GW 2 Devs/Playerbase Twitter Discussion

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@Soa Cirri.6012 said:

@"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.

Again I never said ethics were objective Which is why whenever you brought up the discussion of them being relative and not objective I never argued that point in any of my responses, look at previous comments where I stated the objective definition of Ethical, which again I admitted to using the term objective in relation to the term definition was incorrect since definitions are subjective.

Oh you knew you were commiting libel, since I asked you a direct question of “did I say that?” and you gave an answer stating “yes” that I had said something that clearly was never said by me, pretty simple and clear cut.

[Soa Cirri.6012]

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:Again I never said ethics were objective Which is why whenever you brought up the discussion of them being relative and not objective I never argued that point in any of my responses, look at previous comments where I stated the objective definition of Ethical, which again I admitted to using the term objective in relation to the term definition was incorrect since definitions are subjective.

...Okay. So if it's relative, then you're saying all of this was a waste of time because it cannot be proven one way or the other.

Well, that's a bummer.

Oh you knew you were commiting libel, since I asked you a direct question of “did I say that?” and you gave an answer stating “yes” that I had said something that clearly was never said by me, pretty simple and clear cut.Jimminy crimminy.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@Soa Cirri.6012 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:Again I never said ethics were objective Which is why whenever you brought up the discussion of them being relative and not objective I never argued that point in any of my responses, look at previous comments where I stated the objective definition of Ethical, which again I admitted to using the term objective in relation to the term definition was incorrect since definitions are subjective.

...Okay. So if it's relative, then you're saying all of this was a waste of time because it cannot be proven one way or the other.

Well, that's a bummer.

Oh you knew you were commiting libel, since I asked you a direct question of “did I say that?” and you gave an answer stating “yes” that I had said something that clearly was never said by me, pretty simple and clear cut.Jimminy crimminy.

@Soa Cirri.6012 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:Again I never said ethics were objective Which is why whenever you brought up the discussion of them being relative and not objective I never argued that point in any of my responses, look at previous comments where I stated the objective definition of Ethical, which again I admitted to using the term objective in relation to the term definition was incorrect since definitions are subjective.

...Okay. So if it's relative, then you're saying all of this was a waste of time because it cannot be proven one way or the other.

Well, that's a bummer.

Oh you knew you were commiting libel, since I asked you a direct question of “did I say that?” and you gave an answer stating “yes” that I had said something that clearly was never said by me, pretty simple and clear cut.Jimminy crimminy.

It doesn’t matter that ethics are relative, it matters that the situation of Anet and it’s two former employees was handled ethically which it was, as per the definition of ethical.

Let’s clear somethings up here with the facts:

Did you say? “So, sweat shops and child slavery are ethical. Got it.”

And did I reply with “Did I say that?”

Then did you quote my question and say “Well, yes, i'm guessing you just didn't realize you said it.”

Are you saying none of that happened?

[Cloud Windfoot Omega.7485]

@Soa Cirri.6012 said:

@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.

it takes two to tango

[Soa Cirri.6012]

@Cloud Windfoot Omega.7485 said:it takes two to tango

True enough.

[cyanweapon.7290]

There seems to be some arguments forming on here based solely for the sake of nitpicky one-upmanship. A disingenuous premise does nothing but damage your own premise. I mean, seriously - when it gets to a point where you're asking someone to define "jerk," it's time for involved parties to move on.

Back on topic, this does seem to've become a sort of 'dog chasing its own tail'. Over the span of 73 pages, I've seen the same arguments and refutes made. It follows a pretty straight sequence.1.) Firings were unjust.2.) Firings were just.3a.) PF shouldn't have been fired.3b.) PF should have been fired.4.) No firings should have happened because private twitter.5.) Twitter is not private and they were representing the company.6.) Start chain from Part 1.

I'm not calling for the thread to be closed, but does anyone else notice this pattern? I'm thinking of making like a boardgame out of it.

[Azraeil.7013]

I am an old player with 3000 hours ingame. I only use forum for information in case of bugs but normally i don't like to touch it since my mentality it just to enjoy the game, if i don't like it anymore i abandon it, i don't see the purpose of making good bye tread or to qq about why i am leaving the game.I found about this problem on a different forum that i am using for information about games deals in general, so i like to give my 2 cents alsoThis problem could had been solved easy however it gone out of proportion and no matter what we say there is no turning back in the past, the only think we can do it learn and make sure this doesn't happen again .

Areanet stand by community which for me it a plus, it first time when i see the company staying beside there customer, from my experience customer were treating very bad with mentality if you don't like it don't use it.

I like to give this phrase from a book which explain my point of view to the article from journalist "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they're afraid it might be true. Peoples' heads are full of knowledge, facts and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."

The only person that i pity and respect it Peter, that he stand for his colleague even if it meant for him to have problem at the company.

MO did the right think, some of us are working class and we know that we must separate our jobs and personal life. You can share what you want but once you begin to speak about your jobs and you involve some part of your company in your discussion, you are responsible for the outcome.

To show my support i buy gems, i know it doesn't mean to much but at this moment we as a community must be together, improve our-self and even if we loose 2 dev it not the end of the world, we can still recover and show why this game it so good by enjoy itThanks for reading my 2 cents and sorry for my English, not native speaker ( i consider this to be the cause of everything, after all we read what we need not what it true)

[Soa Cirri.6012]

@"cyanweapon.7290" said:when it gets to a point where you're asking someone to define "jerk"Hey! This is just how ethical debates get. Defining terms is super important. But it turned out that everything was relative in the end, so I guess you may as well be right.I'm not calling for the thread to be closed, but does anyone else notice this pattern? I'm thinking of making like a boardgame out of it.Although not necessarily in that order, that pretty much sums it up.

What would you could call it? "Tweets and Peters"? "The Game of Price"? "MikeO'poly"?

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@"cyanweapon.7290" said:There seems to be some arguments forming on here based solely for the sake of nitpicky one-upmanship. A disingenuous premise does nothing but damage your own premise. I mean, seriously - when it gets to a point where you're asking someone to define "jerk," it's time for involved parties to move on.

Back on topic, this does seem to've become a sort of 'dog chasing its own tail'. Over the span of 73 pages, I've seen the same arguments and refutes made. It follows a pretty straight sequence.1.) Firings were unjust.2.) Firings were just.3a.) PF shouldn't have been fired.3b.) PF should have been fired.4.) No firings should have happened because private twitter.5.) Twitter is not private and they were representing the company.6.) Start chain from Part 1.

I'm not calling for the thread to be closed, but does anyone else notice this pattern? I'm thinking of making like a boardgame out of it.

There are multiple people with differing thoughts on the matter and the situation had limited possible outcomes, so the sides for and against the outcomes are limited, either Anet would have taken action and not terminate either, terminate one but not the other, or terminate both.

But what we do know is Two employees engaged in inflammatory/controversial remarks while being representative of Anet while interacting with Consumers/Business Partners.

Anet took action based on company policy, which both employees agreed to upon condition of employment.End of what we know for certain.

Now if neither of them would have been advertising on their personal social media accounts their roles/affiliation with Anet and discussing ANet processes it probably would not have gone against Anet’s Policy on the matter and probably would have amounted to very little.

But since they both did advertise their roles/affiliation of being employed by Anet and discussed company processes on story narration is where the issue comes from and where Anet is justified in the actions they took since the two employees were being representative of the company and their remarks caused a Large PR incident.

Now again some players will disagree with that action, and some will agree with it, and some will be undecided/mixed on it, but that’s nature of the beast.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

I stated many pages ago that the only winner in this situation was the group that likes to see things burn. I'm glad that at this point it appears as though there might be some good to come out of this mess. If other game development companies -- and ANet -- are looking at their social media policies, clarifying guidelines, and setting up ways to protect developers from ill-meaning people on the internet, that's to my mind a good thing.

It's too bad that the initial principals -- Ms. Price, Mr. Fries, Deroir, ANet management, ANet staff and the GW2 community have all suffered as a result of the circumstances. At this point, I'm certain that of the initial principals, the victims were: Deroir, who it seems was a devoted fan, an amateur enthusiast, who made a comment that was taken differently than all evidence suggests he intended; and ANet staff, to whom this is no doubt unsettling, if not outright frightening.

I believe Ms. Price was the architect of her own circumstances. She had several opportunities to choose an alternate path and did not. I have some sympathy for her. I know what stress can do to judgment. However, while I understand and support her desire to stand up for women's rights, all causes are best served if their proponents choose their battles carefully. Her choice to fight this battle when and how she did indicates questionable judgment, perhaps caused by her confessed stress and/or a mistaken belief that a social media feed on which the general public can read and comment is a safe space in which to say whatever she wants. What social media ought to be is very different from what it actually is.

Mr. Fries I take to be a decent human being. If he made a mistake, he was trying to stand up for a co-worker. However, he chose to support someone whose comments ANet decided were not what they wanted to see from an employee. While he made a choice and has had to accept the consequences, I find it hard to really fault him.

I don't at this point know that ANet management acted as the often cringe-worthy articles by the gaming "press" report. If they did, there is certainly room for improvement on their part. Either way, company management has taken a hit, and it may be some time before this washes off, if it ever does.

Finally, some elements of the community are happy with ANet's actions and some are decidedly not. The discussion here has been at times acrimonious, and I don't know how many posts on reddit may have been down-voted into oblivion. Still, the divides within the wider community have never seemed as clear to me, and this divide is over real world issues, rather than the by-comparison trivialities of those over game elements.

So, in conclusion, I am glad that there might be some good coming out of this, even if in the case of this issue it is barring the gate after the horse has gone. Still, I'll take that over my initial belief that everyone with any decency lost.

Peace, and out.

[cyanweapon.7290]

I, uh... don't know if I wasn't clear in what I said, but I'll take this moment to clarify. I was saying that the arguments that keep getting represented here are repeats. It's like playing the same song, only with a different instrument.

[Dawdler.8521]

Reading the article on idga.org that demands "clarification" of dev->community interaction rules and demand to know if the devs are even allowed to say nothing in response to actual harassement and what "levels" of disagreement is acceptable, I just realized something.

Twitter really has melted the human brain and we are no longer capable of performing unsupervised interactions with other human beings

[Cloud Windfoot Omega.7485]

@"Dawdler.8521" said:Reading the article on idga.org that demands "clarification" of dev->community interaction rules and demand to know if the devs are even allowed to say nothing in response to actual harassement and what "levels" of disagreement is acceptable, I just realized something.

Twitter really has melted the human brain and we are no longer capable of performing unsupervised interactions with other human beings

Im not sure when being in game development was more like being enrolled in a daycare than a job.

[Ashen.2907]

I would say that equitable treatment or rights counts as ethical.

JP, or any employee, generally has the right to leave their place of employment at any time and for any reason, even if this would harm the employer. In order for the association between employee and employer to be equitable the employer must have the same right. If the employer is not allowed this right then, in order for the relationship to be equitable, neither should the employee. I personally dont like the idea of a work relationship where the employee is not allowed to quit.

Anyone desiring ethical relationships between employer and employee, must support the idea that an employer can end its association with any employee, or they are supporting depriving employees of the right to quit a job they no longer desire, for whatever reason. in order for it to be ethical it must be equitable.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

@Pretty Pixie.8603 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@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.

None of the requirements are fullfilled. Showing the flaw in your logic by comparing it to sweatshops is not the same as saying you endorse sweatshops. Arguing hat is in is a Srawman. It is happening on a forum for a game without your name against it, And it’s i possible to prove any harm was done since you’re anonymous.

Please refrain from using terms like libel when you’re having an argument on the interwebz. It gives the appearance that you’re rying to intimidate the other party into silence.

The poster claimed that I said Sweat shops were ethical, which is a false claim since I never stated such, the only reason for them to make the claim would be to discredit/cause harm my reputation/points made on the actual subject which was the incident between Anet two former employees and community members/partners.

Where in the definition of Libel or defamation does it state that it has to be my actual name and not my ingame/forum persona? It doesn’t a simple reading would show that.

Are you implying that I am not a person? Or that this community knows me(a person) by this name? And does this name not have a reputation? And can this reputation not be harmed by false claims?

[morrolan.9608]

@Dashingsteel.3410 said: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?

Many many American think they were over the top in firing them even game producers like Randy Pitchford.

[Deihnyx.6318]

@"Soa Cirri.6012" said: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.

I don't think you can play the subjective card on segregating comments against the community you work for. Especially for someone so adept of the competitive victimization (certified more toxic than SPVP :D)

[maddoctor.2738]

@morrolan.9608 said:Many many American think they were over the top in firing them even game producers like Randy Pitchford.

No surprise one of the most controversial game producers that often attacks the community, Randy Pitchford that is, would protest the firing.It's safe to talk when something doesn't happen to you. I'd want to see Randy's response if she was one of his own employees.

[Pretty Pixie.8603]

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@Pretty Pixie.8603 said:

@BlaqueFyre.5678 said:

@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.

None of the requirements are fullfilled. Showing the flaw in your logic by comparing it to sweatshops is not the same as saying you endorse sweatshops. Arguing hat is in is a Srawman. It is happening on a forum for a game without your name against it, And it’s i possible to prove any harm was done since you’re anonymous.

Please refrain from using terms like libel when you’re having an argument on the interwebz. It gives the appearance that you’re rying to intimidate the other party into silence.

The poster claimed that I said Sweat shops were ethical, which is a false claim since I never stated such, the only reason for them to make the claim would be to discredit/cause harm my reputation/points made on the actual subject which was the incident between Anet two former employees and community members/partners.

Where in the definition of Libel or defamation does it state that it has to be my actual name and not my ingame/forum persona? It doesn’t a simple reading would show that.

Are you implying that I am not a person? Or that this community knows me(a person) by this name? And does this name not have a reputation? And can this reputation not be harmed by false claims?

I’ve alredy been pretty clear, and unwilling to spent more time on what I consider a farcical position. Please, go talk to a lawyer..

[lord naarghul.6305]

This entire controversy is the most useless thing in the world to dwell on. What's done is done.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Soa Cirri.6012 said:

@"maddoctor.2738" said:Those "crisis" were parts of decisions by the Arenanet team, discussed by the developers at length, even involving higher ups maybe?

You mean like how firing them was the decision of MO, a higher-up (the CEO if I'm not mistaken)?

This thread got over 2.7k responses across 67 pages in a week. JP and PF were fired on page 1. There's also, now, numerous "journalists" spinning the story to completely destroy ANET's reputation, in the complete vacuum enforced by MO in his refusal to communicate. It would appear that MO's decision resulted in a crisis, in which we are currently engaged—and this is hardly his first. So when do the knives come out for him? Or does his being a "higher-up" justify anything he might do?

You mean someone decides to act professionally and not air dirty washing in public for cause or effect... this must be all on MO I guess in some warped kind of alternate universe..Like I said earlier, start up your own business, launch a product employ people and then sit back and watch as one of those employees decides to put themselves on a pedestal representing your company and talk shop in a public forum and the decides to go off on a full on whackjob tirade fuelled on aggression and controversy because someone.. a man, dared attempt to engage in open discussion around some work related content the employee apparently thought was not for anyone to comment on unless they were in total agreement.. otherwise everyone else with an opinion, especially anyone of the opposite sex are of course just being condescending harassing her and being sexist towards her. Anyone else not in full agreement with her and her opinions are simply rando As*hats, bullies, and not worth her time to engage with.

So you become aware of it and monitor it and also notice another employee also get involve and the situation begins to escalate... bad feeling are rising, abuse is now coming from all sides but rather than withdrawing from the situation and the controversy the employee, decides its time to create an angle and push on with her true narrative, twisting the conversation to make it about gender and blindly claims victim status for some higher purpose in an attempt to garner more support and controversy .. which on reflection appears to follows her like a bad smell.

So what do you do in order to protect your company, the image, the rest of your employees and your customers good will... I mean you clearly think such storms in a teacup do not possess the ability to push customers away, to force companies into making other more challenging decisions that could ultimately affect other jobs in the company even destroy the company itself...So, please put yourself in the shoes of ANET management, what do you do, sit down over a pot of tea, hope the employee says sorry and continue on with your day... Yeah ANET has had to deal with other challenging issues over the course of it existence and they have come through them..HOW / WHY ??? - Because with each challenge the business is forced to make decisions, they look at the facts, they way up the pro's and con's of the situation, what impact such a situation may have and what impact their own decisions could have... then when that is done and management is comfortable with the decisions made and are satisfied that due process has been upheld - a decision is made and in this case it resulted in the removal of the employee and unfortunately another employee who had also played a part in the issue having got caught up in it all, became an ex employee as well.... I reserved judgement on this one as I have said many times already.

So of course people on both sides of your customer base are not happy.. do you sit in silence, or do you a short statement and keep detail to a minimum so as to not antagonise the situation further , whilst attempting to protect the privacy of those individuals and not attempt to escalate bad feelings towards them by naming them publicly.Of course, not satisfied the now ex-employee thought it best to double, triple, quadruple down on a narrative that was never there to begin with, and was of her own making, now suddenly becomes the topic surrounding her firing.. its everyone else's fault.. your company doesn't support its workforce especially women, their is rampant sexism from within and she feels concerned for any women that works there now.. even though in such a short time with the company she actively encouraged women want to and actually work there, even though she was actively part of a number of female related company events and being part of an employee base that employees many women across a wide range of disciplines from the ground up, it has women in lead roles, decision making roles of which this employee WAS one of them.. but the company must be baselessly sexist, she fears for women working there, employees are now all worried about their jobs and senior management is cowardly...YOUR company is now perceived to be a mess, a political hotpot full of sexism and does not support its workforce .. RIGHT!.

So how do you / should you fight back to refute the actions of an out of control narcissist, someone who is hell bent on pushing and spinning her narrative, twisting facts and using a cause in an effort to forward her own agenda, whilst painting herself as the victim, refusing to self reflect on the harm she alone has caused and continues to cause not just in the company, with its customers but now setting the industry alight with opinions and concerns form all parties... so your the boss, its your call what do you do.????DO you keep any comment/facts to a minimum and act like any professional person / company would do OR do you reply in kind and begin a war of words with this whackjob of social justice warrior who can't even see she IS the CAUSE and EFFECT of her own actions.

Sorry I firmly believe MO / ANET made the right call.. to of allowed this person to continue to work there would of opened the company up to further issues, other employees and members of the public/their customers could of been subjected to more of the same in the future (loosing a 12yr vet caught up in the crossfire of all this was bad enough for the company and for the individual and his family - a decision I bet was extremely difficult to of made or allowed to of been made) - No keeping this individual was a risk to great imo, she had to be fired, no doubt about it in my mind...

But lets not forget this is now your company we are talking about.. please tell us what you would of done and what you decisions would of been.

[Astralporing.1957]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@"Dashingsteel.3410" said: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?

Many many American think they were over the top in firing them even game producers like Randy Pitchford.

The same Randy Pitchford that that started backpedaling already after reading JPs past twitter history?

Examples:https://twitter.com/DuvalMagic/status/1015608613614698497

https://twitter.com/DuvalMagic/status/1015607200717287424

By the end, he pretty much supported the firings, admitted he really didn't know all that much about the case when he made the initial statement, and his only beef was with Anet statement of it (he thought it should have been done quietly). He also was very, very careful from the beginning to completely ignore all of the (many) questions about whether he'd hire her now.

(notice, though, that the whole discussion was pretty much only about JP, not PF. In the end, the people defending her do not really care about him, and would probably say nothing if it was a case only about him - even though they'd be standing on a much firmer ground then)

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@"Dashingsteel.3410" said: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?

Many many American think they were over the top in firing them even game producers like Randy Pitchford.

Go and read up on the whole Randy Pitchford, how shall we put it.. ah wait I like how Astral put it.. backpeddling episode..

Many, many Americans you mean the few who have tweeted, the few biased cherry picker game journos or maybe the small percentage of the community that actually shared a view in this thread,.. or maybe the handful at best that put their names and comments down on the (now vanished) Rehire them Petition.I am curious how do you quantify and qualify your "many, many Americans" in your statement.... maybe I could counter it by using your methods.. Many, many Americans and non Americans support the decision to fire them... see what I did there.

[fizzypetal.7936]

https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/igda-game-devs-social-media-1202869455/

Headline: IGDA Posts Game Developer Social Media Considerations

If the conversations had not been had when other companies fired developers over their social media commentary (Bioware most recently), perhaps this episode with JP & PF was a wake up call - not such a bad thing if you're the type to find a silver lining.

[Mysty Meadows.1425]

@"IndigoSundown.5419" said:I stated many pages ago that the only winner in this situation was the group that likes to see things burn. I'm glad that at this point it appears as though there might be some good to come out of this mess. If other game development companies -- and ANet -- are looking at their social media policies, clarifying guidelines, and setting up ways to protect developers from ill-meaning people on the internet, that's to my mind a good thing.

It's too bad that the initial principals -- Ms. Price, Mr. Fries, Deroir, ANet management, ANet staff and the GW2 community have all suffered as a result of the circumstances. At this point, I'm certain that of the initial principals, the victims were: Deroir, who it seems was a devoted fan, an amateur enthusiast, who made a comment that was taken differently than all evidence suggests he intended; and ANet staff, to whom this is no doubt unsettling, if not outright frightening.

I believe Ms. Price was the architect of her own circumstances. She had several opportunities to choose an alternate path and did not. I have some sympathy for her. I know what stress can do to judgment. However, while I understand and support her desire to stand up for women's rights, all causes are best served if their proponents choose their battles carefully. Her choice to fight this battle when and how she did indicates questionable judgment, perhaps caused by her confessed stress and/or a mistaken belief that a social media feed on which the general public can read and comment is a safe space in which to say whatever she wants. What social media ought to be is very different from what it actually is.

Mr. Fries I take to be a decent human being. If he made a mistake, he was trying to stand up for a co-worker. However, he chose to support someone whose comments ANet decided were not what they wanted to see from an employee. While he made a choice and has had to accept the consequences, I find it hard to really fault him.

I don't at this point know that ANet management acted as the often cringe-worthy articles by the gaming "press" report. If they did, there is certainly room for improvement on their part. Either way, company management has taken a hit, and it may be some time before this washes off, if it ever does.

Finally, some elements of the community are happy with ANet's actions and some are decidedly not. The discussion here has been at times acrimonious, and I don't know how many posts on reddit may have been down-voted into oblivion. Still, the divides within the wider community have never seemed as clear to me, and this divide is over real world issues, rather than the by-comparison trivialities of those over game elements.

So, in conclusion, I am glad that there might be some good coming out of this, even if in the case of this issue it is barring the gate after the horse has gone. Still, I'll take that over my initial belief that everyone with any decency lost.

Peace, and out.

Well said, to my thinking I can sum it up in one word. Triggers. All of those involved were triggered. Emotional triggers can be very powerful, and can seem to have a mind and will of their own. I for one have had my eyes opened in that I see many sides and viewpoints more clearly. Not to infer I agree with them all, but all voices are valid, even if only to bring to light how we each feel.