There really isn't that much to the Jessica Price/ArenaNet story. I am starting to wonder if people (including GB) are maybe getting the course of actions wrong and therefore side with her entirely?
I am tempted to create an accurate timeline of what actually happened when, but it looks a bit like the people who could benefit from it have already made up their minds.
My 2 cents on some of the more important points: Was Deroir acting inappropriately in any way? No. Was Price acting inappropriately? Yes. Was Fries acting inappropriately? Hard to say, but he backed Price's bad behavior and accusations of 'mansplaining' and sexism publicly, while also representing ArenaNet. Did a Reddit/social media mob get her fired? No (according to ArenaNet). The timing simply does not seem to add up. Did she get harassed after the decision to fire her (according to ArenaNet) was already made? Yes. Should people not get fired because they have been harassed in the past and could potentially be harassed in the future? No. Did ArenaNet handle the public firing on the GW forums poorly? I would say "yes", but it is at the very least a questionable way of doing it.
Anyway, I think overall it is arguable whether Price (and the guy almost nobody is talking about) should immediately have been fired - in this particular situation. But my understanding is that pretty much every HR person, in a bigger company, will tell you that her behaviour usually gets you fired. Looking at some of her prior Twitter 'mishaps' I am actually surprised that she was able to keep her job for that long.
Just a short comment on the Palmer Luckey pick: Even if there were any proof that he is a white supremacist or actively supporting them - which there actually isn't, unless you are willing to generalize about that whole group - the story was talked about for about a week and then it was over. In addition, from what I have read, there have been literally no consequences for Oculus, the games industry, or Palmer Luckey, apart from him no longer being (allowed to be, I assume?) in the limelight. The fact that the deciding point to pick Luckey was saying "white supremacists", indirectly suggesting that he might be a white supremacist or that he actively and directly supported them himself... very questionable with the information we have, in my opinion. For all we know he is a troll who doesn't like Clinton, nothing he did was racist, sexist or whatever, and it doesn't matter how much I or anyone else might disagree with it. I personally had a bigger problem with him lying when it first came out.
Looking at NMS and for how long people have been talking about it (months)...the way the games media covered that game, how it has failed (not sales wise), the lies that have been told, the long term consequences on the games media (not to overhype games too early, which might actually be a good thing) and the hundreds of thousands of consumers who were disappointed, all of that seems more relevant to me personally.
Having said that, I don't really see a problem with you guys picking whatever/whoever you want to pick, it's your site and your decision. Maybe prepare for it a little more when a political topic is included again. Cheers.
Edit: I just remembered that some developers stopped supporting the Oculus after the whole incident, that's definitely something that needs to be mentioned.
Just a thought on the segment about "social media", primarily directed @vinny.
When you hear something about a topic that is considered "controversial", or just something you don't know anything about, wouldn't it make more sense to gather knowledge (opinions and facts) from multiple differing sources and to make up your own mind instead of only listening to the people in your echo chamber (in general)?
Did Danny say criticizing feminism would ruin his career?
Kind of? I almost hope that the things he wrote were actually offensive to the idea of equality (the original meaning of feminism) and not justified criticism of the 3rd wave movement. Sadly people are easily confused and afraid to bring up valid criticism these days.
I'm listening to the crowdfunding part of the podcast right now and I just wanted to mention that I was an early backer of Star Citizen (I'm obviously also sceptical of the whole thing) and they actually asked the backers whether they should continue crowdfunding or not. There was a forum poll and, from what I remember, there were a few possible answers and the overwhelming majority of backers wanted the company to keep taking money. I do not remember if they gave people the option to get their money back, which would seem like the right thing to do at that point.
emem's comments