said they are encouraged, even required to interact, etc..

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Evon Skyfyre.9673" said:

> Something I have wondered about is why would ANY dev use their real name online? Given the climate and attitude, and how easily people can be harrassed, I would flat out refuse to the point of resigning if need be. I worked for a retail outlet for electronics, and at one point they wanted our full names on our tags. We refused, the powers that be, said we had to or.. we chose or..., the company changed their minds and recinded the policy. So why in the name of Tyria would a dev knowingly advertise their full name? I ask because allowing the use of personas instead of actual names, would sheild them at work, blends with us using a username, and give them back control of their true identity when they are at home. Another question, are devs encouraged to display where they work, or is that a personal choice, on social media. It has been said they are encouraged, even required to interact, etc..

 

It's based on the developer I guess. Some developers love talking with the community:

 

Also, someone might've had their social media account way before they were hired by a company.

Notice how for example GMs never use their real names when interacting with us. I'm not sure if GMs tell on social media that they are actually GMs for Guild Wars 2, but I might be wrong because I don't know any GMs on social media. I also don't know many of the lower level programmers that work at Arenanet either. A lot of the developers, probably the vast majority of them, have well hidden identities.

 

On the other hand, some developers **must** show their faces at conventions and events, at forum/reddit AMAs and when they post on these forums. Those developers should take some extra steps when interacting with the community, because their identities are visible, and are visible so we know the face behind the changes. They are usually the team leaders, the highest ranking developers of each "department".

 

I suppose it's all based on the individual developer (personal preference), when they made their social media account and of course their post at a company.

[Evon Skyfyre.9673]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Evon Skyfyre.9673" said:

> > Something I have wondered about is why would ANY dev use their real name online? Given the climate and attitude, and how easily people can be harrassed, I would flat out refuse to the point of resigning if need be. I worked for a retail outlet for electronics, and at one point they wanted our full names on our tags. We refused, the powers that be, said we had to or.. we chose or..., the company changed their minds and recinded the policy. So why in the name of Tyria would a dev knowingly advertise their full name? I ask because allowing the use of personas instead of actual names, would sheild them at work, blends with us using a username, and give them back control of their true identity when they are at home. Another question, are devs encouraged to display where they work, or is that a personal choice, on social media. It has been said they are encouraged, even required to interact, etc..

>

> It's based on the developer I guess. Some developers love talking with the community:

>

>

> Also, someone might've had their social media account way before they were hired by a company.

> Notice how for example GMs never use their real names when interacting with us. I'm not sure if GMs tell on social media that they are actually GMs for Guild Wars 2, but I might be wrong because I don't know any GMs on social media. I also don't know many of the lower level programmers that work at Arenanet either. A lot of the developers, probably the vast majority of them, have well hidden identities.

>

> On the other hand, some developers **must** show their faces at conventions and events, at forum/reddit AMAs and when they post on these forums. Those developers should take some extra steps when interacting with the community, because their identities are visible, and are visible so we know the face behind the changes. They are usually the team leaders, the highest ranking developers of each "department".

>

> I suppose it's all based on the individual developer (personal preference), when they made their social media account and of course their post at a company.

 

Although I won't hold my breath, I would be interested in knowing Anets policy on this. If we lived in another world perhaps it would be fine to use realnames, but sadly we don't live in that world.

[Zabeardy.5930]

Good job to Anet really. Now that they both have been fired Anet can act accordingly as by making this play they can ensure that other workers have noted this fiasco and that they will probably will act more carefully while interacting with the community. Also by doing this they are washing their hands, so to say, as everything is put up with the people who were in this fiasco and they can strengthen their position as keeping them both would have meant Anet would be in for the community backlash too, even if they have solidified their views several times, community tends to remember here and now more than, then and before. And also that move does not have anything to do with sexism its just how world rolls.

Point number the second, I do agree with one post saying that toxicity can be calm and composed. meaning Derior might have had a ulterior motive in writing the comment, and that is completely possible as he had to understand that the twitter account that he was writing in is a personal one and not reserved to work only and that the response will not be restricted by Anets regulations. And it was not.

Point number the last. As none of the wire knights know the truth behind this all, this probably just has been another "i cant take it anymore" thing when the person just has had enough of something and then just lash out pointing out things like "sexism" that people would not see. And all of that led to this.

Now as we all know all medias will milk this thing until people will not care, youtubers will make youtube videos, main stream media will make completely false or "sort of close to truth, but not really" headlines about this. So lets just leave this be and wait until Anet gets a grip on the community and the contributors, as now they defenetely have a grip on the workers.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"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)?"

No. But it's not what they fired her for.

And seriously, blowing up on a (well-behaving) client (and affiliate), just because you were angry about something not even directly related to that person, in public where everyone could see it definitely qualifies as a problem with professional etiquette and ethics.

 

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> 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.

Her personal ethics may (although i can't really respect someone that thinks it's ethical to be rude to someone that wasn't rude to you first, just because they happened to be of a different gender). Her professional ethics however should have told her otherwise.

 

 

 

 

[Gwaihir.1745]

> @"Evon Skyfyre.9673" said:

> Verbal PVP, they should setup a leaderboard.

 

They have that, its called harvard law.

[Evon Skyfyre.9673]

> @"Gwaihir.1745" said:

> > @"Evon Skyfyre.9673" said:

> > Verbal PVP, they should setup a leaderboard.

>

> They have that, its called harvard law.

 

Touche

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"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)?"

> No. But it's not what they fired her for.

> And seriously, blowing up on a (well-behaving) client (and affiliate), just because you were angry about something not even directly related to that person, in public where everyone could see it definitely qualifies as a problem with professional etiquette and ethics.

>

> > @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> > 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.

> Her personal ethics may (although i can't really respect someone that thinks it's ethical to be rude to someone that wasn't rude to you first, just because they happened to be of a different gender). Her professional ethics however should have told her otherwise.

>

>

>

>

Absolutely.

 

To be honest I think Deroir was just an innocent pawn in all this.

 

In all the years I have been a Guild Wars player/fan, this has been a first for me seeing an ANET Dev.. no wait, anyone from ANET go on a full on looney toons episode.. Sure we can agree and disagree with devs and they have every right to do the same. They also have every right to respond with silence or use those same tools we are steered to use on a regular basis on here. At the very least all I have ever seen is them act professionally no matter their opinions when engaging with us.

This was just JP creating a platform for herself, to engage in such a way as create as much animosity and outrage, then choose an angle and a narrative to push that will have the greatest cause and effect. Then once her ego has been satisfied she could sit back and bathe in the controversy.

 

As for Ethics.. I really don't think JP cares for ethics, I am beginning to think this is who she really is and this is how she plays out her twisted games.

Controversy seems to follow her and potential employers will need to consider that baggage carefully.. to have this on your cv once might be forgiven, but twice in short succession would set some alarm bells ringing in my head no matter how good at the job the person might be.

 

Of course, being unable to concede her own shortcomings we are now seeing the concerted efforts to double down and do her utmost to not just burn another bridge but bring the whole ANET house down around everyone.. that's the ethics of this person.. zero remorse, not even for getting PF tangled up in this mess and certainly not for all those other members of the company, including those women she supposedly encouraged to come to the company over the year she had been with ANET and certainly not us, the community.. its all just collateral damage for the cause.

 

To me JP comes across as the ultimate victim of her own perceived success, but thankfully ANET took the higher ground on this one in an attempt to minimize the damage she might of done.. still trying to do

But lets all try to remember JP is the victim, she fights the good fight and anyone who believes otherwise is simply either a sexist or a coward.

[Yamazuki.6073]

> @"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?

 

We're taught (in most of the US) right from school to never defend yourself when the issue is **public**, and to seek out authority. There's a reason for that, when you get angry you become irrational, and irrational people say things they shouldn't say, and do things they shouldn't do. Add the fact it's out in public, and now the 1v1 because these large groups of angry people. "Defending" yourself in these situations is hardly defending yourself, in reality all it would be is someone attacking the other individual at a higher severity, which only serves to make the problem worse.

 

If you want to take matters into your own hand, there will generally be consequences that follow through. She does in fact have the right to say all the hateful things she wants, after all, that's the main selling point of being American; however, ArenaNet also has the right to remove employees that are bad for business. Removing employees who mistreat the community is normal, she's not the first person in the world to attack a community member and lose her job. There's been several **men** who have lost their jobs from bigger studios in recent years, but that's just the thing, they were men; 1) No one cares for men, 2) They didn't make a big issue over their mistake, nor could they pop out the gender card.

 

She's also well aware of how "toxic" the gaming community could be, so lets not talk about this as if she was stupid and didn't know what the outcome would be, she already knew ahead of time what was going to happen the moment she bashed a random person for their gender. She doesn't even regret her decision, and would most likely do it all over again, after all, she hasn't done this just once.

[AnClar.1304]

I said this earlier and I'm going to say it again...JP was an employee of Anet. She used (at best) incredibly poor judgment in going off on Deroir in the manner that she did...the comments were made on her personal Twitter feed which, even though it was "her feed", the tweets were open to view by all. She could have easily protected her tweets if she truly wanted to make her feed private. She didn't. Result: she started a firestorm of controversy that cast Anet, her employer, in a bad light. The fallout from the whole situation may wind up negatively impacting her employer at the time's bottom line. That is grounds enough for Anet to have taken the actions they did against JP and PF. The specifics of the disagreement are not the key point here. What is germane is the damage she caused which may have caused her employer's business harm.

 

It was because of the reasons above that they were fired. There was absolutely nothing that Mo did that was wrong in informing the community of the actions the company took to mitigate the damage caused. When you boil it down to the bare essentials it's pretty simple. If your actions hurt your employer's business you're probably going to get fired, or, if you're very lucky maybe sanctioned in a less severe way. That though, is totally up to the employer.. I've had to deal with this before from an HR perspective. It is a very painful process...no normal human being takes pleasure in another's termination, regardless of justification. Each of these HR situations are unique and need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. As long as Anet has no standard policy that they act on absent analysis of the particulars of a given situation, they can do as they please regarding employee conduct that is detrimental to their business...period.