GW 2 Devs/Playerbase Twitter Discussion - Page 57 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Guild Wars 2 Discussion

GW 2 Devs/Playerbase Twitter Discussion

1545557596062

Comments

  • Manasa Devi.7958Manasa Devi.7958 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @Edge.4180 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:
    I'm going to say this again, and I'll keep repeating it. It's high time we learn to separate the professional life from the personal life(and I DO NOT care if you list your employer on your personal social media, it's still your personal social media), across the board. Answer me this, why is it so hard for the majority of people to understand that employees are only representing their employer when on the clock and getting paid? I don't know about most people, but I do not bring my job home with me, once I clock out, that's it, it's out of mind, but then the majority of people can't turn their brains on and off like that either, so I guess I answered my own question.

    I don't understand how you can't see the obvious flaws in this thinking. If you, for example, work for a company and then (from your social media account where you choose to actively advertise your employment at said company) decide you're going to speak ill of that company and/or its customers.. I just don't understand how you expect there to be no repercussions to those actions.. particularly in the land of at-will employment.

    And I'm not talking about whistleblowing, I'm just referring to examples of smack-talk and generally just being an awful jerk. Yes, you can go onto your social media account and post "LOL at the idiotic people who are stupid enough to waste money eating at the restaurant I work at, home of the worst tasting, most overpriced food in history", but you are kidding yourself if you think your manager isn't going to want to have words with you on your next shift.

    Your expectation of some sort of magical separation and protections between the various worlds in your life is just bizarre.

    Let's take it a step further: if I could be completely free of consequences for what I say on personal public social media, I could take money from a competitor to badmouth my employer constantly and viciously, and my employer could only grin and bear it.

    I know this is an exaggeration, but it does prove that you have to draw a line somewhere. And what makes more sense than to draw the line where the actual hurting of an employer starts?

    Actually you couldn't, at least not in most states in the U.S....taking money from a competitor for any reason can falls under the business espionage act, or any number of laws that deal with slander and libel if the badmouthing isn't true...your argument is null and void. You draw the line at common sense and realize that the vast majority of people on their own time are not going to be talking about their employer/employment with complete strangers, let alone friends.

    Yeah, you're right. Crime doesn't exist. No one ever does anything not allowed by law.

    If a seven figure income executive wanting to get a leg up would pay me good money out of pocket to badmouth someone he doesn't like in your utopia where everyone can say anything in public social media, who would be the wiser?

    Or if you insist, let's remove the competitor angle. Suppose someone working for you has a serious bone to pick with you and you can't sanction him for his personal public social media activities. Suppose this someone is creating outrage of a magnitude like what we're looking at here and now, on a weekly basis? Suppose you can't get rid of this person because he never sets a foot wrong during working hours?

    Let's dial it back toward the more realistic. Suppose someone does this once in a while, and with a lot less impact. Still a problem for an employer, even if only because of the strained workplace relations this will result it. But hey, freedom! Boss's problem, right? Be real.

    Drawing the line at common sense is nonsense. Common sense doesn't exist as a quantifiable entity. You draw a line at something specific, not at something that means something different for everyone.

  • NoiseRen.2403NoiseRen.2403 Member ✭✭✭

    @dieselsandwich.7820 said:
    This is incredibly disappointing that two devs who've done such good work were sacrificed to the twitter mob when the most that would've been justified would've been a talking to about swearing about the userbase after a conversation on the game itself. Ugh, just ugh.

    But they weren't. Mike took action first thing in the morning after holidays. Reddit rage had absolutely nothing to do with that.

  • morrolan.9608morrolan.9608 Member ✭✭✭

    @The Knight of Hope.8023 said:
    We're 71 pages in and there are still people here trying to make this about their victimhood ideology, rather than about common decency and professionalism. This is why we can't have nice things anymore.

    I dunno I think having protections in place for your employment is common decency and firing someone based on emotion is not professionalism.

  • Dreadshow.9320Dreadshow.9320 Member ✭✭✭

    @Harper.4173 said:

    @Dreadshow.9320 said:

    @Harper.4173 said:

    @Dreadshow.9320 said:

    @Harper.4173 said:

    @RoseofGilead.8907 said:

    @Harper.4173 said:
    And that's where people are wrong. Those titles might have meant something remotely positive maybe 20 or 30 years ago. Today as far as I see it they're a massive red flag. And by that I mean that statistically speaking - you have very good odds of finding someone who's completely unreasonable label themselves as such. Better odds than finding a decent human being.
    Maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm biased but as far as I've seen it - it seems to be the case. I guess all the normal people are more quiet and don't need to make everything into their personal crusade?

    Yes, that does sound biased.

    My bias keeps me nice and safe.
    Bias and stereotype are defensive mechanisms - people have them in order to avoid things that are unpleasant.
    I don't really understand why they're seen as bad - when most of the times they are going to keep you safe.

    I really don't understand the hate on stereotypes given the alternative is one monotype. And if Roger Watters and Pink Floyd thought us anything is that we don't want one monotype.

    It's not about hating people for being different - it's about recognizing that people who are different in certain ways are more likely to behave in some way or another. Using this you can predict their possible behavior easily at a glance and save yourself a lot of trouble and unpleasant interaction. It might not be something that's relevant in your part of the world but it certainly is where I'm from.
    I'd look forward to seeing "unprejudiced" people having a good time with some of the people around where I live.

    Also I don't know how some entertainers are of any relevance when it comes to figuring out what is good and what isn't. I do hope you don't live your life following the advice of such individuals, seeing how every month or so we find out the absolute wrecked state of the lives they live through some suicide, overdose or other unfortunate event.

    All I'm saying is if we did not have Stereotypes we would all be the same droning about doing the exact samething their would be only one type of humans... The movie 1984 comes to mind. That world would be horrible to live in if you ask me.

    I think you've missed my point entirely.

    I think you missed mine first.

  • Sojar.1495Sojar.1495 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 13, 2018

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

    @Sojar.1495 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

    @Sojar.1495 said:
    My views on this are two-part; I am concerned they were terminated for this, but at the same time, I am also a bit appalled they didn't have the sense to understand a Twitter account, even if personal, linked to their workplace, can have dramatic effect, and does, by defacto, represent the company they work for.

    My Twitter account is not tied to my name, it is not recognizable as being "me," but it does represent my views and my personal opinions, all without referencing, AT ANY TIME, the company I work for (which I have learned, after many years, isn't a good idea).

    I cannot even fathom the idea of referencing my company in my social media, as sometimes, I post things that would definitely result in customer loss, angering a very large community of gamers, etc. The idea that you're not posting on an official "company" account, and yet, work for that company, and it not reflecting upon the company you are directly associated with, is absurd.

    Termination, however, seems excessive, especially given that ArenaNet's online etiquette policy/social media policy was severely out of date. This reflects poorly on the management of ANET; this is 2018, and their policy was from 2011. That is a sad, sad state of affairs for a company that is regularly involved in online interactions with the community base.

    This also speaks to the player base as a whole; those employees have lost their livelihood, as a result of comments made toward people on a social media platform. There were real-world consequences of their actions, but when players come on the forums to badmouth the developers, they don't even get banned in the game, only from the forums (and that doesn't even always happen). That's very two-faced of our community to be pleased that these employees were terminated from their earning potential, and now have to deal with the fallout that comes with that (ie, unemployment ineligibility, lack of income, managing their family expenses and households, getting a new career in an industry that may see them as risks, etc).

    Lastly, Mike O'Brien should NOT have posted publicly about the actions. HR decisions by a company are internal, and it was NO ONE'S business about the employment status. If he truly wanted to respond, he should have simply posted "Appropriate actions have been taken, and further discussion would be inappropriate."

    You (read: the player base), are not privy to ANET's internal hiring and firing, and you should have zero expectation to be. Personally, those employees should seek legal counsel about their options against ANET for public defamation and revealing of private human resources information in a 100% public space. That point is the single most unacceptable part of how Mike O'Brien has acted in this: he has ZERO right to post that PRIVATE information to a player base which has ZERO RIGHT to know about that, and the idea that you (read: player base), had the expectation of your right to that information is shameful.

    As to their actions: Yes, their response was definitely inappropriate.

    Both sides are to blame in this, and this was just poor form on both party's behalfs, but most of all, the distasteful behavior and absurd expectations of the Guild Wars 2 player base are appalling. ANET's internal issues are none of your business. You have absolutely no right to the information given, and Mike O'Brien had zero right to post it to appease you (the player base). Check yourselves the next time you think that you are privileged to private information that has zero consequence on your life. Absolutely repulsive and toxic behavior and mindsets, in my opinion.

    One thing, MO never stated any names or what actions were taken, all he had stated is that two individuals no longer work for Arena Net, the only person that is blasting any information about this whole debacle is to the public domain is JP.

    It's still an internal, HR issue. The community had zero right to know. And it's obvious what he was referencing. I guess Mr. O'Brien has posted in the past when ANET employees have been terminated for being tardy to work too many times, or when they've been terminated for bad work ethic, or when they've been terminated for creating a negative work enviornment, or when they've been terminated for... You get the point.

    Again MO never went into any details on the matter, show me where he says that they were terminated, or where he puts their name on blast for the incident, or makes any false claims on the matter. So where’s the defamation?

    There are precedents all over of companies handling situations similar to this and handling them in a similar manner, and they were upheld by courts.

    Also here’s what’s needed for a defamation case:

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

    Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

    Either way, it's just not professional. The issue was internal to ANET, and the community shouldn't have an expectation to be told, just as ANET (Mo) shouldn't have the notion that they are in ANY WAY obligated to reveal a shred of internal, HR centric decision making.

    That's my point.

    @Edge.4180 said:
    There is nothing unusual about a company announcing that it is cutting ties in some fashion with a particular employee. It happens all the time, in much more public forums than this (such as national news networks, television, etc.).

    Irrelevant. ANET isn't a national news syndicate, a political organization and it wasn't featured in the media until AFTER the firing. No one cares in reality land about a termination of an employee at one of the 100s of game development firms. Let's not act as if ANET has some clout they don't possess.

  • Soa Cirri.6012Soa Cirri.6012 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 13, 2018

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:
    Yeah, you're right. Crime doesn't exist. No one ever does anything not allowed by law.

    Straw-man

    Let's dial it back toward the more realistic. Suppose someone does this once in a while, and with a lot less impact. Still a problem for an employer, even if only because of the strained workplace relations this will result it. But hey, freedom! Boss's problem, right? Be real.

    Let's use an actual, real world example instead of these hypotheticals. A whistleblower can't report a problem to HR because HR is in bed with management. So they publicly criticize their employer. The revelation puts their own company in a bad light. But by your estimation, there should be strict rules on their public speech which counters the interests of the employer, so they should be fired, right?

    Drawing the line at common sense is nonsense. Common sense doesn't exist as a quantifiable entity. You draw a line at something specific, not at something that means something different for everyone.

    "Common sense" was ANET's internal rule before this debacle. So essentially, they were fired for violating what was, in MO's estimation, "common sense."

  • Sojar.1495Sojar.1495 Member ✭✭✭

    @Soa Cirri.6012 said:
    "Common sense" was ANET's internal rule before this debacle. So essentially, they were fired for violating what was, in MO's estimation, "common sense."

    Common sense isn't "common." It is the role of the business organization to spell out social media policy if they have said presence, or have an expectation.
    What she did was wrong, there is no doubt about that. The question is, did it condone termination? I don't believe so. That's like someone violating a social moray and then lawmakers say "Well, we don't have a law that actually specifies this is illegal... but... death penalty sounds good!"

    Removing someone's livelihood over something is basic is an overreaction. She should have been punished, appropriately. The termination wasn't appropriate... that career is how she supports herself, her family, and her basic livelihood. That's a very critical thing to take away from someone for behavior, which while rude and unbecoming, wasn't earth-shattering.

    Maybe the fans should grow some skin... I'd say get some thicker skin, but the reaction leads me to believe that they had zero skin to begin with. This reactive society we live in is absurd, but that's another discussion I suppose.

  • BlaqueFyre.5678BlaqueFyre.5678 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sojar.1495 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

    @Sojar.1495 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

    @Sojar.1495 said:
    My views on this are two-part; I am concerned they were terminated for this, but at the same time, I am also a bit appalled they didn't have the sense to understand a Twitter account, even if personal, linked to their workplace, can have dramatic effect, and does, by defacto, represent the company they work for.

    My Twitter account is not tied to my name, it is not recognizable as being "me," but it does represent my views and my personal opinions, all without referencing, AT ANY TIME, the company I work for (which I have learned, after many years, isn't a good idea).

    I cannot even fathom the idea of referencing my company in my social media, as sometimes, I post things that would definitely result in customer loss, angering a very large community of gamers, etc. The idea that you're not posting on an official "company" account, and yet, work for that company, and it not reflecting upon the company you are directly associated with, is absurd.

    Termination, however, seems excessive, especially given that ArenaNet's online etiquette policy/social media policy was severely out of date. This reflects poorly on the management of ANET; this is 2018, and their policy was from 2011. That is a sad, sad state of affairs for a company that is regularly involved in online interactions with the community base.

    This also speaks to the player base as a whole; those employees have lost their livelihood, as a result of comments made toward people on a social media platform. There were real-world consequences of their actions, but when players come on the forums to badmouth the developers, they don't even get banned in the game, only from the forums (and that doesn't even always happen). That's very two-faced of our community to be pleased that these employees were terminated from their earning potential, and now have to deal with the fallout that comes with that (ie, unemployment ineligibility, lack of income, managing their family expenses and households, getting a new career in an industry that may see them as risks, etc).

    Lastly, Mike O'Brien should NOT have posted publicly about the actions. HR decisions by a company are internal, and it was NO ONE'S business about the employment status. If he truly wanted to respond, he should have simply posted "Appropriate actions have been taken, and further discussion would be inappropriate."

    You (read: the player base), are not privy to ANET's internal hiring and firing, and you should have zero expectation to be. Personally, those employees should seek legal counsel about their options against ANET for public defamation and revealing of private human resources information in a 100% public space. That point is the single most unacceptable part of how Mike O'Brien has acted in this: he has ZERO right to post that PRIVATE information to a player base which has ZERO RIGHT to know about that, and the idea that you (read: player base), had the expectation of your right to that information is shameful.

    As to their actions: Yes, their response was definitely inappropriate.

    Both sides are to blame in this, and this was just poor form on both party's behalfs, but most of all, the distasteful behavior and absurd expectations of the Guild Wars 2 player base are appalling. ANET's internal issues are none of your business. You have absolutely no right to the information given, and Mike O'Brien had zero right to post it to appease you (the player base). Check yourselves the next time you think that you are privileged to private information that has zero consequence on your life. Absolutely repulsive and toxic behavior and mindsets, in my opinion.

    One thing, MO never stated any names or what actions were taken, all he had stated is that two individuals no longer work for Arena Net, the only person that is blasting any information about this whole debacle is to the public domain is JP.

    It's still an internal, HR issue. The community had zero right to know. And it's obvious what he was referencing. I guess Mr. O'Brien has posted in the past when ANET employees have been terminated for being tardy to work too many times, or when they've been terminated for bad work ethic, or when they've been terminated for creating a negative work enviornment, or when they've been terminated for... You get the point.

    Again MO never went into any details on the matter, show me where he says that they were terminated, or where he puts their name on blast for the incident, or makes any false claims on the matter. So where’s the defamation?

    There are precedents all over of companies handling situations similar to this and handling them in a similar manner, and they were upheld by courts.

    Also here’s what’s needed for a defamation case:

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

    Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

    Either way, it's just not professional. The issue was internal to ANET, and the community shouldn't have an expectation to be told, just as ANET (Mo) shouldn't have the notion that they are in ANY WAY obligated to reveal a shred of internal, HR centric decision making.

    That's my point.

    Anet/MO did not do anything wrong, they did not disclose any privileged information on the matter, and it is common business practice when dealing with big PR incidents such as this for the company to disclose the outcome of the situation. Anet/MO were well within their rights as a company to disclose the extremely small amount of information that they did and it isn’t unprofessional, that is just your opinion on the matter.

  • Sojar.1495Sojar.1495 Member ✭✭✭

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

    Anet/MO did not do anything wrong, they did not disclose any privileged information on the matter, and it is common business practice when dealing with big PR incidents such as this for the company to disclose the outcome of the situation. Anet/MO were well within their rights as a company to disclose the extremely small amount of information that they did and it isn’t unprofessional, that is just your opinion on the matter.

    You're right, it is most certainly my opinion. The company I work for would NEVER do anything like this. Our PR department would simply say, if absolutely needed, "This has been dealt with according to our internal policy. No further comment."

    If people don't like that, too bad. It's none of their business.

  • Soa Cirri.6012Soa Cirri.6012 Member ✭✭✭

    @Sojar.1495 said:
    Snip

    We have no quarrel; that's exactly the point I was making. And for the most part, I agree with the rest of your sentiment.

  • Manasa Devi.7958Manasa Devi.7958 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 13, 2018

    @Soa Cirri.6012 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:
    Yeah, you're right. Crime doesn't exist. No one ever does anything not allowed by law.

    Straw-man

    Let's dial it back toward the more realistic. Suppose someone does this once in a while, and with a lot less impact. Still a problem for an employer, even if only because of the strained workplace relations this will result it. But hey, freedom! Boss's problem, right? Be real.

    Let's use an actual, real world example instead of these hypotheticals. A whistleblower can't report a problem to HR because HR is in bed with management. So they publicly criticize their employer. The revelation puts their own company in a bad light. But by your estimation, there should be strict rules on their public speech which counters the interests of the employer, so they should be fired, right?

    Why would you assume rules can't accommodate a diversity of situations? Like all the various ways the actions that result in someone's death? Murder 1 all the way down to justifiable homicide with all the flavors inbetween.

    Drawing the line at common sense is nonsense. Common sense doesn't exist as a quantifiable entity. You draw a line at something specific, not at something that means something different for everyone.

    "Common sense" was ANET's internal rule before this debacle. So essentially, they were fired for violating what was, in MO's estimation, "common sense."

    If you say so, I have no knowledge about ANet's internal workings. But if that is true, you're proving my point here that common sense isn't working. If ANet's decision was based on common sense, and Zaklex wants to draw the line at common sense but disagrees with the firings, what use is common sense as a criterion?

  • Soa Cirri.6012Soa Cirri.6012 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 13, 2018

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:
    Why would you assume rules can't accommodate a diversity of situations? Like all the various ways the actions that result in someone's death? Murder 1 all the way down to justifiable homicide with all the flavors inbetween.

    I don't assume that, and I never said that. However, the only rule that anyone has stipulated and enumerated is that it is fireable to speak against your employer's interests. I'm pointing out how that can be abused. If you wish to defend that rule, you'll need to give a a more nuanced explanation, but it will require defining things more carefully.

  • IndigoSundown.5419IndigoSundown.5419 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @morrolan.9608 said:

    @The Knight of Hope.8023 said:
    We're 71 pages in and there are still people here trying to make this about their victimhood ideology, rather than about common decency and professionalism. This is why we can't have nice things anymore.

    I dunno I think having protections in place for your employment is common decency and firing someone based on emotion is not professionalism.

    So is drawing conclusions based on the information presented by one side in the issue common decency?

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana

  • BlaqueFyre.5678BlaqueFyre.5678 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @Soa Cirri.6012 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:
    Why would you assume rules can't accommodate a diversity of situations? Like all the various ways the actions that result in someone's death? Murder 1 all the way down to justifiable homicide with all the flavors inbetween.

    I don't assume that, and I never said that. However, the only rule that anyone has stipulated and enumerated is that it is fireable to speak against your employer's interests. I'm pointing out how that can be abused. If you wish to defend that rule, you'll need to give a a more nuanced explanation, but it will require defining things more carefully.

    It’s actually quite common for employers to seek adverse action, to include termination against employees that post inflammatory remarks/comments while affiliating/representing that employer that reflect badly upon the employer, especially when the employers don’t condone such behavior and more so when that behavior is directed at partners/associates/customer/client base of the employer.

    Recently in the MSM similar situations have happened of employees/high ranking officials of companies making inflammatory remarks on social media/other outlet sources, and being terminated/forced to resign because of their actions.

    And we don’t know the full information of what led to the two employees end of employment from Anet’s side and what other options could have been offered/explored before the final outcome.

    Edited for clarity.

  • @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    It’s actually quite common for employers to seek adverse action, to include termination against employees that post inflammatory remarks/comments while affiliating/representing that employer that reflect badly upon the employer, especially when the employers don’t condone such behavior and more so when that behavior is directed at partners/associates/customer/client base of the employer.

    Correct.

  • Soa Cirri.6012Soa Cirri.6012 Member ✭✭✭

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    It’s actually quite common for employers

    If you want to use the "everyone does it so it must be okay" argument be my guest, but there's a laundry list of despicable employment practices which are also totally common.

    Frequency is not a justification in and of itself.

  • Deihnyx.6318Deihnyx.6318 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Well in this day and age every time there's a confrontation people will just lie and twist facts to match their narrative anyway. That's just another example.
    Had it been the other way around, you'd have seen people say oh so it's totally ok for employees to insult their customers now??

    Twitter and social medias are toxic.

  • The one thing the knights of victimhood here seem not to understand is that there is a difference between being vile and libelous in public and being vile and libelous in public towards the customers of a company you are known to represent.

    For a group of people whose basic values include banning by law speech they find revolting, they sure are keen on demanding a company keep someone who says revolting things in public on their payroll. It's almost like this is about taking sides rather than principles.

  • Soa Cirri.6012Soa Cirri.6012 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Anet was well within their rights legally

    Sure, assuming they're subject to "right-to-work"

    and ethically in this situation

    That is the matter that is debatable. You can assert that it was ethical, but that does not make it so, and from what I've seen, the arguments for it being ethical (not yours, taking a comb through the whole thread) boil down to:

    "It was legal"

    Legal =/= ethical. Slavery used to be legal. Sex and race discrimination used to be legal. 'Nuff said.

    "it potentially hurts ANET's profit margin"

    A chemical company can often maximize profits by cutting down on safety measures and exporting the consequences of their waste to someone else. Sure, they make more money, but that doesn't make it an ethical justification.

    "It's bad PR"

    Sure. But a bunch of people are disappointed with the firing, so it's bad PR either way. And I can't imagine worse PR than what ANET is getting now, tbh.

    "The customer is always right"

    Please. The customer who was actually a clear-cut victim here never asked for JP to be fired, let alone PF, and outside of game staff appears to be the least happy with the result. None of the white knights rushing to the rescue and clamoring for the firing seem to care what Deroir wanted.

    "A customer should never be insulted"

    Okay, how do we define what is insulting? Does intent matter, or does the insulted party's feelings matter more? Careful how you answer, or you may find yourself agreeing with JP herself more than you realize.

    "Feminist agenda=bad"

    Okay. So should we fire everyone who holds a political position we don't like and says anything in a tone we don't like in defense of that position, if they have ever made it public whom they work for or posted anything work-related on social media? You'll end up with handfuls of ideologically monolithic companies which are groupthink mob-mentality stations of polarization. It's already happening—after all, that's apparently what all the game journalist outlets have become.

    "JP is a bad person so it's okay to fire her"

    Okay, so is PF also a bad person? And what happens if everyone fires the kitten from their company? Half the country would be out of a job.

    "No difference between private and professional life on Twitter"

    So if you can't say where you work, or post anything work related, your speech is being regulated outside of work. What if co workers tweet you about work? Bam, you represent your workplace even without meaning to. And what's the alternative? Just don't have a twitter account? Tyrannical.

    Feel free to point out any I missed.

    And again you don’t know what options/avenues were explored in the decision making process leading up to the outcome.

    Neither do you. Neither does anyone here. Everyone is assuming whatever is most convenient to their personal narrative, but there's no evidence either way—only speculation.

    Almost all companies have it in their employment contracts/policies clauses that stipulate what kind of behavior is expected and must be upheld when affiliating/representing the company and the consequences of the employee not upholding that agreement.

    Except ANET didn't have any, so that's a moot point. They're defining some as we speak in response to this incident.

  • Deihnyx.6318Deihnyx.6318 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    Only gonna comment two points:

    @Soa Cirri.6012 said:

    Almost all companies have it in their employment contracts/policies clauses that stipulate what kind of behavior is expected and must be upheld when affiliating/representing the company and the consequences of the employee not upholding that agreement.

    Except ANET didn't have any, so that's a moot point. They're defining some as we speak in response to this incident.

    So... how do you know that? I've been in a few IT companies and none of them ever skipped that.
    Ever if "twitter" isn't specifically mentioned, it will have the more general clause that you cannot embarrass your company publicly. You can disagree with that but that's how it is. A company will protect itself.

    @Soa Cirri.6012 said:
    So if you can't say where you work, or post anything work related, your speech is being regulated outside of work. What if co workers tweet you about work? Bam, you represent your workplace even without meaning to. And what's the alternative? Just don't have a twitter account? Tyrannical.

    • Have an anon account?
    • Don't be a jerk? If you're not a jerk you won't be fired by your company. Hey! Like IRL...
      I really don't know how people believe they can act like a jerk (to customers, no less) and STILL blame their company for not having their back. Really seems like we live in a completely different world.
  • BlaqueFyre.5678BlaqueFyre.5678 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Soa Cirri.6012 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Anet was well within their rights legally

    Sure, assuming they're subject to "right-to-work"

    and ethically in this situation

    That is the matter that is debatable. You can assert that it was ethical, but that does not make it so, and from what I've seen, the arguments for it being ethical (not yours, taking a comb through the whole thread) boil down to:

    "It was legal"

    Legal =/= ethical. Slavery used to be legal. Sex and race discrimination used to be legal. 'Nuff said.

    "it potentially hurts ANET's profit margin"

    A chemical company can often maximize profits by cutting down on safety measures and exporting the consequences of their waste to someone else. Sure, they make more money, but that doesn't make it an ethical justification.

    "It's bad PR"

    Sure. But a bunch of people are disappointed with the firing, so it's bad PR either way. And I can't imagine worse PR than what ANET is getting now, tbh.

    "The customer is always right"

    Please. The customer who was actually a clear-cut victim here never asked for JP to be fired, let alone PF, and outside of game staff appears to be the least happy with the result. None of the white knights rushing to the rescue and clamoring for the firing seem to care what Deroir wanted.

    "A customer should never be insulted"

    Okay, how do we define what is insulting? Does intent matter, or does the insulted party's feelings matter more? Careful how you answer, or you may find yourself agreeing with JP herself more than you realize.

    "Feminist agenda=bad"

    Okay. So should we fire everyone who holds a political position we don't like and says anything in a tone we don't like in defense of that position, if they have ever made it public whom they work for or posted anything work-related on social media? You'll end up with handfuls of ideologically monolithic companies which are groupthink mob-mentality stations of polarization. It's already happening—after all, that's apparently what all the game journalist outlets have become.

    "JP is a bad person so it's okay to fire her"

    Okay, so is PF also a bad person? And what happens if everyone fires the kitten from their company? Half the country would be out of a job.

    "No difference between private and professional life on Twitter"

    So if you can't say where you work, or post anything work related, your speech is being regulated outside of work. What if co workers tweet you about work? Bam, you represent your workplace even without meaning to. And what's the alternative? Just don't have a twitter account? Tyrannical.

    Feel free to point out any I missed.

    And again you don’t know what options/avenues were explored in the decision making process leading up to the outcome.

    Neither do you. Neither does anyone here. Everyone is assuming whatever is most convenient to their personal narrative, but there's no evidence either way—only speculation.

    Almost all companies have it in their employment contracts/policies clauses that stipulate what kind of behavior is expected and must be upheld when affiliating/representing the company and the consequences of the employee not upholding that agreement.

    Except ANET didn't have any, so that's a moot point. They're defining some as we speak in response to this incident.

    A few points, one the definition of ethical is: conforming to accepted standards of conduct. Anet conformed to accepted standards with employees representative of a company interacting with consumers/business partners in a inflammatory/controversial way. So yes this is was handled ethically.

    The employees in question had their affiliation/representation of the company on their account bios, while discussing company processes with consumers/business partners, and made controversial/inflammatory remarks.

    Companies have policies in place that employees agree to, that state that employees don’t represent the company in certain ways otherwise adverse actions will be taken, this is pretty standard with almost every company.

    You are right I don’t know what avenues they could have explored and never claimed as such, I stated that accusations/claims being thrown around have no actual backing on the process/situation leading up to the outcome.

    And Anets does have those policies just because a policy hadn’t been been revised in 7 years doesn’t mean that it’s defunct and no longer applicable, and there are most likely other policies outside of their Personal Social Media Policy that covers how they should conduct themselves when representing the company. Again the employees in question used their personal social media accounts as representing/affiliated with Anet when they advertised in their bios who their employer and position is and discussing the companies processes on narration.

    Again what was does was handled legally and ethically by Anet/MO.

  • Soa Cirri.6012Soa Cirri.6012 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:
    So... how do you know that?

    Take your pick of the now-dozens of articles on the subject. While JP's account alone is by design one-sided and not necessarily reliable, every outlet I can find has reported from both hers and anonymous testimony that ANET's social media policy was more "implicit" than concrete, and even, "Indeed, it seems like O’Brien was expecting his staff to read his mind."

    Don't be a jerk?

    Define "jerk" in a way that minimizes interpretation.

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    A few points, one the definition of ethical is: conforming to accepted standards of conduct.

    Okay, well ANET has conformed to your standards, but not to our standards. What exactly has made you the arbiter of what is acceptable? Or are you defining "business culture" as the standard? Because, as I said before, what is "standard" in business practice is very commonly unethical.

    The employees in question had their affiliation/representation of the company on their account bios, while discussing company processes with consumers/business partners, and made controversial/inflammatory remarks.

    I addressed this, you ignored the point.

    Companies have policies in place that employees agree to, that state that employees don’t represent the company in certain ways otherwise adverse actions will be taken, this is pretty standard with almost every company.

    You're speaking generally, but as far as I can tell you have no evidence to suggest ANET had such a policy(s), or the extent of its scope.

    You are right I don’t know what avenues they could have explored and never claimed as such, I stated that accusations/claims being thrown around have no actual backing on the process/situation leading up to the outcome.

    I don't understand why you brought it up then, because it wasn't relevant to what I had said at the time, unless you were implying that events behind the scenes further justify the firing—events which, you admit, are pure speculation.

    And Anets does have those policies... there are most likely other policies outside of their Personal Social Media Policy that covers how they should conduct themselves when representing the company.

    See above

    Again what was does was handled legally

    Still true, still irrelevant

    and ethically

    Still not proven

  • BlaqueFyre.5678BlaqueFyre.5678 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @Soa Cirri.6012 said:

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:
    So... how do you know that?

    Take your pick of the now-dozens of articles on the subject. While JP's account alone is by design one-sided and not necessarily reliable, every outlet I can find has reported from both hers and anonymous testimony that ANET's social media policy was more "implicit" than concrete, and even, "Indeed, it seems like O’Brien was expecting his staff to read his mind."

    Don't be a jerk?

    Define "jerk" in a way that minimizes interpretation.

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    A few points, one the definition of ethical is: conforming to accepted standards of conduct.

    Okay, well ANET has conformed to your standards, but not to our standards. What exactly has made you the arbiter of what is acceptable? Or are you defining "business culture" as the standard? Because, as I said before, what is "standard" in business practice is very commonly unethical.

    The employees in question had their affiliation/representation of the company on their account bios, while discussing company processes with consumers/business partners, and made controversial/inflammatory remarks.

    I addressed this, you ignored the point.

    Companies have policies in place that employees agree to, that state that employees don’t represent the company in certain ways otherwise adverse actions will be taken, this is pretty standard with almost every company.

    You're speaking generally, but as far as I can tell you have no evidence to suggest ANET had such a policy(s), or the extent of its scope.

    You are right I don’t know what avenues they could have explored and never claimed as such, I stated that accusations/claims being thrown around have no actual backing on the process/situation leading up to the outcome.

    I don't understand why you brought it up then, because it wasn't relevant to what I had said at the time, unless you were implying that events behind the scenes further justify the firing—events which, you admit, are pure speculation.

    And Anets does have those policies... there are most likely other policies outside of their Personal Social Media Policy that covers how they should conduct themselves when representing the company.

    See above

    Again what was does was handled legally

    Still true, still irrelevant

    and ethically by Anet/MO.

    Still not proven

    Did I ever claim to be an arbiter? No. Anet is using standard policy procedures as almost all businesses, they are conforming to relevant business practices that have been in use and upheld for years as being both ethical and legal, just because you don’t like it or agree with it means that it’s not ethical, because by the objective definition of ethical and the context within acceptable standard business practices in both the public and private sector.

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

    I brought it up because people keep making claims/accusations with nothing to back them up on the actual handling of the situation, and making assumptions only based the outcome. That’s why that’s brought up since it clearly within context to the thread.

    If it wasn’t ethical it would most likely not be legal, so it is very releavant.

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

  • Deihnyx.6318Deihnyx.6318 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @Soa Cirri.6012 said:

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:
    So... how do you know that?

    Take your pick of the now-dozens of articles on the subject. While JP's account alone is by design one-sided and not necessarily reliable, every outlet I can find has reported from both hers and anonymous testimony that ANET's social media policy was more "implicit" than concrete, and even, "Indeed, it seems like O’Brien was expecting his staff to read his mind."

    .

    @Soa Cirri.6012 said:
    Still not proven

    A few hungry tweets doesn't mean jack. You don't have to specify twitter to make a common sense rule more obvious. Unless you've never worked anywhere it is absolutely OBVIOUS that one must be careful while representing their company.
    At best, it's still definitely no proof of anything. Since you seem very picky with definitions that should be enough for you to at least be cautious.
    Again, we must apparently live in two different worlds.

    Don't be a jerk?

    Define "jerk" in a way that minimizes interpretation.

    Really?
    "A person with unlikable or obnoxious qualities and behavior, typically mean, self-centered or disagreeable. "
    Straight from wikipedia.
    I could have used other words but they're not allowed here. We all know what they mean. Come on now.

  • Soa Cirri.6012Soa Cirri.6012 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Did I ever claim to be an arbiter?

    Well...

    Anet was well within their rights legally and ethically

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

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

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

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

    Alright, now the burden of proof is on you.

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

    Objective definition of ethics?

    Ethics (Google):
    1. moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
    2.the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
    Ethics (Webster): a set of moral issues or aspects (such as rightness) debated the ethics of human cloning
    Ethics (Wikipedia): a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.

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

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:

    Define "jerk" in a way that minimizes interpretation.

    Really?
    "A person with unlikable or obnoxious qualities and behavior, typically mean, self-centered or disagreeable. "
    Straight from wikipedia.
    I could have used other words but they're not allowed here. We all know what they mean. Come on now.

    Okay, well right now I feel like you're being obnoxious and unlikeably condescending, suggesting that I'm stupid or childish with that passive-aggressive, "Really?" and "We all know what they mean. Come on now."
    That condescension wasn't remotely necessary to making your point. So... does that make you a jerk?

  • Edge.4180Edge.4180 Member ✭✭

    @Sojar.1495 said:

    @Edge.4180 said:
    There is nothing unusual about a company announcing that it is cutting ties in some fashion with a particular employee. It happens all the time, in much more public forums than this (such as national news networks, television, etc.).

    Irrelevant. ANET isn't a national news syndicate, a political organization and it wasn't featured in the media until AFTER the firing. No one cares in reality land about a termination of an employee at one of the 100s of game development firms. Let's not act as if ANET has some clout they don't possess.

    That's not at all what I was saying. My point is I can't go a week without hearing a public announcement from company-X that someone associated with said company has been fired, removed from a position, severed ties, etc. It seems to happen in the wake of any scandal that's gone public - and in this case you can thank Price for making it as public as possible.

    So, no, despite the criticism to the contrary, there is nothing unusual about ArenaNet's announcement - especially when the terminated employee is actively attacking that company with the help of gaming-news sites.

  • BlaqueFyre.5678BlaqueFyre.5678 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @Soa Cirri.6012 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Did I ever claim to be an arbiter?

    Well...

    Anet was well within their rights legally and ethically

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

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

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

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

    Alright, now the burden of proof is on you.

    Again It was handled ethically by the objective definition of Ethically, and by relevant and acceptable standard business practices/policies, use in almost every company/organization public and private sector, no matter how much you don’t want to believe it.
    Ethics (Google):
    1. moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
    2.the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
    Ethics (Webster): a set of moral issues or aspects (such as rightness) debated the ethics of human cloning
    Ethics (Wikipedia): a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.

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

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:

    Define "jerk" in a way that minimizes interpretation.

    Really?
    "A person with unlikable or obnoxious qualities and behavior, typically mean, self-centered or disagreeable. "
    Straight from wikipedia.
    I could have used other words but they're not allowed here. We all know what they mean. Come on now.

    Okay, well right now I feel like you're being obnoxious and unlikeably condescending, suggesting that I'm stupid or childish with that passive-aggressive, "Really?" and "We all know what they mean. Come on now."
    That condescension wasn't remotely necessary to making your point. So... does that make you a jerk?

    No I didn’t arbitrate that I just stated that their behavior is ethical and legal objective facts based on precedences set forth across almost every company/organization and upheld by the legal system that arbitrated on these practices.

    Let’s take a look at one of your sources for the definition of Ethical.
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethical
    Let’s see what MW said is a definition of Ethical:
    3 : conforming to accepted standards of conduct

    Here is a similar definition from Dictionary.com
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ethical?s=t
    2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession:

    Again by the context of the situation and in relation to how almost every other organization’s business practices both public and private sector, Anet handled this ethically and legally and handled it correctly.

    Resulting to attacks on character, interesting approach there, and making claims with out proof, how was I condescending or where did I suggest that you are stupid etc.? Honestly I am curious what comments did I say that suggest/inter that? All I have been doing was stating the acceptable standard business practices that are used and upheld in a very objective manner, in the context of this conversation.

  • Deihnyx.6318Deihnyx.6318 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @Soa Cirri.6012 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Did I ever claim to be an arbiter?

    Well...

    Anet was well within their rights legally and ethically

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

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

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

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

    Alright, now the burden of proof is on you.

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

    Objective definition of ethics?

    Ethics (Google):
    1. moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
    2.the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
    Ethics (Webster): a set of moral issues or aspects (such as rightness) debated the ethics of human cloning
    Ethics (Wikipedia): a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.

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

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:

    Define "jerk" in a way that minimizes interpretation.

    Really?
    "A person with unlikable or obnoxious qualities and behavior, typically mean, self-centered or disagreeable. "
    Straight from wikipedia.
    I could have used other words but they're not allowed here. We all know what they mean. Come on now.

    Okay, well right now I feel like you're being obnoxious and unlikeably condescending, suggesting that I'm stupid or childish with that passive-aggressive, "Really?" and "We all know what they mean. Come on now."
    That condescension wasn't remotely necessary to making your point. So... does that make you a jerk?

    In this specific case yes. Although 1 I'm not representing anyone but myself, and 2 the question that I'm answering to was already passive-aggressive.
    I'm specifically suggesting that you already know the answer to the question (as with most of BlaqueFyre questions also) and are faking not to, possibly to avoid a point (which you're doing again) and that by essence is not really likable.
    So yeah, generally, people answer the way they're being treated.

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

  • Sykper.6583Sykper.6583 Member ✭✭✭

    While I have my own opinions at the matter at hand, I'm of the belief that regardless of private/public conversations, one would be better off building bridges than burning them.

    Calm Civility even in the face of criticism is difficult for anyone attempting to create something, but in the long run it doesn't lead you astray. I've not heard of anyone being fired for being too nice and kind to their customers.

  • Soa Cirri.6012Soa Cirri.6012 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession:

    What you said was

    the objective definition of Ethically

    I merely pointed out that there are other definitions. Irrespective of which definition I intended, you have singled out one, at the exclusion of others, and insisted on its primacy. That, again, makes you the arbiter of what is "objective." But there is the funny thing about relying on "business ethics" as a standard of ethics which I will get to momentarily.

    in relation to how almost every other organization’s business practices

    Okay. This is ethics by consensus. "If everyone else does it, it must be right." I addressed that earlier: but let's belabor it for now.

    So there are businesses where the company policy is to employ hundreds of people for pennies a day and 20 hour days (and even western companies tolerate, encourage, and invest in such businesses). Does that make sweat shops ethical? There are companies where the policy is to kidnap children and force them to work in cobalt mines (which can kill them) or harvest cacao—is that ethical? In fact, there are many companies which hold anti-union policies (which are illegal)—but it's company policy so it is, by those standards, ethical (even when it contravenes the law).
    Here's the key flaw in your wording:

    in relation to

    In other words, "relative to." So by this logic, sweatshops are ethical, relative to their own corporate policies. What you're essentially arguing for is called "meta-ethical moral relativism." In other words: it's ethical in one circumstance because the context alone (corporate practice) justifies it. Ironically, moral relativism is mutually exclusive with moral objectivity. It is impossible to argue objectivity within a relativistic standard; it is a paradox.

    Resulting to attacks on character

    That was directed at Deihnyx, not at you. I quoted him in the passage immediately before it, and was responding to that quote. I do not think you are a jerk.

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:
    In this specific case yes.
    Although 1 I'm not representing anyone but myself, and 2 the question that I'm answering to was already passive-aggressive.

    I wasn't being passive aggressive—I was being sincere (my next response was tongue-in-cheek). I am genuinely interested to see if you can come up with a definition of "jerk" that allows for minimal interpretation, because my expectation (drawn from experience) was that you couldn't, and so far you have proven my point exactly in the manner I expected. But to answer to your justifications:
    1. You are representing yourself on the forums. ANET's forum policy prohibits being deliberately mean to each other. You have admitted here to feelng entitled to mirror what you perceived as condescension, in order to justify being condescending yourself. So, if "being a jerk" deserves consequences as you have suggested earlier, then one could argue that you would logically deserve a ban from the forums, or to have your post removed. (DISCLAIMER: This is being stated for the sake of the argument. I am not calling for you to be banned or censored, nor do I think you should be banned for being mean to me, I am saying it can logically be concluded from your position that a ban could be justified. Feel free to be a jerk to me regardless, I can take it :) )

    Secondly,

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

    1. What you argue here is that you are entitled to be a jerk to someone if they were a jerk to you first, even if you misread their intent.

    My point is this: I may have perceived you as being a jerk with or without your intention. You say you have perceived my as being a jerk when I did not intend to be one. I did not perceive my own behavior as being that of a "jerk," but you did. Neither of us can prove the other's perception wrong, but that doesn't make either perception correct, because both are subjective.

    If judgment is dependent upon intent, then you were the jerk, and I wasn't. However, you cannot prove my intent, so I could have simply lied in a way which can't be proven false.
    If judgment is dependent on interpretation... well, that's subjective, as I just established.

    To enforce a rule based upon a subjective interpretation of behavior (i.e. being a jerk) is necessarily to invite arbitrary results. That's the inherent nature of subjectivity; that was my point.

    you haven't answered to my original point at all

    If you're contending that what is obvious is what is ethical, then I will say this:
    It is not obvious to me that ANET, (or for that matter any company who fires someone for offending someone in defense of their political, philosophical, and religious belief or tweet) is necessarily performing an ethical act. It seems as though you are effectively suggesting is that an a priori perspective or some kind of natural law dictates what is necessarily ethical; but that is a highly contentious point to be asserting (with hundreds of years of contention under its belt) which I think makes it a bit antithetical to the term "obvious."

  • BlaqueFyre.5678BlaqueFyre.5678 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    __> @Soa Cirri.6012 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession:

    What you said was

    the objective definition of Ethically

    I merely pointed out that there are other definitions. Irrespective of which definition I intended, you have singled out one, at the exclusion of others, and insisted on its primacy. That, again, makes you the arbiter of what is "objective." But there is the funny thing about relying on "business ethics" as a standard of ethics which I will get to momentarily.

    in relation to how almost every other organization’s business practices

    Okay. This is ethics by consensus. "If everyone else does it, it must be right." I addressed that earlier: but let's belabor it for now.

    So there are businesses where the company policy is to employ hundreds of people for pennies a day and 20 hour days (and even western companies tolerate, encourage, and invest in such businesses). Does that make sweat shops ethical? There are companies where the policy is to kidnap children and force them to work in cobalt mines or harvest cacao—is that ethical? In fact, there are many companies which hold anti-union policies (which are illegal)—but it's company policy so it is, by those standards, ethical (even when it contravenes the law).
    Here's the key flaw in your wording:

    in relation to

    In other words, "relative to." So by this logic, sweatshops are ethical, relative to their own corporate policies. What you're essentially arguing for is called "meta-ethical moral relativism." In other words: it's ethical in one circumstance because the context alone (corporate practice) justifies it. Ironically, moral relativism is mutually exclusive with moral objectivity. It is impossible to argue objectivity within a relativistic standard; it is a paradox.

    Resulting to attacks on character

    That was directed at Deihnyx, not at you. I quoted him in the passage immediately before it, and was responding to that quote. I do not think you are a jerk.

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:
    In this specific case yes.
    Although 1 I'm not representing anyone but myself, and 2 the question that I'm answering to was already passive-aggressive.

    I wasn't being passive aggressive—I was being sincere (my next response was tongue-in-cheek). I am genuinely interested to see if you can come up with a definition of "jerk" that allows for minimal interpretation, because my expectation (drawn from experience) was that you couldn't, and so far you have proven my point exactly in the manner I expected. But to answer to your justifications:
    1. You are representing yourself on the forums. ANET's forum policy prohibits being deliberately mean to each other. You have admitted here to feelng entitled to mirror what you perceived as condescension, in order to justify being condescending yourself. So, if "being a jerk" deserves consequences as you have suggested earlier, then one could argue that you would logically deserve a ban from the forums, or to have your post removed. (DISCLAIMER: This is being stated for the sake of the argument. I am not calling for you to be banned or censored, nor do I think you should be banned for being mean to me, I am saying it can logically be concluded from your position that a ban could be justified. Feel free to be a jerk to me regardless, I can take it :) )

    Secondly,

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

    2. What you argue here is that you are entitled to be a jerk to someone if they were a jerk to you first, even if you misread their intent.

    My point is this: I may have perceived you as being a jerk with or without your intention. You say you have perceived my as being a jerk when I did not intend to be one. I did not perceive my own behavior as being that of a "jerk," but you did. Neither of us can prove the other's perception wrong, but that doesn't make either perception correct, because both are subjective.

    If judgment is dependent upon intent, then you were the jerk, and I wasn't. However, you cannot prove my intent, so I could still have been a jerk and lying.
    If judgment is dependent on interpretation... well, that's subjective, as I just established.

    To enforce a rule based upon a subjective interpretation of behavior (i.e. being a jerk) is necessarily to invite arbitrary results. That's the inherent nature of subjectivity; that was my point.

    you haven't answered to my original point at all

    If you're contending that what is obvious is what is ethical, then I will say this:
    It is not obvious to me that ANET, (or for that matter any company who fires someone for offending someone in defense of their political, philosophical, and religious belief or tweet) is necessarily performing an ethical act. It seems as though you are effectively suggesting is that an a priori perspective or some kind of natural law dictates what is ethical; but that is a highly contentious point to be asserting (with hundreds of years of contention under its belt) which I think makes it a bit antithetical to the term "obvious."

    You do realize words have multiple meanings and definitions that are all based on context correct? I used the objective definiton of the word Ethical in context to the topic at hand, again this context is very important as I stated in earlier responses.

    Morals and ethics are separate things, yes people confuse the two, yes they can pertain to each other but they are separate things, and by the objective definition relative(due to the context of the topic) this whole situation has been handled ethically as per everything falling in-line with the acceptable standard business practices of employees that represent their employer and interact with the public/business partners/associates.

    Remember the definitions of Ethical in context to this topic are.

    3: conforming to accepted standards of conduct

    And

    1. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession:

    (See previous comment of mine for links to source.)

    The policies that were used for the situation are a common accepted business practice, so there for it is ethical as per the definitions relevant to the topic/incident.

  • DaShi.1368DaShi.1368 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    I guess they just want this to disappear. We cannot bump the thread anymore. They really should just close it.

  • Soa Cirri.6012Soa Cirri.6012 Member ✭✭✭

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    The policies that were used for the situation are a common accepted business practice, so there for it is ethical.

    So, sweat shops and child slavery are ethical. Got it.

  • BlaqueFyre.5678BlaqueFyre.5678 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @Soa Cirri.6012 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    The policies that were used for the situation are a common accepted business practice, so there for it is ethical.

    So, sweat shops and child slavery are ethical. Got it.

    Did I say that? No. But if that’s what you believe then that is on you, I can only speak for the country that I live/am employed in, where sweat shop are illegal so therefore they are unethical where I live since they are not a common practice or form of conduct. Again Conduct is key and your attempt off topic derailment is noted.

  • @Cerethon.8250 said:

    @Gehenna.3625 said:

    @Cerethon.8250 said:
    I'm very disappointed with anets decision on this. I've played for years and the community has been so much more pleasant than other games. However, this is a blatant reinforcement of the pervasive sexism and harassment that is ubiquitous in the gaming world. I really thought anet and the guild wars community was better than this.

    And I am disappointed that you defend her ridiculous attack on a community member who was very respectful in his reply and instantly got the gender card pulled on him. There is nothing worse for women than women who just pull that gender card as soon as they hear something they don't like or read things into a post that objectively aren't there.

    She deals with men telling her how to do her job every day. Look up microaggression.

    Men deal with it too. It's called chain of command. As far as your mythological microaggression BS I'm sorry I work in Software development and see women who work with me and do not have the same credentials every man is required to have. Most do not have a college degree where every man hired has one. We have 1 female who has a degree and is a quality developer the rest mostly just sit around asking others to do the work for them and demand the same or more pay. There was zero sexism displayed by anyone but Price.

  • morrolan.9608morrolan.9608 Member ✭✭✭

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @morrolan.9608 said:

    @The Knight of Hope.8023 said:
    We're 71 pages in and there are still people here trying to make this about their victimhood ideology, rather than about common decency and professionalism. This is why we can't have nice things anymore.

    I dunno I think having protections in place for your employment is common decency and firing someone based on emotion is not professionalism.

    So is drawing conclusions based on the information presented by one side in the issue common decency?

    I'm drawing conclusions from all the information AVAILABLE.

  • Dashingsteel.3410Dashingsteel.3410 Member ✭✭✭

    @Soa Cirri.6012 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Did I say that?

    Well, yes, i'm guessing you just didn't realize you said it.

    The policies that were used for the situation are a common accepted business practice, so there for it is ethical.

    Sweatshops and child slavery are common and accepted business practices, so therefore, according to your logic, they are ethical. You did not specify that the ethicality had to necessarily be geographical or national; that's moving the goalposts. And even so, ANET is a multinational company, with outlets in China, where sweat shops certainly are the norm (and so, according to your argument, are ethical).

    Both JP and PF were employed in America and the route Anet took follow commonly accepted American business practices. Nice attempt at deflection to include China to make some outrageous smear but we all know that child labor and sweatshops aren't a thing here. Are you insinuating that Anet deals in child labor and sweat shops with their Chinese outlets?

  • FogLeg.9354FogLeg.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    https://kotaku.com/in-the-wake-of-arenanet-firings-game-studios-rethink-t-1827591298

    Article by Nathan Grayson:

    One week ago, two Guild Wars 2 narrative designers, Jessica Price and Peter Fries, were fired after Price called out a player of the game on Twitter, prompting widespread backlash. Since then, mobs have tried to employ similar tactics against more women, and game development studios have had to take a hard look at their own social media policies.

    Price, a narrative designer of 10 years, had called out the player, a YouTuber, for explaining the concept of dialogue choices to her. “Today in being a female game dev: ‘Allow me—a person who does not work with you—explain to you how you do your job,’” she tweeted, saying that she’d insta-block “the next rando kitten” who tried to do the same. This prompted a wave of backlash from vocal members of the Guild Wars 2 community, as well as people from other places like the kitten subreddit Kotaku In Action. (Deroir, the player who had responded to Price, declined to comment when reached by Kotaku.)

    In response, ArenaNet president Mike O’Brien promptly fired Price, as well as her coworker Fries, who had stood up for her during the Twitter backlash. As Price would later point out, O’Brien and ArenaNet had “escalated” the situation by calling her words “attacks on the community.”

    “That was active solicitation of harassment,” she wrote.

    While many, including Price, have claimed that O’Brien caved to external pressure, O’Brien contended in a statement to Polygon that the decision to take action against Price was made before the backlash ensued. “The fact that the community’s anger was escalating on July 5 could make it look like our action was a response to the community’s anger,” he said. However, the studio was closed on July 4, the day Price called out Deroir. “That wasn’t the case,” he continued. “We took action as soon as we practicably could.”

    Price’s firing produced ripples. Women in game development have pointed to upswings in abuse and organized calls for firings since the incident. Hazel Monforton, a narrative designer for Arkane Studios, who recently talked about developers being harassed out of jobs after refusing to act like “customer service hotlines,” tweeted images of a petition calling for her firing and a user messaging Arkane to say that she “verbally abused” them.

    “I told him to leave me alone,” she wrote of the latter. “This is what these people think they can do to us now.”

    Jennifer Scheurle, game design lead at developer Opaque Space, tweeted out a lengthy screed from a fan to the studio. The fan accused Scheurle of using her account to “spread group/gender hating ideals, especially towards men” and specifically cited what happened to Jessica Price in calling for Opaque to take action.

    “Realize this,” Scheurle wrote. “The actions of ArenaNet have LITERALLY emboldened people to write to other organisations to get people from the margins fired! These actions do NOT exist in isolation.”

    Another developer, who chose to remain anonymous, faced an especially coordinated attack, albeit an incompetently-handled one: The company this developer freelances for, she told Kotaku in a DM, received a “a three-digit number’s” worth of letters complaining that it was morally wrong to hire “a transgender,” that the quality of the studio’s games had gone down since she and another woman were hired, and that her Twitter account set “a bad example for the letter-writer’s children, who supposedly play this game.”

    For a brief period of time, the developer said, her CEO was ready to tell her boss to fire her. Then, another employee realized something was amiss with the letters. “Fifty or so of them glitched out with a lot of variables exposed, including %FEMALENAME,” said the developer. This made it clear that the letters were simply form letters with blank spaces for the name of any woman that the mob wanted to attack.

    A deeper look at the names and emails associated with the letters went to Facebook bot profiles and people whose profiles indicated associations with kitten or 4chan.

    “This is 100% a response to the ArenaNet thing,” the developer said. “Last Saturday there was a post on 4chan in the game’s general discussion thread that said something like ‘Reddit proved we can get kitten fired, isn’t there a female that posts here? Let’s get her fired, it’ll be awesome, we have the power to do it.’”

    Game Developers Rethink Social Media

    This even-more-caustic-than-usual atmosphere and the discussion surrounding it have forced game development studios to reflect on their own social media and harassment policies and, in some cases, change them.

    Some studios, like Kitfox Games and Scheurle’s employer Opaque Space have issued statements summarizing their policies and reaffirming their support for employees. “We as a studio want to make it very clear that we always stand behind our developers and support them both online and offline to provide a professional, safe, and equitable work environment,” wrote Opaque Space founder and director Emre Deniz.

    Vida Starcevic, community manager at Alan Wake and Quantum Break developer Remedy, told Kotaku in email that the studio used to take a reactive approach to social media, but has recently begun encouraging developers to be more active on their personal accounts in order to show that “a studio is its people.” In the wake of Price and Fries’ firings, Starcevic said she started an internal dialogue aimed at nailing down the specifics of a social media policy that protects employees.

    “I came to talk to Remedy’s narrative team,” she said. “Their members are the most active on Twitter, and some of them have also had very negative experiences with harassment on social media in the past, so I reached out to them about their experiences and solicited questions, because I want to be aware what their main concerns are when it comes to using social media in a professional (and personal) capacity as employees of Remedy.”

    “We are planning for all eventualities and worst case scenarios, not because they might occur, but because we want to make sure our employees are as protected as they can be should they be subject to any kind of online harassment,” she said. She also noted that Remedy’s been using a series of guidelines issued by the International Game Developer Association as a “very useful” resource.

    The Long Dark developer Hinterland has, in the past, taken a pretty hands-off approach to social media, with no concrete policies about what employees can and cannot say on their personal accounts in place. “People’s personal social media accounts are their personal accounts,” founder Raphael van Lierop said in an email. “I think everyone in the studio understands that they’ll get a certain amount of public visibility through their work on the game, and they should be mindful of that. But I don’t have any intention of censoring people. If their online behavior becomes an issue that affects our business, it’ll be something we deal with internally.”

    He added, however, that the ArenaNet saga has forced Hinterland to reflect. The studio has been “informally” discussing the possibility of instituting more rigorous social media policies in the future to combat the “general climate of ‘us vs. them’ that we see in the industry at large.” But van Lierop said it’ll ultimately come down to what people on the team are comfortable with.

    One thing’s certain, though: he does not approve of the measures ArenaNet took. “This idea that an angry mob can get people fired because publishers like ArenaNet are scared to take some heat on behalf of their employees? It’s shameful,” van Lierop said. “Who do they think is going to make the games once all the developers have been fired? The angry internet mob? We need to find a better balance, because this entitlement culture is burning people out.”

    Psychonauts and Broken Age developer Double Fine has also spent the past week looking inward. “We have indeed just been talking about this internally,” community manager James Spafford said in an email. “Mainly we wanted to reassure our team that we are dedicated to protecting them from harassment—online or offline—and they can go about their lives knowing that they have our support.”

    Through things like the Double Fine Adventure documentary and its regular Amnesia Fortnight game jam series, Double Fine has tried to maintain an atmosphere of openness. Spafford said the company wants that to extend to employees’ personal conduct, as well. On social media, they’re free to talk about their careers, goings-on at Double Fine, and causes they believe are important. The studio doesn’t specifically restrict anything, but if trouble arises, it asks that they go to Spafford and request aid rather than trying to resolve the situation themselves.

    “This level of openness is quite rare in our industry, and because we ask our team to be part of that, it’s essential for them to know that if they somehow ended up the target of a hate mob, then we would absolutely have their back,” Spafford said.

    Pillars of Eternity and Fallout: New Vegas developer Obsidian said it has an internal social media policy page that’s sent out to the whole company at a “regular cadence.” It requests that employees do things like stipulating that opinions from personal accounts are their own, but also asks that they keep in mind that what they’re saying can still represent the company. “We encourage our employees to interact with our community as often as they feel comfortable with, and that if they don’t know how they should respond, or if they should, they can reach out to our PR/Community team for help,” PR manager Mikey Dowling said in an email. He also noted that it’s a “constant area of growth” for the studio, and guidelines are ever-evolving in the wake of things like the ArenaNet incident.

    When it comes to harassment, Obsidian has no absolute series of guidelines and instead handles things on a case-by-case basis. “It would come down to the circumstance and how we can help our employees through it,” said Dowling. “Community is very important to us, but we wouldn’t have the community that we have without the incredible employees we have here.”

    Facepunch Studios, creator of Garry’s Mod and Rust, is about as hands-off as can be when it comes to employees using social media. They can’t talk about projects that are still under wraps, but otherwise, they’re free to say whatever’s on their minds. And while the studio hasn’t had to mitigate any incidents that studio founder Garry Newman characterizes as “crossing the line,” he says he’d have employees’ backs if it came to that.

    “The people who play our games already think they have to power to decide who we should and shouldn’t fire,” he said. “If you give in to that, you’re just encouraging it.”

  • why did someone post a whole article here verbatim?

  • Deihnyx.6318Deihnyx.6318 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:
    In this specific case yes.
    Although 1 I'm not representing anyone but myself, and 2 the question that I'm answering to was already passive-aggressive.

    I wasn't being passive aggressive—I was being sincere (my next response was tongue-in-cheek). I am genuinely interested to see if you can come up with a definition of "jerk" that allows for minimal interpretation, because my expectation (drawn from experience) was that you couldn't, and so far you have proven my point exactly in the manner I expected. But to answer to your justifications:
    1. You are representing yourself on the forums. ANET's forum policy prohibits being deliberately mean to each other. You have admitted here to feelng entitled to mirror what you perceived as condescension, in order to justify being condescending yourself. So, if "being a jerk" deserves consequences as you have suggested earlier, then one could argue that you would logically deserve a ban from the forums, or to have your post removed. (DISCLAIMER: This is being stated for the sake of the argument. I am not calling for you to be banned or censored, nor do I think you should be banned for being mean to me, I am saying it can logically be concluded from your position that a ban could be justified. Feel free to be a jerk to me regardless, I can take it :) )

    Secondly,

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

    2. What you argue here is that you are entitled to be a jerk to someone if they were a jerk to you first, even if you misread their intent.

    My point is this: I may have perceived you as being a jerk with or without your intention. You say you have perceived my as being a jerk when I did not intend to be one. I did not perceive my own behavior as being that of a "jerk," but you did. Neither of us can prove the other's perception wrong, but that doesn't make either perception correct, because both are subjective.

    If judgment is dependent upon intent, then you were the jerk, and I wasn't. However, you cannot prove my intent, so I could have simply lied in a way which can't be proven false.
    If judgment is dependent on interpretation... well, that's subjective, as I just established.

    To enforce a rule based upon a subjective interpretation of behavior (i.e. being a jerk) is necessarily to invite arbitrary results. That's the inherent nature of subjectivity; that was my point.

    you haven't answered to my original point at all

    If you're contending that what is obvious is what is ethical, then I will say this:
    It is not obvious to me that ANET, (or for that matter any company who fires someone for offending someone in defense of their political, philosophical, and religious belief or tweet) is necessarily performing an ethical act. It seems as though you are effectively suggesting is that an a priori perspective or some kind of natural law dictates what is necessarily ethical; but that is a highly contentious point to be asserting (with hundreds of years of contention under its belt) which I think makes it a bit antithetical to the term "obvious."

    I'm sorry but the point you tried to demonstrate isn't quite similar to what happened that ultimately caused the firing.
    Yes, I did "perceive" your question as condescending (also people who keep splitting up posts make it really hard to follow and discuss with), because i live with common sense as a rule and everyone knows what this word means. Common sense in my definition being the sense that the majority will apply to a situation. In the case at hand, what she did wasn't up for perception only. There are -some- situations like the one you described that can be subjective. However, the "common sense" dictates me that some words used by that person (such as swearing, death celebration and all) are objectively rude. Hence why not subject to interpretation and therefore, ground for firing if you're representing a company.

    So, as much as I appreciate your demonstration (no sarcasm intended, I do) it doesn't validate JP's case. I would argue that you would have a point for PF, but that's also something I believe most of the community is much more divided on this case.

    What I do believe however, as a representative of myself only, is that when you act rudely, you should not expect people to be nice to you. That the community react to her words is absolutely "logical" to me. She did start the fire after all. She also reacts just as badly when someone criticize her (even when someone doesn't criticize her anyway) so she's surely ok with the "rules of the game"... So calling out the community after that and have all her supports call them "mobs" is just hypocrite.
    Even if the first post by Deroir was up for subjectivity, in every case, even AFTER the intent was made clear, she refused to acknowledge it and doubled down, this time by attacking a category of people in general.

  • Pretty Pixie.8603Pretty Pixie.8603 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Quote me where I said that Sweat shops are ethical, I will wait. Otherwise you are commiting libel, which is punishable by law and against Anet forum policies.

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

    No libel lawyer in the country would take that case.

    Ordo Dominican [ZEAL]
    Sea of Sorrows

  • BlaqueFyre.5678BlaqueFyre.5678 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @Pretty Pixie.8603 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Quote me where I said that Sweat shops are ethical, I will wait. Otherwise you are commiting libel, which is punishable by law and against Anet forum policies.

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

    No libel lawyer in the country would take that case.

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

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

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

    And libel is a form of defamation which is:

    Defamation

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

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

    Interesting.

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

  • Soa Cirri.6012Soa Cirri.6012 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @Dashingsteel.3410 said:
    We are talking about employees that are based in America. Are you saying those companies have child labor and sweatshops actively going on inside America? If not, then you are just trying to distract from the conversation. We are talking about how employees are treated in America.

    Okay, you're late to this conversation, so let me recap for you.
    Someone asserted that ANET performed ethically.
    I asked how that could be proven.
    He or she insisted that it was ethical according to "common accepted business practice." They then went on to say that ANET's behavior is ethical and legal objective facts.
    If "common accepted business practice" are construed as universal (objective), then they can attempt to argue that the behavior is objectively ethical.
    According to a universal perspectives, sweatshops are a common accepted business practice around the world, and therefore, he or she would be arguing that they are also ethical.
    If "common accepted business practice" are specific to America, i.e. not universal, then they are, by definition, relative.
    Something can not be both relative and objective.
    The wheels got stuck in the mud there, and then it kind of went in circles.
    I was proving a logical point about their statements as universal applications, and using sweatshops as a controversial extant example, not making any statements of my own about whether they are ethical or not.

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:
    I'm sorry but the point you tried to demonstrate isn't quite similar to what happened that ultimately caused the firing.

    Oh, I agree. But I wasn't trying to draw that parallel, I was addressing your maxim to "not be a jerk," by basically asking, "how can you concretely define "being a jerk" beyond subjective interpretation?"

    What I do believe however, as a representative of myself only, is that when you act rudely, you should not expect people to be nice to you.

    I think it's safe to say, even if you don't act rudely, you should not expect people to be nice to you... on the internet. But sure, I agree that JP has been hypocritical, and that she invited not only a backlash but condemnation for her treatment of Deroir. I even agree that she was a jerk. But other people disagree, and it's not possible to prove that, except subjectively by what we personally consider obnoxious or mean.
    However, my contention remains that "being a jerk" is not an authoritative pretext for severe punitive action (like firing), precisely because judging whether someone is a jerk or not is subjective. And besides if that rule were introduced universally, half of the country (or world for that matter) would be unemployed.

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Their is proof of you literally saying that I said that. Here it is again.

    Let's see it.

    "Well, yes, i'm guessing you just didn't realize you said it."

    ...That is not me literally saying, "you believe sweatshops are ethical." In fact, I later said:

    I have not alleged that you believe sweat shops are ethical

    I have repudiated your claim, and you insist that I made it in order to claim... libel, I guess? I guess accusing me of libal and derailing the thread is easier than justifying that something is both objective and relative.

    You keep trying to bring up topics that are clearly not related to this discussion which is about a US company (Anet) handling an incident regarding two of its US employees, not a topic about sweat shops.

    Ethics is ethics, regardless of where your goalposts are.

    Also remember I never stated ethics are objective

    Except you "literally said"

    their behavior is ethical and legal objective facts

    In other words, logically...

    You know what, forget it.

  • BlaqueFyre.5678BlaqueFyre.5678 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Soa Cirri.6012 said:

    @Dashingsteel.3410 said:
    We are talking about employees that are based in America. Are you saying those companies have child labor and sweatshops actively going on inside America? If not, then you are just trying to distract from the conversation. We are talking about how employees are treated in America.

    Okay, you're late to this conversation, so let me recap for you.
    Someone asserted that ANET performed ethically.
    I asked how that could be proven.
    He or she insisted that it was ethical according to "common accepted business practice." They then went on to say that ANET's behavior is ethical and legal objective facts.
    If "common accepted business practice" are construed as universal (objective), then they can attempt to argue that the behavior is objectively ethical.
    According to a universal perspectives, sweatshops are a common accepted business practice around the world, and therefore, he or she would be arguing that they are also ethical.
    If "common accepted business practice" are specific to America, i.e. not universal, then they are, by definition, relative.
    Something can not be both relative and objective.
    The wheels got stuck in the mud there, and then it kind of went in circles.
    I was proving a logical point about their statements as universal applications, and using sweatshops as a controversial extant example, not making any statements of my own about whether they are ethical or not.

    @Deihnyx.6318 said:
    I'm sorry but the point you tried to demonstrate isn't quite similar to what happened that ultimately caused the firing.

    Oh, I agree. But I wasn't trying to draw that parallel, I was addressing your maxim to "not be a jerk," by basically asking, "how can you concretely define "being a jerk" beyond subjective interpretation?"

    What I do believe however, as a representative of myself only, is that when you act rudely, you should not expect people to be nice to you.

    I think it's safe to say, even if you don't act rudely, you should not expect people to be nice to you... on the internet. But sure, I agree that JP has been hypocritical, and that she invited not only a backlash but condemnation for her treatment of Deroir. I even agree that she was a jerk. But other people disagree, and it's not possible to prove that, except subjectively by what we personally consider obnoxious or mean.
    However, my contention remains that "being a jerk" is not an authoritative pretext for severe punitive action (like firing), precisely because judging whether someone is a jerk or not is subjective. And besides if that rule were introduced universally, half of the country (or world for that matter) would be unemployed.

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Their is proof of you literally saying that I said that. Here it is again.

    Let's see it.

    "Well, yes, i'm guessing you just didn't realize you said it."

    ...That is not me literally saying, "you believe sweatshops are ethical." In fact, I later said:

    I have not alleged that you believe sweat shops are ethical

    I have repudiated your claim, and you insist that I made it in order to claim... libel, I guess? I guess accusing me of libal and derailing the thread is easier than justifying that something is both objective and relative.

    You keep trying to bring up topics that are clearly not related to this discussion which is about a US company (Anet) handling an incident regarding two of its US employees, not a topic about sweat shops.

    Ethics is ethics, regardless of where your goalposts are.

    Also remember I never stated ethics are objective

    Except you "literally said"

    their behavior is ethical and legal objective facts

    In other words, logically...

    You know what, forget it.

    Again go read the question that I asked, which was “Did I say that?” In regards to you asking if sweat shops are ethical And your immediate response was Yes. There is no refuting that you made the false allegation/claim that I said sweat shops are ethical. Here it is again.

    @Soa Cirri.6012 said:

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    Did I say that?

    Well, yes, i'm guessing you just didn't realize you said it.

    Re-read the comment that you so conveniently cut off, here I’ll post it for you.

    “ethical and legal objective facts based on precedences set forth across almost every company/organization and upheld by the legal system that arbitrated on these practices.”

    Weird with the full sentence right there it clearly show I was saying the objectivity of the legal precedents set forth by the legal system, I didn’t say that the ethics wer objective, if I was saying that the ethics were objective I would have slapped that word objective into the word ethical. See how it states legal objective facts not ethical objective? That’s a very clear indicator of what word is being modified.

  • oh geese you two are getting out of hand

  • Soa Cirri.6012Soa Cirri.6012 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @BlaqueFyre.5678 said:
    I didn’t say that the ethics wer objective

    Actually it looks like "ethical and legal" are adjectives attached to the phrase of "objective facts," otherwise it would be written, "ethical facts and legal objective facts" if we really want to get into it.
    But okay, let's assume you meant merely "ethical facts." We still run into little a problem because a "fact" itself is...
    Objective.
    (Sorry.)

    If you want to assert that ethics are not objective, then you'll have to restate your argument in new language. However, if you are asserting that ethics are not objective, then they must relative, and if they are relative, then they can't be proven either way, by you or me.

    And this is the consistent logical paradox at the core of your reasoning, here.

    Edit:

    @Cloud Windfoot Omega.7485 said:
    oh geese you two are getting out of hand

    I'll say! Apparently I was committing libel and didn't even realize it! What a crazy night.