GW 2 Devs/Playerbase Twitter Discussion

[Dragon.4032]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Dragon.4032 said:You take out the humane aspect from an affair, that's your recipe for disaster.Exactly, she took out the humane aspect from it, multiple times if I may add, and that was the recipe for her disaster.

That was my reference to what you said about people following her strictly for work associations and nothing more. And I already made the point clear, which you failed to even understand, her twitter account wasn't the official medium for game discussion. You provoked her in her public place where she's allowed to express herself.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

@Dragon.4032 said:

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:

@Dragon.4032 said:

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:

@Dragon.4032 said:

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@Yamazuki.6073 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@White Dragon.5429 said:

@ponytheguardian.7439 said:

@"Harper.4173" said:

17. "The real discussion is the lack of segregation between personal and corporate communications and corporate policies dictating far too much about personal communications (think church and state here). In this case, it was personal communications that the community made corporate and the outcome has been disastrous for all parties involved." - maybe employees should be more aware of these issues and try to clarify things better before they sign contracts.

But no-one has seen what kind of terms ArenaNet has in place for their employees who have signed the contract.While we can't see exactly what is on their contract, it is common practice for someone who customers may see as a "face of the company" to be required to put forth a good appearance even while not on duty. If you are a known, recognizable employee, all actions in a public space can be interpreted by customers (whether or not they should) to be actions of the company, and so you must act accordingly.

That being said, it is understandable for someone to lose their calm while under stress. I would expect some kind of warning and expectation of public apology, followed by termination if the employee refuses.

This not only needs to change, it must change and if we have to legislate it then that's the solution. Corporate America needs to be brought to heel and learn that they can not and will not be allowed to control what employees say on their own personal social media accounts.

Public

social media posts are not different than your actions taken out in public places. Public Twitter posts=/=your private and secure home where jokes are kept between friends and families. People have always been judged by how they are presented in public places, there's no reason that needs to be changed. If you want to speak poorly of people and face zero consequences, then keep it in a private setting among your friends and family, no need to take out the megaphone and then complain when the consequences come at you.

There is zero reason for her response, and there is zero reason why any sort of business needs to tolerate sexism either, just because she's a female doesn't mean it's okay to hate on the opposite gender when the guy did nothing wrong, and had even complimented her not long before that.

I don't care if it's public, it's still your PERSONAL social media account and Corporate American has no right to sensor it...and if people are unable to separate a persons personal life from their professional life, then the person with the problem is the one unable to separate the two. Those are two distinct entities, you have a job that is your professional life, you go home after work and that is your personal life...they are not one and the same in the vast majority of cases, and Corporate America needs to be kicked out of our personal lives.

It’s not a private, personal place if you have over 13k strangers following you and it’s open to the world to look in. That’s public. It might be “personal” in that they put their name on a spot on someone else’s property (the people that own the site Twitter in this case) however if they set it to public which allows the whole world to see and answer you and if they brand themselves on that publicly accessible site as an employee of a particular company and if they discuss their work on that site with their settings on public so all can see and comment then no, it’s no longer

only

a personal social media where you are entitled to privacy.

As @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said

You know, back when I worked at a bank, they had a certain way of phrasing it. Of course, it was all surrounded with cooperate newspeak and a bunch generic praise, but ultimately the message was this:

The job doesn't start when you punch the clock. The job starts when you put on the uniform. If you are out in the world, the moment you wear our emblem, you represent us. If somebody sees you and recognizing you as an employee of our company, then you represent us.

She was wearing ANet’s emblem when she tagged her account as an ANet dev and posted a discussion about her work. At that point she was repping ANet and anything she said reflects on them also. Just like anything you say while at work reflects on your employee. She cursed at and insulted customers of her job while repping ANet and she got the same punishment as you would get if you cursed and insulted customers while repping your job.

Edit: spelling

Yea as long as you are sending family mails through that gmail account in public domain, everyone should have the right to probe into your emails whether you like to have your own space or not. Get real.

That is not the same. You are not broadcasting your emails for everyone to see but sending them to one or a select few to read. If you post your emails on a public site that anyone can see then that would be different. If you're going to argue the point try to make a comparison that is relevant.

You are raising irrelevant points actually. But to draw technical relevance Gmail is a public server not your room space. And when they prefer to boost their sales by selling your content to the advertisers you should be fine with it. The direct point is her twitter account is not the official gw2 account. and nor was it owned by Anet. She can express her views in her own account as she pleases. And even if she was posting alarming topics about Anet (which wasn't the case) its something to take notice of.

No one argues that she can’t express what she wants. However1) she was posting

as

an ANet dev

and

posting on work related topics

and

she was speaking to customers. That makes what she says as relevant to her job and her state of employment.2) no one ever in the history of mankind has been free from the consequences of what you say or do. Society has always applied social constraints to behavior and speech. The right to publicly say what you want comes with the corresponding right of your hearers to disprove and apply these social restraints and it came with the right for her employee to disapprove and terminate employment.

You have no right to be free from consequences of public action or speech.

I agree. The whole situation wasn't pleasing at all. Even to look at it from an outside point of view. I had hoped Mike would have been more rational.

Nothing about this was pleasing. I don’t expect Mike wanted to fire two people, one a 12 year veteran and another a woman they had hired only a year ago. We don’t know what went on in their meeting the next day but since he did so then I feel it was because he had to. I doubt he did it lightly and without discussion.

[Kitsune.1437]

@Dragon.4032 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Dragon.4032 said:You take out the humane aspect from an affair, that's your recipe for disaster.Exactly, she took out the humane aspect from it, multiple times if I may add, and that was the recipe for her disaster.

That was my reference to what you said about people following her strictly for work associations and nothing more. And I already made the point clear, which you failed to even understand, her twitter account wasn't the official medium for game discussion. You provoked her in her public place where she's allowed to express herself.

She posted a 29(?) tweet long explanation about why MMO characters are difficult to write, at no point did Deroir mention Guild Wars as he tried to engage in what she first talked about.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Dragon.4032 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Dragon.4032 said:You take out the humane aspect from an affair, that's your recipe for disaster.Exactly, she took out the humane aspect from it, multiple times if I may add, and that was the recipe for her disaster.

That was my reference to what you said about people following her strictly for work associations and nothing more. And I already made the point clear, which you failed to even understand, her twitter account wasn't the official medium for game discussion. You provoked her in her public place where she's allowed to express herself.

Like it or not, public figures are being followed on social media for work related reasons and nothing more. Otherwise they wouldn't have so many followers. She is not allowed to express herself in a manner that reflects badly on the entire company. It's exactly why members of sports teams are being removed if they exhibit offensive behavior (even when not playing). Nobody provoked her, the comments she replied to were polite and thoughtful, and even after being verbally assaulted by her the replies were still composed. Nobody provoked her, she was the one that did all the provoking, without any justification. And got her just punishment for it. She forgot the humane aspect, she forgot that she is replying to human beings, and let's not forget how happy she was when another person died. Full disrespect of human life, full disrespect of other human beings, a rude, abusive, insensitive person. Good riddance I say.

[KGS.9842]

@Dragon.4032 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Dragon.4032 said:You take out the humane aspect from an affair, that's your recipe for disaster.Exactly, she took out the humane aspect from it, multiple times if I may add, and that was the recipe for her disaster.

That was my reference to what you said about people following her strictly for work associations and nothing more. And I already made the point clear, which you failed to even understand, her twitter account wasn't the official medium for game discussion. You provoked her in her public place where she's allowed to express herself.

Some provocation that was, trying to start a discussion. People should finally learn their place as the lowly worthless amateurs they are and turn to the professionals only with praise (and to buy their products of course)

[DarcShriek.5829]

@Dragon.4032 said:

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:

@Dragon.4032 said:

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@Yamazuki.6073 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@White Dragon.5429 said:

@ponytheguardian.7439 said:

@"Harper.4173" said:

17. "The real discussion is the lack of segregation between personal and corporate communications and corporate policies dictating far too much about personal communications (think church and state here). In this case, it was personal communications that the community made corporate and the outcome has been disastrous for all parties involved." - maybe employees should be more aware of these issues and try to clarify things better before they sign contracts.

But no-one has seen what kind of terms ArenaNet has in place for their employees who have signed the contract.While we can't see exactly what is on their contract, it is common practice for someone who customers may see as a "face of the company" to be required to put forth a good appearance even while not on duty. If you are a known, recognizable employee, all actions in a public space can be interpreted by customers (whether or not they should) to be actions of the company, and so you must act accordingly.

That being said, it is understandable for someone to lose their calm while under stress. I would expect some kind of warning and expectation of public apology, followed by termination if the employee refuses.

This not only needs to change, it must change and if we have to legislate it then that's the solution. Corporate America needs to be brought to heel and learn that they can not and will not be allowed to control what employees say on their own personal social media accounts.

Public

social media posts are not different than your actions taken out in public places. Public Twitter posts=/=your private and secure home where jokes are kept between friends and families. People have always been judged by how they are presented in public places, there's no reason that needs to be changed. If you want to speak poorly of people and face zero consequences, then keep it in a private setting among your friends and family, no need to take out the megaphone and then complain when the consequences come at you.

There is zero reason for her response, and there is zero reason why any sort of business needs to tolerate sexism either, just because she's a female doesn't mean it's okay to hate on the opposite gender when the guy did nothing wrong, and had even complimented her not long before that.

I don't care if it's public, it's still your PERSONAL social media account and Corporate American has no right to sensor it...and if people are unable to separate a persons personal life from their professional life, then the person with the problem is the one unable to separate the two. Those are two distinct entities, you have a job that is your professional life, you go home after work and that is your personal life...they are not one and the same in the vast majority of cases, and Corporate America needs to be kicked out of our personal lives.

It’s not a private, personal place if you have over 13k strangers following you and it’s open to the world to look in. That’s public. It might be “personal” in that they put their name on a spot on someone else’s property (the people that own the site Twitter in this case) however if they set it to public which allows the whole world to see and answer you and if they brand themselves on that publicly accessible site as an employee of a particular company and if they discuss their work on that site with their settings on public so all can see and comment then no, it’s no longer

only

a personal social media where you are entitled to privacy.

As @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said

You know, back when I worked at a bank, they had a certain way of phrasing it. Of course, it was all surrounded with cooperate newspeak and a bunch generic praise, but ultimately the message was this:

The job doesn't start when you punch the clock. The job starts when you put on the uniform. If you are out in the world, the moment you wear our emblem, you represent us. If somebody sees you and recognizing you as an employee of our company, then you represent us.

She was wearing ANet’s emblem when she tagged her account as an ANet dev and posted a discussion about her work. At that point she was repping ANet and anything she said reflects on them also. Just like anything you say while at work reflects on your employee. She cursed at and insulted customers of her job while repping ANet and she got the same punishment as you would get if you cursed and insulted customers while repping your job.

Edit: spelling

Yea as long as you are sending family mails through that gmail account in public domain, everyone should have the right to probe into your emails whether you like to have your own space or not. Get real.

That is not the same. You are not broadcasting your emails for everyone to see but sending them to one or a select few to read. If you post your emails on a public site that anyone can see then that would be different. If you're going to argue the point try to make a comparison that is relevant.

She can express her views in her own account as she pleases.

No she can't. Twitter is pretty much forum software like Anet's. As such it has rules of behavior that must be followed or be banned. It seems to me the next step to take is to report her sexist post to twitter. If enough people do that, she could be banned from twitter.

[Ashen.2907]

@Dragon.4032 said:

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:

@Dragon.4032 said:

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@Yamazuki.6073 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@White Dragon.5429 said:

@ponytheguardian.7439 said:

@"Harper.4173" said:

17. "The real discussion is the lack of segregation between personal and corporate communications and corporate policies dictating far too much about personal communications (think church and state here). In this case, it was personal communications that the community made corporate and the outcome has been disastrous for all parties involved." - maybe employees should be more aware of these issues and try to clarify things better before they sign contracts.

But no-one has seen what kind of terms ArenaNet has in place for their employees who have signed the contract.While we can't see exactly what is on their contract, it is common practice for someone who customers may see as a "face of the company" to be required to put forth a good appearance even while not on duty. If you are a known, recognizable employee, all actions in a public space can be interpreted by customers (whether or not they should) to be actions of the company, and so you must act accordingly.

That being said, it is understandable for someone to lose their calm while under stress. I would expect some kind of warning and expectation of public apology, followed by termination if the employee refuses.

This not only needs to change, it must change and if we have to legislate it then that's the solution. Corporate America needs to be brought to heel and learn that they can not and will not be allowed to control what employees say on their own personal social media accounts.

Public

social media posts are not different than your actions taken out in public places. Public Twitter posts=/=your private and secure home where jokes are kept between friends and families. People have always been judged by how they are presented in public places, there's no reason that needs to be changed. If you want to speak poorly of people and face zero consequences, then keep it in a private setting among your friends and family, no need to take out the megaphone and then complain when the consequences come at you.

There is zero reason for her response, and there is zero reason why any sort of business needs to tolerate sexism either, just because she's a female doesn't mean it's okay to hate on the opposite gender when the guy did nothing wrong, and had even complimented her not long before that.

I don't care if it's public, it's still your PERSONAL social media account and Corporate American has no right to sensor it...and if people are unable to separate a persons personal life from their professional life, then the person with the problem is the one unable to separate the two. Those are two distinct entities, you have a job that is your professional life, you go home after work and that is your personal life...they are not one and the same in the vast majority of cases, and Corporate America needs to be kicked out of our personal lives.

It’s not a private, personal place if you have over 13k strangers following you and it’s open to the world to look in. That’s public. It might be “personal” in that they put their name on a spot on someone else’s property (the people that own the site Twitter in this case) however if they set it to public which allows the whole world to see and answer you and if they brand themselves on that publicly accessible site as an employee of a particular company and if they discuss their work on that site with their settings on public so all can see and comment then no, it’s no longer

only

a personal social media where you are entitled to privacy.

As @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said

You know, back when I worked at a bank, they had a certain way of phrasing it. Of course, it was all surrounded with cooperate newspeak and a bunch generic praise, but ultimately the message was this:

The job doesn't start when you punch the clock. The job starts when you put on the uniform. If you are out in the world, the moment you wear our emblem, you represent us. If somebody sees you and recognizing you as an employee of our company, then you represent us.

She was wearing ANet’s emblem when she tagged her account as an ANet dev and posted a discussion about her work. At that point she was repping ANet and anything she said reflects on them also. Just like anything you say while at work reflects on your employee. She cursed at and insulted customers of her job while repping ANet and she got the same punishment as you would get if you cursed and insulted customers while repping your job.

Edit: spelling

Yea as long as you are sending family mails through that gmail account in public domain, everyone should have the right to probe into your emails whether you like to have your own space or not. Get real.

That is not the same. You are not broadcasting your emails for everyone to see but sending them to one or a select few to read. If you post your emails on a public site that anyone can see then that would be different. If you're going to argue the point try to make a comparison that is relevant.

You are raising irrelevant points actually. But to draw technical relevance Gmail is a public server not your room space. And when they prefer to boost their sales by selling your content to the advertisers you should be fine with it. The direct point is her twitter account is not the official gw2 account. and nor was it owned by Anet. She can express her views in her own account as she pleases. And even if she was posting alarming topics about Anet (which wasn't the case) its something to take notice of.

Of course she can express her views in her own account as she pleases. She did so.

And MO can choose not to have her employed at the company he runs.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

I’m going to repeat what @Haleydawn.3764 said

In such beautiful irony, Jessica herself tweeted sometime last year, “social/financial consequences of what you say are free speech working as intended”

The consequences to her from cursing and insulting her customers while repping as an ANet dev are exactly this, the consequences of free speech working as intended.

[maddoctor.2738]

@DarcShriek.5829 said:No she can't. Twitter is pretty much forum software like Anet's. As such it has rules of behavior that must be followed or be banned. It seems to me the next step to take is to report her sexist post to twitter. If enough people do that, she could be banned from twitter.

I'm honestly confused why she still has her account, because she clearly violated rules of Twitter, maybe nobody reported her

[Scud.5067]

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:

2) no one ever in the history of mankind has been free from the consequences of what you say or do.

AHEM - traditionally, some Court Jesters.

But then again, it was established that nobody should take them seriously.

10 POINTS TO THE ASURA!

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Dragon.4032 said:

@Loli Ruri.8307 said:Wow, Mike O'Brien personally fired her. And vented his feelings at her for most of the meeting, so she says.Shows you how much Mike cares about the community. Then he personally went here and told us about it. This guy is passionate.

Mike made a choice that he will have to regret despite the looney mobs taking his sides in the forum.

Lest we forget it was JP's decision to post out work related content into public space whilst advertising her representation of ANET. It was JP that decided to rally off offensive, sexist codswollup where it was never warranted, it was JP that set the whole tone and narrative for the ensuing Twitter War that was to follow her lack of respect for the very community she quite obviously holds in such low regard.The subject of sexism is very real and nothing to be taken lightly.. but by the very same standards it is not a subject that should be banded around willy nilly just because she could not take feedback, critique and opinions that differ from her own perspective.. when she decided to throw out the offensive gender terminology and then take that further to make out she was the victim of those same words, she became the ultimate hypocrite and did nothing but shallow the cause she was supposed to be attempting to champion.Fact is there was only one person being offensive, obnoxious, sexist and hypocritical in the whole exchange and in doing so she opened the door for the reddit trolls to take the field.I am not a reddit fan, never have been, never will be for the very same reasons we have seen in the hours, days following JP's publicly unprofessional rebuke of a content partner and a devoted fan of the game and someone who held her in high regard... but that's the point it was following her rants of absurdity that the pitchforks and torches were raised in defiance to her. Now many of the replies and posts I have seen following the twitter debacle are equally distasteful and offensive and I in no way condone that, but I would hazard a guess that by acting the way JP did she was the one that sought to open the door, but never expected who would come through it in such disdain for her and I would also guess that a large number of those who entered the war of words have no vested interest in the game, likely never even played it but saw the opportunity to jump on to a person who took it upon herself to act like the very thing she supposedly opposes.. JP set the tone, she set the narrative.. but ooh yeah she must be the victim right - NO sorry she is the instigator and MO on behalf of ANET and the community was the judge and jury and I for one respect that fully.

[Scud.5067]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Dragon.4032 said:

@Loli Ruri.8307 said:Wow, Mike O'Brien personally fired her. And vented his feelings at her for most of the meeting, so she says.Shows you how much Mike cares about the community. Then he personally went here and told us about it. This guy is passionate.

Mike made a choice that he will have to regret despite the looney mobs taking his sides in the forum.

Lest we forget it was JP's decision to post out work related content into public space whilst advertising her representation of ANET. It was JP that decided to rally off offensive, sexist codswollup where it was never warranted, it was JP that set the whole tone and narrative for the ensuing Twitter War that was to follow her lack of respect for the very community she quite obviously holds in such low regard.The subject of sexism is very real and nothing to be taken lightly.. but by the very same standards it is not a subject that should be banded around willy nilly just because she could not take feedback, critique and opinions that differ from her own perspective.. when she decided to throw out the offensive gender terminology and then take that further to make out she was the victim of those same words, she became the ultimate hypocrite and did nothing but shallow the cause she was supposed to be attempting to champion.Fact is there was only one person being offensive, obnoxious, sexist and hypocritical in the whole exchange and in doing so she opened the door for the reddit trolls to take the filed.I am not a reddit fan, never have been, never will be for the very same reasons we have seen in the hours, days following JP's publicly unprofessional rebuke of a content partner and a devoted fan of the game and someone who held her in high regard... but that's the point it was following her rants of absurdity that the pitchforks and torches were raised in defiance to her. Now many of the replies and posts I have seen following the twitter debacle are equally distasteful and offensive and I in no way condone that, but I would hazard a guess that by acting the way JP did she was the one that sought to open the door, but never expected who would come through it in such disdain for her and I would also guess that a large number of those who entered the war of words have no vested interest in the game, likely never even played it but saw the opportunity to jump on to a person who took it upon herself to act like the very thing she supposedly opposes.. JP set the tone, she set the narrative.. but ooh yeah she must be the victim right - NO sorry she is the instigator and the MO on behalf of ANET and the community was the judge and jury and I for one respect that fully.

Yeah, for sure.

Bottom line - her actions were bad for business.

I looked in on this thread early on, it was around 30k views.

Folks could read her Tweets, see her bullying, playing the sexism card, being toxic.

We get it, nobody wants to smile all the time. But there's no excusing bulling, or heck, just being nasty to nearest the target.

And being civil is kinda part of... well, civilization.

Quick! Someone throw out a Gandhi quote!

But really, if someone leverages themselves in social media by actively associating themselves with a popular company, its fairly stupid to then attack an element that's fundamental to the success of said company.

This is above and beyond the simple - JP bullied D. Publicly.

Folks supporting her are just as bad.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

@Dragon.4032 said:

@Haleydawn.3764 said:

@Dragon.4032 said:Mike's decision was rash.

Was it? Do display why it was rash. Are you privy to Anets employees HR files? No? Then don’t assume that nothing went off internally before hand. You, nor is anyone else entitled to know these details.

I'm not claiming to know the detail and you trying to justify my reasons on that point is ridiculous. My point was clear enough, there was a problem that needed attention that would benefit both end of the situation.

What Mike did was secure his Anet revenue mechanism

by firing the two employees to look good in the public eye. That's down right unethical when the dev's pour their creativity into the game.

Isn’t securing your revenue the main reason for running a business? And if you don’t secure your revenue then what happens to the rest of the people you employ or want to hire? What happens to the content you with to make? If it impacts your revenue enough that you need to cut expenses by firing innocent employees or you can’t hire more people then firing two who are the reason for this is a rational business decision.

And you don’t know that the decision to fire was done lightly, without discussion or without consideration of all factors. After seeing how she has behaved since then I’m leaning more towards the theory that both refused to publicly apologize in exchange for keeping their jobs. While we don’t know it’s quite possible that she was given a chance and refused it on the grounds that she won’t give in to male sexism. If you notice, she has not shown any remorse since then nor has she reached out to apologize to Deroir.

[ReV.6097]

@"Haleydawn.3764" said:1- Nobody on this forum knows the details behind these two employees, only that “they are no longer with the company.” There’s a big difference between that, and, “we had to let them go” or “they have been fired”. Don’t assume anything.3- The only mistake MO made was to make the announcement that they are no longer with the company. It should have simply read “This issue has been resolved internally”.

Pretty sure they were fired. While this post has been going on, more was shown in the aftermath from interviews. And twitter, yesterday.

http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii609/dbarnes1011/fries_2.png

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Scud.5067 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Dragon.4032 said:

@Loli Ruri.8307 said:Wow, Mike O'Brien personally fired her. And vented his feelings at her for most of the meeting, so she says.Shows you how much Mike cares about the community. Then he personally went here and told us about it. This guy is passionate.

Mike made a choice that he will have to regret despite the looney mobs taking his sides in the forum.

Lest we forget it was JP's decision to post out work related content into public space whilst advertising her representation of ANET. It was JP that decided to rally off offensive, sexist codswollup where it was never warranted, it was JP that set the whole tone and narrative for the ensuing Twitter War that was to follow her lack of respect for the very community she quite obviously holds in such low regard.The subject of sexism is very real and nothing to be taken lightly.. but by the very same standards it is not a subject that should be banded around willy nilly just because she could not take feedback, critique and opinions that differ from her own perspective.. when she decided to throw out the offensive gender terminology and then take that further to make out she was the victim of those same words, she became the ultimate hypocrite and did nothing but shallow the cause she was supposed to be attempting to champion.Fact is there was only one person being offensive, obnoxious, sexist and hypocritical in the whole exchange and in doing so she opened the door for the reddit trolls to take the filed.I am not a reddit fan, never have been, never will be for the very same reasons we have seen in the hours, days following JP's publicly unprofessional rebuke of a content partner and a devoted fan of the game and someone who held her in high regard... but that's the point it was following her rants of absurdity that the pitchforks and torches were raised in defiance to her. Now many of the replies and posts I have seen following the twitter debacle are equally distasteful and offensive and I in no way condone that, but I would hazard a guess that by acting the way JP did she was the one that sought to open the door, but never expected who would come through it in such disdain for her and I would also guess that a large number of those who entered the war of words have no vested interest in the game, likely never even played it but saw the opportunity to jump on to a person who took it upon herself to act like the very thing she supposedly opposes.. JP set the tone, she set the narrative.. but ooh yeah she must be the victim right - NO sorry she is the instigator and the MO on behalf of ANET and the community was the judge and jury and I for one respect that fully.

Yeah, for sure.

Bottom line - her actions were bad for business.

I looked in on this thread early on, it was around 30k views.

Folks could read her Tweets, see her bullying, playing the sexism card, being toxic.

We get it, nobody wants to smile all the time. But there's no excusing bulling, or heck, just being nasty to nearest the target.

And being civil is kinda part of... well, civilization.

Quick! Someone throw out a Gandhi quote!

But really, if someone leverages themselves in social media by actively associating themselves with a popular company, its fairly stupid to then attack an element that's fundamental to the success of said company.

This is above and beyond the simple - JP bullied D. Publicly.

Folks supporting her are just as bad.

I think it's unfair to say people supporting JP are just as bad.. there is no grounds to say that imo.. they are equally allowed to express an opinion on the matter.. lest we forget, this whole thing started by virtue of the same thing.. differing opinion.

What I would say is that some maybe have not read any or all of the debacle following Denior's initial post.. or maybe they have and decided to act the same way the twitter brigade did once the beast was let out of the cage.. both equally wrong but equally right (when directed at a situation that actually warranted it, which in the case of Denior and his respectful approach to hold meaningful dialogue, did not imo).Approaching this kind of debate with the .. ssh your wrong don't speak your opinion is kind of disingenuous and actually only hurts the opportunity to learn from the exchange.. sure there are some posters that just post to troll for effect and those will likely be dealt with by ANET by way of post removal and moderation. But the rest we can read and challenge if need be or we can take on their viewpoint and try to understand it.Personally I do not think there is any defence of this person in this instance because it was all on JP by setting the undertones and narrative she did and maybe when some of those readers who support the fight against sexism and such, delve deeper into this and maybe past postings they might then begin to see a pattern or an attitude not befitting with such a cause, in fact perhaps see JP as the very thing they are actually striving to out in the first place.But that is just my opinion and take on the whole thing..

[Scud.5067]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

Supporting a bully? Yeah, for me that's just as bad.

The 'grounds' are the action.

[Dengar.1785]

@Dengar.1785 said:Why do people insist on bringing up dead movements from years ago? Or for that matter, why do people insist on lying this much?

Its not lying, look on reddit to see where this was posted, look at what people are saying in those places eg. kotaku in action or the drama subreddit. GG may not be an organised movement any more but most of those with those beliefs are still around and still in the same sub reddits and still willing to harass.

Of course such beliefs are still around today. It would be really strange for people to stop caring about ethics in vg journalism. The movement is over, the idea, which predates GG, is obviously not.

[Loli Ruri.8307]

@Haleydawn.3764 said:

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:

@Dragon.4032 said:

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:

@Dragon.4032 said:

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@Yamazuki.6073 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@White Dragon.5429 said:

@ponytheguardian.7439 said:

@"Harper.4173" said:

17. "The real discussion is the lack of segregation between personal and corporate communications and corporate policies dictating far too much about personal communications (think church and state here). In this case, it was personal communications that the community made corporate and the outcome has been disastrous for all parties involved." - maybe employees should be more aware of these issues and try to clarify things better before they sign contracts.

But no-one has seen what kind of terms ArenaNet has in place for their employees who have signed the contract.While we can't see exactly what is on their contract, it is common practice for someone who customers may see as a "face of the company" to be required to put forth a good appearance even while not on duty. If you are a known, recognizable employee, all actions in a public space can be interpreted by customers (whether or not they should) to be actions of the company, and so you must act accordingly.

That being said, it is understandable for someone to lose their calm while under stress. I would expect some kind of warning and expectation of public apology, followed by termination if the employee refuses.

This not only needs to change, it must change and if we have to legislate it then that's the solution. Corporate America needs to be brought to heel and learn that they can not and will not be allowed to control what employees say on their own personal social media accounts.

Public

social media posts are not different than your actions taken out in public places. Public Twitter posts=/=your private and secure home where jokes are kept between friends and families. People have always been judged by how they are presented in public places, there's no reason that needs to be changed. If you want to speak poorly of people and face zero consequences, then keep it in a private setting among your friends and family, no need to take out the megaphone and then complain when the consequences come at you.

There is zero reason for her response, and there is zero reason why any sort of business needs to tolerate sexism either, just because she's a female doesn't mean it's okay to hate on the opposite gender when the guy did nothing wrong, and had even complimented her not long before that.

I don't care if it's public, it's still your PERSONAL social media account and Corporate American has no right to sensor it...and if people are unable to separate a persons personal life from their professional life, then the person with the problem is the one unable to separate the two. Those are two distinct entities, you have a job that is your professional life, you go home after work and that is your personal life...they are not one and the same in the vast majority of cases, and Corporate America needs to be kicked out of our personal lives.

It’s not a private, personal place if you have over 13k strangers following you and it’s open to the world to look in. That’s public. It might be “personal” in that they put their name on a spot on someone else’s property (the people that own the site Twitter in this case) however if they set it to public which allows the whole world to see and answer you and if they brand themselves on that publicly accessible site as an employee of a particular company and if they discuss their work on that site with their settings on public so all can see and comment then no, it’s no longer

only

a personal social media where you are entitled to privacy.

As @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said

You know, back when I worked at a bank, they had a certain way of phrasing it. Of course, it was all surrounded with cooperate newspeak and a bunch generic praise, but ultimately the message was this:

The job doesn't start when you punch the clock. The job starts when you put on the uniform. If you are out in the world, the moment you wear our emblem, you represent us. If somebody sees you and recognizing you as an employee of our company, then you represent us.

She was wearing ANet’s emblem when she tagged her account as an ANet dev and posted a discussion about her work. At that point she was repping ANet and anything she said reflects on them also. Just like anything you say while at work reflects on your employee. She cursed at and insulted customers of her job while repping ANet and she got the same punishment as you would get if you cursed and insulted customers while repping your job.

Edit: spelling

Yea as long as you are sending family mails through that gmail account in public domain, everyone should have the right to probe into your emails whether you like to have your own space or not. Get real.

That is not the same. You are not broadcasting your emails for everyone to see but sending them to one or a select few to read. If you post your emails on a public site that anyone can see then that would be different. If you're going to argue the point try to make a comparison that is relevant.

You are raising irrelevant points actually. But to draw technical relevance Gmail is a public server not your room space. And when they prefer to boost their sales by selling your content to the advertisers you should be fine with it. The direct point is her twitter account is not the official gw2 account. and nor was it owned by Anet. She can express her views in her own account as she pleases. And even if she was posting alarming topics about Anet (which wasn't the case) its something to take notice of.

No one argues that she can’t express what she wants. However1) she was posting

as

an ANet dev

and

posting on work related topics

and

she was speaking to customers. That makes what she says as relevant to her job and her state of employment.2) no one ever in the history of mankind has been free from the consequences of what you say or do. Society has always applied social constraints to behavior and speech. The right to publicly say what you want comes with the corresponding right of your hearers to disprove and apply these social restraints and it came with the right for her employee to disapprove and terminate employment.

You have no right to be free from consequences of public action or speech.

In such beautiful irony, Jessica herself tweeted sometime last year, “social/financial consequences of what you say are free speech working as intended”Yeah but rarely do these people who say this, understand that the rules swing both ways. Considering how most people have a perceived image of themselves, and strive to become that image, anything that counters this is considered as an enemy. This is one of the reasons why pride can be dangerous. That and it can blind you metaphorically speaking.

Thinking you are great because you do X, doesn't mean you are great. In fact, it would be more beneficial to be modest, and accept that there may be an opportunity to go to greater heights in one's career, and with the people around you. If you already have a grandiose view of yourself, how does this help you to further succeed? It only builds up your confidence, which can be good in some ways, but also dangerous with consequences in other ways.

Take for example this situation. She said he was basically mansplaining her job back to her, instead of being modest and seeing that it was just another customer/fan interaction. Let's just ignore the fact that mansplaining is sexist towards men, because it promotes segregation. Overreacting like that is avoidable if one simply keeps their ego in check. For example. Making a grand piano, does not necessarily make you greater than the pianist who plays in front of 2,500 people live.

[WingLegacy.7159]

"Rando a55 hat" - Jessica 2018 B) B) B) B)

[Lowen.8157]

@LetoII.3782 said:

@Lowen.8157 said:

1) do what they pay you for,2) don't talk bad about the company you work for3) don't talk bad about the company's clients

Ima add a few4) Don't bring your personal problems to work5) Don't share your ideas on politics or religion6) You might

think

the customer is wrong.....

That twitter account is a veritable cringefest

I must admit that her twitter account is a cringefest to wander through. Her thoughts on infinity wars were, least to say, out of touch.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Scud.5067 said:

@"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

Supporting a bully? Yeah, for me that's just as bad.

The 'grounds' are the action.

I think your taking what I said way out of context scud.I meant they may think what they were/are defending is just but if they maybe looked deeper at what was said, how it was and at the context of why it was said maybe such support would be reconsidered... maybe.Of course, granted, some (on both sides of the divide) just want to bay for blood and will just go full social justice or full trollmode for no other reason than "they can" but that is their issue.Thankfully ANET did not let themselves fall into the trap of believing everything JP wrote and took the view that it was harmful to ANET and to the games community as a whole.I think we are all in agreement here that sexism is real, bullying is real, but just throwing those things out into a random non related discussion (or lack of on JP's part) kind of makes her position very weak and only see's her actually become the very things she thinks she champions against... which is very sad and imo just as, if not moreso concerning for those individuals and groups that are truly striving to make a difference within these important issues.

[Goettel.4389]

Amazed you guys are still at it, but carry on.

[Scud.5067]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Scud.5067 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

Supporting a bully? Yeah, for me that's just as bad.

The 'grounds' are the action.

I think your taking what I said way out of context scud.I meant they may think what they were/are defending is just but if they maybe looked deeper at what was said, how it was and at the context of why it was said maybe such support would be reconsidered... maybe.Of course, granted, some (on both sides of the divide) just want to bay for blood and will just go full social justice or full trollmode for no other reason than "they can" but that is their issue.Thankfully ANET did not let themselves fall into the trap of believing everything JP wrote and took the view that it was harmful to ANET and to the games community as a whole.I think we are all in agreement here that sexism is real, bullying is real, but just throwing those things out into a random non related discussion (or lack of on JP's part) kind of makes her position very weak and only see's her actually become the very things she thinks she champions against... which is very sad and imo just as, if not moreso concerning for those individuals and groups that are truly striving to make a difference within these important issues.

Oh aye, my bad - I get you now. And yes, totally agree.

[inubasiri.8745]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@inubasiri.8745 said:

@DiabolicalHamSandwich.8756 said:

@inubasiri.8745 said:

@Loli Ruri.8307 said:

@inubasiri.8745 said:

@Loli Ruri.8307 said:

@inubasiri.8745 said:

@Loli Ruri.8307 said:

@inubasiri.8745 said:Congratulations, some of you have just had 2 actual people fired. I hope it was worth being offended on the internet. Sick age we're living in.She was offended too. So was he. Because accountability is a sick age we live in. Amazing right?

Yeah well if everyone was accountable for making others offended on the internet, we'd all be in jail now. But I guess in this case only the devs got the short straw. As I said, congratulations people (you know who you are), your outcry was heard by the mighty Mo, you don't need to be offended anymore.Don't worry, the UK is working on that. lol

Great so now you agree with me?It's not a good idea for law to be punishing people based upon feelings. Because the law should be objective, not subjective. However in this case, we can look at objective and see clearly what was wrong.

But that's precisely the point. Was what they did illegal? If not why are they getting fired for it? Because it hurt someone's feelings which is why they made a reddit thread about it and other people went there and agreed with it. You have to self-censor yourself if you want to keep your job, then?

Illegal? I understand who you are replying to, and what they said, but the situation still had nothing to do with actual law. They were employees acting like kitten. More so Price since from what I saw of the other guy, crap was tame. I don't know if you know how businesses work, but normally you don't want employees attacking your fans/customers unprovoked. Also censor yourself? no. Just don't act like an kitten for no reason in this case. Unless the person is naturally an kitten, then yes, self-censor.

Yeah but they weren't acting as employees. Remember those were their personal accounts. My point isn't that she wasn't acting noxious, my point is that it should have no bearing on her employment. And also if someone didn't put it on reddit, most people wouldn't be offended by it because they wouldn't have known about it. Because what is said between individuals should sometimes just stay between individuals.

No.. sorry your incorrect imo.When someone openly advertises their workplace publicly and then puts out material that is absolutely work related then by their own choice they are putting themselves and the company into the public eye.. by offering out her pro tip AMA she decided, no one else, to put herself on the clock.. what ensued was a lack of professionalism and an abhorrent attack on a respectful community member, a content partner and a person who less than 24hrs previous was calling this person a God, someone he admired for her work.Simple fact is she let both herself down and the company in the way she acted and the things she decided to accuse the poster and similarly ANET of.. and continues to do so reading some of here journo interviews.. which hopefully no one in their right mind would take seriously knowing her history.

As you may have admitted in the end, it's more about her than what she said, isn't it? No really, I've gotten to the point of feeling that her most dedicated haters are all about what she is or said before than really what she did now. But that aside, I can talk about my work in my free time, can't I? It didn't put her on clock, because she wasn't paid for it. Yes, she has acted noxiously, but tbh who cares? She's a prickly person, sure, but the only reason we're having this discussion is because someone popularized it. Otherwise I doubt her twitter followers would have cared (probably because they know her). You do realize that what you're saying is that nobody basically has free time, they're always the company employee, that nobody really has any privacy, because they have to keep representing. And I'm pretty sure this works for politicians, but why should it apply for ordinary people.

Have some wisdom, please, this all can turn against all of us, eventually.

[Vayne.8563]

@Dragon.4032 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Dragon.4032 said:

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@Yamazuki.6073 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@White Dragon.5429 said:

@ponytheguardian.7439 said:

@"Harper.4173" said:

17. "The real discussion is the lack of segregation between personal and corporate communications and corporate policies dictating far too much about personal communications (think church and state here). In this case, it was personal communications that the community made corporate and the outcome has been disastrous for all parties involved." - maybe employees should be more aware of these issues and try to clarify things better before they sign contracts.

But no-one has seen what kind of terms ArenaNet has in place for their employees who have signed the contract.While we can't see exactly what is on their contract, it is common practice for someone who customers may see as a "face of the company" to be required to put forth a good appearance even while not on duty. If you are a known, recognizable employee, all actions in a public space can be interpreted by customers (whether or not they should) to be actions of the company, and so you must act accordingly.

That being said, it is understandable for someone to lose their calm while under stress. I would expect some kind of warning and expectation of public apology, followed by termination if the employee refuses.

This not only needs to change, it must change and if we have to legislate it then that's the solution. Corporate America needs to be brought to heel and learn that they can not and will not be allowed to control what employees say on their own personal social media accounts.

Public

social media posts are not different than your actions taken out in public places. Public Twitter posts=/=your private and secure home where jokes are kept between friends and families. People have always been judged by how they are presented in public places, there's no reason that needs to be changed. If you want to speak poorly of people and face zero consequences, then keep it in a private setting among your friends and family, no need to take out the megaphone and then complain when the consequences come at you.

There is zero reason for her response, and there is zero reason why any sort of business needs to tolerate sexism either, just because she's a female doesn't mean it's okay to hate on the opposite gender when the guy did nothing wrong, and had even complimented her not long before that.

I don't care if it's public, it's still your PERSONAL social media account and Corporate American has no right to sensor it...and if people are unable to separate a persons personal life from their professional life, then the person with the problem is the one unable to separate the two. Those are two distinct entities, you have a job that is your professional life, you go home after work and that is your personal life...they are not one and the same in the vast majority of cases, and Corporate America needs to be kicked out of our personal lives.

It’s not a private, personal place if you have over 13k strangers following you and it’s open to the world to look in. That’s public. It might be “personal” in that they put their name on a spot on someone else’s property (the people that own the site Twitter in this case) however if they set it to public which allows the whole world to see and answer you and if they brand themselves on that publicly accessible site as an employee of a particular company and if they discuss their work on that site with their settings on public so all can see and comment then no, it’s no longer

only

a personal social media where you are entitled to privacy.

As @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said

You know, back when I worked at a bank, they had a certain way of phrasing it. Of course, it was all surrounded with cooperate newspeak and a bunch generic praise, but ultimately the message was this:

The job doesn't start when you punch the clock. The job starts when you put on the uniform. If you are out in the world, the moment you wear our emblem, you represent us. If somebody sees you and recognizing you as an employee of our company, then you represent us.

She was wearing ANet’s emblem when she tagged her account as an ANet dev and posted a discussion about her work. At that point she was repping ANet and anything she said reflects on them also. Just like anything you say while at work reflects on your employee. She cursed at and insulted customers of her job while repping ANet and she got the same punishment as you would get if you cursed and insulted customers while repping your job.

Edit: spelling

Yea as long as you are sending family mails through that gmail account in public domain, everyone should have the right to probe into your emails whether you like to have your own space or not. Get real.

You have an option to open twitter up to the public, or to just friends. If you open it up to the public, you're making a choice. Presumably family emails aren't posted publicly so the analogy doesn't work.

When I managed a computer store, I met a customer at Typhoon Lagoon in Disney World. Not planned. He just happened to be there at the same time as me, behind me in the same line waiting for food. Weird, weird coincidence. He starts asking me computer questions on my vacation.

Just so happens I liked the guy and chatted with him until we got our food. But the point is, even if I couldn't stand the guy, I'd have been civil because he's a paying customer and there's zero reason to offend him. None. Unless he threatened me or outright insulted me.

Deroir wasn't correct in what he was saying, and JP was very much correct. She probably took what he was saying wrong. She just typed a whole page explaining stuff that's pretty well understood, not the first time I've heard convos like this from professionals, and he's like I disagree "slightly". But his disagreement wasn't actually slight and it probably rubbed her the wrong way.

Doesn't excuse her saying something later like I'm not on the clock and I don't have to pretend to like you. She could have said a lot of things. She could have explained to him why the footprint of an MMO doesn't support branching storylines. She could have even said that this is something the dev community has discussed for years, and I assure you this is the case, even if you don't realize it. Instead, she chose to see his comments as an attack on her because she's a woman. Would he have said the same thing to a male dev? I think so. Not all of us think in terms of gender on twitter or facebook or forums. I know I don't.

If I insulted a customer who did nothing more than express an opinion, then I would be in the wrong and I'd expect some sort of penalty for it.

Sure I understand your views. I'm not here to disagree with you at all. But you need to understand not to take Jessica's point of view for granted and how she should have reacted in her own shoes. How she reacted wasn't very pleasing but there is a reason, but to completely neglect that side of the reason doesn't seem very ethical, at least not in the way Mike had to fire them.

We don't know what happened in that office in private. We have no idea. Not a clue. Mike could have asked her to apologize and she could have refused. To me that would be grounds for firing. Frankly I think that sort of bad judgement reflecting on the company probably would have been enough to fire her anyway, but I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I wasn't one of the mob calling for her to be fired. Which doesn't mean I didn't feel she was wrong.