Deihnyx.6318 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > @"Dengar.1785" said: > > > > > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tone is difficult to discern, but discern it you must...otherwise all written words would be toneless, and there would be no reason to read or write novels, in which you often have to discern the tone of the author...would be the same in this case, and a lot of use determined that the tone of, at least for me, the last tweet from Deroir, was condescending. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, she's not in PR, she's in Narrative, if she was in PR then it would be her job to one of the public faces of the company, but seeing as she worked in Narrative and not PR, it shouldn't be, not everyone is cutout to do PR work, which is why you have people that specialize in PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears to me that a lot of people want their speech controlled by who they work for when that speech is in a public space...it reminds how we've taken a complete 180 from the original Greeks, those people that had specific corners where someone could stand up and say anything they wanted...do any of you remember that from Greek history, of course it also started to turn away from being completely free public speech during those same times...so we've been doing this to each other for eons now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We don’t want to control speech, we just want people to show some respect to their fellow human beings. > > > > > > > > > > > > This, exactly. I'm all for free speech. People have fought and died in wars for that precious freedom. > > > > > > I'm also all for professional courtesy, responsibility, and self control. > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying that not everyone is cut out for PR work is basically giving an excuse to Price's words. "Well, she's not in PR, so how could she have been expected to behave civilly?" Because she's representing a company. Because her twitter account is not private. Because as a representative of that company, she has a responsibility to act professionally. Because she's a human being and should therefore realize that flying off the handle to a politely dissenting opinion, just because of some *perceived* insult or agenda, is *probably* an overreaction to the extreme. Freedom of speech also means that you take responsibility for your words. Deroir did. Price did not. > > > > > > > > > > But Price wasn't representing the company in that context. And no, her putting that she works for Anet in her bio doesn't mean that. A lot of people, especially in her field do that for networking. She didn't mention Anet once in her tweets. She just wanted to talk about game design. > > > > > > > > > > Now I'm not going to disagree with you that she was uncivil in her response. But to connect it to her career is unfair. Where do you draw the line? How many people here should be fired for the comments they made? > > > > > > > > Yes, she was representing the company. If I work for a coffee shop and I wear a t-shirt with the words "proud employee of [coffee shop]" on it, even though I'm not at work, I'm representing that company and publicly proclaiming the fact that I'm an employee there. Price was publicly proclaiming she was an employee of ArenaNet. She was representing the company. > > > > > > Is this your opinion? Or is there something to back it up? You are basically arguing that people are entirely subservient to their employers. > > > > If said people are: > > > > - talking about work related things > > - have made very clear whom they work for (via clothing for example) > > - have used said work relation to garner credibility > > - to fans of said company > > - have their company in their twitter bio > > - have not set their profile to private > > > > Then yes, they are representing the company even in their free time and on their social media account. > > This is what I'm trying to get at here. Where is the line? I expect us each to have our own opinions about that. But overall, we should consider something that actually works in the real world. Something that protects people from being unfair abused. I don't necessarily mean insults. I mean people being genuinely hurt in such a way that it affects their lives and livelihoods. If you feel those guidelines do that, then that's fine for you. However, I think that's a lot to ask of an employee, who just wants to do the job they love well. It's almost like none of us had a job here... I work in IT too, and I use an alias to express free speech. That's the line. Public figure = don't insult people. Pretty much like IRL actually. And JP has the same problem you're having right now. Everyone is working hard to demonstrate there was absolutely no ill intend in the initial message. Nobody is even denying that yes it might have been uncalled for. But what do you do? You refuse to even considerate the fact there's no ill intent, you refuse to acknowledge it, and instead you double down by pulling the gender card. And just like JP, you won't ever apologize for making a mistake. The problem is while you, as a anonymous user don't have to apologize, she as a public figure, is the first thing she should have done after realizing this specific case wasn't sexist at all, instead of doubling down. Burn out happens, Women do get some snarky comments from time to time and it IS absolutely disgusting, but just like everyone they can also be unfair. So instead of being stubborn and calling all the evils of the world on a mistake, just own that mistake. It's what it takes to be professional and it's something all women and men are subject to. I know I can't prove it now, but trust me if there had been a single sign acknowledging a mistake (not even entering the debate, but just saying "I've had a bad day, sorry if that came out rude") I would have been on your side against all kinds of extreme right you think surround her. The fact is that to this day, she still hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaShi.1368 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Batel.9206" said: > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > Is this your opinion? Or is there something to back it up? You are basically arguing that people are entirely subservient to their employers. > > Oi vey. I'll spell it out, then: I'm arguing that people should have a modicum of common sense and think logically about how their actions may reflect on people other than themselves - i.e., their employers, which eventually circles back around to themselves. ("Hm, if I start spewing f-bombs and calling people rando babycat-hats, I wonder how that may affect my own employment, and perhaps my own self-esteem when I look back at this incident years down the line. Am I going to be proud of what I said because it was worth it? Or am I going to think 'Okay, that really wasn't worth it, and I feel degraded for losing control of myself; I should have responded more maturely'?") > I'm arguing that people should have a bit of self control. And, y'know, be PROFESSIONAL. I'm getting tired of repeating that word like a broken record, but that's what it boils down to. Being a professional employee because you take pride in your job, in your work, in your employers, and in yourself. > That isn't being "subservient" - interesting word choice, by the way, which implies employees are slaves to their employers - that's taking responsibility for what you say. And again, where is the line? How many here were genuinely hurt by what JP said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayward.4792 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > And again, where is the line? How many here were genuinely hurt by what JP said? Exactly zero. But you know. Death, taxes, and the aggrieved persecution complex of gamers. I really hope Mo is ready for how his _other employees_ feel about this mess. And I hope he's ready to listen to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dengar.1785 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > @"Dengar.1785" said: > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Dengar.1785" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tone is difficult to discern, but discern it you must...otherwise all written words would be toneless, and there would be no reason to read or write novels, in which you often have to discern the tone of the author...would be the same in this case, and a lot of use determined that the tone of, at least for me, the last tweet from Deroir, was condescending. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, she's not in PR, she's in Narrative, if she was in PR then it would be her job to one of the public faces of the company, but seeing as she worked in Narrative and not PR, it shouldn't be, not everyone is cutout to do PR work, which is why you have people that specialize in PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears to me that a lot of people want their speech controlled by who they work for when that speech is in a public space...it reminds how we've taken a complete 180 from the original Greeks, those people that had specific corners where someone could stand up and say anything they wanted...do any of you remember that from Greek history, of course it also started to turn away from being completely free public speech during those same times...so we've been doing this to each other for eons now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We don’t want to control speech, we just want people to show some respect to their fellow human beings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This, exactly. I'm all for free speech. People have fought and died in wars for that precious freedom. > > > > > > > > I'm also all for professional courtesy, responsibility, and self control. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying that not everyone is cut out for PR work is basically giving an excuse to Price's words. "Well, she's not in PR, so how could she have been expected to behave civilly?" Because she's representing a company. Because her twitter account is not private. Because as a representative of that company, she has a responsibility to act professionally. Because she's a human being and should therefore realize that flying off the handle to a politely dissenting opinion, just because of some *perceived* insult or agenda, is *probably* an overreaction to the extreme. Freedom of speech also means that you take responsibility for your words. Deroir did. Price did not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Price wasn't representing the company in that context. And no, her putting that she works for Anet in her bio doesn't mean that. A lot of people, especially in her field do that for networking. She didn't mention Anet once in her tweets. She just wanted to talk about game design. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I'm not going to disagree with you that she was uncivil in her response. But to connect it to her career is unfair. Where do you draw the line? How many people here should be fired for the comments they made? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, she was representing the company. If I work for a coffee shop and I wear a t-shirt with the words "proud employee of [coffee shop]" on it, even though I'm not at work, I'm representing that company and publicly proclaiming the fact that I'm an employee there. Price was publicly proclaiming she was an employee of ArenaNet. She was representing the company. > > > > > > > > > > Is this your opinion? Or is there something to back it up? You are basically arguing that people are entirely subservient to their employers. > > > > > > > > If said people are: > > > > > > > > - talking about work related things > > > > - have made very clear whom they work for (via clothing for example) > > > > - have used said work relation to garner credibility > > > > - to fans of said company > > > > - have their company in their twitter bio > > > > - have not set their profile to private > > > > > > > > Then yes, they are representing the company even in their free time and on their social media account. > > > > > > This is what I'm trying to get at here. Where is the line? I expect us each to have our own opinions about that. But overall, we should consider something that actually works in the real world. Something that protects people from being unfair abused. I don't necessarily mean insults. I mean people being genuinely hurt in such a way that it affects their lives and livelihoods. If you feel those guidelines do that, then that's fine for you. However, I think that's a lot to ask of an employee, who just wants to do the job they love well. > > > > It’s actually really simple. > > > > **Dont’t be a kitten to people.** > > > > Why do people not get this? > > So everyone in this thread who was rude or kitten to people should be fired? Some of them may use their products and services. “That is a strawman” ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaShi.1368 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Deihnyx.6318" said: > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > > @"Dengar.1785" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tone is difficult to discern, but discern it you must...otherwise all written words would be toneless, and there would be no reason to read or write novels, in which you often have to discern the tone of the author...would be the same in this case, and a lot of use determined that the tone of, at least for me, the last tweet from Deroir, was condescending. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, she's not in PR, she's in Narrative, if she was in PR then it would be her job to one of the public faces of the company, but seeing as she worked in Narrative and not PR, it shouldn't be, not everyone is cutout to do PR work, which is why you have people that specialize in PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears to me that a lot of people want their speech controlled by who they work for when that speech is in a public space...it reminds how we've taken a complete 180 from the original Greeks, those people that had specific corners where someone could stand up and say anything they wanted...do any of you remember that from Greek history, of course it also started to turn away from being completely free public speech during those same times...so we've been doing this to each other for eons now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We don’t want to control speech, we just want people to show some respect to their fellow human beings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This, exactly. I'm all for free speech. People have fought and died in wars for that precious freedom. > > > > > > > I'm also all for professional courtesy, responsibility, and self control. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying that not everyone is cut out for PR work is basically giving an excuse to Price's words. "Well, she's not in PR, so how could she have been expected to behave civilly?" Because she's representing a company. Because her twitter account is not private. Because as a representative of that company, she has a responsibility to act professionally. Because she's a human being and should therefore realize that flying off the handle to a politely dissenting opinion, just because of some *perceived* insult or agenda, is *probably* an overreaction to the extreme. Freedom of speech also means that you take responsibility for your words. Deroir did. Price did not. > > > > > > > > > > > > But Price wasn't representing the company in that context. And no, her putting that she works for Anet in her bio doesn't mean that. A lot of people, especially in her field do that for networking. She didn't mention Anet once in her tweets. She just wanted to talk about game design. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I'm not going to disagree with you that she was uncivil in her response. But to connect it to her career is unfair. Where do you draw the line? How many people here should be fired for the comments they made? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, she was representing the company. If I work for a coffee shop and I wear a t-shirt with the words "proud employee of [coffee shop]" on it, even though I'm not at work, I'm representing that company and publicly proclaiming the fact that I'm an employee there. Price was publicly proclaiming she was an employee of ArenaNet. She was representing the company. > > > > > > > > Is this your opinion? Or is there something to back it up? You are basically arguing that people are entirely subservient to their employers. > > > > > > If said people are: > > > > > > - talking about work related things > > > - have made very clear whom they work for (via clothing for example) > > > - have used said work relation to garner credibility > > > - to fans of said company > > > - have their company in their twitter bio > > > - have not set their profile to private > > > > > > Then yes, they are representing the company even in their free time and on their social media account. > > > > This is what I'm trying to get at here. Where is the line? I expect us each to have our own opinions about that. But overall, we should consider something that actually works in the real world. Something that protects people from being unfair abused. I don't necessarily mean insults. I mean people being genuinely hurt in such a way that it affects their lives and livelihoods. If you feel those guidelines do that, then that's fine for you. However, I think that's a lot to ask of an employee, who just wants to do the job they love well. > > It's almost like none of us had a job here... > I work in IT too, and I use an alias to express free speech. That's the line. Public figure = don't insult people. Pretty much like IRL actually. > > And JP has the same problem you're having right now. Everyone is working hard to demonstrate there was absolutely no ill intend in the initial message. Nobody is even denying that yes it might have been uncalled for. But what do you do? You refuse to even considerate the fact there's no ill intent, you refuse to acknowledge it, and instead you double down by pulling the gender card. > And just like JP, you won't ever apologize for making a mistake. > > The problem is while you, as a anonymous user don't have to apologize, she as a public figure, is the first thing she should have done after realizing this specific case wasn't sexist at all, instead of doubling down. > Burn out happens, Women do get some snarky comments from time to time and it IS absolutely disgusting, but just like everyone they can also be unfair. So instead of being stubborn and calling all the evils of the world on a mistake, just own that mistake. It's what it takes to be professional and it's something all women and men are subject to. > > I know I can't prove it now, but trust me if there had been a single sign acknowledging a mistake (not even entering the debate, but just saying "I've had a bad day, sorry if that came out rude" I would have been on your side against all kinds of extreme right you think surround her. The fact is that to this day, she still hasn't. Again, I've already stated that I don't believe that Deroir intended to offend Jessica. Not sure why you are so hung up on me. I'm just trying to explain what I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexZero.7910 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"DaShi.1368" said: > Again, I've already stated that I don't believe that Deroir intended to offend Jessica. Not sure why you are so hung up on me. I'm just trying to explain what I believe. Because what you're saying is illogical. You claim he meant no offense here, but in several other post you go on to say he was condescending. That is an oxymoron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrolan.9608 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Ultimaistanza.4793" said: > But she was representing the company and did mention a fair few times she was a dev for ANet. One of the more noteworthy times was when she said she wasn't "on the clock" and didn't need to "pretend" she "liked" any of the people commenting. Flat out implying that the devs are always lying and putting on a positive face when talking with the community is really direct form of representation that broadcasts the company as a whole in a really bad light, even if she wants write it off and say they aren't on the clock. I really don't see how that is surprising especially given anet forces creatives into doing customer facing duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scud.5067 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > @"Dengar.1785" said: > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Dengar.1785" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tone is difficult to discern, but discern it you must...otherwise all written words would be toneless, and there would be no reason to read or write novels, in which you often have to discern the tone of the author...would be the same in this case, and a lot of use determined that the tone of, at least for me, the last tweet from Deroir, was condescending. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, she's not in PR, she's in Narrative, if she was in PR then it would be her job to one of the public faces of the company, but seeing as she worked in Narrative and not PR, it shouldn't be, not everyone is cutout to do PR work, which is why you have people that specialize in PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears to me that a lot of people want their speech controlled by who they work for when that speech is in a public space...it reminds how we've taken a complete 180 from the original Greeks, those people that had specific corners where someone could stand up and say anything they wanted...do any of you remember that from Greek history, of course it also started to turn away from being completely free public speech during those same times...so we've been doing this to each other for eons now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We don’t want to control speech, we just want people to show some respect to their fellow human beings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This, exactly. I'm all for free speech. People have fought and died in wars for that precious freedom. > > > > > > > > I'm also all for professional courtesy, responsibility, and self control. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying that not everyone is cut out for PR work is basically giving an excuse to Price's words. "Well, she's not in PR, so how could she have been expected to behave civilly?" Because she's representing a company. Because her twitter account is not private. Because as a representative of that company, she has a responsibility to act professionally. Because she's a human being and should therefore realize that flying off the handle to a politely dissenting opinion, just because of some *perceived* insult or agenda, is *probably* an overreaction to the extreme. Freedom of speech also means that you take responsibility for your words. Deroir did. Price did not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Price wasn't representing the company in that context. And no, her putting that she works for Anet in her bio doesn't mean that. A lot of people, especially in her field do that for networking. She didn't mention Anet once in her tweets. She just wanted to talk about game design. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I'm not going to disagree with you that she was uncivil in her response. But to connect it to her career is unfair. Where do you draw the line? How many people here should be fired for the comments they made? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, she was representing the company. If I work for a coffee shop and I wear a t-shirt with the words "proud employee of [coffee shop]" on it, even though I'm not at work, I'm representing that company and publicly proclaiming the fact that I'm an employee there. Price was publicly proclaiming she was an employee of ArenaNet. She was representing the company. > > > > > > > > > > Is this your opinion? Or is there something to back it up? You are basically arguing that people are entirely subservient to their employers. > > > > > > > > If said people are: > > > > > > > > - talking about work related things > > > > - have made very clear whom they work for (via clothing for example) > > > > - have used said work relation to garner credibility > > > > - to fans of said company > > > > - have their company in their twitter bio > > > > - have not set their profile to private > > > > > > > > Then yes, they are representing the company even in their free time and on their social media account. > > > > > > This is what I'm trying to get at here. Where is the line? I expect us each to have our own opinions about that. But overall, we should consider something that actually works in the real world. Something that protects people from being unfair abused. I don't necessarily mean insults. I mean people being genuinely hurt in such a way that it affects their lives and livelihoods. If you feel those guidelines do that, then that's fine for you. However, I think that's a lot to ask of an employee, who just wants to do the job they love well. > > > > It’s actually really simple. > > > > **Dont’t be a kitten to people.** > > > > Why do people not get this? > > So everyone in this thread who was rude or kitten to people should be fired? Some of them may use their products and services. I'm fairly sure nobody's wearing name tags or uniforms or name dropping their company while publicly acting like a bully and down right nasty, so I reckon their safe. And even then, they'd need to be foolish enough to attack/insult a critical demographic, one whose support their company relies on for survival. And if they did, yeah, they'd get the boot. I'm an academic, I'm not about to go dropping my university in my drama. If I did name drop my uni, play on its rep, gather attention from association and then thousands of people, including potential students, witnessed my acting like a bully and saying nasty things, you bet I'd get fired. It's bad for business. Not all business, mind - but ones with customers? .. This isn't rocket surgery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deihnyx.6318 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"wayward.4792" said: > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > And again, where is the line? How many here were genuinely hurt by what JP said? > > Exactly zero. But you know. Death, taxes, and the aggrieved persecution complex of gamers. > > I really hope Mo is ready for how his _other employees_ feel about this mess. And I hope he's ready to listen to them. That's not true. Every time a whole subset of the population is insulted based on physical property they can't change, there are people who get offended. Yes, that happens to men too. It's time to stop double standards. And more importantly, if you actually read the whole thread (won't blame you if you don't) you'll read women who got offended as well for the misuse of the feminism card, because it DOES hurt an otherwise important movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaShi.1368 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"TexZero.7910" said: > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > Again, I've already stated that I don't believe that Deroir intended to offend Jessica. Not sure why you are so hung up on me. I'm just trying to explain what I believe. > > Because what you're saying is illogical. > You claim he meant no offense here, but in several other post you go on to say he was condescending. That is an oxymoron. I understand how that seems illogical. He was condescending, but I don't believe he intended it that way. JP clearly saw it that, as did a lot of others. But I believe that Deroir was genuinely shocked that it was taken that way. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just two different perspectives that caused conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayward.4792 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"TexZero.7910" said: > Because what you're saying is illogical. > You claim he meant no offense here, but in several other post you go on to say he was condescending. That is an oxymoron. It's not, it just requires one to understand that "intent" and "impact" are different things. A person can intend no offense and still cause it. This is about as far from an oxymoron as it's possible to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deihnyx.6318 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > @"Deihnyx.6318" said: > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Dengar.1785" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tone is difficult to discern, but discern it you must...otherwise all written words would be toneless, and there would be no reason to read or write novels, in which you often have to discern the tone of the author...would be the same in this case, and a lot of use determined that the tone of, at least for me, the last tweet from Deroir, was condescending. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, she's not in PR, she's in Narrative, if she was in PR then it would be her job to one of the public faces of the company, but seeing as she worked in Narrative and not PR, it shouldn't be, not everyone is cutout to do PR work, which is why you have people that specialize in PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears to me that a lot of people want their speech controlled by who they work for when that speech is in a public space...it reminds how we've taken a complete 180 from the original Greeks, those people that had specific corners where someone could stand up and say anything they wanted...do any of you remember that from Greek history, of course it also started to turn away from being completely free public speech during those same times...so we've been doing this to each other for eons now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We don’t want to control speech, we just want people to show some respect to their fellow human beings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This, exactly. I'm all for free speech. People have fought and died in wars for that precious freedom. > > > > > > > > I'm also all for professional courtesy, responsibility, and self control. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying that not everyone is cut out for PR work is basically giving an excuse to Price's words. "Well, she's not in PR, so how could she have been expected to behave civilly?" Because she's representing a company. Because her twitter account is not private. Because as a representative of that company, she has a responsibility to act professionally. Because she's a human being and should therefore realize that flying off the handle to a politely dissenting opinion, just because of some *perceived* insult or agenda, is *probably* an overreaction to the extreme. Freedom of speech also means that you take responsibility for your words. Deroir did. Price did not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Price wasn't representing the company in that context. And no, her putting that she works for Anet in her bio doesn't mean that. A lot of people, especially in her field do that for networking. She didn't mention Anet once in her tweets. She just wanted to talk about game design. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I'm not going to disagree with you that she was uncivil in her response. But to connect it to her career is unfair. Where do you draw the line? How many people here should be fired for the comments they made? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, she was representing the company. If I work for a coffee shop and I wear a t-shirt with the words "proud employee of [coffee shop]" on it, even though I'm not at work, I'm representing that company and publicly proclaiming the fact that I'm an employee there. Price was publicly proclaiming she was an employee of ArenaNet. She was representing the company. > > > > > > > > > > Is this your opinion? Or is there something to back it up? You are basically arguing that people are entirely subservient to their employers. > > > > > > > > If said people are: > > > > > > > > - talking about work related things > > > > - have made very clear whom they work for (via clothing for example) > > > > - have used said work relation to garner credibility > > > > - to fans of said company > > > > - have their company in their twitter bio > > > > - have not set their profile to private > > > > > > > > Then yes, they are representing the company even in their free time and on their social media account. > > > > > > This is what I'm trying to get at here. Where is the line? I expect us each to have our own opinions about that. But overall, we should consider something that actually works in the real world. Something that protects people from being unfair abused. I don't necessarily mean insults. I mean people being genuinely hurt in such a way that it affects their lives and livelihoods. If you feel those guidelines do that, then that's fine for you. However, I think that's a lot to ask of an employee, who just wants to do the job they love well. > > > > It's almost like none of us had a job here... > > I work in IT too, and I use an alias to express free speech. That's the line. Public figure = don't insult people. Pretty much like IRL actually. > > > > And JP has the same problem you're having right now. Everyone is working hard to demonstrate there was absolutely no ill intend in the initial message. Nobody is even denying that yes it might have been uncalled for. But what do you do? You refuse to even considerate the fact there's no ill intent, you refuse to acknowledge it, and instead you double down by pulling the gender card. > > And just like JP, you won't ever apologize for making a mistake. > > > > The problem is while you, as a anonymous user don't have to apologize, she as a public figure, is the first thing she should have done after realizing this specific case wasn't sexist at all, instead of doubling down. > > Burn out happens, Women do get some snarky comments from time to time and it IS absolutely disgusting, but just like everyone they can also be unfair. So instead of being stubborn and calling all the evils of the world on a mistake, just own that mistake. It's what it takes to be professional and it's something all women and men are subject to. > > > > I know I can't prove it now, but trust me if there had been a single sign acknowledging a mistake (not even entering the debate, but just saying "I've had a bad day, sorry if that came out rude" I would have been on your side against all kinds of extreme right you think surround her. The fact is that to this day, she still hasn't. > > Again, I've already stated that I don't believe that Deroir intended to offend Jessica. Not sure why you are so hung up on me. I'm just trying to explain what I believe. Because you spent quite a few pages sticking on the "mansplain" argument, and calling Deroir condescending? I'm glad if you changed your mind though, debating about what are the limits of social medias is indeed more important than fantasies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayward.4792 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"morrolan.9608" said: > > @"Ultimaistanza.4793" said: > > > But she was representing the company and did mention a fair few times she was a dev for ANet. One of the more noteworthy times was when she said she wasn't "on the clock" and didn't need to "pretend" she "liked" any of the people commenting. Flat out implying that the devs are always lying and putting on a positive face when talking with the community is really direct form of representation that broadcasts the company as a whole in a really bad light, even if she wants write it off and say they aren't on the clock. > > I really don't see how that is surprising especially given anet forces creatives into doing customer facing duties. > > Winner! This comes back to how ArenaNet is not, in fact, a highly coveted job among game dev folx in the Seattle Metro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furoshiki.6231 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"DaShi.1368" said: > This is what I'm trying to get at here. Where is the line? I think you are way overthinking this. There isn't always a clear line, but in this case it is pretty simple. JP has Anet in her Bio and she was speaking, very intentionally, about Anet as an insider. And doing so very publicly as a follow on to her AMA where she represented the company. There are certainly hypotheticals with gray areas, but this clearly isn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dengar.1785 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > Is this your opinion? Or is there something to back it up? You are basically arguing that people are entirely subservient to their employers. > > > > Oi vey. I'll spell it out, then: I'm arguing that people should have a modicum of common sense and think logically about how their actions may reflect on people other than themselves - i.e., their employers, which eventually circles back around to themselves. ("Hm, if I start spewing f-bombs and calling people rando babycat-hats, I wonder how that may affect my own employment, and perhaps my own self-esteem when I look back at this incident years down the line. Am I going to be proud of what I said because it was worth it? Or am I going to think 'Okay, that really wasn't worth it, and I feel degraded for losing control of myself; I should have responded more maturely'?") > > I'm arguing that people should have a bit of self control. And, y'know, be PROFESSIONAL. I'm getting tired of repeating that word like a broken record, but that's what it boils down to. Being a professional employee because you take pride in your job, in your work, in your employers, and in yourself. > > That isn't being "subservient" - interesting word choice, by the way, which implies employees are slaves to their employers - that's taking responsibility for what you say. > > And again, where is the line? How many here were genuinely hurt by what JP said? That’s a loaded question. There are a lot of nuances being ignored here. Lets see, there are the people who were probably offended on behalf of Deroir, who did not deserve to be abused like that. The same goes for that other community member whose name I forgot. Then there were probably also the people who were deeply offended by her complete dismissal of people simply because they had a penis. Then there is the fact that she writes the story in a game people play, and people may wonder how much her hatred of men may be reflected in current and future writing... There is also the fact that she seems to hate consumer feedback, which is entirely counter to Anet’s philosophy. There’s probably more, but these things alone are enough to assume that JP’s actions may have resulted in people leaving the game. And people leaving the game often leads to *more* people leaving the game. Considering all this, explain to me how she is *not* a liability to the company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaShi.1368 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Deihnyx.6318" said: > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > @"Deihnyx.6318" said: > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Dengar.1785" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tone is difficult to discern, but discern it you must...otherwise all written words would be toneless, and there would be no reason to read or write novels, in which you often have to discern the tone of the author...would be the same in this case, and a lot of use determined that the tone of, at least for me, the last tweet from Deroir, was condescending. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, she's not in PR, she's in Narrative, if she was in PR then it would be her job to one of the public faces of the company, but seeing as she worked in Narrative and not PR, it shouldn't be, not everyone is cutout to do PR work, which is why you have people that specialize in PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears to me that a lot of people want their speech controlled by who they work for when that speech is in a public space...it reminds how we've taken a complete 180 from the original Greeks, those people that had specific corners where someone could stand up and say anything they wanted...do any of you remember that from Greek history, of course it also started to turn away from being completely free public speech during those same times...so we've been doing this to each other for eons now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We don’t want to control speech, we just want people to show some respect to their fellow human beings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This, exactly. I'm all for free speech. People have fought and died in wars for that precious freedom. > > > > > > > > > I'm also all for professional courtesy, responsibility, and self control. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying that not everyone is cut out for PR work is basically giving an excuse to Price's words. "Well, she's not in PR, so how could she have been expected to behave civilly?" Because she's representing a company. Because her twitter account is not private. Because as a representative of that company, she has a responsibility to act professionally. Because she's a human being and should therefore realize that flying off the handle to a politely dissenting opinion, just because of some *perceived* insult or agenda, is *probably* an overreaction to the extreme. Freedom of speech also means that you take responsibility for your words. Deroir did. Price did not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Price wasn't representing the company in that context. And no, her putting that she works for Anet in her bio doesn't mean that. A lot of people, especially in her field do that for networking. She didn't mention Anet once in her tweets. She just wanted to talk about game design. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I'm not going to disagree with you that she was uncivil in her response. But to connect it to her career is unfair. Where do you draw the line? How many people here should be fired for the comments they made? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, she was representing the company. If I work for a coffee shop and I wear a t-shirt with the words "proud employee of [coffee shop]" on it, even though I'm not at work, I'm representing that company and publicly proclaiming the fact that I'm an employee there. Price was publicly proclaiming she was an employee of ArenaNet. She was representing the company. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this your opinion? Or is there something to back it up? You are basically arguing that people are entirely subservient to their employers. > > > > > > > > > > If said people are: > > > > > > > > > > - talking about work related things > > > > > - have made very clear whom they work for (via clothing for example) > > > > > - have used said work relation to garner credibility > > > > > - to fans of said company > > > > > - have their company in their twitter bio > > > > > - have not set their profile to private > > > > > > > > > > Then yes, they are representing the company even in their free time and on their social media account. > > > > > > > > This is what I'm trying to get at here. Where is the line? I expect us each to have our own opinions about that. But overall, we should consider something that actually works in the real world. Something that protects people from being unfair abused. I don't necessarily mean insults. I mean people being genuinely hurt in such a way that it affects their lives and livelihoods. If you feel those guidelines do that, then that's fine for you. However, I think that's a lot to ask of an employee, who just wants to do the job they love well. > > > > > > It's almost like none of us had a job here... > > > I work in IT too, and I use an alias to express free speech. That's the line. Public figure = don't insult people. Pretty much like IRL actually. > > > > > > And JP has the same problem you're having right now. Everyone is working hard to demonstrate there was absolutely no ill intend in the initial message. Nobody is even denying that yes it might have been uncalled for. But what do you do? You refuse to even considerate the fact there's no ill intent, you refuse to acknowledge it, and instead you double down by pulling the gender card. > > > And just like JP, you won't ever apologize for making a mistake. > > > > > > The problem is while you, as a anonymous user don't have to apologize, she as a public figure, is the first thing she should have done after realizing this specific case wasn't sexist at all, instead of doubling down. > > > Burn out happens, Women do get some snarky comments from time to time and it IS absolutely disgusting, but just like everyone they can also be unfair. So instead of being stubborn and calling all the evils of the world on a mistake, just own that mistake. It's what it takes to be professional and it's something all women and men are subject to. > > > > > > I know I can't prove it now, but trust me if there had been a single sign acknowledging a mistake (not even entering the debate, but just saying "I've had a bad day, sorry if that came out rude" I would have been on your side against all kinds of extreme right you think surround her. The fact is that to this day, she still hasn't. > > > > Again, I've already stated that I don't believe that Deroir intended to offend Jessica. Not sure why you are so hung up on me. I'm just trying to explain what I believe. > > Because you spent quite a few pages sticking on the "mansplain" argument, and calling Deroir condescending? > I'm glad if you changed your mind though, debating about what are the limits of social medias is indeed more important the fantasies. Oh, I still believe he was mansplaining, which is condescending. Again, I just don't believe that he realized he was doing that. JP saw it, and flipped out. It could have easily been resolved by the two of them, but both choose to dig in. JP for going beyond her initial post on it. And Deroir for his "Sorry, not sorry" apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexZero.7910 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > @"TexZero.7910" said: > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > Again, I've already stated that I don't believe that Deroir intended to offend Jessica. Not sure why you are so hung up on me. I'm just trying to explain what I believe. > > > > Because what you're saying is illogical. > > You claim he meant no offense here, but in several other post you go on to say he was condescending. That is an oxymoron. > > I understand how that seems illogical. He was condescending, but I don't believe he intended it that way. JP clearly saw it that, as did a lot of others. But I believe that Deroir was genuinely shocked that it was taken that way. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just two different perspectives that caused conflict. By what definition of the word condescending are you using it ? Because by every scholarly definition of the term that i'm reading nothing i can see meets the standards. This is the problem with your and various others including JP's claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deihnyx.6318 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"wayward.4792" said: > > @"TexZero.7910" said: > > Because what you're saying is illogical. > > You claim he meant no offense here, but in several other post you go on to say he was condescending. That is an oxymoron. > > It's not, it just requires one to understand that "intent" and "impact" are different things. A person can intend no offense and still cause it. This is about as far from an oxymoron as it's possible to get. Yeah, exactly. But the intent should matter more than the initial impact down the line, right? Aka... once you know you've judged someone wrong... you don't make a situation worse. What do you think the impact for anet was to have their fans be called asshats, not pretending to like you here, etc? Why is the reaction of a community so wrong, then? Maybe she meant no offense (bs lol) but still caused it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexZero.7910 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"DaShi.1368" said: > Oh, I still believe he was mansplaining, which is condescending. Again, I just don't believe that he realized he was doing that. JP saw it, and flipped out. It could have easily been resolved by the two of them, but both choose to dig in. JP for going beyond her initial post on it. And Deroir for his "Sorry, not sorry" apology. Wow.... Revisionist history is bad and hurts your cause even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaShi.1368 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"TexZero.7910" said: > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > @"TexZero.7910" said: > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > Again, I've already stated that I don't believe that Deroir intended to offend Jessica. Not sure why you are so hung up on me. I'm just trying to explain what I believe. > > > > > > Because what you're saying is illogical. > > > You claim he meant no offense here, but in several other post you go on to say he was condescending. That is an oxymoron. > > > > I understand how that seems illogical. He was condescending, but I don't believe he intended it that way. JP clearly saw it that, as did a lot of others. But I believe that Deroir was genuinely shocked that it was taken that way. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just two different perspectives that caused conflict. > > By what definition of the word condescending are you using it ? > Because by every scholarly definition of the term that i'm reading nothing i can see meets the standards. > > This is the problem with your and various others including JP's claims. "showing a feeling of patronizing superiority." Intent doesn't necessarily apply. I mentioned much earlier that there are far better ways he could have gotten his point across. In fact, had he, he wouldn't have had to couch it in flattery. "I like what you said but...." is a warning sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzypetal.7936 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Being a curious sort as to what makes people tick so to speak, I did a little research. I read an article recently, that mentioned a term for people that stand by their argument even when confronted with irrefutable facts to the contrary. Can't seem to find it, but I did find this little nugget on Wikipedia: Confirmation bias. If anyone is even remotely interested in the psychology behind what has been going on for the past 53 pages, here is the [link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias "link"). I think we can all agree on one thing - we are not all going to agree on how the entire situation was handled by those directly involved. In the Court of Public Opionion, I'd say we have a hung jury folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaShi.1368 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"TexZero.7910" said: > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > Oh, I still believe he was mansplaining, which is condescending. Again, I just don't believe that he realized he was doing that. JP saw it, and flipped out. It could have easily been resolved by the two of them, but both choose to dig in. JP for going beyond her initial post on it. And Deroir for his "Sorry, not sorry" apology. > > Wow.... > > Revisionist history is bad and hurts your cause even more. How so? And why are you being a jerk now? I was enjoying our conversation and learning a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayward.4792 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"Deihnyx.6318" said: > > @"wayward.4792" said: > > > @"TexZero.7910" said: > > > Because what you're saying is illogical. > > > You claim he meant no offense here, but in several other post you go on to say he was condescending. That is an oxymoron. > > > > It's not, it just requires one to understand that "intent" and "impact" are different things. A person can intend no offense and still cause it. This is about as far from an oxymoron as it's possible to get. > > Yeah, exactly. But the intent should matter more than the initial impact down the line, right? > Aka... once you know you've judged someone wrong... you don't make a situation worse. > > What do you think the impact for anet was to have their fans be called asshats, not pretending to like you here, etc? > Why is the reaction of a community so wrong, then? Maybe she meant no offense (bs lol) but still caused it? I actually don't believe intent matters more than impact, particularly with regard to marginalized people, but getting into kyriarchy 101 with gamers is also extremely low on my list of priorities. There's not many people who will contest that Price probably was out of line. I think her initial reaction was understandable given context, especially considering the sheer volume of harassment she's gotten since literally the day her hiring was announced. And I think she probably should've just walked away from the thread after that. However, summary dismissal from the company over a twitter spat that was - again - routine as hell? Terrible look. A social media policy justifying it is also a terrible social media policy. And something we should be worried about here, if we care about the future of the game, is that it's a terrible look _to employees and prospective employees of ArenaNet_. A company which is already known for having lower pay, higher demands, and a more difficult to deal with CEO than most of its contemporaries around Seattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deihnyx.6318 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > @"Deihnyx.6318" said: > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > @"Deihnyx.6318" said: > > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dengar.1785" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Batel.9206" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tone is difficult to discern, but discern it you must...otherwise all written words would be toneless, and there would be no reason to read or write novels, in which you often have to discern the tone of the author...would be the same in this case, and a lot of use determined that the tone of, at least for me, the last tweet from Deroir, was condescending. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, she's not in PR, she's in Narrative, if she was in PR then it would be her job to one of the public faces of the company, but seeing as she worked in Narrative and not PR, it shouldn't be, not everyone is cutout to do PR work, which is why you have people that specialize in PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears to me that a lot of people want their speech controlled by who they work for when that speech is in a public space...it reminds how we've taken a complete 180 from the original Greeks, those people that had specific corners where someone could stand up and say anything they wanted...do any of you remember that from Greek history, of course it also started to turn away from being completely free public speech during those same times...so we've been doing this to each other for eons now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We don’t want to control speech, we just want people to show some respect to their fellow human beings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This, exactly. I'm all for free speech. People have fought and died in wars for that precious freedom. > > > > > > > > > > I'm also all for professional courtesy, responsibility, and self control. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying that not everyone is cut out for PR work is basically giving an excuse to Price's words. "Well, she's not in PR, so how could she have been expected to behave civilly?" Because she's representing a company. Because her twitter account is not private. Because as a representative of that company, she has a responsibility to act professionally. Because she's a human being and should therefore realize that flying off the handle to a politely dissenting opinion, just because of some *perceived* insult or agenda, is *probably* an overreaction to the extreme. Freedom of speech also means that you take responsibility for your words. Deroir did. Price did not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Price wasn't representing the company in that context. And no, her putting that she works for Anet in her bio doesn't mean that. A lot of people, especially in her field do that for networking. She didn't mention Anet once in her tweets. She just wanted to talk about game design. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I'm not going to disagree with you that she was uncivil in her response. But to connect it to her career is unfair. Where do you draw the line? How many people here should be fired for the comments they made? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, she was representing the company. If I work for a coffee shop and I wear a t-shirt with the words "proud employee of [coffee shop]" on it, even though I'm not at work, I'm representing that company and publicly proclaiming the fact that I'm an employee there. Price was publicly proclaiming she was an employee of ArenaNet. She was representing the company. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this your opinion? Or is there something to back it up? You are basically arguing that people are entirely subservient to their employers. > > > > > > > > > > > > If said people are: > > > > > > > > > > > > - talking about work related things > > > > > > - have made very clear whom they work for (via clothing for example) > > > > > > - have used said work relation to garner credibility > > > > > > - to fans of said company > > > > > > - have their company in their twitter bio > > > > > > - have not set their profile to private > > > > > > > > > > > > Then yes, they are representing the company even in their free time and on their social media account. > > > > > > > > > > This is what I'm trying to get at here. Where is the line? I expect us each to have our own opinions about that. But overall, we should consider something that actually works in the real world. Something that protects people from being unfair abused. I don't necessarily mean insults. I mean people being genuinely hurt in such a way that it affects their lives and livelihoods. If you feel those guidelines do that, then that's fine for you. However, I think that's a lot to ask of an employee, who just wants to do the job they love well. > > > > > > > > It's almost like none of us had a job here... > > > > I work in IT too, and I use an alias to express free speech. That's the line. Public figure = don't insult people. Pretty much like IRL actually. > > > > > > > > And JP has the same problem you're having right now. Everyone is working hard to demonstrate there was absolutely no ill intend in the initial message. Nobody is even denying that yes it might have been uncalled for. But what do you do? You refuse to even considerate the fact there's no ill intent, you refuse to acknowledge it, and instead you double down by pulling the gender card. > > > > And just like JP, you won't ever apologize for making a mistake. > > > > > > > > The problem is while you, as a anonymous user don't have to apologize, she as a public figure, is the first thing she should have done after realizing this specific case wasn't sexist at all, instead of doubling down. > > > > Burn out happens, Women do get some snarky comments from time to time and it IS absolutely disgusting, but just like everyone they can also be unfair. So instead of being stubborn and calling all the evils of the world on a mistake, just own that mistake. It's what it takes to be professional and it's something all women and men are subject to. > > > > > > > > I know I can't prove it now, but trust me if there had been a single sign acknowledging a mistake (not even entering the debate, but just saying "I've had a bad day, sorry if that came out rude" I would have been on your side against all kinds of extreme right you think surround her. The fact is that to this day, she still hasn't. > > > > > > Again, I've already stated that I don't believe that Deroir intended to offend Jessica. Not sure why you are so hung up on me. I'm just trying to explain what I believe. > > > > Because you spent quite a few pages sticking on the "mansplain" argument, and calling Deroir condescending? > > I'm glad if you changed your mind though, debating about what are the limits of social medias is indeed more important the fantasies. > > Oh, I still believe he was mansplaining, which is condescending. Again, I just don't believe that he realized he was doing that. JP saw it, and flipped out. It could have easily been resolved by the two of them, but both choose to dig in. JP for going beyond her initial post on it. And Deroir for his "Sorry, not sorry" apology. You can believe it, it doesn't make it true. You're allowed to be sexist it's not yet illegal. Deroir gave up after his initial response. To me, the "intent" I see is someone disillusioned and shocked by the rude answer of the dev. To you it's sorry not sorry, oh well. Doesn't change the fact that the gender card was pulled after, and the guy stopped before that. You know, if I really wanted to feed this non sense, I could just as well said that literally everything she said after her initial post was womansplaining. Her tone is actually condescending to me, and I'm pretty sure the intent is also to be that way. But yeah, I'd rather believe that it's that person, not her gender, that makes her condescending. Womansplaining isn't a thing just like his mansplaining is BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Red Arachnid.2493 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 > @"wayward.4792" said: > > @"DaShi.1368" said: > > > > And again, where is the line? How many here were genuinely hurt by what JP said? > > Exactly zero. But you know. Death, taxes, and the aggrieved persecution complex of gamers. > > I really hope Mo is ready for how his _other employees_ feel about this mess. And I hope he's ready to listen to them. I'm legitimately wondering how many employees are like "Oh thank the lord she's gone." But yeah Deroir was definitely hurt by this, since the accusation of sexism is a sticky stigma that brings trouble and turmoil in the future. It's a bit like being called a witch back in Salem: Either you admit to it and suffer discrimination for untold amounts of time, or deny it and suffer worse consequences. I'm going to paraphrase Ben Shapiro here: "Look, I don't believe that you should go around murdering the homeless. It is just a belief that I have. Now, I'm not homeless. Never been. I don't know any homeless people. I'm not personally involved in the plight of the homeless. I don't have any statistics on the homicide rate of homeless people. Regardless, I still have the stance. If you retreat into identity politics and say 'You can't say anything about the homeless because you aren't one' then there is no morality." Man I wish I could find that video again. Shapiro pbthpbthpbths on endlessly like he's permanently in fast forward. Regardless, the point is this: we are allowed to have ideological stances on issues and act upon them, even if we aren't directly involved ourselves. If you try to break it down into relativity, you run into a paradox. If you say "you shouldn't care because it doesn't affect you personally", then you yourself shouldn't care about me caring because our concerns don't directly address you personally, either. The moral of the story is this: never trust anyone who tells you not to think. 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