CETheLucid.3964 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said: > > @"Tolmos.8395" said: > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > @"Harper.4173" said: > > > > > @"Tolmos.8395" said: > > > > > > @"Harper.4173" said: > > > > > > It's extremely upsetting to see how willing people are to make new accounts and post only to push an agenda. Still - I will respond to you. > > > > > > > > > > Sweet, so we're now comparing forum ages and post histories to see who is most worthy of posting? You talk big for someone whose help upvote count is only in the mid-200s, greenhorn! > > > > > > > > > > This is the forum equivalent to "lol noob isn't even max level. Her opinion is moot". I have a better idea: how about we not try to be the elitist little kitten the world thinks all gamers are, and just have a civilized discussion WITHOUT the e-kitten comparing. :) > > > > > > > > You haven't noticed the amount of posters that weren't here before and came here just to push an agenda? > > > > Add them in game - look up their AP score. You'll find some fun things. There's a clear difference between me and them. Calling me greenhorn is silly. You are doing it to prove a point but still - it's silly. > > > > I've been with this game since release, with the franchise since 2008. I've posted suggestions back in the day when they took suggestions for GW2. I've spent more hours on the old forums than anyone should have. There are no records of that anymore. I've got 6k hours on the game and until this year I rarely skipped a day without logging in. > > > > I can prove this to you any way you want. Can they? > > > > As much as you'd like to believe it's not so - I'm not extreme in my views - but you can't just hop on here without ever playing the game, without ever posting before and start going "I'm part of the community and this and that". You're not. > > > > > > > > This is not about being elitist. This is about people infiltrating the forums and trying to seem like they are part of a community they care about when in truth they're just ideologues who came here to fight for their cause and care nothing for GW2. > > > > > > > > This is a civilized discussion regarding the GW2 game and the developers/company making it. It is not a political discussion on its own. These are the forums for a GAME. If you want to come here and have your voice heard as part of the community **you should have some - at least a shred of proof you are part of that community** > > > > > > > > > Honest question here: > > > > > > Do you think that people are buying copies of the game, supporting ANet financially, just to comment on this topic? > > > > > > > It's a pretty age-old argument on the internet: "anyone who disagrees with me is a troll, a bot, or an alt account. It doesn't matter that the majority of you are all telling me I'm wrong, because deep down I know that you are all just 1 person." > > > > Arguing against that point of view is close to impossible. The reality is that a lot of people play the game and never visit forums, at least until something particularly worth talking about comes around or they have a question they just can't answer in game. It happened with ascended gear, "mountgate" and it's going to happen with this. Sure, there may be some folks out there who are dropping $30+ just to make a new account all just to tell Harper they think he's wrong, but if you're looking at it logically: not many people are going to be THAT Invested in an internet argument. > > > > Some would, though; I mean some folks drop $10,000 on pay to win games. Who's to say that there aren't folks running to Walmart and buying armfuls of copies of this game just to try to make 1 person look outnumbered. > > Sock puppeting is a surprisingly common tactic. A lot of players own multiple accounts for multi-boxing and for multiple dailies, and there are those who would create new accounts just to chime in and say that somebody else is wrong. > > There are some pretty unstable people on the internet. The world wide web draws in the attention from every dark corner of the Earth. All of the most fringe elements are going to come out. Including people who are shameless, hyper-combative, hyper-obsessed, with poor money management skills and limitless free time. The average person wouldn't bother to sock puppet, but we're dealing with neurosis here. This, right here. Nailed it. I'm not saying every newer poster is a sock puppet. Big drama brings everyone out of the woodwork. But when the more radical devils advocates tend to all be newer forum posters... I can't help but notice. And honestly even if you are here just to give your .02 cents, you'd lend more to yourself as a commentator to the situation if it didn't appear you're literally only here to stir the pot over the latest debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbru.6014 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 The best piece of advice anyone can get from this is to stay off Twitter. Especially when you're drunk or angry, but just stay off it in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just a flesh wound.3589 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Jimbru.6014" said: > The best piece of advice anyone can get from this is to stay off Twitter. Especially when you're drunk or angry, but just stay off it in general. Another piece to advice to remember is that the internet isn’t your private living room and when you post there you are posting for the whole world to see and unlike your home the internet never forgets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaklex.6308 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Yamazuki.6073" said: > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > @"White Dragon.5429" said: > > > > @"ponytheguardian.7439" said: > > > > > @"Harper.4173" said: > > > > > 17. "The real discussion is the lack of segregation between personal and corporate communications and corporate policies dictating far too much about personal communications (think church and state here). In this case, it was personal communications that the community made corporate and the outcome has been disastrous for all parties involved." - maybe employees should be more aware of these issues and try to clarify things better before they sign contracts. > > > > > > > > But no-one has seen what kind of terms ArenaNet has in place for their employees who have signed the contract. > > > While we can't see exactly what is on their contract, it is common practice for someone who customers may see as a "face of the company" to be required to put forth a good appearance even while not on duty. If you are a known, recognizable employee, all actions in a public space can be interpreted by customers (whether or not they should) to be actions of the company, and so you must act accordingly. > > > > > > That being said, it is understandable for someone to lose their calm while under stress. I would expect some kind of warning and expectation of public apology, followed by termination if the employee refuses. > > > > This not only needs to change, it must change and if we have to legislate it then that's the solution. Corporate America needs to be brought to heel and learn that they can not and will not be allowed to control what employees say on their own personal social media accounts. > > **Public** social media posts are not different than your actions taken out in public places. Public Twitter posts=/=your private and secure home where jokes are kept between friends and families. People have always been judged by how they are presented in public places, there's no reason that needs to be changed. If you want to speak poorly of people and face zero consequences, then keep it in a private setting among your friends and family, no need to take out the megaphone and then complain when the consequences come at you. > > There is zero reason for her response, and there is zero reason why any sort of business needs to tolerate sexism either, just because she's a female doesn't mean it's okay to hate on the opposite gender when the guy did nothing wrong, and had even complimented her not long before that. I don't care if it's public, it's still your PERSONAL social media account and Corporate American has no right to sensor it...and if people are unable to separate a persons personal life from their professional life, then the person with the problem is the one unable to separate the two. Those are two distinct entities, you have a job that is your professional life, you go home after work and that is your personal life...they are not one and the same in the vast majority of cases, and Corporate America needs to be kicked out of our personal lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaklex.6308 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said: ~snip~ > > There's a lot of give and take. I'm a fan of the regularly renewed contract system, because then for both worker and employee it gives you a good amount of time to plan ahead, patch up problems when they arise without going nuclear, and also guarantees a certain level of job security for the time being. Of course, once you reach a certain level of skill and specialization, your job security is insured by there being nobody to replace you and being crucial to the entire operation as a whole. I'm sure you're familiar with the IT field, and how so many contract workers thought their jobs were secure because of how much skill and specialization they had, until they came into work one day and the company had already hired their replacement and they were forced to train said replacement. There are no guarantees of a job unless you have a lifetime contract with a no termination clause...or you work in Japan, at least before companies started deviating from the job for life concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just a flesh wound.3589 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > @"Yamazuki.6073" said: > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > @"White Dragon.5429" said: > > > > > @"ponytheguardian.7439" said: > > > > > > @"Harper.4173" said: > > > > > > 17. "The real discussion is the lack of segregation between personal and corporate communications and corporate policies dictating far too much about personal communications (think church and state here). In this case, it was personal communications that the community made corporate and the outcome has been disastrous for all parties involved." - maybe employees should be more aware of these issues and try to clarify things better before they sign contracts. > > > > > > > > > > But no-one has seen what kind of terms ArenaNet has in place for their employees who have signed the contract. > > > > While we can't see exactly what is on their contract, it is common practice for someone who customers may see as a "face of the company" to be required to put forth a good appearance even while not on duty. If you are a known, recognizable employee, all actions in a public space can be interpreted by customers (whether or not they should) to be actions of the company, and so you must act accordingly. > > > > > > > > That being said, it is understandable for someone to lose their calm while under stress. I would expect some kind of warning and expectation of public apology, followed by termination if the employee refuses. > > > > > > This not only needs to change, it must change and if we have to legislate it then that's the solution. Corporate America needs to be brought to heel and learn that they can not and will not be allowed to control what employees say on their own personal social media accounts. > > > > **Public** social media posts are not different than your actions taken out in public places. Public Twitter posts=/=your private and secure home where jokes are kept between friends and families. People have always been judged by how they are presented in public places, there's no reason that needs to be changed. If you want to speak poorly of people and face zero consequences, then keep it in a private setting among your friends and family, no need to take out the megaphone and then complain when the consequences come at you. > > > > There is zero reason for her response, and there is zero reason why any sort of business needs to tolerate sexism either, just because she's a female doesn't mean it's okay to hate on the opposite gender when the guy did nothing wrong, and had even complimented her not long before that. > > I don't care if it's public, it's still your PERSONAL social media account and Corporate American has no right to sensor it...and if people are unable to separate a persons personal life from their professional life, then the person with the problem is the one unable to separate the two. Those are two distinct entities, you have a job that is your professional life, you go home after work and that is your personal life...they are not one and the same in the vast majority of cases, and Corporate America needs to be kicked out of our personal lives. It’s not a private, personal place if you have over 13k strangers following you and it’s open to the world to look in. That’s public. It might be “personal” in that they put their name on a spot on someone else’s property (the people that own the site Twitter in this case) however if they set it to public which allows the whole world to see and answer you and if they brand themselves on that publicly accessible site as an employee of a particular company and if they discuss their work on that site with their settings on public so all can see and comment then no, it’s no longer _only_ a personal social media where you are entitled to privacy. As @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said >You know, back when I worked at a bank, they had a certain way of phrasing it. Of course, it was all surrounded with cooperate newspeak and a bunch generic praise, but ultimately the message was this: >The job doesn't start when you punch the clock. The job starts when you put on the uniform. If you are out in the world, the moment you wear our emblem, you represent us. If somebody sees you and recognizing you as an employee of our company, then you represent us. She was wearing ANet’s emblem when she tagged her account as an ANet dev and posted a discussion about her work. At that point she was repping ANet and anything she said reflects on them also. Just like anything you say while at work reflects on your employee. She cursed at and insulted customers of her job while repping ANet and she got the same punishment as you would get if you cursed and insulted customers while repping your job. Edit: spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > @"Yamazuki.6073" said: > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > @"White Dragon.5429" said: > > > > > @"ponytheguardian.7439" said: > > > > > > @"Harper.4173" said: > > > > > > 17. "The real discussion is the lack of segregation between personal and corporate communications and corporate policies dictating far too much about personal communications (think church and state here). In this case, it was personal communications that the community made corporate and the outcome has been disastrous for all parties involved." - maybe employees should be more aware of these issues and try to clarify things better before they sign contracts. > > > > > > > > > > But no-one has seen what kind of terms ArenaNet has in place for their employees who have signed the contract. > > > > While we can't see exactly what is on their contract, it is common practice for someone who customers may see as a "face of the company" to be required to put forth a good appearance even while not on duty. If you are a known, recognizable employee, all actions in a public space can be interpreted by customers (whether or not they should) to be actions of the company, and so you must act accordingly. > > > > > > > > That being said, it is understandable for someone to lose their calm while under stress. I would expect some kind of warning and expectation of public apology, followed by termination if the employee refuses. > > > > > > This not only needs to change, it must change and if we have to legislate it then that's the solution. Corporate America needs to be brought to heel and learn that they can not and will not be allowed to control what employees say on their own personal social media accounts. > > > > **Public** social media posts are not different than your actions taken out in public places. Public Twitter posts=/=your private and secure home where jokes are kept between friends and families. People have always been judged by how they are presented in public places, there's no reason that needs to be changed. If you want to speak poorly of people and face zero consequences, then keep it in a private setting among your friends and family, no need to take out the megaphone and then complain when the consequences come at you. > > > > There is zero reason for her response, and there is zero reason why any sort of business needs to tolerate sexism either, just because she's a female doesn't mean it's okay to hate on the opposite gender when the guy did nothing wrong, and had even complimented her not long before that. > > I don't care if it's public, it's still your PERSONAL social media account and Corporate American has no right to sensor it...and if people are unable to separate a persons personal life from their professional life, then the person with the problem is the one unable to separate the two. Those are two distinct entities, you have a job that is your professional life, you go home after work and that is your personal life...they are not one and the same in the vast majority of cases, and Corporate America needs to be kicked out of our personal lives. Corporate America has no ability, "to censor it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaklex.6308 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > @"Yamazuki.6073" said: > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > > @"White Dragon.5429" said: > > > > > > @"ponytheguardian.7439" said: > > > > > > > @"Harper.4173" said: > > > > > > > 17. "The real discussion is the lack of segregation between personal and corporate communications and corporate policies dictating far too much about personal communications (think church and state here). In this case, it was personal communications that the community made corporate and the outcome has been disastrous for all parties involved." - maybe employees should be more aware of these issues and try to clarify things better before they sign contracts. > > > > > > > > > > > > But no-one has seen what kind of terms ArenaNet has in place for their employees who have signed the contract. > > > > > While we can't see exactly what is on their contract, it is common practice for someone who customers may see as a "face of the company" to be required to put forth a good appearance even while not on duty. If you are a known, recognizable employee, all actions in a public space can be interpreted by customers (whether or not they should) to be actions of the company, and so you must act accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > That being said, it is understandable for someone to lose their calm while under stress. I would expect some kind of warning and expectation of public apology, followed by termination if the employee refuses. > > > > > > > > This not only needs to change, it must change and if we have to legislate it then that's the solution. Corporate America needs to be brought to heel and learn that they can not and will not be allowed to control what employees say on their own personal social media accounts. > > > > > > **Public** social media posts are not different than your actions taken out in public places. Public Twitter posts=/=your private and secure home where jokes are kept between friends and families. People have always been judged by how they are presented in public places, there's no reason that needs to be changed. If you want to speak poorly of people and face zero consequences, then keep it in a private setting among your friends and family, no need to take out the megaphone and then complain when the consequences come at you. > > > > > > There is zero reason for her response, and there is zero reason why any sort of business needs to tolerate sexism either, just because she's a female doesn't mean it's okay to hate on the opposite gender when the guy did nothing wrong, and had even complimented her not long before that. > > > > I don't care if it's public, it's still your PERSONAL social media account and Corporate American has no right to sensor it...and if people are unable to separate a persons personal life from their professional life, then the person with the problem is the one unable to separate the two. Those are two distinct entities, you have a job that is your professional life, you go home after work and that is your personal life...they are not one and the same in the vast majority of cases, and Corporate America needs to be kicked out of our personal lives. > > Corporate America has no ability, "to censor it." Oh, but they do, through draconian "Acceptable Social Media Conduct" clauses, contracts or some other part of your employee packet most likely designed by and HR person that is out of touch with the modern world, that pretty much is a method of censoring what said employees are allowed to say on their personal social media. > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > @"Yamazuki.6073" said: > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > > @"White Dragon.5429" said: > > > > > > @"ponytheguardian.7439" said: > > > > > > > @"Harper.4173" said: > > > > > > > 17. "The real discussion is the lack of segregation between personal and corporate communications and corporate policies dictating far too much about personal communications (think church and state here). In this case, it was personal communications that the community made corporate and the outcome has been disastrous for all parties involved." - maybe employees should be more aware of these issues and try to clarify things better before they sign contracts. > > > > > > > > > > > > But no-one has seen what kind of terms ArenaNet has in place for their employees who have signed the contract. > > > > > While we can't see exactly what is on their contract, it is common practice for someone who customers may see as a "face of the company" to be required to put forth a good appearance even while not on duty. If you are a known, recognizable employee, all actions in a public space can be interpreted by customers (whether or not they should) to be actions of the company, and so you must act accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > That being said, it is understandable for someone to lose their calm while under stress. I would expect some kind of warning and expectation of public apology, followed by termination if the employee refuses. > > > > > > > > This not only needs to change, it must change and if we have to legislate it then that's the solution. Corporate America needs to be brought to heel and learn that they can not and will not be allowed to control what employees say on their own personal social media accounts. > > > > > > **Public** social media posts are not different than your actions taken out in public places. Public Twitter posts=/=your private and secure home where jokes are kept between friends and families. People have always been judged by how they are presented in public places, there's no reason that needs to be changed. If you want to speak poorly of people and face zero consequences, then keep it in a private setting among your friends and family, no need to take out the megaphone and then complain when the consequences come at you. > > > > > > There is zero reason for her response, and there is zero reason why any sort of business needs to tolerate sexism either, just because she's a female doesn't mean it's okay to hate on the opposite gender when the guy did nothing wrong, and had even complimented her not long before that. > > > > I don't care if it's public, it's still your PERSONAL social media account and Corporate American has no right to sensor it...and if people are unable to separate a persons personal life from their professional life, then the person with the problem is the one unable to separate the two. Those are two distinct entities, you have a job that is your professional life, you go home after work and that is your personal life...they are not one and the same in the vast majority of cases, and Corporate America needs to be kicked out of our personal lives. > > It’s not a private, personal place if you have over 13k strangers following you and it’s open to the world to look in. That’s public. It might be “personal” in that they put their name on a spot on someone else’s property (the people that own the site Twitter in this case) however if they set it to public which allows the whole world to see and answer you and if they brand themselves on that publicly accessible site as an employee of a particular company and if they discuss their work on that site with their settings on public so all can see and comment then no, it’s no longer _only_ a personal social media where you are entitled to privacy. > > As @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said > > >You know, back when I worked at a bank, they had a certain way of phrasing it. Of course, it was all surrounded with cooperate newspeak and a bunch generic praise, but ultimately the message was this: > > >The job doesn't start when you punch the clock. The job starts when you put on the uniform. If you are out in the world, the moment you wear our emblem, you represent us. If somebody sees you and recognizing you as an employee of our company, then you represent us. > > She was wearing ANet’s emblem when she tagged her account as an ANet dev and posted a discussion about her work. At that point she was repping ANet and anything she said reflects on them also. Just like anything you say while at work reflects on your employee. She cursed at and insulted customers of her job while repping ANet and she got the same punishment as you would get if you cursed and insulted customers while repping your job. > > Edit: spelling > Flesh, I usually agree with on most of your posts, but on this point it appears I'm going to be disagreeing with most of the other posters on here. I'm sorry, but nobody is going to be allowed to dictate what I can post on my person social media account(s), other than what is considered against the law or the owner of the social media site. Not my family, not my friends and certainly not my employer...if I was posting on a company provided or owned social media site, then they can guide how and what I say. But on my own personal accounts whether I display their emblem or list them as my place of work...only over my dead body, and we will have to legislate it out of existence, because they won't back off on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squallaus.8321 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > @"squallaus.8321" said: > > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > > > > > > > His last tweet to her is completely condescending, just read it, but it most likely extends from the fact that English is not his native language, so he might not know the nuances of writing to avoid sounding condescending. > > > > > > > > Go on quote it and explain why its condescending. > > > > > > > > > > Here's his last tweet, and there's no explanation necessary, just read it....it's condescending in tone, but like I said, most likely because English isn't his native tongue: > > > Deroir > > > @DeroirGaming > > > Jul 4 > > > More > > > You getting mad at my obvious attempt at creating dialogue and discussion with you, instead of just replying that I am wrong or otherwise correct me in my false assumptions, is really just disheartening for me. You do you though. I'm sorry if it offended. I'll leave you to it. > > > > > > If I need to explain why it's condescending then I'm afraid this whole thing is pointless...that screams condescending. > > > > Simply reposting something doesn't explain your point.. you made the statement it's condescending.. so please explain where and how.. personally if I was Deroir and been subjected to her absurdity I would of been a hell of a lot more direct and less apologetic for sure... > > There was nothing in any of his posts to even remotely suggest he was being condescending and absolutely had no gender related angled to play whatsoever.. its all in her head and a defence mechanism because she clearly just lacks the ability to take criticism or hold cordial, meaningful discussion with anyone that does not panda to her views and opinions.. pure and simple. > > Obviously I have to bold the part that is condescending since everyone seems to miss the obvious. > And I quote: **You do you though.** > > I've had plenty of people try to offend me, and I laugh in their face because absolutely nothing offends me...because nobody else's opinion of me matters, only my opinion of myself matters. And quite obviously no explanation is needed to explain why your perception of social etiquette is warped and retarded right? If you want to convince people what Deroir said was "condescending" then you better give reasoning why people would actually find it condescending. Because by far most people would find it being "polite". Your personal perception of what Deroir wrote actually matters very little as you are not exemplary of the community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squallaus.8321 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > Corporate America has no ability, "to censor it." > > Oh, but they do, through draconian "Acceptable Social Media Conduct" clauses, contracts or some other part of your employee packet most likely designed by and HR person that is out of touch with the modern world, that pretty much is a method of censoring what said employees are allowed to say on their personal social media. > No they don't. Working for an employer is not an entitlement its a privilege. If you don't agree with the employer and perform actions that don't agree with the employer you don't get to work for the employer. But you can continue to tweet away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > @"Yamazuki.6073" said: > > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > > > @"White Dragon.5429" said: > > > > > > > @"ponytheguardian.7439" said: > > > > > > > > @"Harper.4173" said: > > > > > > > > 17. "The real discussion is the lack of segregation between personal and corporate communications and corporate policies dictating far too much about personal communications (think church and state here). In this case, it was personal communications that the community made corporate and the outcome has been disastrous for all parties involved." - maybe employees should be more aware of these issues and try to clarify things better before they sign contracts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But no-one has seen what kind of terms ArenaNet has in place for their employees who have signed the contract. > > > > > > While we can't see exactly what is on their contract, it is common practice for someone who customers may see as a "face of the company" to be required to put forth a good appearance even while not on duty. If you are a known, recognizable employee, all actions in a public space can be interpreted by customers (whether or not they should) to be actions of the company, and so you must act accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > That being said, it is understandable for someone to lose their calm while under stress. I would expect some kind of warning and expectation of public apology, followed by termination if the employee refuses. > > > > > > > > > > This not only needs to change, it must change and if we have to legislate it then that's the solution. Corporate America needs to be brought to heel and learn that they can not and will not be allowed to control what employees say on their own personal social media accounts. > > > > > > > > **Public** social media posts are not different than your actions taken out in public places. Public Twitter posts=/=your private and secure home where jokes are kept between friends and families. People have always been judged by how they are presented in public places, there's no reason that needs to be changed. If you want to speak poorly of people and face zero consequences, then keep it in a private setting among your friends and family, no need to take out the megaphone and then complain when the consequences come at you. > > > > > > > > There is zero reason for her response, and there is zero reason why any sort of business needs to tolerate sexism either, just because she's a female doesn't mean it's okay to hate on the opposite gender when the guy did nothing wrong, and had even complimented her not long before that. > > > > > > I don't care if it's public, it's still your PERSONAL social media account and Corporate American has no right to sensor it...and if people are unable to separate a persons personal life from their professional life, then the person with the problem is the one unable to separate the two. Those are two distinct entities, you have a job that is your professional life, you go home after work and that is your personal life...they are not one and the same in the vast majority of cases, and Corporate America needs to be kicked out of our personal lives. > > > > Corporate America has no ability, "to censor it." > > Oh, but they do, through draconian "Acceptable Social Media Conduct" clauses, contracts or some other part of your employee packet most likely designed by and HR person that is out of touch with the modern world, that pretty much is a method of censoring what said employees are allowed to say on their personal social media. > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > @"Yamazuki.6073" said: > > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > > > @"White Dragon.5429" said: > > > > > > > @"ponytheguardian.7439" said: > > > > > > > > @"Harper.4173" said: > > > > > > > > 17. "The real discussion is the lack of segregation between personal and corporate communications and corporate policies dictating far too much about personal communications (think church and state here). In this case, it was personal communications that the community made corporate and the outcome has been disastrous for all parties involved." - maybe employees should be more aware of these issues and try to clarify things better before they sign contracts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But no-one has seen what kind of terms ArenaNet has in place for their employees who have signed the contract. > > > > > > While we can't see exactly what is on their contract, it is common practice for someone who customers may see as a "face of the company" to be required to put forth a good appearance even while not on duty. If you are a known, recognizable employee, all actions in a public space can be interpreted by customers (whether or not they should) to be actions of the company, and so you must act accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > That being said, it is understandable for someone to lose their calm while under stress. I would expect some kind of warning and expectation of public apology, followed by termination if the employee refuses. > > > > > > > > > > This not only needs to change, it must change and if we have to legislate it then that's the solution. Corporate America needs to be brought to heel and learn that they can not and will not be allowed to control what employees say on their own personal social media accounts. > > > > > > > > **Public** social media posts are not different than your actions taken out in public places. Public Twitter posts=/=your private and secure home where jokes are kept between friends and families. People have always been judged by how they are presented in public places, there's no reason that needs to be changed. If you want to speak poorly of people and face zero consequences, then keep it in a private setting among your friends and family, no need to take out the megaphone and then complain when the consequences come at you. > > > > > > > > There is zero reason for her response, and there is zero reason why any sort of business needs to tolerate sexism either, just because she's a female doesn't mean it's okay to hate on the opposite gender when the guy did nothing wrong, and had even complimented her not long before that. > > > > > > I don't care if it's public, it's still your PERSONAL social media account and Corporate American has no right to sensor it...and if people are unable to separate a persons personal life from their professional life, then the person with the problem is the one unable to separate the two. Those are two distinct entities, you have a job that is your professional life, you go home after work and that is your personal life...they are not one and the same in the vast majority of cases, and Corporate America needs to be kicked out of our personal lives. > > > > It’s not a private, personal place if you have over 13k strangers following you and it’s open to the world to look in. That’s public. It might be “personal” in that they put their name on a spot on someone else’s property (the people that own the site Twitter in this case) however if they set it to public which allows the whole world to see and answer you and if they brand themselves on that publicly accessible site as an employee of a particular company and if they discuss their work on that site with their settings on public so all can see and comment then no, it’s no longer _only_ a personal social media where you are entitled to privacy. > > > > As @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said > > > > >You know, back when I worked at a bank, they had a certain way of phrasing it. Of course, it was all surrounded with cooperate newspeak and a bunch generic praise, but ultimately the message was this: > > > > >The job doesn't start when you punch the clock. The job starts when you put on the uniform. If you are out in the world, the moment you wear our emblem, you represent us. If somebody sees you and recognizing you as an employee of our company, then you represent us. > > > > She was wearing ANet’s emblem when she tagged her account as an ANet dev and posted a discussion about her work. At that point she was repping ANet and anything she said reflects on them also. Just like anything you say while at work reflects on your employee. She cursed at and insulted customers of her job while repping ANet and she got the same punishment as you would get if you cursed and insulted customers while repping your job. > > > > Edit: spelling > > > Flesh, I usually agree with on most of your posts, but on this point it appears I'm going to be disagreeing with most of the other posters on here. I'm sorry, but nobody is going to be allowed to dictate what I can post on my person social media account(s), other than what is considered against the law or the owner of the social media site. Not my family, not my friends and certainly not my employer...if I was posting on a company provided or owned social media site, then they can guide how and what I say. But on my own personal accounts whether I display their emblem or list them as my place of work...only over my dead body, and we will have to legislate it out of existence, because they won't back off on their own. > No, they do not. They have no ability whatsoever to prevent you from posting whatever you want whenever you want. This whole situation proves this fact. If ANet had the power to censor social media posts, no one would have put themselves in trouble as the sexist and abusive posts made by JP would not have happened. Question for you, Do you think that you should have the right to choose to not associate with someone who engages in behavior that you find abhorrent? Truly despicable stuff. Misogyny, racism, verbal abuse, and so on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just a flesh wound.3589 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > @"Yamazuki.6073" said: > > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > > > @"White Dragon.5429" said: > > > > > > > @"ponytheguardian.7439" said: > > > > > > > > @"Harper.4173" said: > > > > > > > > 17. "The real discussion is the lack of segregation between personal and corporate communications and corporate policies dictating far too much about personal communications (think church and state here). In this case, it was personal communications that the community made corporate and the outcome has been disastrous for all parties involved." - maybe employees should be more aware of these issues and try to clarify things better before they sign contracts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But no-one has seen what kind of terms ArenaNet has in place for their employees who have signed the contract. > > > > > > While we can't see exactly what is on their contract, it is common practice for someone who customers may see as a "face of the company" to be required to put forth a good appearance even while not on duty. If you are a known, recognizable employee, all actions in a public space can be interpreted by customers (whether or not they should) to be actions of the company, and so you must act accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > That being said, it is understandable for someone to lose their calm while under stress. I would expect some kind of warning and expectation of public apology, followed by termination if the employee refuses. > > > > > > > > > > This not only needs to change, it must change and if we have to legislate it then that's the solution. Corporate America needs to be brought to heel and learn that they can not and will not be allowed to control what employees say on their own personal social media accounts. > > > > > > > > **Public** social media posts are not different than your actions taken out in public places. Public Twitter posts=/=your private and secure home where jokes are kept between friends and families. People have always been judged by how they are presented in public places, there's no reason that needs to be changed. If you want to speak poorly of people and face zero consequences, then keep it in a private setting among your friends and family, no need to take out the megaphone and then complain when the consequences come at you. > > > > > > > > There is zero reason for her response, and there is zero reason why any sort of business needs to tolerate sexism either, just because she's a female doesn't mean it's okay to hate on the opposite gender when the guy did nothing wrong, and had even complimented her not long before that. > > > > > > I don't care if it's public, it's still your PERSONAL social media account and Corporate American has no right to sensor it...and if people are unable to separate a persons personal life from their professional life, then the person with the problem is the one unable to separate the two. Those are two distinct entities, you have a job that is your professional life, you go home after work and that is your personal life...they are not one and the same in the vast majority of cases, and Corporate America needs to be kicked out of our personal lives. > > > > Corporate America has no ability, "to censor it." > > Oh, but they do, through draconian "Acceptable Social Media Conduct" clauses, contracts or some other part of your employee packet most likely designed by and HR person that is out of touch with the modern world, that pretty much is a method of censoring what said employees are allowed to say on their personal social media. > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > @"Yamazuki.6073" said: > > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > > > @"White Dragon.5429" said: > > > > > > > @"ponytheguardian.7439" said: > > > > > > > > @"Harper.4173" said: > > > > > > > > 17. "The real discussion is the lack of segregation between personal and corporate communications and corporate policies dictating far too much about personal communications (think church and state here). In this case, it was personal communications that the community made corporate and the outcome has been disastrous for all parties involved." - maybe employees should be more aware of these issues and try to clarify things better before they sign contracts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But no-one has seen what kind of terms ArenaNet has in place for their employees who have signed the contract. > > > > > > While we can't see exactly what is on their contract, it is common practice for someone who customers may see as a "face of the company" to be required to put forth a good appearance even while not on duty. If you are a known, recognizable employee, all actions in a public space can be interpreted by customers (whether or not they should) to be actions of the company, and so you must act accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > That being said, it is understandable for someone to lose their calm while under stress. I would expect some kind of warning and expectation of public apology, followed by termination if the employee refuses. > > > > > > > > > > This not only needs to change, it must change and if we have to legislate it then that's the solution. Corporate America needs to be brought to heel and learn that they can not and will not be allowed to control what employees say on their own personal social media accounts. > > > > > > > > **Public** social media posts are not different than your actions taken out in public places. Public Twitter posts=/=your private and secure home where jokes are kept between friends and families. People have always been judged by how they are presented in public places, there's no reason that needs to be changed. If you want to speak poorly of people and face zero consequences, then keep it in a private setting among your friends and family, no need to take out the megaphone and then complain when the consequences come at you. > > > > > > > > There is zero reason for her response, and there is zero reason why any sort of business needs to tolerate sexism either, just because she's a female doesn't mean it's okay to hate on the opposite gender when the guy did nothing wrong, and had even complimented her not long before that. > > > > > > I don't care if it's public, it's still your PERSONAL social media account and Corporate American has no right to sensor it...and if people are unable to separate a persons personal life from their professional life, then the person with the problem is the one unable to separate the two. Those are two distinct entities, you have a job that is your professional life, you go home after work and that is your personal life...they are not one and the same in the vast majority of cases, and Corporate America needs to be kicked out of our personal lives. > > > > It’s not a private, personal place if you have over 13k strangers following you and it’s open to the world to look in. That’s public. It might be “personal” in that they put their name on a spot on someone else’s property (the people that own the site Twitter in this case) however if they set it to public which allows the whole world to see and answer you and if they brand themselves on that publicly accessible site as an employee of a particular company and if they discuss their work on that site with their settings on public so all can see and comment then no, it’s no longer _only_ a personal social media where you are entitled to privacy. > > > > As @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said > > > > >You know, back when I worked at a bank, they had a certain way of phrasing it. Of course, it was all surrounded with cooperate newspeak and a bunch generic praise, but ultimately the message was this: > > > > >The job doesn't start when you punch the clock. The job starts when you put on the uniform. If you are out in the world, the moment you wear our emblem, you represent us. If somebody sees you and recognizing you as an employee of our company, then you represent us. > > > > She was wearing ANet’s emblem when she tagged her account as an ANet dev and posted a discussion about her work. At that point she was repping ANet and anything she said reflects on them also. Just like anything you say while at work reflects on your employee. She cursed at and insulted customers of her job while repping ANet and she got the same punishment as you would get if you cursed and insulted customers while repping your job. > > > > Edit: spelling > > > Flesh, I usually agree with on most of your posts, but on this point it appears I'm going to be disagreeing with most of the other posters on here. I'm sorry, but nobody is going to be allowed to dictate what I can post on my person social media account(s), other than what is considered against the law or the owner of the social media site. Not my family, not my friends and certainly not my employer...if I was posting on a company provided or owned social media site, then they can guide how and what I say. But on my own personal accounts whether I display their emblem or list them as my place of work...only over my dead body, and we will have to legislate it out of existence, because they won't back off on their own. > I would see your point if she had set her site to private and only had given invited friends permission to see and post. Then if she had said “whatever” on that private hidden spot and someone had screenshot and posted it, then yeah. But if you have a spot open to the world with thousands of strangers listening in and you're repping your company and anyone in the world can post then it’s no longer a personal private post immune to consequences of private speech. It’s then public speech and has all the consequences of public speech. You wouldn’t be able to stand in your front yard and curse and insult the neighbors without a concern that the police will come to speak to you about it and your front yard is far more yours than an open to public twitter account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashantara.8731 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 I just read [this article](https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/07/arenanet-fires-two-guild-wars-2-writers-over-tweet.html "this article"), and it made me sad. It made me sad, because yes, there is so much discrimination in our world (more so every day, it seems); and as a female gamer, personally, I had to face misogyny way too often (I should add that I love playing certain online shooters that require voice chat, and some pubescent boys or young men with an unexplainable hatred against women feel entitled to insult you and even troll you in-game in the rudest, most abusive manners possible in those games, once they realize you are female). However, the article _also_ made me very sad, because JP's harsh and misled reaction was a result of said attacks against women, which seem rather common online nowadays (where the abusers are protected by anonymity). Personally, I don't see the allegedly implied sexism the author of that article sees in Deroir's criticism of a lack of branching dialogue (which would at least leave you with the illusion of your character having a personality _you_ choose). Hell, I have been asking for this (and to make extensive use of GW2's [personality mechanics](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Personality "personality mechanics")) myself for years, and I am female... So if I, in my frustration as a GW2 player regarding this particular issue, was to write something similar as Deroir, in a manner that can be misread as "lecturing" (and I am sure I am doing this a lot on here when I criticize things, because I am _immensely_ passionate about this game and might feel "betrayed" when certain expectations aren't met), what does that make me? Surely, it cannot be my "manfeelings" being hurt, but rather my "gamerfeelings", no? I beg everyone who has engaged in this topic, be it on here, on Twitter, or on Reddit, to keep the following in mind: If a woman overreacts and seems quick to perceive a comment as sexist, ask yourself this: "Have I been contributing to the problem as a whole by either being sexist myself or making fun of or downplaying the issue, or by not standing up against misogynist behavior when I should have, thus expediting the increase of sexism in our society and thereby the sensitivity by which certain things trigger women into feeling hurt and switch into an aggressively defensive mode?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squallaus.8321 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > Flesh, I usually agree with on most of your posts, but on this point it appears I'm going to be disagreeing with most of the other posters on here. I'm sorry, but nobody is going to be allowed to dictate what I can post on my person social media account(s), other than what is considered against the law or the owner of the social media site. Not my family, not my friends and certainly not my employer...if I was posting on a company provided or owned social media site, then they can guide how and what I say. But on my own personal accounts whether I display their emblem or list them as my place of work...only over my dead body, and we will have to legislate it out of existence, because they won't back off on their own. > Except no one is dictating what JP can or can't post on her twitter account. But her post can offend people and they have every right to get offended and will call her out of what a horrible person she is based on what she posted. We are not living in an authoritarian society. You choose your own actions and you choose them wisely. JP is free to post what she likes however Arenanet is free to do what they want with her employment - within the boundaries of the law. The talk on what Price should or should not post on Twitter is employment related. It has nothing to do with her human rights or rights as an US citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squallaus.8321 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Ashantara.8731" said: > I just read [this article](https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/07/arenanet-fires-two-guild-wars-2-writers-over-tweet.html "this article"), and it made me sad. It made me sad, because yes, there is so much discrimination in our world (more so every day, it seems); and as a female gamer, personally, I had to face misogyny way too often (I should add that I love playing certain online shooters that require voice chat, and some pubescent boys or young men with an unexplainable hatred against women feel entitled to insult you and even troll you in-game in the rudest, most abusive manners possible in those games, once they realize you are female). > > However, the article _also_ made me very sad, because JP's harsh and misled reaction was a result of said attacks against women, which seem rather common online nowadays (where the abusers are protected by anonymity). Personally, I don't see the allegedly implied sexism the author of that article sees in Deroir's criticism of a lack of branching dialogue (which would at least leave you with the illusion of your character having a personality _you_ choose). Hell, I have been asking for this (and to make extensive use of GW2's [personality mechanics](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Personality "personality mechanics")) myself for years, and I am female... So if I, in my frustration as a GW2 player regarding this particular issue, was to write something similar as Deroir, in a manner that can be misread as "lecturing" (and I am sure I am doing this a lot on here when I criticize things, because I am _immensely_ passionate about this game and might feel "betrayed" when certain expectations aren't met), what does that make me? Surely, it cannot be my "manfeelings" being hurt, but rather my "gamerfeelings", no? > > I beg everyone who has engaged in this topic, be it on here, on Twitter, or on Reddit, to keep the following in mind: > > If a woman overreacts and seems quick to perceive a comment as sexist, ask yourself this: "Have I been contributing to the problem as a whole by either being sexist myself or making fun of or downplaying the issue, or by not standing up against misogynist behavior when I should have, thus expediting the increase of sexism in our society and thereby the sensitivity by which certain things trigger women into feeling hurt and switch into an aggressively defensive mode?" I think some people like to down play sexism but some over play it to take advantage. What is needed is accurate calls on sexism when its evident. If someone is overreacting and we don't call it out then it simply perpetuates the problem of sexism because it reflects negatively on the said woman and female as a whole. In this particular case Jessica Price overplayed sexism by claiming something is sexist when it is not. She is now serving as an example to deter others from doing it in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashantara.8731 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"squallaus.8321" said: > I think some people like to down play sexism but some over play it to take advantage. What is needed is accurate calls on sexism when its evident. If someone is overreacting and we don't call it out then it simply perpetuates the problem of sexism because it reflects negatively on the said woman. Oh, I agree. I just wanted to point out that every action causes a reaction. And when women are "trained" by society (by an increasing number of young men or those, men and women alike, who have chosen to ignore the issue in front of them) that men look down upon them (or worse) merely for being female, then it causes a psychological reaction they have to deal with. Cause and effect. The only solution would be for sexism to cease to exist at once, but since that's not going to happen, we need to be more sensitive about _why_ some individuals react in certain ways that might seem misplaced in that situation. That, of course, goes for all negative -isms (a.k.a. discrimination) that plague or society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loli Ruri.8307 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Wow, Mike O'Brien personally fired her. And vented his feelings at her for most of the meeting, so she says. Shows you how much Mike cares about the community. Then he personally went here and told us about it. This guy is passionate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squallaus.8321 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Ashantara.8731" said: > > @"squallaus.8321" said: > > I think some people like to down play sexism but some over play it to take advantage. What is needed is accurate calls on sexism when its evident. If someone is overreacting and we don't call it out then it simply perpetuates the problem of sexism because it reflects negatively on the said woman. > > Oh, I agree. I just wanted to point out that every action causes a reaction. And when women are "trained" by society (by an increasing number of young men or those, men and women alike, who have chosen to ignore the issue in front of them) that men look down upon them (or worse) merely for being female, then it causes a psychological reaction they have to deal with. Cause and effect. The only solution would be for sexism to cease to exist at once, but since that's not going to happen, we need to be more sensitive about _why_ some individuals react in certain ways that might seem misplaced in that situation. That, of course, goes for all negative -isms (a.k.a. discrimination) that plague or society. I think you simply need is to train yourself to be more accurate in calling out sexism. As long as you are accurate people will stand behind you and support you. You can be over vigilant but not over sensitive and over react. In another words, always try to keep a cool head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashantara.8731 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"squallaus.8321" said: > I think you simply need is to train yourself to be more accurate in calling out sexism. As long as you are accurate people will stand behind you and support you. Not in my experience. At least not always. I have heard men saying (in front of me, not just online), that a woman can never be as good as a man in this or that (and it wasn't even about physical strength), and everyone else - whether they were too perplex to respond or did not want to get involved -, other men and women alike, remained silent. I was the only one defending my stance in a firm but friendly manner, only to be eventually called the b word or (worse! ;) ) a feminist (oooh!). Yes, you can train yourself. But for it to be effective, everyone would also have to train their awareness and lose their prejudice and bias. And that is not as easily achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squallaus.8321 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Ashantara.8731" said: > > @"squallaus.8321" said: > > I think you simply need is to train yourself to be more accurate in calling out sexism. As long as you are accurate people will stand behind you and support you. > > Not in my experience. At least not always. I have heard men saying (in front of me, not just online), that a woman can never be as good as a man in this or that (and it wasn't even about physical strength), and everyone else - whether they were too perplex to respond or did not want to get involved -, other men and women alike, remained silent. I was the only one defending my stance in a firm but friendly manner, only to be eventually called the b word or (worse! ;) ) a feminist (oooh!). > > Yes, you can train yourself. But for it to be effective, everyone would also have to train their awareness and lose their prejudice and bias. And that is not as easily achieved. > Pretty sure we're at a stage in society where most people know what sexism is and will view it negatively. So you just stay level headed about things you'll be alright. If your immediately circle discriminate against you, appeal to a larger audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrolan.9608 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > She was wearing ANet’s emblem when she tagged her account as an ANet dev and posted a discussion about her work. At that point she was repping ANet and anything she said reflects on them also. Just like anything you say while at work reflects on your employee. She cursed at and insulted customers of her job while repping ANet and she got the same punishment as you would get if you cursed and insulted customers while repping your job. Despite what many people have said this is not a given, I've seen plenty of examples of rude customer service not even being punished let alone sacked. > @"squallaus.8321" said: > If you want to convince people what Deroir said was "condescending" then you better give reasoning why people would actually find it condescending. Because by far most people would find it being "polite". Your personal perception of what Deroir wrote actually matters very little as you are not exemplary of the community. I've seen plenty of feedback on other forums that they though he was being condescending, nd I can see why he has a lecturing kind of tone. He probably didn't meant to its just because he's not a native english speaker and if you don't choose your words carefully they cna come across in a tone you don't mean. Sarcasm for instance can be very difficult to convey in writing. > @"Loli Ruri.8307" said: > Wow, Mike O'Brien personally fired her. And vented his feelings at her for most of the meeting, so she says. > Shows you how much Mike cares about the community. Then he personally went here and told us about it. This guy is passionate. Or he's simply concerned about image, something which has come across in feedback from other ex anet devs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squallaus.8321 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"morrolan.9608" said: > > @"squallaus.8321" said: > > If you want to convince people what Deroir said was "condescending" then you better give reasoning why people would actually find it condescending. Because by far most people would find it being "polite". Your personal perception of what Deroir wrote actually matters very little as you are not exemplary of the community. > > I've seen plenty of feedback on other forums that they though he was being condescending, nd I can see why he has a lecturing kind of tone. He probably didn't meant to its just because he's not a native english speaker and if you don't choose your words carefully they cna come across in a tone you don't mean. Sarcasm for instance can be very difficult to convey in writing. > Except they simply assume most people agree with their sentiment when most people wouldn't. The posts that Deroir wrote does not conform to the social norms of being "condescending" even if you hold him up to the standards of a native english speaker. As Deroir was accused of being "condescending" the onus of proof lies with the accusers. I asked and answer there came none, all they can say is - "no explanation is needed" and here is the quote. On the other hand there are plenty of evidence from Jessica Price's past twitter posts to suggest why she is over sensitive about sexism and often gets it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just a flesh wound.3589 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"morrolan.9608" said: > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > She was wearing ANet’s emblem when she tagged her account as an ANet dev and posted a discussion about her work. At that point she was repping ANet and anything she said reflects on them also. Just like anything you say while at work reflects on your employee. She cursed at and insulted customers of her job while repping ANet and she got the same punishment as you would get if you cursed and insulted customers while repping your job. > > > Despite what many people have said this is not a given, I've seen plenty of examples of rude customer service not even being punished let alone sacked. > It would depend on exactly what happened. In this case she refused to take “I apologize” (twice) and “I’ll go away” as an answer and let the situation end. Instead several hours later _after_ he apologizes and leaves she posts again and further insults the guy. (Then goes on to curse another guy, sneer at male “hurt manfeels” (an extremely sexist remark putting down men’s feelings) and tell everyone who can read her twitter that she doesn’t have to pretend to like her customers, implying that she dislikes the gw2 community). If she had stopped with her first response then I very much doubt she would have lost her job, but she had to continue to sound off and offend over a period of hours while posting under a tag proclaiming her to be an ANet dev. It wasn’t a one time post of frustration but several posts over hours. The extended time period means she had lots of opportunity to cool off and reconsider, but she didn’t. Continuing after she had “won” and gotten an apology was bullying, not frustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saelenthi.5720 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"morrolan.9608" said: > (...) > I've seen plenty of feedback on other forums that they though he was being condescending, nd I can see why he has a lecturing kind of tone. > (...) Sorry to chime in on this, but.... there is no "tone" on the internet. Everything is there in the writing, including smileys. So you'd be able to quote the parts that make the tweet for you condescending, and I just dont see it. Ive re-read them quite a few times and theres nothing to indicate a demonstration of superiority. Even for patronizing I cant find clear evidence, theres no "talking in laymen terms", no unnecessary explanations, no "I know best this is my specialty". The tweet is quite obviously a politely worded invitation to elaborate on the topic of branching dialogues. Its the kind of opinions/question you often encounter as a starting point for discourse after a talk. Someone working with words, like a game dev for narrative design, should see that - now see... THAT was patronizing. And if I were a man, it would be mansplaining ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batel.9206 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 So, for the people who defend Price, please explain this to me: why are her actions acceptable? Why is what she said appropriate? Why is celebrating the death of a well-known streamer okay? Why is cursing someone out with no provocation a good thing to do? "Confronting sexism" isn't a valid excuse here. As Saelenthi pointed out, tone is infamously difficult to discern on the internet. Where is the sexism in Deroir's post? And EVEN IF THERE WAS, Price is an employee at a company, PUBLICLY REPRESENTING that company. It is her JOB to be one of the public faces of that company, to be professional and polite, because she does not represent herself, she represents the company. Privately - to a friend on the phone or in person or whatever - she's free to complain all she wants! But NOT in a public space, and NOT while she is representing a company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now