GW 2 Devs/Playerbase Twitter Discussion

[Evon Skyfyre.9673]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> I stated many pages ago that the only winner in this situation was the group that likes to see things burn. I'm glad that at this point it appears as though there might be some good to come out of this mess. If other game development companies -- and ANet -- are looking at their social media policies, clarifying guidelines, and setting up ways to protect developers from ill-meaning people on the internet, that's to my mind a good thing.

>

> It's too bad that the initial principals -- Ms. Price, Mr. Fries, Deroir, ANet management, ANet staff and the GW2 community have all suffered as a result of the circumstances. At this point, I'm certain that of the initial principals, the victims were: Deroir, who it seems was a devoted fan, an amateur enthusiast, who made a comment that was taken differently than all evidence suggests he intended; and ANet staff, to whom this is no doubt unsettling, if not outright frightening.

>

> I believe Ms. Price was the architect of her own circumstances. She had several opportunities to choose an alternate path and did not. I have some sympathy for her. I know what stress can do to judgment. However, while I understand and support her desire to stand up for women's rights, all causes are best served if their proponents choose their battles carefully. Her choice to fight this battle when and how she did indicates questionable judgment, perhaps caused by her confessed stress and/or a mistaken belief that a social media feed on which the general public can read and comment is a safe space in which to say whatever she wants. What social media _ought_ to be is very different from what it actually is.

>

> Mr. Fries I take to be a decent human being. If he made a mistake, he was trying to stand up for a co-worker. However, he chose to support someone whose comments ANet decided were not what they wanted to see from an employee. While he made a choice and has had to accept the consequences, I find it hard to really fault him.

>

> I don't at this point know that ANet management acted as the often cringe-worthy articles by the gaming "press" report. If they did, there is certainly room for improvement on their part. Either way, company management has taken a hit, and it may be some time before this washes off, if it ever does.

>

> Finally, some elements of the community are happy with ANet's actions and some are decidedly not. The discussion here has been at times acrimonious, and I don't know how many posts on reddit may have been down-voted into oblivion. Still, the divides within the wider community have never seemed as clear to me, and this divide is over real world issues, rather than the by-comparison trivialities of those over game elements.

>

> So, in conclusion, I am glad that there might be some good coming out of this, even if in the case of this issue it is barring the gate after the horse has gone. Still, I'll take that over my initial belief that everyone with any decency lost.

>

> Peace, and out.

 

Well said, to my thinking I can sum it up in one word. Triggers. All of those involved were triggered. Emotional triggers can be very powerful, and can seem to have a mind and will of their own. I for one have had my eyes opened in that I see many sides and viewpoints more clearly. Not to infer I agree with them all, but all voices are valid, even if only to bring to light how we each feel.

 

 

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:

> > > Did I ever claim to be an arbiter?

> > Well...

> > >Anet was well within their rights legally and ethically

> > Stating that as an objective fact suggests that you are indeed an arbiter (a judge) of what is ethical.

> > >just because you don’t like it or agree with it means that it’s not ethical

> > That's exactly my point, because that goes both ways: the fact that you like or agree with it doesn't _make_ it ethical either.

> > > Anet and employees past and present that have been talking to the “gaming” media outlets have stated they had such policies in place.

> > Alright, now the burden of proof is on you.

> > > Again It was handled ethically by the objective definition of Ethically, and by relevant and acceptable standard business practices/policies, use in almost every company/organization public and private sector, no matter how much you don’t want to believe it.

> > Objective definition of ethics?

> > >Ethics (Google):

> > >1. moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.

> > >2.the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

> > >Ethics (Webster): a set of moral issues or aspects (such as rightness) _debated the ethics of human cloning_

> > >Ethics (Wikipedia): a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.

> > I don't see any "objective" definition of ethics which dictates that "common business practices" are ethical.

> >

> > > @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > > > Define "jerk" in a way that minimizes interpretation.

> > > Really?

> > > "A person with unlikable or obnoxious qualities and behavior, typically mean, self-centered or disagreeable. "

> > > Straight from wikipedia.

> > > I could have used other words but they're not allowed here. We all know what they mean. Come on now.

> > Okay, well right now I feel like you're being obnoxious and unlikeably condescending, suggesting that I'm stupid or childish with that passive-aggressive, "Really?" and "We all know what they mean. Come on now."

> > That condescension wasn't remotely necessary to making your point. So... does that make _you_ a jerk?

>

> In this specific case yes. Although 1 I'm not representing anyone but myself, and 2 the question that I'm answering to was already passive-aggressive.

> I'm specifically suggesting that you already know the answer to the question (as with most of BlaqueFyre questions also) and are faking not to, possibly to avoid a point (which you're doing again) and that by essence is not really likable.

> So yeah, generally, people answer the way they're being treated.

>

> And in 2 messages, you haven't answered to my original point at all, which also is "unlikeable". There are ways around for dev (or just about everyone) to use twitter. They either get an anon account or if they're going to use their real name, they do just like in real life and stay polite. Just like everyone else.

 

Interesting, so everyone is always polite to you in real life? Because that is not what I've observed nor has it always been the case where people are polite to me. Not EVERYONE is polite in real life, if everyone was polite, we wouldn't have jerks, a-holes, and a hundred other terms for people not being nice...it's never wise to generalize.

 

P.S. - Ethics in business is subjective, business A may not do the same thing as business B, which does it differently from business C...etc.,etc.,etc.,etc..., so though some things might seem to have standards, it really depends on the business and the culture within that business.

[Jahar Shadowblade.8695]

I bought the game the week it came out, my guild was formed literally the day that the game was released, by friends of mine who had played GW1 and persuaded me to get this game. I played it for many years, used up all of my character slots and even had to delete two characters when I wanted to create new ones. I think I've tried all of the original player classes (except engineer, I think?), and I'd have to log in and check what level my chars are at, but one is in the 70s, another in the 50s, and the rest are in the 30s. And that's only because I got bored with grinding in the upper levels and kept making new characters to explore the early parts of the story from the different races' perspectives and to try out the different gameplay mechanics (although I will always love the Thief best, possibly because it was my first character so I might be biased).

 

I used to work as a programmer for a small software company, I have been in a similar situation as Jessica, and you know what my boss did? He hired more CSRs and told me to stop worrying about customer service. On the other hand, I had another boss at a large IT firm berate me for missing work because of a seizure (that boss did not last very long in her position, but she did cause significant company turnover during her few months' tenure). I know from firsthand experience that while customers are important, a company's success is going to relate to attracting and retaining talented employees. And I think that I have a pretty good idea of how people in the industry, people who are actually trying to earn a living with their skillset, are going to view this. Many devs at ANet are probably working on their resumes and contacting friends at other companies. And if ANet wants to attract established devs? Would you really want to work for a developer that will fire you immediately just because some internet mob gets angry? Would you want to have to ask "will I be able to pay the rent?" any time you think of stepping up and defending a coworker who you think is being harassed? For that matter, would you want to hear your coworkers whisper to you "I would have said something to them, but y'know, remember Peter?" and you both nod sagely in understanding?

 

It's all fun and games when it's internet comments. It's another thing entirely when it's your livelihood, when it's rent and food on the table and health insurance and medication. When it's a question of whether you can trust the people you work with, the people you report to. And it's no coincidence that my blood pressure dropped 10 points the week after I left IT completely to go back into healthcare, which is not a low-stress field by any means.

 

So knowing what I know, why would I want to continue to be involved with a game like this? Especially since they're going to start losing employees in drips and drabs, slowly over the next couple of months, and they'll be replacing them only with people who literally can't find work anywhere else, or who are completely new and inexperienced. If you've ever wondered why some companies suddenly start putting out stale and repetitive content releases, this is usually what's happening behind the scenes. So continuing to play this game and getting frustrated by the diminishing quality would be like buying a Ubisoft game and going "WTF is up with this DRM?"

 

I'm sorry for the long response, and I'm genuinely sad to see what's happening with this game, a game I've played for hundreds of hours. But sometimes it's time to give something up.

[Dami.5046]

Well since I supported Anet's decision at the start of this, that makes me one of you know the 'Mob'

Cool. I can live with that.

So much that in support of how much joy this company's products have given me I brought another complete game, expansions and all with gems for extra's.

#Guildwars4Ever.

 

 

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> I would say that equitable treatment or rights counts as ethical.

> any employee, generally has the right to leave their place of employment at any time and for any reason, even if this would harm the employer. In order for the association between employee and employer to be equitable the employer must have the same right.

 

This is called "at-will" employment, and it is _not_ equitable. An employer and an employee are simply not in equitable positions. An employee controls a tiny fraction of the skills and manpower an employer needs. An employer controls up to the entire wages an employee needs _to live_. The larger a business becomes, the more the balance of power skews in the business's favor. That is not an equitable relationship.

 

With at-will employment, "wrongful termination" basically isn't illegal anymore. Companies can abuse their employees and even violate the law, and the employees who are victims of it will keep their mouths shut and tolerate it because they _need_ that paycheck. It is far easier for a business to fill in a temporary gap by overworking a firee's former coworkers than it is for someone who quits to find a new job. That's how thousands of instances of behavior which would be considered socially unethical become "business ethical."

 

> @"Jahar Shadowblade.8695" said:

> I think that I have a pretty good idea of how people in the industry, people who are actually trying to earn a living with their skillset, are going to view this. Many devs at ANet are probably working on their resumes and contacting friends at other companies. And if ANet wants to attract established devs? Would you really want to work for a developer that will fire you immediately just because some internet mob gets angry? Would you want to have to ask "will I be able to pay the rent?" any time you think of stepping up and defending a coworker who you think is being harassed? For that matter, would you want to hear your coworkers whisper to you "I would have said something to them, but y'know, remember Peter?" and you both nod sagely in understanding?

 

Case in point.

 

_People keep ignoring Peter Fries_. People who fixate on the awfulness of JP keep conveniently sidelining him or chalking him up as collateral damage, and even the game journos peddling righteous indignation barely mention him. Peter Fries has essentially been fired for a _mistake_. JP and PF were _both_ fired for a mistake. And all that mistake amounted to was hurting a bunch of people's feelings.

 

Edit:

And let's look at their "victim," Deroir. In general terms, sure, he must be devastated and that is truly lamentable. But in _business_ terms, hey, great—he just got more free publicity than he could ever imagine. His stream is going to blow up!

[Ulyssean.1709]

> @"Dami.5046" said:

> Well since I supported Anet's decision at the start of this, that makes me one of you know the 'Mob'

> Cool. I can live with that.

> So much that in support of how much joy this company's products have given me I brought another complete game, expansions and all with gems for extra's.

> #Guildwars4Ever.

>

>

Being part of 'the mob' is fine when you stand against hatred and ignorance.

 

[KidRoleplay.3615]

@"Jahar Shadowblade.8695" Why not just wait and see what happens to the actual gameplay experience before giving it up? I'm not going to mention what actually happened. There's plenty of pages that are saying (and not saying) just that, and there are plenty who are adamant at believing what they're going to, but if you're going to give something up based on where you feel the game is going, why leave before seeing where it'd end up yet?

 

From what you wrote, it seems just like general boredom on your part, with the recent fiasco not really having much weight on your eventual decision either way.

[Evon Skyfyre.9673]

> @"KidRoleplay.3615" said:

> @"Jahar Shadowblade.8695" Why not just wait and see what happens to the actual gameplay experience before giving it up? I'm not going to mention what actually happened. There's plenty of pages that are saying (and not saying) just that, and there are plenty who are adamant at believing what they're going to, but if you're going to give something up based on where you feel the game is going, why leave before seeing where it'd end up yet?

>

> From what you wrote, it seems just like general boredom on your part, with the recent fiasco not really having much weight on your eventual decision either way.

 

I figure my game software is bought and paid for, I won't be spending so my game time is on their dime. Why leave? #FreeToPlay

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:

> > @"Pretty Pixie.8603" said:

> > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:

> > > > @"Pretty Pixie.8603" said:

> > > > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:

> > > > > Quote me where I said that Sweat shops are ethical, I will wait. Otherwise you are commiting libel, which is punishable by law and against Anet forum policies.

> > > >

> > > > You are A) anonymously using a handle, b) the comment doesn’t specifically call you out as supporting sweat shops, and C) the exchange is limited to a very specific forum.

> > > >

> > > > No libel lawyer in the country would take that case.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Doesn’t break the fact that it’s still Libel by the definition of libel:

> > >

> > > *libel

> > > 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.*

> > >

> > > They keep making this false claim to this representation of me on these forums in an attempt to discredit me in this thread/community. Nowhere in there does it state that it has to be my actual name now does it? My username here and in game does have a reputation associated with it, which is having false claims made against it.

> > >

> > > And libel is a form of defamation which is:

> > >

> > > Defamation

> > >

> > > Elements and Complaint

> > > Defamation is a statement that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel (written statements) and slander (spoken statements).

> > >

> > > To win a defamation case, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

> > >

> > > Interesting.

> > >

> > > Now nowhere did I say I wanted to win a case, I was just stating what one individual was doing.

> > >

> >

> >

> > None of the requirements are fullfilled. Showing the flaw in your logic by comparing it to sweatshops is not the same as saying you endorse sweatshops. Arguing hat is in is a Srawman. It is happening on a forum for a game without your name against it, And it’s i possible to prove any harm was done since you’re anonymous.

> >

> > Please refrain from using terms like libel when you’re having an argument on the interwebz. It gives the appearance that you’re rying to intimidate the other party into silence.

>

> The poster claimed that I said Sweat shops were ethical, which is a false claim since I never stated such, the only reason for them to make the claim would be to discredit/cause harm my reputation/points made on the actual subject which was the incident between Anet two former employees and community members/partners.

>

> Where in the definition of Libel or defamation does it state that it has to be my actual name and not my ingame/forum persona? It doesn’t a simple reading would show that.

>

> Are you implying that I am not a person? Or that this community knows me(a person) by this name? And does this name not have a reputation? And can this reputation not be harmed by false claims?

 

Your reputation in a virtual environment would not stand up in a court of law, so no libel is present...you even said it yourself, it's a persona, it is not you, so your persona would take the hit, but not you...there is a distinction between the real you and your internet you(in this case it's really not even your virtual you, but a completely made up you).

[The Knight of Hope.8023]

While I don't hate this individual, I certainly hate what she chose to do. Being libelous and slanderous towards someone for disagreeing with her while herself pretending to be a victim of targeted hatred is just about the worst thing you can do short of trying to physically hurt or kill someone. Innocent people's lives and reputations are destroyed regularly by these kinds of false accusations. It's unforgivable that those who are here to defend this person for no other reason than the fact that they espouse the same ideology that she does care about her losing her job but do not care in the slightest about those whose lives would be destroyed if people were to believe the lies and false accusations she has been flinging. They and she are both lucky they do not live in a system where it is easy to seek recourse for slander and defamation.

 

It bears mentioning that we are 74 pages in and the cult of victimology has yet to acknowledge that companies have the right to protect themselves by firing employees, especially public figures, who attack their customers, insult their partners and tarnish the reputation of their brands. We didn't hear any of this howling when John Schnatter resigned from Papa John's, for instance, because John Schnatter is an example of someone who actually does have bad character whom they'd like to attack and are pleased to see unemployed, even though most of the bad things he said and did were done in private. This, again, is not mere hypocrisy: It is a lack of sincerity. It is changing one's standards in order to attack and destroy people with whom they disagree.

 

The morbid irony is, these are the kinds of unconscionable behaviors that result in the kind of faction based anger the victimhood cult and intersectional nihilists claim to be against; When they prosper their agenda by making false claims of hate against individuals based upon what superficial group they happen to belong to, this engenders an attitude of ignorance where no future claim they make will be taken seriously by people who belong to those groups they have maligned. In turn, any vengeance taken on them by others, whether fair or unfair, will be ignored. Crying wolf about these things leads to a public life that revolves around anger and misunderstanding, and will eventually result in a police state run by the people who are most willing to use power to get revenge on their accusers. If you want to eventually live in a miserable autocracy where policy is set by anger and hate rather than by calm conversations about right and wrong, being an intersectional victimhood ideologue is the best way to get there.

 

The silver lining here if anything is that this event should serve as a wake-up call to companies everywhere that they don't have to allow these rabid ideologues to define their public images and insult their customers just because their cult is currently in-favor with the mainstream media, the university system and Hollywood. Here's hoping cooler heads will continue to prevail.

[Evon Skyfyre.9673]

One thing that comes to mind on all sides, we know what we have read and been "told". People rarely paint themselves in a bad light, posts can be edited, or removed, etc.. All we really know for sure is something happened, and actions were taken. Keep an open mind. Saves revising your stance or opinion later. It's far too easy to make snap decisions, based on assumptions.

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"The Knight of Hope.8023" said:

>John Schnatter resigned from Papa John's

That's not an apt comparison.

First of all, he resigned, he wasn't fired.

Second of all, he founded the company and profited enormously from it for years. With a net worth of over 800 million dollars, he's not under any financial risk whatsoever, and he is almost certainly going to continue to receive payouts for the rest of his life. His life and livelihood is not at stake.

 

A better comparison would be Roseanne Barr.

Not only was she fired over a tweet, her own show was cancelled, and then picked up as a spin off to deliberately exclude her. She's been cast out as a pariah and no one will touch her. Between Roseanne and JP, Roseanne is _far_ worse off, but I wouldn't be surprised to find JP's defenders calling for Roseanne's head previously, or to find them pleased with her fate.

 

You are right to point out that it is not strictly hypocricy, but insincerity that drives these sorts of double standards. However, it also seems that you are saying that submitting to outrage over mere _disagreement_ is arbitrary. And that's because it is arbitrary. No one can control what people will or won't be outraged by or disagree with, and outrage originates from an emotion, which is inherently fickle.

 

Ultimately, JP's behavior was "disagreeable," or "outrageous," just like Roseanne's. I'm not convinced that firing _either_ of them over what was essentially "being disagreeable," let alone PF (still consistently ignored) was justifiable, so I resent any accusations of insincerity, even though I am, from a very narrow perspective, "defending JP" by presenting a view opposed to the firings. _I do not agree with JP's views at all_, but I do not consider my personal agreement to be necessary to defend a principle of free speech. After all, free speech is easy when you agree—it only matters when you disagree. And if people aren't willing to trust governments to broadly enforce or regulate "mean" speech, we shouldn't trust businesses to broadly enforce or regulate "mean speech" either. [That has always been my position](https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Suggestion-Add-Noob-to-the-swear-word-filter/page/1#post4039079 "That has always been my position"), it did not change conveniently for any one case. The issue is so much more complicated than it is being made out to be, but ideological blindness has generated a tunnel vision against the gray edges.

 

Edit:

Clarification

[The Knight of Hope.8023]

@"Soa Cirri.6012" This is a common misunderstanding; In the corporate world, resignations are often requested by shareholders and administrative boards in lieu of firings. John would not have resigned when he did if he was not being forced out due to his actions. I do agree that Roseanne is another good example though.

 

What you're failing to understand is the exact thing I pointed out in the comment you partially quoted; There is a stark difference between being vicious and slanderous in public and being vicious and slanderous in public towards the customers and partners of a company you are known to represent. If you were an executive at ArenaNET, you would have a fiduciary duty to your investors to protect the company from harm such as this which you could be fired or even sued for failing to uphold.

 

The fortunate thing for you and I is, you need not be convinced of anything. If a company is being damaged by an employee, they don't have to ask our permission to get rid of them and that is a great thing. That's exactly how you want a stable voluntary society to operate. That is not to say that I would not find it unfortunate if this individual were systematically blacklisted such that she were unable to find a less public role to make a living, even though she would certainly not have the same respect for those she disagrees with were the tables turned. However, we need not worry about that in this case, as she will probably be lionized as a hero if not hired outright somewhere else for her bad behavior.

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"The Knight of Hope.8023" said:

>John would not have resigned when he did if he was not being forced out due to his actions.

It's true that John may have been "pushed," and if that is the case then yes, it would be perfectly apt.

>If you were an executive at ArenaNET, you would have a fiduciary duty to your investors to protect the company from harm such as this which you could be fired or even sued for failing to uphold.

This sort of justification is what I find objectionable in a general sense. A decision by group of shareholders who bear the incentive or even obligation to maximize short-term profit do not necessarily abide by, and in fact often actively destroy or minimize, what is best for the world _beyond_ the boardroom. I understand the explanation, but it is not an excuse or a moral justification, because that same obligation incentivizes and sometimes even obliges shareholders to lie, cheat, bait-and-switch, and pressure local and federal agencies to screw over their competitors (and customers), stretching the full extent of the law, violating the law, even changing the law, and if necessary, to assault moral decency in pursuit of those narrow obligations. EA, for example, was perfectly within their fiduciary rights to employ lootboxes in th emanner they did, but that doesn't necessitate that doing so is justifiable. (To be clear, I am not saying ANET screws over competitors, violates the law, etc. I am saying that the fiduciary justification fits all of those as well).

 

I get that, in a vacuum, from a purely amoral perspective, it makes total sense, sure. But it can also make sense with a perfectly _immoral_ perspective. There can be severe, negative, extenuating consequences, many of which are completely foreseeable, but which partisan pundits and corporate agents often ignore or dismiss because they judge those considerations as inferior to their own political (or financial) agendas.

 

Is ANET's behavior the norm? Sure, it's hardly a departure. Are they hewing to the concerns of their bottom line? Yes, probably. But while those may be strictly objective observations, neither of them are, within themselves, _justifications_ for behavior, whether by ANET or anyone.

 

It's true that this is a trend that started loooong before ANET. But that doesn't prevent the possibility that it might also _end_ with ANET. It could be that these career-death-by-Twitter-outrage firings are wrong on principle, and have always been wrong on principle, but that such a realization simply took time to germinate. Or maybe they are perfectly, morally justifiable, and have been on principle all along. I do not know for sure either way, but from what I have been able to infer, the trend itself seems to be a destructive one, whether or not the people consumed by it along the way happen to be good people, and whether the companies involved make money off of it or not.

[DaShi.1368]

> @"Jahar Shadowblade.8695" said:

> I bought the game the week it came out, my guild was formed literally the day that the game was released, by friends of mine who had played GW1 and persuaded me to get this game. I played it for many years, used up all of my character slots and even had to delete two characters when I wanted to create new ones. I think I've tried all of the original player classes (except engineer, I think?), and I'd have to log in and check what level my chars are at, but one is in the 70s, another in the 50s, and the rest are in the 30s. And that's only because I got bored with grinding in the upper levels and kept making new characters to explore the early parts of the story from the different races' perspectives and to try out the different gameplay mechanics (although I will always love the Thief best, possibly because it was my first character so I might be biased).

>

> I used to work as a programmer for a small software company, I have been in a similar situation as Jessica, and you know what my boss did? He hired more CSRs and told me to stop worrying about customer service. On the other hand, I had another boss at a large IT firm berate me for missing work because of a seizure (that boss did not last very long in her position, but she did cause significant company turnover during her few months' tenure). I know from firsthand experience that while customers are important, a company's success is going to relate to attracting and retaining talented employees. And I think that I have a pretty good idea of how people in the industry, people who are actually trying to earn a living with their skillset, are going to view this. Many devs at ANet are probably working on their resumes and contacting friends at other companies. And if ANet wants to attract established devs? Would you really want to work for a developer that will fire you immediately just because some internet mob gets angry? Would you want to have to ask "will I be able to pay the rent?" any time you think of stepping up and defending a coworker who you think is being harassed? For that matter, would you want to hear your coworkers whisper to you "I would have said something to them, but y'know, remember Peter?" and you both nod sagely in understanding?

>

> It's all fun and games when it's internet comments. It's another thing entirely when it's your livelihood, when it's rent and food on the table and health insurance and medication. When it's a question of whether you can trust the people you work with, the people you report to. And it's no coincidence that my blood pressure dropped 10 points the week after I left IT completely to go back into healthcare, which is not a low-stress field by any means.

>

> So knowing what I know, why would I want to continue to be involved with a game like this? Especially since they're going to start losing employees in drips and drabs, slowly over the next couple of months, and they'll be replacing them only with people who literally can't find work anywhere else, or who are completely new and inexperienced. If you've ever wondered why some companies suddenly start putting out stale and repetitive content releases, this is usually what's happening behind the scenes. So continuing to play this game and getting frustrated by the diminishing quality would be like buying a Ubisoft game and going "kitten is up with this DRM?"

>

> I'm sorry for the long response, and I'm genuinely sad to see what's happening with this game, a game I've played for hundreds of hours. But sometimes it's time to give something up.

 

This is what I expect to see. The talented developers will leave for places where they are more appreciated. Meanwhile, Anet will attract mediocre developers who are willing to put up with this shit because no one else would take them.

 

I've seen this everywhere. Good managers retain talent, bad managers attract the worst.

 

I too am leaving this game (been here since GW1) because I don't want to be associated with it anymore. In fact, I officially left after I saw MO first post here and haven't played since.

[The Knight of Hope.8023]

@"Soa Cirri.6012" What you ought to find objectionable is the idea of companies allowing the investments and livelihoods of their investors and employees to be destroyed by the bad behavior of a public figure associated with their enterprise. Being vile and hateful is not victimless when you are damaging relationships and pushing people away from an entity that you represent. I'm not sure how many different ways I have to state this in order for you to understand. This is not about a company letting someone go who they disagree with, as perhaps was the case with someone like James Damore. This is about parting ways with someone who was doing legitimate harm to people who professionally associate with her in public. There is a difference here you're going to have to eventually acknowledge and take seriously if you want to have a deeper and more accurate understanding of how the world works and how to reduce compulsion and aggression within society.

[GraynX.8947]

Honestly, there seems to be more to JP's firing than a single Twitter incident; just look at her history.

 

Now, what will be interesting to watch, is whether or not she had a non-disparaging clause attached to her contract. If so and if Anet does not choose to enact the clause, it should be seen as a gift to JP. Her actions after the termination would seem to make a fairly easy case for violation of most typical clauses and causing a pretty big legal headache for JP.

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"The Knight of Hope.8023" said:

>the investments and livelihoods of their investors and employees to be destroyed by the bad behavior of a public figure

ANET's reputation as a company has been horribly tarnished by numerous incidents regarding in-game activities and enforcement derived from bad judgment, and in its long history, no rage-inducing decision has seriously harmed, let alone "destroyed" the game. To suggest that one Tweet would destroy the company seems a little absurd to me. Maybe I'm being naive, but I also think it's arguing from ignorance to assume that any other choice would have necessarily led to the outcome of "destroying" investments and livelihood.

>how to reduce compulsion and aggression within society.

This is precisely what I see as destructive about this trend, and it's already playing out in the game "journalism" which has been lifting up JP as some kind of messiah.

 

When people cause outrage over the assertion, however incorrect, of their political or ideological position, and are forced out of a company for it, they still need to eat, so they still need a job. They have their opportunities narrowed to the companies which agree with their politics and ideology. Eventually, these expatriates coalesce into a new, leaner, meaner, and more radicalized body of motivated and mobilized activists which is larger than anything of its like could have been before. No one sector of society, but multiple monoliths have arisen over the past decade as a reaction to this sort of trend. In their Twitter wars and MSM hit pieces they have waged battles that have exacerbated and inflamed the partisan divides and polarization which have promoted compulsive and aggressive behavior, precisely like that exhibited by JP.

 

Outlets like Kotaku and Polygon, representing everything that is ideologically monolithic in their coverage of this issue, are the poster children of this process, and further fulfill and enhance the same cycle of polarization.

[The Knight of Hope.8023]

@"Soa Cirri.6012" You seem not to realize that this individual was causing ArenaNET's brand to be associated with her victimhood ideology. Her right to her own opinion does not grant her any preexisting right to do that. Moreover, there is no trend. Most companies are too scared of the press and Hollywood to go against the cult of political correctness. If you're scared of coercion based upon financial incentives, it is their manipulation you ought to be most concerned about. What you must understand is that when it comes to intersectional nihilists like this former employee at ArenaNET, this is their goal. They want a society in which they have enough legal and moral sway over companies that they can get people fired and run out of society for disagreeing with them. This is precisely why it is so good that ArenaNET refused to bend the knee here.

 

I thought that when I told you earlier that you want a stable voluntary society to operate this way, you would go think that over and try to figure out exactly why that might be the case. Since that didn't happen, allow me point you in the right direction: The freedom to dictate the terms of your own relationships as an individual or as a company tends towards less coercion, not more; The passionate interests of people like this individual don't get to run roughshod over every other investor and employee at her company if they are allowed to disassociate from her. Moreover, other like-minded people like her who want to put their ideology above politeness and professionalism can go form their own companies together and make their own go of it. And they can do this with the same protection as ArenaNET has from having to worry about someone who has a different ideological bent than them showing up and misrepresenting their brand to their partners and customers in an attempt to derail their mission. If you care about people having the freedom to say and do what they want without being exiled from civilization, you should want companies to be able to do what is best for them because it creates more freedom for people to create their own opportunities, build their own institutions and go their own way in the world. As long as you have the freedom to go start your own company and do things your own way, nobody can take your ability to have a decent life away from you based upon nothing other than a difference of opinion. A society arranged in this way renders total compulsion nearly impossible, and that is why ideologues like the victimhood cult want to change it into a top-down authoritarian system where their ideology is put before your right to think and do what you please with your own mind, body and property.

 

Please think on this for awhile. Thanks.

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"The Knight of Hope.8023" said:

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" You seem not to realize that this individual was causing ArenaNET's brand to be associated with her victimhood ideology.

That does not mean she _has_ to be fired to make a disassociation. All it takes is a statement of, "We don't condone this, but it is not our prerogative to fire people for being mean" to disassociate from it. To argue that she _must_ be fired, period, is to continue to offer an argument from ignorance.

>Moreover, there is no trend.

We've both given other examples of people being fired over saying things that were offensive, and no matter the ideological position asserted, the firings have gotten more numerous over the past few years. It is unequivocally a growing trend.

>What you must understand is that when it comes to intersectional nihilists like this former employee at ArenaNET, this is their goal. They want a society in which they have enough legal and moral sway over companies that they can get people fired and run out of society for disagreeing with them. This is precisely why it is so good that ArenaNET refused to bend the knee here.

>Moreover, other like-minded people like her who want to put their ideology above politeness and professionalism can go form their own companies together and make their own go of it.

So... There is an "intersectional nihilist" conspiracy with the _goal_ to force their particular view upon society, and whom you refuse to bend the knee to. ...And yet you have no problem with them forming their own companies to literally conspire together in the attainment of power and influence?

 

Color me confused.

 

You are free to insult me by telling me to "think on this" in order to arrive at your preordained, requisite conclusion like some jedi master scolding a padawan, but I otherwise appreciate your tact and time. Thanks.

[The Knight of Hope.8023]

@"Soa Cirri.6012" I asked you to do this because you're working on your ideas from a flawed zero-sum game view of society, which is actually directing you towards a totalitarian view of how things should work, rather than a liberal and voluntary one. It's unfortunate that you decided that you didn't have anything to learn before you started this conversation. I hope you'll have a change of heart and come back to reread this exchange at some point.

[Zaklex.6308]

Everyone keeps mentioning shareholders...there is only one shareholder of ArenaNet...NCSoft, so they are not really beholden to shareholders for their profit or loss, but to NCSoft and NCSoft only.

 

Another misconception is that JP was stating she didn't have to like anyone in the community on her personal Twitter, that is patently false, she was reply specifically to Deroir therefore her comment only applies to him(and he could be considered part of the 10%/90% ratio of bad/good in communities she mentioned).

 

Proper response could have been this: "We are aware of the situation and in the process of investigating, any action as a result of this will be handled internally. Thank you for you continued patronage."

[The Knight of Hope.8023]

@"Zaklex.6308" NCSoft is a publicly traded company.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Ulyssean.1709" said:

> > @"Dami.5046" said:

> > Well since I supported Anet's decision at the start of this, that makes me one of you know the 'Mob'

> > Cool. I can live with that.

> > So much that in support of how much joy this company's products have given me I brought another complete game, expansions and all with gems for extra's.

> > #Guildwars4Ever.

> >

> >

> Being part of 'the mob' is fine when you stand against hatred and ignorance.

>

 

Thats rather ironic given the most hateful and ignorant gamer mob in existence were supporting the firings.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

 

> By the end, he pretty much supported the firings,

 

No he didn't, her merely said there might have been other considerations when all indications are from the anet statement and what we know went on the morning that they were fired that there were no other considerations. This goes especially for Fries.