Interview with ex-CIG employees

And honestly? I actually have a lot of empathy, if not sympathy, for CIG's situation during that snow storm.

Allegedly, I am working with a remote worker who was worried about weather taking out power or worse recently. They expressed their concerns and I pushed that farther up the line because I was not authorized to really do anything. I also allegedly had some unofficial discussions that we would make up some bullshit work that they claimed to be doing while bailing out a basement because the sump pump failed or dealing with power outages or whatever so that we could pay them.

Fortunately it mostly wasn't an issue but I totally saw the decision that "if someone can't work they need to use PTO" because we had single digit people in that region. I would have, allegedly, done everything I could to help that employee but that wouldn't have been reflected in corporate policy.

THAT being said: This was not single digit remote workers. This was an actual office full of people and while I don't think Texas knew how bad that would be, they also knew shit was gonna be bad (honestly, even a light snow is bad in Texas but...). So if the managers of the Austin office weren't able to make this clear ahead of time (or, honestly, any remotely agile company not having a "Yo, don't worry about not being able to work because of a natural disaster. We have your back" policy...), then that is a MASSIVE failure of management at pretty much all levels.

Because it is good they eventually came to a good policy. That doesn't matter to all the stress for people who were trying to keep their families alive with no power in a blizzard who were worried about also losing a paycheck if they didn't have enough PTO saved up.

@onemanarmyy:

OK, this is my last post to this thread ...

But that's the thing. This article was not about the company in general.

Couple of last paragraphs handles the company in general. For example: “It’s just about the money and not about their employees. They don’t really show they care when it matters most, and they have failed with this time and time again.”

Maybe some employees disagrees strongly and wants to express their opinions and experiences about the company.

I guess a big part of "defending" is about sharing information and giving voice to CIG since gaming sites doesn't do it. There has been lots of articles which states various of stuff as facts and I don't think it is wrong gamers to give sources to show that the presented information may be incorrect.

( PU Alpha 3.14 has been great so far. It includes many improvements I wasn't aware of. Unfortunatey I don't have access to it myself so I need to wait it to go Live to really be able to give it a good test )

@spacegg: It's totally fine for employees to be like 'hmm. i don't have that experience. They treated me great!' It's not okay for employees to be like 'hmm.. i don't have that experience, therefore this is an outright lie. They got the clicks though!`

If these people in the article have something negative to say about the company after the snowstorm mess, you can't expect Kotaku to edit that out because it might not be how the average employee at CIG feels. Or because it doesn't match up with the perception that fans have of the company. This article is about a handful of employees that are speaking out on a bad experience.

Kotaku straight up sent CIG a point by point list of the grievances that these people mentioned so that the company could comment and offer context on pretty much anything they wanted to comment on. They were given a voice. In the other Kotaku article, they took advantage of that a plenty. In the snowstorm article, CIG chose to stick to the one statement in the article.