GW 2 Devs/Playerbase Twitter Discussion

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> 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.

> 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.

This raises the more meaningful question: where exactly the line is drawn between personal and professional life? The black-and-white view adopted by many here seems to defy concrete rationale. At some points it's "some contracts stipulate social media presence" and at others it's "it's wrong to yell at a customer/partner."

 

But the matter is not black and white, because if it were it would be easy to apply universally. "Everyone who ever says anything mean on Twitter, if they say where they work and ever tweet about their work, should be fired from their job." Easy right? Why don't we drudge up one of those people who's sent a "celebrity mean tweet," see if they say where they work on their profile, and scour that profile for any tweets about their work. If they do, we can start screaming at their employer to fire them.

 

Is that fair? After all, they've sent an offensive tweet without provocation, their twitter is public and they're "representing" their employer. Anyone who's ever blown up on anyone else or said anything remotely offensive on Twitter is liable to being fired from their job so long as they list their place of work and have ever tweeted about work.

 

...Except not everyone is fired for everything they say, are they? Some have said far, far worse and gotten off scott-free. Some offenses are tolerated while others aren't. JP has (now) infamously celebrated Totalbiscuit's death. But not enough people saw that tweet to care, or spark outrage over it. However, if outrage had sparked from that tweet rather than this one, would firing her over it be more or less justified? In this one case the application seems completely arbitrary. If everyone here is in the business of policing devs' twitter accounts, how did that go unnoticed?

 

Interestingly, ANET didn't fire her over that tweet, and it seems the sole reason is because not enough people cared about it. This tweet, people happened to see, and care about.

 

Why this one and not the former one? Are both fire-able or only the one?

 

> @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> 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.

That implication is the exact mirror of its polar opposite, both of which are designed to further stratify the conversation into opposing extremes. What is being put on trial is JP's character, but consider the implications of bad behavior outside of the workplace being a fire-able offense. It seems as though many are missing the forest for the trees here, at the exclusion even of FP's firing (which is barely mentioned, and so far has often been written off as collateral damage).

 

FP has been completely gracious, is not behaving erratically or going crazy, and in comparison to JP his offenses were pretty minimal. FP worked at ANET for over 12 years, was an integral part of the team, and if anyone should be raising a stink, it would be him. And yet with this inordinate focus on JP's behavior he has quietly faded into the shadow of the buss he was thrown under. Could it be that JP is to blame for this? Possibly. But I can't help feeling as though a broader perspective would be much more sympathetic toward FP, and much more critical of his firing.

 

[Gendou.9620]

> @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> > @"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.

 

I agree with this, ANET has never been this way toward any part of the community, and well it became the shot heard around the world sort of deal. ANET took pride in always being 100% friendly to maintain good credibility with the community as any company needs. She may have been the first person on the company to break that fine line they didn't want to ever cross, and that is a HUGE deal to them. Maybe it seems harsh to some people with the decisions made, but who is the real victim here? How would you like to have your company name tarnish its flawlessly positive community relationship? I would be extremely pissed off!

 

What ever decision would have been made, firing or keeping her around, both decisions are bad PR, and her decisions are the root of the problem PERIOD. People would be angry that she wasn't fired by saying ANET cares little about the community, and firing her makes some people believe ANET cares little about its employees. One thing is certain here, her decision put ANET in the worst spot possible-- She gave them NO CHOICE at all, act or don't both had similar consequences, but at least now she can't represent the company with her foul language or death celebrations.

[Gendou.9620]

Everyone who thinks the decision was wrong, Imagine the backlash against ANET for not firing her. "ANET cares nothing about the community, devs can say whatever they want." Game "journalists" write articles about company that defends devs treating its community like crap.

 

Are you all that naive to not understand the underlying point here? SHE GAVE THEM NO CHOICE!!!! Meaning whether they did or didn't act they had to shoot themselves in the foot. To put a company in that position is the worst thing you could do.

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"Gendou.9620" said:

> Everyone who thinks the decision was wrong, Imagine the backlash against ANET for not firing her. "ANET cares nothing about the community, devs can say whatever they want." Game "journalists" write articles about company that defends devs treating its community like crap.

>

> Are you all that naive to not understand the underlying point here? SHE GAVE THEM NO CHOICE!!!! Meaning whether they did or didn't act they had to shoot themselves in the foot. To put a company in that position is the worst thing you could do.

 

Why is firing the only possible avenue? Is the player base so bloodthirsty that nothing less than expulsion will sate them?

Why not an official tweet disavowing her views, praising Deroir and encouraging him to keep up his work, and to really give them their bread, toss in an XP booster weekend and call it a day?

 

At the very least, why fire both FP and JP, and not only JP?

 

Now, you want to talk about an outcry that demands action? Perhaps people don't remember when HoT came out, which ANET had been pushing pre-orders for for months, and half of the content which was promised wasn't available on release (legendaries, raids, guild halls). Or the PvP season debacle where thousands of players got wedged out of their slots by PvP game partners who outright cheated at the game and got away with it. Perhaps people don't remember the time MO cancelled HoT's legendaries altogether.

 

What were players given for that?

 

Nothing.

 

And yet the game lives on. A few less people playing, but it lives on.

 

This was a tweet. People didn't buy GW2 HoT or PoF to not be offended on twitter. None of the marketing materials promised any dev interactions at all. To participate in paid content is to reasonably expect to be treated well by the company within the scope of that content. To engage in twitter or reddit drama entitles no one to anything. This entire outcry wouldn't have happened had people simply ignored anything outside of the game—just as they ignored JP's post about Totalbiscuit.

[Edge.4180]

> @"Tolmos.8395" said:

> Here's a really interesting piece of backstory someone posted to reddit that I didn't know.

>

> _"So, this was the last piece of the puzzle I needed to see to understand the whole thing from start to finish (at least from Deroir's point of view)._

>

> _For those who can't view this clip - Deroir absolute loves Jessica Price. That is not an overstatement. He said that he loves her responses and that "she's the God of kitten AMAs" and that "she gives great answers all the way through and that it's absolutely amazing to read through." This clip was taken before the incident on twitter occurred._

>

> _So when JP posted her essay on twitter - on a subject that Deroir was interested in (narrative development) and by someone he looked up to and admired because of her thorough, well-crafted and intricate responses in the AMA previously - he saw the chance to engage with her in civil discourse and took it._

>

> _I sincerely hope that JP does see this clip. She needs to understand that not every fan/gamer/man out there is out specifically to get her or to "mansplain" to her. In fact, she went off on a person who greatly admired her work and her intelligence and just wanted to take the chance to speak with her more about her work in narrative development only to be shut down in a very cruel and unwarranted fashion."_

>

>

> His response to the situation: https://old.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/8wnkw8/deroirs_response_to_the_incident/

 

That was an interesting, albeit sad, video to watch.

 

It seems clear (to me) that Deroir felt bullied during his unfortunate encounter with Price, and that it genuinely hurt him (if you consider what it must feel like to be attacked by someone you used to admire). I say "used to" because I get the sense that this entire debacle has tarnished his former adoration for Price, which is also understandable given her recent actions. Deroir seems torn between feeling thankful to ArenaNet for disapproving of the type of behavior Price exhibited, while at the same time being upset that it resulted in firings (particularly Peter's). He also seems to be struggling with guilt from simply being an unwitting participant in this, even though he is correctly aware that he did absolutely nothing wrong.

 

Given his interest in gaming and narrative discussions, I hope this mess doesn't cause him to pause the next time he gets the desire to strike up a conversation with a developer. And yet I suspect it will, which is a shame, because (again) he did nothing wrong - he just tried to strike up a conversation with someone he admired who was discussing a subject that fascinated him. It's a sad day when a person can't do that without being attacked.

 

I saw a comment from a Price supporter yesterday that suggested Deroir should have his ties to ArenaNet revoked as a punishment. I was stunned by the suggestion. I can't even begin to fathom the level of mental gymnastics required to reach that insane conclusion. It's disheartening because it shows just how wide the reality rift has gotten for some. And the gaming media's extremely bizarre take on all of this hasn't helped matters. They should have focused on unbiased accuracy instead of acting as a propaganda machine for Price, and their stories on this have me wanting to wash my hands of them entirely.

 

I just want to see one.. just one gaming media site getting this right. I'm a little surprised "The Know" hasn't touched on this yet (as this is the kind of story they don't typically shy away from), but in a way it almost seems better.. because I know I'll be extremely disappointed if they jump on the Price bandwagon with the rest of the disappointing media coverage from the game's industry.

[Wyvern.7951]

I really hate the one sided journalism we’ve been seeing. Absolutely detest polygon, but here’s a part of an article that talks a bit about what’s happening inside Anet,

 

> _“The firings have also made ArenaNet a tense place for many who work there. The Verge spoke with several developers who are currently employed at ArenaNet who requested anonymity in order to speak freely and without fear of retribution. Employees say they feel a mixture of uncertainty, anger, and sadness over the past week’s events. Some describe the events over the last week as a betrayal — evidence that, despite tall talk of support and inclusion, their employer will abandon them when push comes to shove. Many managers were away on vacation at the time of the firings (including both Price and Fries’ direct supervisor), which has fueled internal confusion. Employees say that what they’ve heard has come down from the executive level.

 

>Although opinions about the firings fall across the board, many people at the studio are angry. “Everyone agrees something is wrong,” one employee tells The Verge. “Some blame the media, some blame Jessica, some blame unclear social media policies, some blame the internet mob, and some blame [Mike O’Brien].” Others worry about the sustainability of their careers at ArenaNet and hope that their employer will speak up while there’s still time to recover.

 

>Two employees confirmed that ArenaNet has not significantly revised its social media policy since 2011, and that it includes general rules about anti-harassment and being mindful of how individual tweets might be read as representative of the company. But they say penalties and consequences for violating those guidelines had not been discussed with employees, and they fear the precedent set now is a one-strike termination. In the uproar following the firings, they say ArenaNet is only now working to revise it.

 

>Fries’ firing has been especially jarring for many employees, as the gentleness of his comments makes it difficult to see how they could be characterized by ArenaNet as “attacks on the community.” In a series of now-deleted tweets, Fries spoke up in support of Price.

 

>Everyone liked Fries, says one developer, adding that even fans in the Guild Wars 2 subreddit echoed this sentiment. His firing has had a particularly strong “chilling effect in the studio,” says another current employee. “I think this is blood in the water for the worst kind of people, and not just the ones who run around screaming slurs at people on social media and brigading studio HR departments, but YouTubers with 50K+ subscribers who fearmonger about SJWs,” they tell The Verge. “And if ArenaNet wants to rebuild its reputation with the most marginalized in the industry (ironically enough, Jessica was probably one of our biggest cheerleaders for how good our diversity was), it will start by acknowledging that.”_

 

I’m sure the verge is writing this entire article to be a little biased as per usual. It’s hard to believe any different given how awful some of the articles have been as of late. Either way it doesnt matter, the horse has been beaten enough and I hope the dev team is okay.

 

I may not agree with JP’s behaviour, but if what’s written above holds true then I can only imagine how they’ve been feeling at the Anet office. I hope they are able to work things out internally and I’m so sorry that this is still being clawed at from both sides. I apologize that I am adding yet another post to the pile. They must be so tired of reading the internet right now. Whatever wounds this event has left Anet with, I wish for them to heal and I hope the team comes out stronger than ever.

 

Love this game. (: It ain’t always perfect but it has carried me through my best and worst times. It wouldn’t be around without the dev team, so as a passionate player and fan, I will always try to stick around throughout their best and worst too.

 

Just want to show some support.

 

Edit: Whoops sorry for pasting that quote twice, fixed and added a part of the article I missed. I suck at posting on mobile.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > 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.

> > 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.

> This raises the more meaningful question: where exactly the line is drawn between personal and professional life?

At the moment your behaviour splashes on your employer.

 

> The black-and-white view adopted by many here seems to defy concrete rationale. At some points it's "some contracts stipulate social media presence" and at others it's "it's wrong to yell at a customer/partner."

Because the specifics _aren't_ clear-cut. In this case however (she was talking about her job, referenced her job, her twitter mentioned her employer, and she knew she was talking to a GW2 player) she wasn't in the grey zone at all.

And, as i mentioned before, they key point is about whether (and how much) your behaviour hurt your employer.

 

>

> But the matter is not black and white, because if it were it would be easy to apply universally. "Everyone who ever says anything mean on Twitter, if they say where they work and ever tweet about their work, should be fired from their job." Easy right? Why don't we drudge up one of those people who's sent a "celebrity mean tweet," see if they say where they work on their profile, and scour that profile for any tweets about their work. If they do, we can start screaming at their employer to fire them.

Yes, that's the line you speak of. It's about whether anyone cares. If you insult one of your clients, but do it in such way that it won't make waves, you're probably at worst get a talking to (and at best nothing is going to happen). Because you didn't hurt your employer. Make a stink however big enough that your employer gets involved, and it won't end up without consequences.

 

> Is that fair? After all, they've sent an offensive tweet without provocation, their twitter is public and they're "representing" their employer. Anyone who's ever blown up on anyone else or said anything remotely offensive on Twitter is liable to being fired from their job so long as they list their place of work and have ever tweeted about work.

Yes, they are. Which is why they really shouldn't be doing that publicly. Or at least not in a way that can be easily tracked back to them and their job.

 

It's not about twitter. It was happening even before twitter was a thing - that just made it easier for you to make a fool (or a kitten) out of yourself in a public way. Before that however, if you managed to get yourself in a newspaper (for example), consequences were usually the same. Of course, in the era before internet, when people had to talk with each other in person, they tended to be much more civil on average. Because they usually were more aware that their actions might have consequences.

 

> ...Except not everyone is fired for everything they say, are they? Some have said far, far worse and gotten off scott-free. Some offenses are tolerated while others aren't.

Some people get lucky. It's however a game of russian roulette. Keep playing, and eventually someone's head will get blown off.

 

> JP has (now) infamously celebrated Totalbiscuit's death. But not enough people saw that tweet to care, or spark outrage over it. However, if outrage had sparked from that tweet rather than this one, would firing her over it be more or less justified?

I'm not going to weight that, but if that caused a similar level of outrage, MO would probably have fired her as well. And he'd be perfectly justified doing that.

(although i don't think that PF would have gotten caught in it then, because i can't imagine him trying to defend _that_)

 

> In this one case the application seems completely arbitrary.

It is not, for reasons i mentioned above.

 

> If everyone here is in the business of policing devs' twitter accounts, how did that go unnoticed?

I dont know. Most probably noone thought of bringing it up where other people could see it (like, to reddit, or gw2 forums, for example). I haven't seen that, because i don't generally use twitter, and even the few feeds i tend to look on i visit very occasionally. Same as most people, i guess.

 

>

> Interestingly, ANET didn't fire her over that tweet, and it seems the sole reason is because not enough people cared about it. This tweet, people happened to see, and care about.

Precisely.

>

> Why this one and not the former one? Are both fire-able or only the one?

This time she got Anet into trouble. And _that_ was what got her fired.

 

>

> > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> > 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.

> That implication is the exact mirror of its polar opposite, both of which are designed to further stratify the conversation into opposing extremes. What is being put on trial is JP's character, but consider the implications of bad behavior outside of the workplace being a fire-able offense.

The implication being "learn good manners, that is going to help you in life"?

 

> FP has been completely gracious, is not behaving erratically or going crazy, and in comparison to JP his offenses were pretty minimal. FP worked at ANET for over 12 years, was an integral part of the team, and if anyone should be raising a stink, it would be him. And yet with this inordinate focus on JP's behavior he has quietly faded into the shadow of the buss he was thrown under. Could it be that JP is to blame for this?

Yes. She is. She got a decent man fired to satisfy her ego.

 

> Possibly. But I can't help feeling as though a broader perspective would be much more sympathetic toward FP, and much more critical of his firing.

The broader perspective is that he got mesmerized by JPs rethorics that tried to muddy the waters and misdirect the whole argument, and thus got involved in something he shouldn't have. And while JP is ultimately to blame for this, he still acted in an unprofessional way, and got caught on the wrong side trying to defend a person that ultimately didn't care about him (and consequences her actions would have for him) at all.

In the end, he is also a victim, but unfortunately one MO _had_ to fire as well. Being a decent person (and good at your job otherwise) cannot make you not responsible for your own actions, even if they were instigated by someone else. PF was an adult, and thus had to take personal responsibility. Which, if you noticed, he did, with far more maturity than JP.

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> It is not [arbitrary]

 

Not arbitrary? But you said whether they're punished or not is because:

 

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> Some people get lucky.

 

Luck _is_ arbitrary. It's random. That's the literal definition of arbitrary. It also refers to unrestrained unilateral power, like the sort a twitter or reddit mob wields.

 

> In the end, he is also a victim, but unfortunately one MO _had_ to fire as well.

 

MO didn't "have" to fire anyone. He _decided_ to. But CEOs, as human beings, are fallible, which is why that decision is subject to a 68-and-counting page debate.

 

But for the record, all FP did was defend a coworker and spew political views in the process. He didn't attack anyone personally, he didn't berate his biggest fan for questioning him, nor did he go after Deroir as JP did; he made a few offhanded, vaguely passive-aggressive remarks, nowhere near the parade of tweets JP unleashed. If what JP is guilty of is so vicious as to be a fire-able offense, how does FP's much, much lesser infraction deserve anywhere close to the same punishment?

 

Apparently the justification requires that he somehow have been... "mesmerized" by JP into joining "the wrong side?" So, collateral damage which is convenient to ignore. Sadly, I'm seeing more and more of that objectivist flavor peeking out again.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Gendou.9620" said:

> Everyone who thinks the decision was wrong, Imagine the backlash against ANET for not firing her. "ANET cares nothing about the community, devs can say whatever they want." Game "journalists" write articles about company that defends devs treating its community like crap.

 

They could have not fired her and still been seen to be doing something about her. And this goes especially to Peter.

 

 

[Straegen.2938]

All I know is that if I communicated with one of our customers in the same manner, I would have been fired as well. I suspect the same is true for most of us.

 

There is a vast difference between chatting privately in email or in person with colleagues about a customer and blasting it out on public social media.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Edge.4180" said:

> Given his interest in gaming and narrative discussions, I hope this mess doesn't cause him to pause the next time he gets the desire to strike up a conversation with a developer. And yet I suspect it will, which is a shame, because (again) he did nothing wrong - he just tried to strike up a conversation with someone he admired who was discussing a subject that fascinated him. It's a sad day when a person can't do that without being attacked.

 

I hope he considers what the proper channels for such communications are though ie. AMAs

 

> @"Edge.4180" said:

> I saw a comment from a Price supporter yesterday that suggested Deroir should have his ties to ArenaNet revoked as a punishment. I was stunned by the suggestion. I can't even begin to fathom the level of mental gymnastics required to reach that insane conclusion. It's disheartening because it shows just how wide the reality rift has gotten for some. And the gaming media's extremely bizarre take on all of this hasn't helped matters. They should have focused on unbiased accuracy instead of acting as a propaganda machine for Price, and their stories on this have me wanting to wash my hands of them entirely.

 

The large majority of people who think anet did the wrong thing also think Price did the wrong thing just that she perhaps shouldn't have been fired and especially Peter shouldn't have been fired, that supporter is a clear outlier. As for the media consider that Price is the only one willing to talk to them. Anet have released 2 pieces of communication and thats it and Peter is refusing to speak.

 

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> Because the specifics _aren't_ clear-cut. In this case however (she was talking about her job, referenced her job, her twitter mentioned her employer, and she knew she was talking to a GW2 player) she wasn't in the grey zone at all.

> And, as i mentioned before, they key point is about whether (and how much) your behaviour hurt your employer.

 

As noted above your post anet didn't have a clear social media policy that set out possible sanctions.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Wyvern.7951" said:

> but here’s a article that talks a bit about what’s happening inside Anet,

> -snip -

> Two employees confirmed that ArenaNet has not significantly revised its social media policy since 2011, and that it includes general rules about anti-harassment and being mindful of how individual tweets might be read as representative of the company. But they say penalties and consequences for violating those guidelines had not been discussed with employees, and they fear the precedent set now is a one-strike termination. In the uproar following the firings, they say ArenaNet is only now working to revise it. ”

 

This sheds light on one aspect of the issue that I was not aware of -- ANet's policies. When I look at the phrase, "...how individual tweets might be read as being representative of the company...", I have no difficulty concluding that there would be a risk to my continued employment were I to blow off, then disparage one or more of my employer's customers. I would also not conflate, "We support your choice to speak out on social issues," with, "Say whatever you want to customers while posting on social media about the game."

 

In the absence of clear guidelines as to "number of strikes" allowed, I believe that reasonable individuals would assume that the company would address such issues on a per-case basis, and that a one-strike offense might well be possible. Maybe that makes me a dinosaur who believes in assuming personal responsibility and accepting the consequence of actions. Then again, I can see why people want things spelled out, and am glad that ANet is revising their policy -- hopefully with that in mind.

[Edge.4180]

> @"morrolan.9608" said:

> They could have not fired her and still been seen to be doing something about her. And this goes especially to Peter.

 

I imagine not firing Price would have come with the condition of retracting her inappropriate statements and publicly apologizing (and, who knows, maybe Price was even presented with that option somewhere along the line).

 

However, given Price's comments since her firing, I have a difficult time imagining she would have gone along with that. If anything, Price's interviews, remarks, and narcissistic behavior since her firing (combined with her inability to grasp the simple truth that she screwed up) have helped to reinforce the notion that parting ways was probably the smartest move ArenaNet could make.

 

 

> @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > @"Edge.4180" said:

> > Given his interest in gaming and narrative discussions, I hope this mess doesn't cause him to pause the next time he gets the desire to strike up a conversation with a developer. And yet I suspect it will, which is a shame, because (again) he did nothing wrong - he just tried to strike up a conversation with someone he admired who was discussing a subject that fascinated him. It's a sad day when a person can't do that without being attacked.

>

> I hope he considers what the proper channels for such communications are though ie. AMAs

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with attempting to engage in a discussion with someone through Twitter when they have their profile set to "public" and are presenting an opinion (through Twitter) to their audience. Deroir did nothing wrong and is the only one who can truly claim to be the victim here.

 

 

> @"morrolan.9608" said:

> As for the media consider that Price is the only one willing to talk to them. Anet have released 2 pieces of communication and thats it and Peter is refusing to speak.

 

Just because one side is openly communicating with game "journalists" (which is a term I use reluctantly given their recent nonsense) doesn't mean the gaming media has to present those stories from a biased, dishonest perspective. The articles we've received recently have been ridiculously skewed to portray Price as nothing but a victim and ArenaNet as the villain. All in all, it's been a pretty detestable sight.

 

I don't fault ArenaNet for not speaking out more. It would be unusual for a game company to speak at length on the subject of an employee's termination. That ArenaNet has said as much as they have already is likely because they've been taken aback by the skewed media coverage, combined with the insanity of Price napalming bridges left and right.

 

Likewise, employees don't usually run around to media outlets vilifying their former employer, just as employers usually don't attempt to vilify former employees. While ArenaNet's last communication did make a reasonable and understandable attempt to set the record straight, they ended that communication complementing Price's work - a compliment that surprisingly set Price off on another unwarranted Twitter tirade, as she once again failed spectacularly at exhibiting any skill in reading comprehension (which is disturbing considering her chosen career).

 

I have seen a few comments from Peter since the termination that are both humble and appreciative of his time at ArenaNet and its community. Unsurprisingly those statements don't show up in gaming media articles, likely because they don't fit their wacky narrative.

 

 

> @"Wyvern.7951" said:

> I really hate the one sided journalism we’ve been seeing. Absolutely detest polygon, but here’s a article that talks a bit about what’s happening inside Anet,

>

> _“The firings have also made ArenaNet a tense place for many who work there. The Verge spoke with several developers who are currently employed at ArenaNet who requested anonymity in order to speak freely and without fear of retribution. Employees say they feel a mixture of uncertainty, anger, and sadness over the past week’s events. Some describe the events over the last week as a betrayal — evidence that, despite tall talk of support and inclusion, their employer will abandon them when push comes to shove. Many managers were away on vacation at the time of the firings (including both Price and Fries’ direct supervisor), which has fueled internal confusion. Employees say that what they’ve heard has come down from the executive level.

>

> Although opinions about the firings fall across the board, many people at the studio are angry. “Everyone agrees something is wrong,” one employee tells The Verge. “Some blame the media, some blame Jessica, some blame unclear social media policies, some blame the internet mob, and some blame [Mike O’Brien].” Others worry about the sustainability of their careers at ArenaNet and hope that their employer will speak up while there’s still time to recover.

 

Despite the skewed recent coverage, I'm willing to give The Verge the benefit of the doubt on any questions of whether they actually spoke to employees who made these statements. However, keeping that skewed coverage in mind, I would not be surprised to find that _"spoke with several developers"_ means as little as 3 people, and that _"some describe the events over the last week as a betrayal"_ could be as little as 1 person who happens to be friendly to Price and still be a truthful statement.

 

Sure, the numbers could be a lot higher than that, but when gaming sites are eagerly posting inaccurate articles to start off with, don't expect me to believe them easily going forward.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Edge.4180" said:

> > @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > I hope he considers what the proper channels for such communications are though ie. AMAs

>

> There is absolutely nothing wrong with attempting to engage in a discussion with someone through Twitter when they have their profile set to "public" and are presenting an opinion (through Twitter) to their audience. Deroir did nothing wrong and is the only one who can truly claim to be the victim here.

 

I can see my comment may have implied that he did do something wrong, I don't think he did, however I'd still be cautious about engaging with any professional on their private twitter unless I knew them personally.

 

> > @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > As for the media consider that Price is the only one willing to talk to them. Anet have released 2 pieces of communication and thats it and Peter is refusing to speak.

>

> Just because one side is openly communicating with game "journalists" (which is a term I use reluctantly given their recent nonsense) doesn't mean the gaming media has to present those stories from a biased, dishonest perspective. The articles we've received recently have been ridiculously skewed to portray Price as nothing but a victim and ArenaNet as the villain. All in all, it's been a pretty detestable sight.

 

Maybe but consider that the gaming media may know more but can't publish because they don't have anyone on the record. I know for certain that this is what Bill Murphy from mmorpg.com is saying both on the website and via twitter.

[DorDor.8617]

I think everyone's missing the bigger picture, as far as the Verge article goes. Whether it's "biased journalism" or not, those quotes tell us something very important: there's a ton of tension inside the Arenanet offices right now.

 

And that tension, **regardless of what you think of the firings themselves,** is perfectly rational. Jessica and Peter were fired quickly, over a set of regulations that apparently haven't been updated (or even deeply discussed) for a very long time. One of them was protected by thirteen years of tenure at that company, and it did nothing to save his job. If that happened in my workplace, I wouldn't exactly be psyched about my job security. I'd be terrified of rocking the boat, because according to the precedent the bosses just set, I won't get a second chance if I screw up.

 

I've been in that kind of work environment before, and it isn't just stressful. It stifles creativity and disincentives community outreach. If not addressed quickly, it'll have a serious impact on the work output of the dev team, and it'll be fertile ground for the unfolding PR disaster.

 

Mike O'Brien, return your house to order. I've seen how these things go, and this isn't going away unless you, personally, step up and address community concerns.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"thruine.8510" said:

> > @"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.

>

 

You can only say what YOU experience, but you can't assume that level of experience is shared by all or even most new people. If most people didn't run dungeons originally, then in fact, most people won't run them now. The people who come here craving dungeons, because there were dungeons in other games, won't all be of the same opinion. And lest you think I'm just babbling. let me assure you, I speak to a whole lot of new people. I help new people in low level zones, but also run a guild with a lot of new people and indeed, a few of them do bring up dungeons, but far more new people just generally want to solo and don't care about dungeons.

 

This game was never really based around the dungeons. It was centered, since launch, on it's open world content, and people who enjoy that most have found a home here. I personally never cared about or for dungeons even though I've done them all many many many times. But it's not my prime source of entertainment. It wouldn't matter to me if they were in the game or not in the game. So this isn't a problem for new players. This is a problem for you and players who think like you. Which may be a lower percentage of the playerbase than you'd expect.

 

Because some people simply ask and get the answer that dungeons were the original 5 man content, and they were replaced by fractals and not knowing any better, those people accept that answer and say okay fractals are the new dungeons and they don't think the game is shoddy.

 

But then there's another group of people that still run dungeons, and they experience it differently because they still have fun with them when they do run them, but they're not so focused on dungeons. In fact, most people don't know dungeons are abandoned, most likely since more than half the playerbase probably not goes to the forums or reddit. They just play the game, and letters in their inventory or not, they happily ignore than dungeons are in the game. This seems to have been the case from the beginning.

 

Lots of games have older content that either doesn't hold up to new content or the playerbase has given up on. That's normal for most MMOs, except for many, it's the open world. In this game we have more people in the open world, going back to the open world but fewer people in dungeons. What do you suppose would make more of an impression on most people?

 

This isn't a problem for new players. This is a problem for new players who are insistent that dungeons must be part of some diet that everyone eats. I assure you that's not the case.

[Wyvern.7951]

> @"DorDor.8617" said:

> I think everyone's missing the bigger picture, as far as the Verge article goes. Whether it's "biased journalism" or not, those quotes tell us something very important: there's a ton of tension inside the Arenanet offices right now.

>

> And that tension, **regardless of what you think of the firings themselves,** is perfectly rational. Jessica and Peter were fired quickly, over a set of regulations that apparently haven't been updated (or even deeply discussed) for a very long time. One of them was protected by thirteen years of tenure at that company, and it did nothing to save his job. If that happened in my workplace, I wouldn't exactly be psyched about my job security. I'd be terrified of rocking the boat, because according to the precedent the bosses just set, I won't get a second chance if I screw up.

>

> I've been in that kind of work environment before, and it isn't just stressful. It stifles creativity and disincentives community outreach. If not addressed quickly, it'll have a serious impact on the work output of the dev team, and it'll be fertile ground for the unfolding PR disaster.

>

> Mike O'Brien, return your house to order. I've seen how these things go, and this isn't going away unless you, personally, step up and address community concerns.

 

I couldn’t articulate it as well as you can, so I’m glad you said this. I agree with you 100%. I follow a few of the devs and ex devs on twitter and their posts in combination with this article are both pretty telling. Things are probably not looking so good internally right now.

 

I hope they do something to address this issue.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"DorDor.8617" said:

> I think everyone's missing the bigger picture, as far as the Verge article goes. Whether it's "biased journalism" or not, those quotes tell us something very important: there's a ton of tension inside the Arenanet offices right now.

>

> And that tension, **regardless of what you think of the firings themselves,** is perfectly rational. Jessica and Peter were fired quickly, over a set of regulations that apparently haven't been updated (or even deeply discussed) for a very long time. One of them was protected by thirteen years of tenure at that company, and it did nothing to save his job. If that happened in my workplace, I wouldn't exactly be psyched about my job security. I'd be terrified of rocking the boat, because according to the precedent the bosses just set, I won't get a second chance if I screw up.

>

> I've been in that kind of work environment before, and it isn't just stressful. It stifles creativity and disincentives community outreach. If not addressed quickly, it'll have a serious impact on the work output of the dev team, and it'll be fertile ground for the unfolding PR disaster.

>

> Mike O'Brien, return your house to order. I've seen how these things go, and this isn't going away unless you, personally, step up and address community concerns.

 

 

Those, "quotes," are of questionable validity when they are anonymous and the site providing them has established a narrative that they are pushing.

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> anonymous and the site providing them has established a narrative that they are pushing.

 

While most journos I've seen _have_ been particularly partisan on this issue, two other former devs have publicly come out to express similar sentiments; [one](

"one") worked at ANET for 4 years, the [other](

"other") for 9 (and is still listed erroneously on the wiki as an employee).

 

[DorDor.8617]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > @"DorDor.8617" said:

> > I think everyone's missing the bigger picture, as far as the Verge article goes. Whether it's "biased journalism" or not, those quotes tell us something very important: there's a ton of tension inside the Arenanet offices right now.

> >

> > And that tension, **regardless of what you think of the firings themselves,** is perfectly rational. Jessica and Peter were fired quickly, over a set of regulations that apparently haven't been updated (or even deeply discussed) for a very long time. One of them was protected by thirteen years of tenure at that company, and it did nothing to save his job. If that happened in my workplace, I wouldn't exactly be psyched about my job security. I'd be terrified of rocking the boat, because according to the precedent the bosses just set, I won't get a second chance if I screw up.

> >

> > I've been in that kind of work environment before, and it isn't just stressful. It stifles creativity and disincentives community outreach. If not addressed quickly, it'll have a serious impact on the work output of the dev team, and it'll be fertile ground for the unfolding PR disaster.

> >

> > Mike O'Brien, return your house to order. I've seen how these things go, and this isn't going away unless you, personally, step up and address community concerns.

>

>

> Those, "quotes," are of questionable validity when they are anonymous and the site providing them has established a narrative that they are pushing.

 

Friend, anonymous sources are a staple of competent journalism. It's hard for whistleblowers to get their story out if they have to name themselves to do it. It opens them up to all sorts of retaliation opportunities. Like, for instance, being fired by the management you just publicly criticized.

 

Sure, some journalists are stupid enough to make up quotes wholesale. But the risks are steep. Libel laws still exist in the United States, and much like a Lovecraftian god, those great and terrible powers are best left undisturbed. Thus few publications are willing to provoke their unending wrath.

 

Rule of thumb: Anonymous quotes are generally real, unless you have solid reasons to suggest otherwise. Even if we personally disagree with what they say.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"DorDor.8617" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > @"DorDor.8617" said:

> > > I think everyone's missing the bigger picture, as far as the Verge article goes. Whether it's "biased journalism" or not, those quotes tell us something very important: there's a ton of tension inside the Arenanet offices right now.

> > >

> > > And that tension, **regardless of what you think of the firings themselves,** is perfectly rational. Jessica and Peter were fired quickly, over a set of regulations that apparently haven't been updated (or even deeply discussed) for a very long time. One of them was protected by thirteen years of tenure at that company, and it did nothing to save his job. If that happened in my workplace, I wouldn't exactly be psyched about my job security. I'd be terrified of rocking the boat, because according to the precedent the bosses just set, I won't get a second chance if I screw up.

> > >

> > > I've been in that kind of work environment before, and it isn't just stressful. It stifles creativity and disincentives community outreach. If not addressed quickly, it'll have a serious impact on the work output of the dev team, and it'll be fertile ground for the unfolding PR disaster.

> > >

> > > Mike O'Brien, return your house to order. I've seen how these things go, and this isn't going away unless you, personally, step up and address community concerns.

> >

> >

> > Those, "quotes," are of questionable validity when they are anonymous and the site providing them has established a narrative that they are pushing.

>

> Friend, anonymous sources are a staple of competent journalism. It's hard for whistleblowers to get their story out if they have to name themselves to do it. It opens them up to all sorts of retaliation opportunities. Like, for instance, being fired by the management you just publicly criticized.

>

> Sure, some journalists are stupid enough to make up quotes wholesale. But the risks are steep. Libel laws are still exist in the United States, and much like a Lovecraftian god, those great and terrible powers are best left undisturbed. Thus few publications are willing to provoke their unending wrath.

>

> Rule of thumb: Anonymous quotes are generally real, unless you have solid reasons to suggest otherwise. Even if we disagree with what they say.

 

I tend to agree that the sentiment that the "quotes" describe seem quite possible.

 

Isnt the burden of proof in a libel case on the one making accusations of libel? I imagine it would be difficult to prove with anonymous sources.

 

Still, when the media source seems to be actively pushing a specific narrative, to the point of purposefully skewing or misrepresenting facts, then anything they claim is suspect. Not because one disagrees with their supposed quotes, but rather because trusting someone who has shown a willingness to lie to to tell the truth, this time, is unwise.

[Edge.4180]

> @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > @"Edge.4180" said:

> > > @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > > I hope he considers what the proper channels for such communications are though ie. AMAs

> >

> > There is absolutely nothing wrong with attempting to engage in a discussion with someone through Twitter when they have their profile set to "public" and are presenting an opinion (through Twitter) to their audience. Deroir did nothing wrong and is the only one who can truly claim to be the victim here.

>

> I can see my comment may have implied that he did do something wrong, I don't think he did, however I'd still be cautious about engaging with any professional on their private twitter unless I knew them personally.

 

Twitter is not a private, it's a social media platform. Yes, you have the option of setting your Twitter account to be private, but Price decided not to do that. She was clearly more interested in being able to have her opinions reach the masses, friends and strangers alike. And she was more than willing to respond to strangers on Twitter as long as they were complimenting her.

 

In all the time since Twitter has been around, this incident is the first time I've heard people suggest it's wrong to comment on Twitter accounts managed by people they don't know personally. That is just, in my experience, not how anyone has ever expected Twitter to work - so, to listen to Price's fans explain it, apparently millions of people are using Twitter wrong. Meanwhile, there's a reason there's a search feature, hashtags, etc. in Twitter.

 

I'm happy to report I've never gotten my head chewed off for speaking to a developer (or anyone else for that matter) through Twitter, even when I didn't know them personally.

 

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> While most journos I've seen _have_ been particularly partisan on this issue, two other former devs have publicly come out to express similar sentiments; [one](

"one") worked at ANET for 4 years, the [other](

"other") for 9 (and is still listed erroneously on the wiki as an employee).

 

Except they seem (one of the two in particular) to be specifically talking about the firing of Peter Fries, and not Jessica Price. I don't think many would argue that, of the two, Fries is the more surprising and unfortunate firing. Even Deroir expressed unhappiness with his termination.

 

However, given Price's insistence on making this almost entirely about gender and whipping her fans up into that mindset (rather than coming to terms with the fact that Price simply failed to recognize a sincere attempt at discussion by a delighted fan and instead went all bully on him for naught), I'm curious how everyone thinks both Jessica-it's-all-about-me-being-a-woman-Price and her fans would have reacted towards Mike - "He had the power to command a woman to stand there” - O'Brien if Peter Fries (the male in this scenario) did not get fired along with her.

 

I suspect this would be a whole lot more ugly than it is now. One could speculate that Price's decision to immediately make this all about gender instead of her bad behavior is what ultimately forced ArenaNet into an awkward position with Fries's fate. Although, really, if Price had simply not behaved like a jerk to begin with none of this would have happened, and Fries would still have his job.

[Vlad Morbius.1759]

If she had admitted she was wrong in her approach things likely would be different. To this day she deflects responsibility for her actions and has looked to place the blame instead, on her employer. Color it any way you like but she behaved inappropriately on the companies behalf and then used sexism to in her words, to try and fight sexism where none existed.

I'm so tired of people calling foul on this whole debacle and trying their best to defend her comments. Her callous, and horribly inappropriate tweet regarding TP's passing are inexcusable, and frankly should be morally appalling to most. Whatever he may have been involved in nothing justifies her comments, after all we aren't talking about Hitler and genocide here. He struggled through cancer and left behind a wife and a child. A child that loved his father and now somewhere down the road will be exposed to this paranoid social warrior's haphazard opinions and the vitriol she spewed so nonchalantly . JP made her bed and drinks deep from the kool-aid of the whole social warrior justice culture and has done so without once thinking of the real victims and all the while trying to convince herself and anyone else that would listen that her actions were excusable because the result may some day justify the means. IMHO i truly hope one day she answers to his child for her comment and tries to justify how it was OK to relish in his death. How does one vilify a man over video games and opinion? How in this day and age did it become OK to celebrate the death of an individual , what kind of person does that? Social media has killed social behavior and that's a major step backwards for mankind. We are all a casualty of the perceived power anonymity fosters but she my friends chose not to be anonymous and that choice, admittedly her's alone, brought consequences.

 

I despise the fact that Anet has allowed this thread to go on so long and that anyone could defend the position she's taken on more than one occasion and with multiple employers. When do we stop blaming others for our own mistakes? I hope one day JP understands that the end result do not justify the means in which you achieve them. Surrendering your humanity for any cause is cowardly and will never bring the outcome you seek, it only brings resentment and hatred.

 

Shut this thread down!

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Vlad Morbius.1759" said:

> If she had admitted she was wrong in her approach things likely would be different. To this day she deflects responsibility for her actions and has looked to place the blame instead, on her employer.

 

I'll say it again after being sacked and the way it happened she's hardly going to feel very charitable towards anet.

[DorDor.8617]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > @"DorDor.8617" said:

> > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > @"DorDor.8617" said:

> > > > I think everyone's missing the bigger picture, as far as the Verge article goes. Whether it's "biased journalism" or not, those quotes tell us something very important: there's a ton of tension inside the Arenanet offices right now.

> > > >

> > > > And that tension, **regardless of what you think of the firings themselves,** is perfectly rational. Jessica and Peter were fired quickly, over a set of regulations that apparently haven't been updated (or even deeply discussed) for a very long time. One of them was protected by thirteen years of tenure at that company, and it did nothing to save his job. If that happened in my workplace, I wouldn't exactly be psyched about my job security. I'd be terrified of rocking the boat, because according to the precedent the bosses just set, I won't get a second chance if I screw up.

> > > >

> > > > I've been in that kind of work environment before, and it isn't just stressful. It stifles creativity and disincentives community outreach. If not addressed quickly, it'll have a serious impact on the work output of the dev team, and it'll be fertile ground for the unfolding PR disaster.

> > > >

> > > > Mike O'Brien, return your house to order. I've seen how these things go, and this isn't going away unless you, personally, step up and address community concerns.

> > >

> > >

> > > Those, "quotes," are of questionable validity when they are anonymous and the site providing them has established a narrative that they are pushing.

> >

> > Friend, anonymous sources are a staple of competent journalism. It's hard for whistleblowers to get their story out if they have to name themselves to do it. It opens them up to all sorts of retaliation opportunities. Like, for instance, being fired by the management you just publicly criticized.

> >

> > Sure, some journalists are stupid enough to make up quotes wholesale. But the risks are steep. Libel laws are still exist in the United States, and much like a Lovecraftian god, those great and terrible powers are best left undisturbed. Thus few publications are willing to provoke their unending wrath.

> >

> > Rule of thumb: Anonymous quotes are generally real, unless you have solid reasons to suggest otherwise. Even if we disagree with what they say.

>

> I tend to agree that the sentiment that the "quotes" describe seem quite possible.

>

> Isnt the burden of proof in a libel case on the one making accusations of libel? I imagine it would be difficult to prove with anonymous sources.

>

> Still, when the media source seems to be actively pushing a specific narrative, to the point of purposefully skewing or misrepresenting facts, then anything they claim is suspect. Not because one disagrees with their supposed quotes, but rather because trusting someone who has shown a willingness to lie to to tell the truth, this time, is unwise.

 

In the traditional court system, the burden of proof is purely on the side of the prosecution, yes. In civil courts... not so much. You don't necessarily have to prove anything, just convince the neutral arbiter that your side is the most reasonable one by having a more convincing case than your oppenent. In practice, this means both parties spend ridiculous amounts of money on private investigators and expert witnesses to make their case. The loser is usually the one that runs out of money first.

 

Libel lawsuits are still an uphill battle for the accuser, but even if you win, it's an expensive victory. Which is why journalists don't like to poke the bear.

 

They also don't like to risk it because, frankly, they don't need to. You don't have to tell bald-faced lies when selective truths are just as easy. All the Verge had to do was share information that supports their case, while ignoring information that contradicts it. I'd be willing to bet that those aren't the _only_ quotes they got... just the ones that best fit the article they were planning to write. It's standard operating procedure for a lot of less scrupulous publications, and it's so easy that one can fall into the habit completely by accident. [selection bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias "Selection bias"), it's called.

 

That's why I could find value in the Verge article, despite the spin. Partial information is still information, and even the scraps we got say a ton about how the firings went down behind closed doors.