GW 2 Devs/Playerbase Twitter Discussion

[dontlook.1823]

Okay, quick PSA it's been couple of days I've had some time to collect my thoughts. And although I'm still jaded about the whole thing and I really still think the whole is just too polarized there should have been a strong middle-ground. I'm going to return in-game I've spent much too much time to and effort to call it quits like this.

Some points I never got to make were

1. JP Posted on Reddit about a topic about how something was done much like how a math problem is solved not very many ways on can one disagree - thats where the jadedness lies
2. He is an okay fellow but he if felt so compelled to give feedback there is a thread under GW2 discussion titled LWS4 feedback. Simply as that.

Fin. My apologies if I lashed out at anyone for any reason I genuinely connected with JP during the Guild Chat about month ago. Her boisterous enthusiasm, I felt, was an invaluable addition to the ANET team. Not to mention this most recent LW was off the charts in terms of narrative epicness. Because I'm a blind optimist, I hope she and Peter Fries have a chance for reconsideration that

OR my Ultimate conspiracy theory: The next expansion is GW2 fractions and JP and PF have been relocated and now leaders of the Inquest. As it would make perfect sense since she named Rata Primus.

[Deihnyx.6318]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@Cyrin.1035 said:

@morrolan.9608 said:

@Cyrin.1035 said:

Did this waiter betray your trust and your relationship?

No because Derroir clearly has no relationship at all with Price or Fries, let alone other customer watching it. And the situation is not analogous anyway because neither Fries nor Price are in customer service positions.

morrolan... XD

JP and PF represent the company. They develop, market, and have even interviewed in public for an MMORPG made for many players. The moment you are part of something like that, what you say and do matters when your words can be verified.

JP and PF absolutely have a relationship with Deroir and the playerbase. If you don't understand how that works, then you, unfortunately, do not understand the gravity of this situation.

Well many in the industry don't believe that, they aren't making games for you and I they are essentially making something akin to art and to believe that they should be beholden to customers when not in customer facing roles is simply entitlement. Even if you believe they do they were rude to a customer who, when you parse his words, was being condescending to her, it doesn't warrant sacking.

Maybe these people should have a look at how it works in other industries. See if that behavior would be tolerated and even better, if they would get the internet support for acting unprofessionally.Communities are no more no less than a lobby. Just like any lobby they have some form of power to voice their opinion. It doesn't make them evil.

Personally, when I read that it should be ok for professionals representing their company to act this way, it makes me wonder which industry actually has privileges over others.

And I think we've established that the "condescending" part was at best a topic of debate, but not a fact set in stone. Many of us disagree that it was.

(Edited to avoid double posting).

[Zaklex.6308]

@thruine.8510 said:

@"Vayne.8563" said:

You can only say what YOU experience, but you can't assume that level of experience is shared by all or even most new people. If most people didn't run dungeons originally, then in fact, most people won't run them now. The people who come here craving dungeons, because there were dungeons in other games, won't all be of the same opinion. And lest you think I'm just babbling. let me assure you, I speak to a whole lot of new people. I help new people in low level zones, but also run a guild with a lot of new people and indeed, a few of them do bring up dungeons, but far more new people just generally want to solo and don't care about dungeons.

This game was never really based around the dungeons. It was centered, since launch, on it's open world content, and people who enjoy that most have found a home here. I personally never cared about or for dungeons even though I've done them all many many many times. But it's not my prime source of entertainment. It wouldn't matter to me if they were in the game or not in the game. So this isn't a problem for new players. This is a problem for you and players who think like you. Which may be a lower percentage of the playerbase than you'd expect.

Because some people simply ask and get the answer that dungeons were the original 5 man content, and they were replaced by fractals and not knowing any better, those people accept that answer and say okay fractals are the new dungeons and they don't think the game is shoddy.

But then there's another group of people that still run dungeons, and they experience it differently because they still have fun with them when they do run them, but they're not so focused on dungeons. In fact, most people don't know dungeons are abandoned, most likely since more than half the playerbase probably not goes to the forums or reddit. They just play the game, and letters in their inventory or not, they happily ignore than dungeons are in the game. This seems to have been the case from the beginning.

Lots of games have older content that either doesn't hold up to new content or the playerbase has given up on. That's normal for most MMOs, except for many, it's the open world. In this game we have more people in the open world, going back to the open world but fewer people in dungeons. What do you suppose would make more of an impression on most people?

This isn't a problem for new players. This is a problem for new players who are insistent that dungeons must be part of some diet that everyone eats. I assure you that's not the case.

There's a flaw in your reasoning. The personal story, assuming all new players complete it, make the statement that the dungeons are important. You have taken this outlook that I've been talking about dungeons as a feature of games for being, well, dungeons. I've been talking how the personal story is so badly done with one of the reasons for it being so bad is because a major portion of it is locked behind a game feature which is ignored. The dungeons. Either fix the dungeons or fix the personal story. Neither one makes a good impression on new players as they stand now and just because everybody doesn't play them shouldn't mean those that do should have a bad experience. Removing a bad feature is better than leaving it in unless you don't care. I don't think they care as long as those playing the newest content are spending. Just my opinion of its issues. Its quite odd to find a game feature (dungeons) available in many games not have any interest in this one game. I think if they cared about them then they might have more interest from players. I certainly wouldn't have written them off so early. I tried to run them my first time through the PS and completely ignored them my second. It had nothing to do with not having the interest and not being directed to them (through emails). It was entirely the content itself which made the decision for me.

Those dungeons the personal story refer you to are entirely optional, they do not play into your characters personal story at all...other than giving you filler information on the members of Destiny's Edge. Fractals of the Mists have taken the place of the "traditional" dungeon(what ever that is) but there's absolutely no reason to remove the original dungeons from the game because they do serve a purpose, for those that are interested in finding out the background of how you helped to get Destiny's Edge reunited...nothing more, nothing less, and if you don't find Fractals to your liking, then I can't help you.

[Zaklex.6308]

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@"morrolan.9608" said:

Well many in the industry don't believe that, they aren't making games for you and I they are essentially making something akin to art and to believe that they should be beholden to customers when not in customer facing roles is simply entitlement. Even if you believe they do they were rude to a customer who, when you parse his words, was being condescending to her, it doesn't warrant sacking.

Have you parsed Deroir's initial statement? You could share your analysis, then? But wait, let me guess, Are you going to say that you don't have to, that "anyone" should be able to see the condescension as others have done in this thread? If so, sorry, that doesn't cut it. You're issuing a conclusion using a word that means you have performed an analysis of his words and determined their syntactic role. I defy you to show condescension based on his syntax. For that matter, go ahead and use any other form of analysis you care to drum up to prove your conclusion.

It doesn't need to be parsed Indigo, I've said before...it can be read as condescending, I'm not saying it is or isn't as it's all in the interpretation and the context you want to see the words in. I also stated I believe part of the problem is that English is not Deroir native tongue, it's a second or third or fourth language(you get the idea). I've also stated, that even though Twitter and Reddit and other social media sites state that part of their purpose is to allow open dialogue and discussion, that not everything people say or state is open for discussion, so I think they should all include an option for people to post something and do as YouTube does, allow that person to close Tweet or what ever to responses and discussion. There are often times I post stuff on my FB account that are existential stream of consciousness ideas and thoughts, sometimes they're open for discussion, and sometimes they're a statement, a final word have you and not open to discussion, but there's currently no way to prevent that without not letting anyone read it, which isn't the purpose of those thoughts.

[morrolan.9608]

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@"morrolan.9608" said:

Well many in the industry don't believe that, they aren't making games for you and I they are essentially making something akin to art and to believe that they should be beholden to customers when not in customer facing roles is simply entitlement. Even if you believe they do they were rude to a customer who, when you parse his words, was being condescending to her, it doesn't warrant sacking.

Have you parsed Deroir's initial statement? You could share your analysis, then?

This guy does a pretty good job:https://twitter.com/beaglerush/status/1017050472681598978

Basically Deroir is being polite but is actually doing exactly what Price called him out for doing, telling her how to do her job.

@Deihnyx.6318 said:

Maybe these people should have a look at how it works in other industries. See if that behavior would be tolerated and even better, if they would get the internet support for acting unprofessionally.Communities are no more no less than a lobby. Just like any lobby they have some form of power to voice their opinion. It doesn't make them evil.

I've said it before but the degree to which people get sacked for being rude to customers has been overstated in this debate and thats even people in customer service positions which Price and Fries were not.

[Cloud Windfoot Omega.7485]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@morrolan.9608 said:

Well many in the industry don't believe that, they aren't making games for you and I they are essentially making something akin to art and to believe that they should be beholden to customers when not in customer facing roles is simply entitlement. Even if you believe they do they were rude to a customer who, when you parse his words, was being condescending to her, it doesn't warrant sacking.

Have you parsed Deroir's initial statement? You could share your analysis, then?

This guy does a pretty good job:

https://twitter.com/beaglerush/status/1017050472681598978

Basically Deroir is being polite but is actually doing exactly what Price called him out for doing, telling her how to do her job.

@Deihnyx.6318 said:

Maybe these people should have a look at how it works in other industries. See if that behavior would be tolerated and even better, if they would get the internet support for acting unprofessionally.Communities are no more no less than a lobby. Just like any lobby they have some form of power to voice their opinion. It doesn't make them evil.

I've said it before but the degree to which people get sacked for being rude to customers has been overstated in this debate and thats even people in customer service positions which Price and Fries were not.

Basically, you are trying to spin criticism as bad.Nobody told her how to do her job, its plain ridiculous to even try to spin it as such.

[Vayne.8563]

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@thruine.8510 said:

@"Vayne.8563" said:

You can only say what YOU experience, but you can't assume that level of experience is shared by all or even most new people. If most people didn't run dungeons originally, then in fact, most people won't run them now. The people who come here craving dungeons, because there were dungeons in other games, won't all be of the same opinion. And lest you think I'm just babbling. let me assure you, I speak to a whole lot of new people. I help new people in low level zones, but also run a guild with a lot of new people and indeed, a few of them do bring up dungeons, but far more new people just generally want to solo and don't care about dungeons.

This game was never really based around the dungeons. It was centered, since launch, on it's open world content, and people who enjoy that most have found a home here. I personally never cared about or for dungeons even though I've done them all many many many times. But it's not my prime source of entertainment. It wouldn't matter to me if they were in the game or not in the game. So this isn't a problem for new players. This is a problem for you and players who think like you. Which may be a lower percentage of the playerbase than you'd expect.

Because some people simply ask and get the answer that dungeons were the original 5 man content, and they were replaced by fractals and not knowing any better, those people accept that answer and say okay fractals are the new dungeons and they don't think the game is shoddy.

But then there's another group of people that still run dungeons, and they experience it differently because they still have fun with them when they do run them, but they're not so focused on dungeons. In fact, most people don't know dungeons are abandoned, most likely since more than half the playerbase probably not goes to the forums or reddit. They just play the game, and letters in their inventory or not, they happily ignore than dungeons are in the game. This seems to have been the case from the beginning.

Lots of games have older content that either doesn't hold up to new content or the playerbase has given up on. That's normal for most MMOs, except for many, it's the open world. In this game we have more people in the open world, going back to the open world but fewer people in dungeons. What do you suppose would make more of an impression on most people?

This isn't a problem for new players. This is a problem for new players who are insistent that dungeons must be part of some diet that everyone eats. I assure you that's not the case.

There's a flaw in your reasoning. The personal story, assuming all new players complete it, make the statement that the dungeons are important. You have taken this outlook that I've been talking about dungeons as a feature of games for being, well, dungeons. I've been talking how the personal story is so badly done with one of the reasons for it being so bad is because a major portion of it is locked behind a game feature which is ignored. The dungeons. Either fix the dungeons or fix the personal story. Neither one makes a good impression on new players as they stand now and just because everybody doesn't play them shouldn't mean those that do should have a bad experience. Removing a bad feature is better than leaving it in unless you don't care. I don't think they care as long as those playing the newest content are spending. Just my opinion of its issues. Its quite odd to find a game feature (dungeons) available in many games not have any interest in this one game. I think if they cared about them then they might have more interest from players. I certainly wouldn't have written them off so early. I tried to run them my first time through the PS and completely ignored them my second. It had nothing to do with not having the interest and not being directed to them (through emails). It was entirely the content itself which made the decision for me.

Those dungeons the personal story refer you to are entirely optional, they do not play into your characters personal story at all...other than giving you filler information on the members of Destiny's Edge. Fractals of the Mists have taken the place of the "traditional" dungeon(what ever that is) but there's absolutely no reason to remove the original dungeons from the game because they do serve a purpose, for those that are interested in finding out the background of how you helped to get Destiny's Edge reunited...nothing more, nothing less, and if you don't find Fractals to your liking, then I can't help you.

It also might be added that the dungeons don't do that good a job of telling that story and you'd be much better off reading the novel (if you like reading anyway) Edge of Destiny which tells that story in far more detail.

[Deihnyx.6318]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@morrolan.9608 said:

Well many in the industry don't believe that, they aren't making games for you and I they are essentially making something akin to art and to believe that they should be beholden to customers when not in customer facing roles is simply entitlement. Even if you believe they do they were rude to a customer who, when you parse his words, was being condescending to her, it doesn't warrant sacking.

Have you parsed Deroir's initial statement? You could share your analysis, then?

This guy does a pretty good job:

https://twitter.com/beaglerush/status/1017050472681598978

Basically Deroir is being polite but is actually doing exactly what Price called him out for doing, telling her how to do her job.

@"Deihnyx.6318" said:

Maybe these people should have a look at how it works in other industries. See if that behavior would be tolerated and even better, if they would get the internet support for acting unprofessionally.Communities are no more no less than a lobby. Just like any lobby they have some form of power to voice their opinion. It doesn't make them evil.

I've said it before but the degree to which people get sacked for being rude to customers has been overstated in this debate and thats even people in customer service positions which Price and Fries were not.

This guy starts off biased by calling the community a "mob", basically not recognizing that, just like every lobby, a community has a say in the matter and is not necessarily wrong (it can be, but it's fallacious to assume they are just because). Did the gaming community get called "mobs" when they tried to influence governments to ban lootboxes? Hell no.

Furthermore, just like everyone else, he tries to focus on how condescending Deroir was (which can certainly be discussed, but in no way is factual) while "forgetting" to demonstrate how anything has to do with gender.... which is basically the one point that made so many people furious: Turning a matter of 'professional versus consumer' into politics issues (dare I say, opportunism).

There -is- a precedent of people getting fired for burning out publicly and exploding on people.

[morrolan.9608]

@"Deihnyx.6318" said:

This guy starts off biased by calling the community a "mob", basically not recognizing that, just like every lobby, a community has a say in the matter and is not necessarily wrong (it can be, but it's fallacious to assume they are just because). Did the gaming community get called "mobs" when they tried to influence governments to ban lootboxes? Hell no.

It was mob behaviour so its accurately described. And the community should have no say in matters like this. Staff behaviour should be evaluated against internal regulations, codes of conduct and whatnot.

[Deihnyx.6318]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@"Deihnyx.6318" said:

This guy starts off biased by calling the community a "mob", basically not recognizing that, just like every lobby, a community has a say in the matter and is not necessarily wrong (it can be, but it's fallacious to assume they are just because). Did the gaming community get called "mobs" when they tried to influence governments to ban lootboxes? Hell no.

It was mob behaviour so its accurately described. And the community should have no say in matters like this. Staff behaviour should be evaluated against internal regulations, codes of conduct and whatnot.

Mob: a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.You're assuming an intent of causing violence. Assuming. On my end, I see a crowd of people calling out rude behavior. There's certainly some people who just care to see the world burn, but you're assuming that's what the community wants. This is fallacious.

A community just like any lobby has the power to influence, just like the "Jessica side" is overly doing it by having medias twisting facts whenever possible. One does not get the high ground on the other just because you say so.Factually though, the community didn't "vote" in the end. It didn't have a say in this. Literally nothing unusual happened there.

Normal regulations in literally every industry is to treat a consumer somewhat respectfully. Even if you disagree with them, even if they're annoying. A disagreement (especially in that instance) is not a free pass to push political BS.A code of conduct will always tell you that representing a company in a bad way is a big no no. That some people conveniently try to make it sound that this rule is unclear aren't helping their case. If anything they even look LESS professional.

[morrolan.9608]

@Deihnyx.6318 said:Normal regulations in literally every industry is to treat a consumer somewhat respectfully. Even if you disagree with them, even if they're annoying. A disagreement (especially in that instance) is not a free pass to push political BS.A code of conduct will always tell you that representing a company in a bad way is a big no no. That some people conveniently try to make it sound that this rule is unclear aren't helping their case. If anything they even look LESS professional.

It has actually become clear that the anet rules around social media were completely unclear and had not been updated since 2011.

[Deihnyx.6318]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@Deihnyx.6318 said:Normal regulations in literally every industry is to treat a consumer somewhat respectfully. Even if you disagree with them, even if they're annoying. A disagreement (especially in that instance) is not a free pass to push political BS.A code of conduct will always tell you that representing a company in a bad way is a big no no. That some people conveniently try to make it sound that this rule is unclear aren't helping their case. If anything they even look LESS professional.

It has actually become clear that the anet rules around social media were completely unclear and had not been updated since 2011.

Hence my call out that they look even less professional by claiming it isn't clear that someone representing a company shouldn't be blowing up on a consumer.You can certainly have discussions on how to protect your privacy, what is the process when you feel attacked, etc. But there's one thing for sure is that everyone is expected to know that you don't give your own company bad rep without consequences.

I work in consulting and one of our guy got fired last year for being unprofessional on a client call. And it wasn't nearly as bad as that. He just had a condescending way of telling a client they were expecting too much (I don't have the details so I could be missing a few reasons)

[IndigoSundown.5419]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

Have you parsed Deroir's initial statement? You could share your analysis, then?

This guy does a pretty good job:

https://twitter.com/beaglerush/status/1017050472681598978

Basically Deroir is being polite but is actually doing exactly what Price called him out for doing, telling her how to do her job.

All Mr. Teasdale is doing is offering his opinion. Not that I don't agree with a lot of what he says in general about discrimination, but I think he's off on Deroir. Sure, anyone can read anything they want into what anyone says, but that is not analysis, it's commentary. Deroir did not tell Ms. Price how to do her job. That was Ms. Price's interpretation and it is also Mr. Teasdale's.

Do you want to know what Deroir's mistakes were?

• Mistake 1: he made a clumsy attempt to engage someone he thought highly of in a discussion about a game he seems passionate about. Maybe that's down to his being a non-native English speaker. Maybe it's because he seems to be an amateur when it comes to getting people to talk about their work.
• Mistake 2: he picked the wrong time on the wrong platform to try to engage.
• Mistake 3: rather than just drop it, he expressed his disappointment with her response.

Number 3 is the telling one. Had he said something like, "Oh, I can see now how you'd think that was what I meant. I'm sorry, not what I intended. What I really wanted was to hear why ANet doesn't use branching dialogue in GW2." I don't know if this would have mollified Ms. Price, but it would have cut the legs out from under those who later criticized her and made the situation worse after Deroir bowed out. Expressing his disappointment virtually guaranteed that the adds would aggro and the situation was at that point going to get worse.

Ms. Price made a mistake, also. Had she said, in response to Deroir's initial comment. "I hope you don't think ANet's professional writers never considered branching dialogue. We don't use that option because <reason(s)>." Deroir would still be worshiping the ground she stands on. Ms. Price would have prevented the situation from escalating before it went past first base. Mr. Fries would not have become involved.

So, what was her mistake? Reacting while stressed. Stress can have as bad an effect on judgment as alcohol, and is especially good at reducing our ability to act with dispassion.

Fwiw, at this point, I also wonder if ANet management made a mistake. I don't necessarily trust the so-called gaming press. However, if the separation meeting with Ms. Price was an emotional one, then that would be a mistake.

[morrolan.9608]

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:All Mr. Teasdale is doing is offering his opinion. Not that I don't agree with a lot of what he says in general about discrimination, but I think he's off on Deroir. Sure, anyone can read anything they want into what anyone says, but that is not analysis, it's commentary. Deroir did not tell Ms. Price how to do her job. That was Ms. Price's interpretation and it is also Mr. Teasdale's.

This is all opinion, my opinion, your opinion MOB's opinion etc, etc. There's nothing objective in the debate at all.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

@morrolan.9608 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:All Mr. Teasdale is doing is offering his opinion. Not that I don't agree with a lot of what he says in general about discrimination, but I think he's off on Deroir. Sure, anyone can read anything they want into what anyone says, but that is not analysis, it's commentary. Deroir did not tell Ms. Price how to do her job. That was Ms. Price's interpretation and it is also Mr. Teasdale's.

This is all opinion, my opinion, your opinion MOB's opinion etc, etc. There's nothing objective in the debate at all.

There are actually quite a lot of facts. I tend to give credence to opinions that are based on them, and look with skepticism at the ones that fail to address them. In case you've forgotten, you were the one who brought up parsing, which is an analysis of syntax. Analysis is an examination of facts. Now, syntax offers little to the discussion, but when you talk about parsing, you are implying some analysis of facts was done.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

Did you know that I'm the reason why combo fields are color coded? It's true. I mean, I didn't personally program each of the combo fields, but it was a suggestion of mine. Back in the old forums I had a thread titled "Do what now? Or, why I'm no good at this game," and in it I talked about the absence of teaching tools for a complicated combat system. Particularly in contrast to other MMOs. I suspect that I'm directly responsible for a lot of things because of this, such as the dodge tutorials in low level zones, but color coded combo fields were one of the things I directly suggested and it is an idea that appeared nowhere else. On other issues, sometimes it might be an internal idea that I just happen to touch on, or maybe it is a popular complaint and I just haven't seen it anywhere else. But, those pretty little circles are mine.

You're probably wondering what this has to do with anything. Here's the issue: if we directly take the line of thinking proposed by others here to say that Deroir has committed some kind of social sin in his tweets, and extend it logically to all similar circumstances, then we conclude that my suggestion for color coded combo rings was also some kind of social sin. Me, a non-professional, told seasoned professionals (many of whom are women) how to do their job unsolicited in a matter that is far more authoritarian than Deroir did. Not only that, but I've done it at least half a dozen times, making elaborate lists of problems and often having no real solutions due to a lack of creativity on my part.

Never trust anyone who tells you not to think. When somebody says "Don't tell me how to do my job", what they are really saying is

"You are not allowed to think about my work.
"You are not allowed to discuss the philosophy of the work.
"You are not allowed to make suggestions.
"You are not allowed to criticize or attempt to criticize my work."You are not allowed to tell me what you would like to see or would like to buy."You are not allowed to question my decisions, even if they don't make sense to you."You are not allowed to discuss my professionalism or behaviors."If you have a concern for the game, for myself, or for yourself, you are not allowed to voice them or even have them."

Which is all obviously very silly. The conclusion is that telling somebody how to do their job is a good thing because doing so produces good things. If you want to argue the contrary, then excuse me while I thump my bible here: (S)He who has never sinned may cast the first stone. Can you honestly say that you've never voiced an unsolicited suggestion or concern or criticism regarding class balance? Regarding allocation of development resources? Regarding game difficulty? Regarding WvW structuring? Regarding the economy? For any game you've ever played? For any media you consume? For every any transaction or exchange? And if not, have these unsolicited suggestions or concerns or criticisms never produced a good outcome? The idea is truly silly.

It is obvious that Deroir did nothing wrong. There needs to exist some grand evidence to prove the contrary, and that evidence does not exist.

[Jahar Shadowblade.8695]

@Cyrin.1035 said:

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

@Cyrin.1035 said:

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:Personally I don't blame Fries that much, too, for a few reasons. The Protecc instinct is a strong one. It takes an inordinate amount of soy to override that programming. Peter also probably didn't dig through the twitter profiles of all of his coworkers, so he wouldn't know her history. Peter is also on the left, so he probably also buys the line that discrimination is an incommunicable ethereal phenomena, and should be taken wholly on trust alone from marginalized groups. Or rather, anyone who doesn't look like himself. So, here is what I think what happened:

Peter sees JP freaking out over something. Being a woman in his inner social circle, his Protecc instinct activates. He takes JP's madness as face value truth, then comes to back her with whatever post rationalization he can come up with. After all, he believes that he can't truly know sexism, so if an anointed one with unique knowledge calls foul, then clearly there's a cause that he just can't see. So he backs her horse and stands fast, assuming that she is in the right. It is only after events unfold that he sees his horse foaming at the mouth. But by then, it is too late. So, he attempts to bow out with tact, because seriously stay away from that horse.

His true motives and beliefs remain hidden. For all I know, he is a radical, but his radicalism doesn't permit him to talk. But I can't help but see myself making a similar mistake once my Protecc switch is flipped.

And yet that "Protecc switch" was meant for JP and not his family or the rest of the team. He knew what he was doing, he didn't back out, and after the result, he still didn't care.

My hypothesis is that no, he didn't know what he was doing, he didn't see that he made a mistake until it was too late, and he's still terrified to say anything for fear of bringing further wrath down on his head.

So, you are calling him unintelligent? I'd like to think he's a little smarter than that or at least 12 years at GW would have turned on a few lightbulbs of what is a bad idea for the company. If he didn't know he was making a huge mistake by supporting the insulting of a player, then that's even worse.

Right... still terrified of bringing further wrath down on his head... Jobless, disgraced, 12 years down the drain... but yeah he's very terrified to say anything that might actually help him... like... an apology? There will be no apology, because he isn't sorry. He made his choice. JP and PF don't need anymore excuses. They need to be recognized for what they chose.

Why should he apologize for standing up for his teammate? This is the part that you seem to be missing, and I'm wondering if you have ever been a part of a team. You defend your teammates. That's the fairly obvious reason for why he said what he said. All of this "protection instinct" stuff is utterly absurd. He almost certainly would have done the same for any other coworker, and all of his former coworkers are likely fully aware of that (and so consider how his former coworkers must feel). All that Fries said was to point out that Price had not asked anyone for feedback, and that these were their personal twitter feeds and not official means to communicate with the company.

The consequences of firing someone for standing up for a teammate is that the company has made it clear that not only will they not defend their employees, but they will actively punish any employees who chooses to defend a teammate, if ANet later decides that the teammate was wrong. I can assure you that no dev wants to work in that sort of environment. That will quickly become a toxic situation. Especially when the firing comes from the CEO directly, without even speaking to the employees' direct supervisors (not to mention the message that it sends to the supervisors as well). Employees will remain there only until they can get an offer somewhere else, which will lead to more churn which will lead to lower quality and missed deadlines. And it goes without saying that you're going to be seeing a lot more generic corporatese fluff from ANet employees from now on, no need to risk your job by posting anything other than the official company statement, since the only guidance they have is "don't draw Mike's attention".

This is why the analogy to a restaurant is flawed, this is a completely different type of industry. You can fire a server and you will have a dozen more lining up to take the job who have nearly identical skillsets and there will be little change in overall quality. Most professional-level jobs are not like that. When I made a similar mistake as Price many years ago, my boss went out and hired more customer service staff because he knew that it would have been easier to find 100 CSRs, much less the half-dozen that he needed, than it would be to find another programmer to step in and complete those projects at the same level of quality. Is that fair? Nope, not at all. That's why many working-class jobs really do need unions. But a lot of high-skill jobs have a certain level of protection simply because those employees are badly needed, and the market forces work in the employees' favor. This is one reason why other companies in the industry are now focusing on putting out clear social media policies. It's not to try to keep their employees from embarassing them on Twitter, oh no, it's to send a message to their employees that they are not going to pull an O'Brien and tear a team apart based on a tempest in a social media teapot.

You're seeing this purely from a customer's perspective. Employment is a marketplace as well, with its own market forces and its own PR. And unfortunately for ANet, that marketplace tends to have a longer memory and it is much more difficult for a company to shed a bad reputation in that marketplace. Employees do a lot more due dilligence than customers, they have longer memories, and their decisions have a much greater impact on the success or failure of a company. There was virtually no chance that a significant number of customers were going to boycott ANet because of anything that Price or Fries wrote. There is a virtual certainty that people who work in the industry will blacklist ANet because of the way that they treated Price and Fries. Choosing to side with a small but vocal group of customers over your employees is simply not a smart decision in an industry where you have to compete to attract high-level talent.

[yann.1946]

@Jahar Shadowblade.8695 said:

@Cyrin.1035 said:

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

@Cyrin.1035 said:

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:Personally I don't blame Fries that much, too, for a few reasons. The Protecc instinct is a strong one. It takes an inordinate amount of soy to override that programming. Peter also probably didn't dig through the twitter profiles of all of his coworkers, so he wouldn't know her history. Peter is also on the left, so he probably also buys the line that discrimination is an incommunicable ethereal phenomena, and should be taken wholly on trust alone from marginalized groups. Or rather, anyone who doesn't look like himself. So, here is what I think what happened:

Peter sees JP freaking out over something. Being a woman in his inner social circle, his Protecc instinct activates. He takes JP's madness as face value truth, then comes to back her with whatever post rationalization he can come up with. After all, he believes that he can't truly know sexism, so if an anointed one with unique knowledge calls foul, then clearly there's a cause that he just can't see. So he backs her horse and stands fast, assuming that she is in the right. It is only after events unfold that he sees his horse foaming at the mouth. But by then, it is too late. So, he attempts to bow out with tact, because seriously stay away from that horse.

His true motives and beliefs remain hidden. For all I know, he is a radical, but his radicalism doesn't permit him to talk. But I can't help but see myself making a similar mistake once my Protecc switch is flipped.

And yet that "Protecc switch" was meant for JP and not his family or the rest of the team. He knew what he was doing, he didn't back out, and after the result, he still didn't care.

My hypothesis is that no, he didn't know what he was doing, he didn't see that he made a mistake until it was too late, and he's still terrified to say anything for fear of bringing further wrath down on his head.

So, you are calling him unintelligent? I'd like to think he's a little smarter than that or at least 12 years at GW would have turned on a few lightbulbs of what is a bad idea for the company. If he didn't know he was making a huge mistake by supporting the insulting of a player, then that's even worse.

Right... still terrified of bringing further wrath down on his head... Jobless, disgraced, 12 years down the drain... but yeah he's very terrified to say anything that might actually help him... like... an apology? There will be no apology, because he isn't sorry. He made his choice. JP and PF don't need anymore excuses. They need to be recognized for what they chose.

Why should he apologize for standing up for his teammate? This is the part that you seem to be missing, and I'm wondering if you have ever been a part of a team. You defend your teammates. That's the fairly obvious reason for why he said what he said. All of this "protection instinct" stuff is utterly absurd. He almost certainly would have done the same for any other coworker, and all of his former coworkers are likely fully aware of that (and so consider how his former coworkers must feel). All that Fries said was to point out that Price had not asked anyone for feedback, and that these were their personal twitter feeds and not official means to communicate with the company.

The consequences of firing someone for standing up for a teammate is that the company has made it clear that not only will they not defend their employees, but they will actively punish any employees who chooses to defend a teammate, if ANet later decides that the teammate was wrong. I can assure you that no dev wants to work in that sort of environment. That will quickly become a toxic situation. Especially when the firing comes from the CEO directly, without even speaking to the employees' direct supervisors (not to mention the message that it sends to the supervisors as well). Employees will remain there only until they can get an offer somewhere else, which will lead to more churn which will lead to lower quality and missed deadlines. And it goes without saying that you're going to be seeing a lot more generic corporatese fluff from ANet employees from now on, no need to risk your job by posting anything other than the official company statement, since the only guidance they have is "don't draw Mike's attention".

This is why the analogy to a restaurant is flawed, this is a completely different type of industry. You can fire a server and you will have a dozen more lining up to take the job who have nearly identical skillsets and there will be little change in overall quality. Most professional-level jobs are not like that. When I made a similar mistake as Price many years ago, my boss went out and hired more customer service staff because he knew that it would have been easier to find 100 CSRs, much less the half-dozen that he needed, than it would be to find another programmer to step in and complete those projects at the same level of quality. Is that fair? Nope, not at all. That's why many working-class jobs really do need unions. But a lot of high-skill jobs have a certain level of protection simply because those employees are badly needed, and the market forces work in the employees' favor. This is one reason why other companies in the industry are now focusing on putting out clear social media policies. It's not to try to keep their employees from embarassing them on Twitter, oh no, it's to send a message to their employees that they are not going to pull an O'Brien and tear a team apart based on a tempest in a social media teapot.

You're seeing this purely from a customer's perspective. Employment is a marketplace as well, with its own market forces and its own PR. And unfortunately for ANet, that marketplace tends to have a longer memory and it is much more difficult for a company to shed a bad reputation in that marketplace. Employees do a lot more due dilligence than customers, they have longer memories, and their decisions have a much greater impact on the success or failure of a company. There was virtually no chance that a significant number of customers were going to boycott ANet because of anything that Price or Fries wrote. There is a virtual certainty that people who work in the industry will blacklist ANet because of the way that they treated Price and Fries. Choosing to side with a small but vocal group of customers over your employees is simply not a smart decision in an industry where you have to compete to attract high-level talent.

Will their are some valid points made. Peter didn't just defend Jessica, he also trew insults

[fizzypetal.7936]

What JP said (copied and pasted from her Twitter feed)

thanks for trying to tell me what we do internally, my dude 9_9Today in being a female game dev:"Allow me--a person who does not work with you--explain to you how you do your job."like, the next rando axxhat who attempts to explain the concept of branching dialogue to me--as if, you know, having worked in game narrative for a fucking DECADE, I have never heard of it--is getting instablocked. PSA.Since we've got a lot of hurt manfeels today, lemme make something clear: this is my feed. I'm not on the clock here. I'm not your emotional courtesan just because I'm a dev. Don't expect me to pretend to like you here.The attempts of fans to exert ownership over our personal lives and times are something I am hardcore about stopping. You don't own me, and I don't owe you.

Let’s say a man said the same thing to a woman:

thanks for trying to tell me what we do internally, my dude 9_9Today in being a male game dev:"Allow me--a person who does not work with you--explain to you how you do your job."like, the next rando axxhat who attempts to explain the concept of branching dialogue to me--as if, you know, having worked in game narrative for a fucking DECADE, I have never heard of it--is getting instablocked. PSA.Since we've got a lot of hurt womanfeels today, lemme make something clear: this is my feed. I'm not on the clock here. I'm not your emotional cortesan just because I'm a dev. Don't expect me to pretend to like you here.The attempts of fans to exert ownership over our personal lives and times are something I am hardcore about stopping. You don't own me, and I don't owe you.

Pretty sure that outburst of a man to a woman would have resulted in a firing.

Now let’s remove gender completely:

thanks for trying to tell me what we do internally, my dude 9_9Today in being a game dev:"Allow me--a person who does not work with you--explain to you how you do your job."like, the next rando axxhat who attempts to explain the concept of branching dialogue to me--as if, you know, having worked in game narrative for a fucking DECADE, I have never heard of it--is getting instablocked. PSA.Since we've got a lot of hurt feels today, lemme make something clear: this is my feed. I'm not on the clock here. I'm not your emotional courtesan just because I'm a dev. Don't expect me to pretend to like you here.The attempts of fans to exert ownership over our personal lives and times are something I am hardcore about stopping. You don't own me, and I don't owe you.

When you remove gender from the whole equation, it still reads bad. Dev A attacking a customer – with Dev B jumping in to defend Dev A’s position. Dev B seemingly validating Dev A’s points. It would not be a stretch to wonder if these two devs are representative of how ArenaNet regard their customers. GW2 is 6 years old in August. There is a lot of competition for customers. The last thing ArenaNet need are rogue staff members going postal on Twitter.

As of this writing, JP is still wearing the ANet badge on her twitter profile. PF is not – I can’t remember that he ever did. If JP thinks ANet is such a bad company to work for, specifically for women, why is she still sporting the badge in her profile?

And those that think it is okay to treat customers this way, cool if that works for you. Gotta say though, if I’d been in Deroir’s position, being shamed in front of thousands of people like that, I would have reported JP to ANet. It would appear that JP didn’t give Deroir the benefit of the doubt before launching into her little tirade – bringing name calling, prostitution and gender in to it just for good measure. I wouldn't have asked for her to be fired - not my call - but I would be asking for some sort of redress for that sort of embarrassment.

The least we as paying customers are entitled to, is a bit of respect when dealing with us - whether it be private or public communication.

[The Knight of Hope.8023]

Imagine for a moment if the former ArenaNET employee here had chosen to be polite to the gentleman responding to her tweets instead of lashing out at him. Imagine how much better of an outcome that would have been for everyone involved: Everyone could have been happy to have had their thoughts heard, even if they had not managed to find a single thing agree about during the exchange. Imagine also if the gentleman had actually been rude, how foolish it would have made him look if she had just been humble and agreeable anyway. This would have made it obvious to everyone, like her or not, that the aggression that was being directed towards her was unwarranted. Not only would ArenaNET have taken her side in this, but so would everyone else, myself included. (ArenaNET said so in their statements after the fact.) Moreover, in either case, the situation would have been diffused instantly with no harm to anyone. The fact that this possible course of action goes unrecognized and is not talked about at all is a tremendous blindspot in the conversation we’ve been having about ethics in our culture as of late.

The primary reason why people choose not to go this route is because they are motivated by a desire to prevent the other side’s thoughts from being heard or taken seriously. Smearing the character of someone you disagree with is a simple way to shut down conversation and signal to other people who are generally inclined to agree with your point of view to not listen to your opponent. This happens because many people fear the discomfort of criticism to the point that they feel they have something to lose if anyone’s point of view opposite theirs is allowed to be recognized as being thoughtful or reasonable. After all, if their criticism holds water we might have to expend the effort to change our views or how we do things. This temptation is also difficult to avoid in an era where we must interact with an incredibly large number of people on a regular basis but are still biologically predisposed to seek simple solutions that allow us to avoid such effortful and time consuming interactions.

Compounding this problem, the victimhood culture and general nihilism which have been on the rise recently prescribe no responsibility to anyone to be kind. These ideas place no value on the positive results of people choosing to be amicable in negative situations, as if it were not even a possibility. This is because they arbitrarily and preemptively attribute all of the blame for any altercation solely to one side, giving all the moral authority to the other side, thus providing the morally superior party no incentive to try to seek a mutually favorable resolution. This forces every substantive human interaction between two or more people who want different things into a framework of winners and losers, a kind of zero-sum game where someone is always taking advantage and someone is always being taken advantage of. This is a framework under which few if any mutually beneficial relationships can be built and no lasting respect can be earned between people who don’t already agree about literally everything. Obviously, if we want to mostly stay out of each other’s ways, find mutually beneficial solutions to our problems or even just avoid fighting to the last man over every issue, this is not a good framework to base our society on.

This is why the ideological assumption that everyone who happens to disagree with us must be a bad person is so dangerous: It doesn’t allow us to see the redeeming qualities in others that would make us want to choose to get along with them even when we disagree about something or find each other annoying. This also places everyone on one of two irreconcilable sides that must fight over everything, (those who agree with us and those who do not,) such that no one is allowed to be neutral and no one is allowed to resolve their differences without a knock-down drag-out confrontation. Such battles cost us social capital and the desire to cooperate with each other towards shared goals. To start them carelessly over things that don’t matter is wasteful and counterproductive. This mindset also engenders an all-consuming sense of bitterness because even when favorable terms are reached for both parties, such an ideologue assumes a less favorable outcome for the other party would have been more moral and appropriate, even if that vengeance would have come at a cost to themselves as well. There is a never-ending cycle of assigning blame, seeking revenge and rationalizing it afterwards caused by this which can never be resolved until this poor assumption is abandoned.

Our greatest civil rights leaders here in America understood something that victimhood ideologues and nihilists need to understand today: They knew that if society was willing to tolerate the systematic mistreatment they were experiencing after the Great Depression upon exposing it and peacefully protesting it in public, such a society could not be forced to improve by other means. They decided that it did not help their case that they were valuable members of society to try to tear down that society in order to get it to listen to them. Things did eventually improve, thanks in part to this assumption. In the same way, ideological nihilists need to understand that if they presume our society or mankind generally to be irreparably wicked, then it is counterproductive to try to force any particular policy on such a hopeless set of circumstances. If one assumes the average person in a society such as ours cannot recognize better when they see it, then how are any of us deserving of any improvement anyway? How will any system function for a population of people who are that irredeemably evil that is not oppressive, grinding and dictatorial? And how can anyone be trusted with that kind of power generation to generation? The reality is, they can’t. So it would be better to either assume people are doing a little better than we’re giving them credit for, or that there is no solution short of trying to leave each other alone as much as possible. If the ideologues who are pushing this victimhood narrative on our culture today thought this through fully, they would come to understand this.

To help them along in this regard, allow me to try to put all of this negativity and angst about the human species into context: It’s hard to imagine sometimes, but we currently have 7 billion people living on planet Earth. Most of us don’t like each other, to put it mildly. Yet, the extreme majority of us are doing the best we can to mind our own business, to try to eat, to sleep and to get by. The extreme majority of even the most disgruntled and disagreeable among us have never actually tried to hurt anyone in any meaningful way. With this many people around, if we were all at each other’s throats constantly, our lives would be much worse than they are. But our modern world is the least violent and needy we have managed to have in all of human history. In light of this, it makes far more sense to assume that others are neutral towards us until they have actively tried to do us harm. Maybe if we can start from this more reasonable assumption, we can better find the value in each other and in trying to treating each other well.

(Edit: Added statement in parenthesis to paragraph one.)

[Zaklex.6308]

@"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:Did you know that I'm the reason why combo fields are color coded? It's true. I mean, I didn't personally program each of the combo fields, but it was a suggestion of mine. Back in the old forums I had a thread titled "Do what now? Or, why I'm no good at this game," and in it I talked about the absence of teaching tools for a complicated combat system. Particularly in contrast to other MMOs. I suspect that I'm directly responsible for a lot of things because of this, such as the dodge tutorials in low level zones, but color coded combo fields were one of the things I directly suggested and it is an idea that appeared nowhere else. On other issues, sometimes it might be an internal idea that I just happen to touch on, or maybe it is a popular complaint and I just haven't seen it anywhere else. But, those pretty little circles are mine.

You're probably wondering what this has to do with anything. Here's the issue: if we directly take the line of thinking proposed by others here to say that Deroir has committed some kind of social sin in his tweets, and extend it logically to all similar circumstances, then we conclude that my suggestion for color coded combo rings was also some kind of social sin. Me, a non-professional, told seasoned professionals (many of whom are women) how to do their job unsolicited in a matter that is far more authoritarian than Deroir did. Not only that, but I've done it at least half a dozen times, making elaborate lists of problems and often having no real solutions due to a lack of creativity on my part.

Never trust anyone who tells you not to think. When somebody says "Don't tell me how to do my job", what they are really saying is

"You are not allowed to think about my work.

"You are not allowed to discuss the philosophy of the work.

"You are not allowed to make suggestions.

"You are not allowed to criticize or attempt to criticize my work."You are not allowed to tell me what you would like to see or would like to buy."You are not allowed to question my decisions, even if they don't make sense to you."You are not allowed to discuss my professionalism or behaviors."If you have a concern for the game, for myself, or for yourself, you are not allowed to voice them or even have them."

Which is all obviously very silly. The conclusion is that telling somebody how to do their job is a good thing because doing so produces good things. If you want to argue the contrary, then excuse me while I thump my bible here: (S)He who has never sinned may cast the first stone. Can you honestly say that you've never voiced an unsolicited suggestion or concern or criticism regarding class balance? Regarding allocation of development resources? Regarding game difficulty? Regarding WvW structuring? Regarding the economy? For any game you've ever played? For any media you consume? For every any transaction or exchange? And if not, have these unsolicited suggestions or concerns or criticisms never produced a good outcome? The idea is truly silly.

It is obvious that Deroir did nothing wrong. There needs to exist some grand evidence to prove the contrary, and that evidence does not exist.

Can I honestly say that I've NEVER voiced an UNSOLICITED suggestion or criticism...100% unequivocally YES. I've never, ever offered an UNSOLICITED suggestion for anything that did not have to do with the job I perform...why, because I don't know a kitten thing about the job. I have offered suggestions and criticism when it's been asked for, but I refuse to offer UNSOLICITED suggestions or criticisms, that's the easiest way to get yourself beat up(figuratively speaking of course) or dumped on. Even when I was a member of the Alpha team way back in the first couple of years I never offered UNSOLICITED suggestions, nor did I criticize anything...not until it was asked for did was that information put forth, but I did keep notes on what I might say when it was asked for. As far as I know none of my suggestions or criticisms have ever resulted in anything, so it's not silly to say that they produced a good outcome, because they produced no outcome. Also, I don't think responding to someone else's suggestion or criticism falls in the same category as it's usually stating why it might or might not work, or it might offer an alternative to the original suggestion(which I'm usually suggesting to the OP and not to whomever it's directed at). I think it's silly to suggest we might know more than the devs...we don't have the metrics or the numbers behind the metrics they do...which is a hell of a lot more important that feelings or other reasons.

P.S. - I still don't see why we needed the combo fields color coded, it's not like you weren't told about them...but then I mostly play ranger so I guess it was easier for me to just figure them out(which is almost how I learn all things, I just figure them out on my own).

[morrolan.9608]

@The Knight of Hope.8023 said:Imagine for a moment if the former ArenaNET employee here had chosen to be polite to the gentleman responding to her tweets instead of lashing out at him. Imagine how much better of an outcome that would have been for everyone involved: Everyone could have been happy to have had their

You're making a lot of assumptions

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:Did you know that I'm the reason why combo fields are color coded? It's true. I mean, I didn't personally program each of the combo fields, but it was a suggestion of mine. Back in the old forums I had a thread titled "Do what now? Or, why I'm no good at this game," and in it I talked about the absence of teaching tools for a complicated combat system. Particularly in contrast to other MMOs. I suspect that I'm directly responsible for a lot of things because of this, such as the dodge tutorials in low level zones, but color coded combo fields were one of the things I directly suggested and it is an idea that appeared nowhere else. On other issues, sometimes it might be an internal idea that I just happen to touch on, or maybe it is a popular complaint and I just haven't seen it anywhere else. But, those pretty little circles are mine.

You're probably wondering what this has to do with anything. Here's the issue: if we directly take the line of thinking proposed by others here to say that Deroir has committed some kind of social sin in his tweets, and extend it logically to all similar circumstances, then we conclude that my suggestion for color coded combo rings was also some kind of social sin. Me, a non-professional, told seasoned professionals (many of whom are women) how to do their job unsolicited in a matter that is far more authoritarian than Deroir did. Not only that, but I've done it at least half a dozen times, making elaborate lists of problems and often having no real solutions due to a lack of creativity on my part.

Never trust anyone who tells you not to think. When somebody says "Don't tell me how to do my job", what they are really saying is

"You are not allowed to think about my work.

"You are not allowed to discuss the philosophy of the work.

"You are not allowed to make suggestions.

"You are not allowed to criticize or attempt to criticize my work."You are not allowed to tell me what you would like to see or would like to buy."You are not allowed to question my decisions, even if they don't make sense to you."You are not allowed to discuss my professionalism or behaviors."If you have a concern for the game, for myself, or for yourself, you are not allowed to voice them or even have them."

Which is all obviously very silly. The conclusion is that telling somebody how to do their job is a

good thing

because doing so produces good things. If you want to argue the contrary, then excuse me while I thump my bible here: (S)He who has never sinned may cast the first stone. Can you honestly say that you've never voiced an unsolicited suggestion or concern or criticism regarding class balance? Regarding allocation of development resources? Regarding game difficulty? Regarding WvW structuring? Regarding the economy? For any game you've ever played? For any media you consume? For every any transaction or exchange? And if not, have these unsolicited suggestions or concerns or criticisms never produced a good outcome? The idea is truly silly.

It is obvious that Deroir did nothing wrong. There needs to exist some grand evidence to prove the contrary, and that evidence does not exist.

Can I honestly say that I've NEVER voiced an UNSOLICITED suggestion or criticism...100% unequivocally YES. I've never, ever offered an UNSOLICITED suggestion for anything that did not have to do with the job I perform...why, because I don't know a kitten thing about the job. I have offered suggestions and criticism when it's been asked for, but I refuse to offer UNSOLICITED suggestions or criticisms, that's the easiest way to get yourself beat up(figuratively speaking of course) or dumped on. Even when I was a member of the Alpha team way back in the first couple of years I never offered UNSOLICITED suggestions, nor did I criticize anything...not until it was asked for did was that information put forth, but I did keep notes on what I might say when it was asked for. As far as I know none of my suggestions or criticisms have ever resulted in anything, so it's not silly to say that they produced a good outcome, because they produced no outcome. Also, I don't think responding to someone else's suggestion or criticism falls in the same category as it's usually stating why it might or might not work, or it might offer an alternative to the original suggestion(which I'm usually suggesting to the OP and not to whomever it's directed at). I think it's silly to suggest we might know more than the devs...we don't have the metrics or the numbers behind the metrics they do...which is a hell of a lot more important that feelings or other reasons.

P.S. - I still don't see why we needed the combo fields color coded, it's not like you weren't told about them...but then I mostly play ranger so I guess it was easier for me to just figure them out(which is almost how I learn all things, I just figure them out on my own).

Here's a thread of you doing exactly what you claim to not to.

[Zaklex.6308]

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:Did you know that I'm the reason why combo fields are color coded? It's true. I mean, I didn't personally program each of the combo fields, but it was a suggestion of mine. Back in the old forums I had a thread titled "Do what now? Or, why I'm no good at this game," and in it I talked about the absence of teaching tools for a complicated combat system. Particularly in contrast to other MMOs. I suspect that I'm directly responsible for a lot of things because of this, such as the dodge tutorials in low level zones, but color coded combo fields were one of the things I directly suggested and it is an idea that appeared nowhere else. On other issues, sometimes it might be an internal idea that I just happen to touch on, or maybe it is a popular complaint and I just haven't seen it anywhere else. But, those pretty little circles are mine.

You're probably wondering what this has to do with anything. Here's the issue: if we directly take the line of thinking proposed by others here to say that Deroir has committed some kind of social sin in his tweets, and extend it logically to all similar circumstances, then we conclude that my suggestion for color coded combo rings was also some kind of social sin. Me, a non-professional, told seasoned professionals (many of whom are women) how to do their job unsolicited in a matter that is far more authoritarian than Deroir did. Not only that, but I've done it at least half a dozen times, making elaborate lists of problems and often having no real solutions due to a lack of creativity on my part.

Never trust anyone who tells you not to think. When somebody says "Don't tell me how to do my job", what they are really saying is

"You are not allowed to think about my work.

"You are not allowed to discuss the philosophy of the work.

"You are not allowed to make suggestions.

"You are not allowed to criticize or attempt to criticize my work."You are not allowed to tell me what you would like to see or would like to buy."You are not allowed to question my decisions, even if they don't make sense to you."You are not allowed to discuss my professionalism or behaviors."If you have a concern for the game, for myself, or for yourself, you are not allowed to voice them or even have them."

Which is all obviously very silly. The conclusion is that telling somebody how to do their job is a

good thing

because doing so produces good things. If you want to argue the contrary, then excuse me while I thump my bible here: (S)He who has never sinned may cast the first stone. Can you honestly say that you've never voiced an unsolicited suggestion or concern or criticism regarding class balance? Regarding allocation of development resources? Regarding game difficulty? Regarding WvW structuring? Regarding the economy? For any game you've ever played? For any media you consume? For every any transaction or exchange? And if not, have these unsolicited suggestions or concerns or criticisms never produced a good outcome? The idea is truly silly.

It is obvious that Deroir did nothing wrong. There needs to exist some grand evidence to prove the contrary, and that evidence does not exist.

Can I honestly say that I've NEVER voiced an UNSOLICITED suggestion or criticism...100% unequivocally YES. I've never, ever offered an UNSOLICITED suggestion for anything that did not have to do with the job I perform...why, because I don't know a kitten thing about the job. I have offered suggestions and criticism when it's been asked for, but I refuse to offer UNSOLICITED suggestions or criticisms, that's the easiest way to get yourself beat up(figuratively speaking of course) or dumped on. Even when I was a member of the Alpha team way back in the first couple of years I never offered UNSOLICITED suggestions, nor did I criticize anything...not until it was asked for did was that information put forth, but I did keep notes on what I might say when it was asked for. As far as I know none of my suggestions or criticisms have ever resulted in anything, so it's not silly to say that they produced a good outcome, because they produced no outcome. Also, I don't think responding to someone else's suggestion or criticism falls in the same category as it's usually stating why it might or might not work, or it might offer an alternative to the original suggestion(which I'm usually suggesting to the OP and not to whomever it's directed at). I think it's silly to suggest we might know more than the devs...we don't have the metrics or the numbers behind the metrics they do...which is a hell of a lot more important that feelings or other reasons.

P.S. - I still don't see why we needed the combo fields color coded, it's not like you weren't told about them...but then I mostly play ranger so I guess it was easier for me to just figure them out(which is almost how I learn all things, I just figure them out on my own).

Here's a thread of you doing exactly what you claim to not to.

Perhaps I should have posted that in the bugs forum as a bug and not as a suggestion...since we've been asked in the past to let them know about invisible walls and such(which doesn't specifically make that an unsolicited suggestion now, does it?), but then that's a matter of semantics...and nothing came of it anyways, so I'm half correct in saying nothing has ever come of such a suggestion.

[The Knight of Hope.8023]

@Blood Red Arachnid.2493 I mean, it also bears pointing out that one need not solicit responses in a public conversation on Twitter. There is no such thing as permission to respond when someone puts themselves out in front of the public that way. The only reason why anybody would claim that this is a thing is because there was nothing rude or unkind about what was actually said by the gentleman who chose to respond. It's telling that what was actually said in that conversation is still not being quoted at all in reference to the idea that this person was being rude or uncalled for.

It turns out that there's also nothing inherently unkind about giving someone feedback about how they're doing their job, by the way; The most effective creative people want engagement from their audiences to find out how they feel about the job that they're doing. You could be technically incorrect if you were telling a surgeon or a physicist something that was inaccurate about surgery or physics, but creativity is not a technical field that requires understanding of rigid rules or rigorous qualifications in order to engage in it. This means there is no hard factual basis to tell someone that they are not qualified or technically correct when it comes to discussing or giving feedback about the arts.

(Edited to add second thought.)