GW 2 Devs/Playerbase Twitter Discussion

[Manasa Devi.7958]

@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.2403]

@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.9608]

@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.9320]

@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.1495]

@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.6012]

@"Manasa Devi.7958" said:Yeah, you're right. Crime doesn't exist. No one ever does anything not allowed by law.Straw-manLet'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.1495]

@"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.5678]

@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.1495]

@"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.6012]

@Sojar.1495 said:SnipWe have no quarrel; that's exactly the point I was making. And for the most part, I agree with the rest of your sentiment.

[Ephemiel.5694]

https://kotaku.com/in-the-wake-of-arenanet-firings-game-studios-rethink-t-1827591298?utm_medium=Socialflow&utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Twitter&utm_source=Kotaku_Twitter

It just keeps getting better!

[Manasa Devi.7958]

@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-manLet'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.6012]

@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.5419]

@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?

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@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.

[The Knight of Hope.8023]

@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.

[Ace Kenshader.1253]

Remember what I said earlier about this having a negative effect? Well

https://twitter.com/HazelMonforton/status/1015161882204917760

https://twitter.com/HazelMonforton/status/1016522814336225280

[Soa Cirri.6012]

@"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:It’s actually quite common for employersIf 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.6318]

@"Ace Kenshader.1253" said:Remember what I said earlier about this having a negative effect? Well

https://twitter.com/HazelMonforton/status/1015161882204917760

https://twitter.com/HazelMonforton/status/1016522814336225280

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 Knight of Hope.8023]

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.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@Soa Cirri.6012 said:

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

Anet was well within their rights legally and ethically in this situation, the practice is very common because it is legally and ethically acceptable to uphold the businesse’s interests and image when an employee that is affiliating/representing the company hurts the company by making inflammatory/controversial remarks to their customers and business partners.

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

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.

[Soa Cirri.6012]

@"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:Anet was well within their rights legallySure, assuming they're subject to "right-to-work"and ethically in this situationThat 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 assholes 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.6318]

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.5678]

@Soa Cirri.6012 said:

@"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:Anet was well within their rights legallySure, assuming they're subject to "right-to-work"and ethically in this situationThat 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.6012]

@"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 aboveAgain what was does was handled legallyStill true, still irrelevantand ethicallyStill not proven