GW 2 Devs/Playerbase Twitter Discussion

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@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 aboveAgain what was does was handled legallyStill true, still irrelevantand 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.6318]

@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 provenA 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.6012]

@"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:Did I ever claim to be an arbiter?Well...Anet was well within their rights legally and ethicallyStating 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 ethicalThat'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 cloningEthics (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.4180]

@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.5678]

@Soa Cirri.6012 said:

@"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:Did I ever claim to be an arbiter?Well...Anet was well within their rights legally and ethicallyStating 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 ethicalThat'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/ethicalLet’s see what MW said is a definition of Ethical:3 : conforming to accepted standards of conduct

Here is a similar definition from Dictionary.comhttp://www.dictionary.com/browse/ethical?s=t2. 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.6318]

@Soa Cirri.6012 said:

@"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:Did I ever claim to be an arbiter?Well...Anet was well within their rights legally and ethicallyStating 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 ethicalThat'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.

[Loli Ruri.8307]

I still find it funny how they think that reporting their fake news narrative is going to convince gamers of anything different from the facts? And if they don't like the gamers, why are they in gaming journalism? Or is it like with comic books, where they only wanted to destroy the things we like? Even Anita decided to chime in, and she lacks all credibility. She will literally say anything for feminist money.

The only real debate here is if he and she were worthy enough to get fired or not. But one thing that is hard to debate against, is the fact that putting your name on a company, and then speaking, means you represent that company. Don't like it? Well it's not up to you.

[Sykper.6583]

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.6012]

@"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 wasthe objective definition of EthicallyI 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 practicesOkay. 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 toIn 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 characterThat 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 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 allIf 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.5678]

__> @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 EthicallyI 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 practicesOkay. 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 toIn 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 characterThat 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 allIf 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

2. 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.1368]

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

[Soa Cirri.6012]

@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.5678]

@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.

[Orimura.5689]

@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.9608]

@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.3410]

@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.9354]

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 asshat” 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 Gamergate 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 Gamergate 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 bitches 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.”

[Cloud Windfoot Omega.7485]

why did someone post a whole article here verbatim?

[Deihnyx.6318]

@"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 allIf 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.8603]

@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.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@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:

libel1) 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 ComplaintDefamation 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.6012]

@"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 ethicalI 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 objectiveExcept you "literally said"their behavior is ethical and legal objective facts

In other words, logically...

You know what, forget it.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@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 ethicalI 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 objectiveExcept 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.

[Cloud Windfoot Omega.7485]

oh geese you two are getting out of hand

[Soa Cirri.6012]

@"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:I didn’t say that the ethics wer objectiveActually 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 handI'll say! Apparently I was committing libel and didn't even realize it! What a crazy night.