This shouldn't even be controversial. The fastest way to get fired at any company is to disrespect customers. That is what JP did. That is why she was fired. End of story.
I don't think it's that simple in this case. And then why was Fries fired? He was, for all I can surmise, loved by both fans and AN employees. Just to CYA and not get a law-suit for discrimination perhaps? The whole thing stinks, and has potential implications for devs at all companies moving forward.
Someone made a good point in one of the videos addressing this situation. In the case of Peter Fries, if they didn't fire him, she would point to him not being fired as gender discrimination. Notice how she ignores him being fired because it doesn't fit her narrative. Imagine what she'd be saying if he was still employed by them after she was fired.
A few months back I had a very positive twitter interaction with Jessica. I had tweeted out my experience with the first episode of season 4 and she replied about her experience making it. It's certainly not my place to speak on behalf of anyone involved in what went down over the past few days and I agree with most that Deroir and MmoInks didn't deserve the response they received from her and I'm glad to see that this fact is being pointed out in some articles. I'm disappointed that some news outlets have lumped them in with the more toxic spectrum of the gaming community. As far as the firings, I don't know what to think - It felt hasty, but it wasn't shocking - except Peter's. That did surprise me. I don't know what lessons should be learned from this, but I hope somebody learned something constructive.
You may not be full of shit for the facts outside of the initial story, but you are absolutely full of shit for your timing of bringing it up.
It's like bringing up a judges bias and trying to get a case thrown out on a person caught on tape committing the crime. Yes, judge will get removed and past cases reviewed but this defendant right here;
Nice try though.
Nope. I think it's about not stopping at the first two "bad guys" that got caught.
Hmmm. I wonder if Bill's point would have gone over better if he stated it as Price is just the tip of the iceberg?
I think it might've come off better as: she was clearly in the wrong for responding to Deroir as she did, but here's why other media outlets have been taking what seems like a counter-intuitive stance on the issue. Bill mentioned he was merely trying to look at it from all sides, but I feel the disconnect might be that we've already heard a lot of one specific side without a lot of insider-specific context on why that side may enjoy the focus it has, as Bill implied.
Of course, a disclaimer: hindsight is 20/20 and I'm no professional journalist, so what do I really even know (don't hurt me, Bill!)?
You may not be full of shit for the facts outside of the initial story, but you are absolutely full of shit for your timing of bringing it up.
It's like bringing up a judges bias and trying to get a case thrown out on a person caught on tape committing the crime. Yes, judge will get removed and past cases reviewed but this defendant right here;
Nice try though.
Nope. I think it's about not stopping at the first two "bad guys" that got caught.
Again, that was poorly communicated, considering the context and content of the article itself. I'm not implying @BillMurphy is being dishonest, because I've never seen him be dishonest with us before (besides intentionally getting the definition of MMORPG wrong! ), but the end result just didn't hit the mark he was trying to hit well.
He himself has stated that he didn't make the point as clearly as he would've liked.
EDIT- for additional retrospective, I would like to know whether ANet had a clear-cut social media policy or discussion with their employees prior to the event. Thinking back, the USAF literally had to gather new Airman into an auditorium in the spring to tell them to wear sunscreen on the beach and not play in waters with sharks, jellyfish, or other dangerous animals. Yea, it's come to that these days, so ANet would be amiss to not have covered that specifically with employees as a company. Even a quick "Don't post anything on public accounts that might reflect poorly on the company. If you like, you can keep your accounts private and separate from work if you feel the need to post controversial content that might otherwise harm the ANet brand." would suffice.
Yeah, he probably could have organized it better in hindsight. I can relate to that. I've done that, constructed an argument I realized could have been phrased or presented better. I think he's done a good job at clarifying that through dialog though, which is what I was responding to. By that point in the thread it is a lot clearer where Bill is at and what his intentions are.
That's the great thing about this being a discussion forum. We're not limited to a snapshot of Bill's mind when he originally wrote the article. I understand a lot better his concerns and perspective. I agree with some and I'm unsure about some others. The event isn't complex, but the environment and gaming culture (including development) surrounding and fostering this rather is.
Absolutely. That's one of the reasons I enjoy coming here: Bill, you, and the rest of the folks who contribute will generally follow up to clarify ot expound in the forums attached to the piece. I like that Bill has shown a willingness to engage us further even when we all seemed to be against him. Debate, even heated debate, can be a greatly insightful thing.
I've come to "verbal blows" with almost everyone on this forum at some point or another, but with a few rare exceptions with some especially indignant folks, we're all pretty good at keeping the sparring gloves and headgear on, so to speak. I have no problem with seeing that here, and I'm glad it's not so heavily moderated as to render the place an echo chamber of "No, you're right, I just shouldn't have posted at all because I don't agree with you! I really killed the happy-go-lucky atmosphere, my fault. I'll just go fuck myself, it's cool, really! I'm sorry!"
You may not be full of shit for the facts outside of the initial story, but you are absolutely full of shit for your timing of bringing it up.
It's like bringing up a judges bias and trying to get a case thrown out on a person caught on tape committing the crime. Yes, judge will get removed and past cases reviewed but this defendant right here;
Nice try though.
Nope. I think it's about not stopping at the first two "bad guys" that got caught.
Again, that was poorly communicated, considering the context and content of the article itself. I'm not implying @BillMurphy is being dishonest, because I've never seen him be dishonest with us before (besides intentionally getting the definition of MMORPG wrong! ), but the end result just didn't hit the mark he was trying to hit well.
He himself has stated that he didn't make the point as clearly as he would've liked.
EDIT- for additional retrospective, I would like to know whether ANet had a clear-cut social media policy or discussion with their employees prior to the event. Thinking back, the USAF literally had to gather new Airman into an auditorium in the spring to tell them to wear sunscreen on the beach and not play in waters with sharks, jellyfish, or other dangerous animals. Yea, it's come to that these days, so ANet would be amiss to not have covered that specifically with employees as a company. Even a quick "Don't post anything on public accounts that might reflect poorly on the company. If you like, you can keep your accounts private and separate from work if you feel the need to post controversial content that might otherwise harm the ANet brand." would suffice.
Yeah, he probably could have organized it better in hindsight. I can relate to that. I've done that, constructed an argument I realized could have been phrased or presented better. I think he's done a good job at clarifying that through dialog though, which is what I was responding to. By that point in the thread it is a lot clearer where Bill is at and what his intentions are.
That's the great thing about this being a discussion forum. We're not limited to a snapshot of Bill's mind when he originally wrote the article. I understand a lot better his concerns and perspective. I agree with some and I'm unsure about some others. The event isn't complex, but the environment and gaming culture (including development) surrounding and fostering this rather is.
Absolutely. That's one of the reasons I enjoy coming here: Bill, you, and the rest of the folks who contribute will generally follow up to clarify ot expound in the forums attached to the piece. I like that Bill has shown a willingness to engage us further even when we all seemed to be against him. Debate, even heated debate, can be a greatly insightful thing.
I've come to "verbal blows" with almost everyone on this forum at some point or another, but with a few rare exceptions with some especially indignant folks, we're all pretty good at keeping the sparring gloves and headgear on, so to speak. I have no problem with seeing that here, and I'm glad it's not so heavily moderated as to render the place an echo chamber of "No, you're right, I just shouldn't have posted at all because I don't agree with you! I really killed the happy-go-lucky atmosphere, my fault. I'll just go fuck myself, it's cool, really! I'm sorry!"
That's why I keep coming back. There's a small core of users here that I respect and almost enjoy disagreeing with from time to time. You might say that life is only interesting because people can disagree.
"...the entire gaming world is talking about what a horrible thing it is for a company’s president to have fired an employee over Twitter conversations"
Who exactly is talking about that specifically? It seems like only media outlets, price, and extreme feminists are taking that stance. At least 90% of the actual gaming community seems to have sided with ArenaNet or at least against Price. Read any comments section in these articles (not Polygon). Even more liberal sites like Kotaku and MOP barely have anyone defending Price.
I also find it ironic that you warn & ban people for speaking politics when you clearly start threads and publish articles that are based on just that ! Just off the top of my head here is a few of your more recent
I'm going to take umbrage at this comment: Neither Bill nor I are the forum moderators, nor do we hand out bans or warnings. That comes from an independent group of volunteers under the direction of MikeB. Trust me when I tell you that they are much more impartial than I would be in their shoes.
If you got a warning, rather than posting snarkily about it here, take it up with @MikeB who is in charge of this whole shootin' match on the forums.
I don't think they were asking about how to get "unbanned" or anything of that nature. What the statement is saying is why warn someone about their personal politics when you are clearly displaying your own? Why warn someone to stay away from discussing politics at all when the article YOU present is centered around politics? Now I know you may get snippy with me & I'm not trying to be rude but these are legitimate questions & statements
Just want to clarify for future reference: editorial and community are not the same dept. Bill runs editorial and I run community. If we publish an editorial (or news piece) that is political in nature, we tend to lock the comments. I don't decide what goes up in terms of news/articles, my team and I just decide the fate of the comment threads attached to them.
That said, I don't necessarily view the subject matter of this piece as inherently political, but the potential for it to become a political discussion wasn't lost on me. However, since the discussion was for the most part pretty reasonable, I decided to see if that would hold.
I also find it ironic that you warn & ban people for speaking politics when you clearly start threads and publish articles that are based on just that ! Just off the top of my head here is a few of your more recent
I'm going to take umbrage at this comment: Neither Bill nor I are the forum moderators, nor do we hand out bans or warnings. That comes from an independent group of volunteers under the direction of MikeB. Trust me when I tell you that they are much more impartial than I would be in their shoes.
If you got a warning, rather than posting snarkily about it here, take it up with @MikeB who is in charge of this whole shootin' match on the forums.
I don't think they were asking about how to get "unbanned" or anything of that nature. What the statement is saying is why warn someone about their personal politics when you are clearly displaying your own? Why warn someone to stay away from discussing politics at all when the article YOU present is centered around politics? Now I know you may get snippy with me & I'm not trying to be rude but these are legitimate questions & statements
Just want to clarify for future reference: editorial and community are not the same dept. Bill runs editorial and I run community. If we publish an editorial (or news piece) that is political in nature, we tend to lock the comments. I don't decide what goes up in terms of news/articles, my team and I just decide the fate of the comment threads attached to them.
That said, I don't necessarily view the subject matter of this piece as inherently political, but the potential for it to become a political discussion wasn't lost on me. However, since the discussion was for the most part pretty reasonable, I decided to see if that would hold.
@MikeB your silent omnipotence is spooky to me. That is all.
I also find it ironic that you warn & ban people for speaking politics when you clearly start threads and publish articles that are based on just that ! Just off the top of my head here is a few of your more recent
I'm going to take umbrage at this comment: Neither Bill nor I are the forum moderators, nor do we hand out bans or warnings. That comes from an independent group of volunteers under the direction of MikeB. Trust me when I tell you that they are much more impartial than I would be in their shoes.
If you got a warning, rather than posting snarkily about it here, take it up with @MikeB who is in charge of this whole shootin' match on the forums.
I don't think they were asking about how to get "unbanned" or anything of that nature. What the statement is saying is why warn someone about their personal politics when you are clearly displaying your own? Why warn someone to stay away from discussing politics at all when the article YOU present is centered around politics? Now I know you may get snippy with me & I'm not trying to be rude but these are legitimate questions & statements
Just want to clarify for future reference: editorial and community are not the same dept. Bill runs editorial and I run community. If we publish an editorial (or news piece) that is political in nature, we tend to lock the comments. I don't decide what goes up in terms of news/articles, my team and I just decide the fate of the comment threads attached to them.
That said, I don't necessarily view the subject matter of this piece as inherently political, but the potential for it to become a political discussion wasn't lost on me. However, since the discussion was for the most part pretty reasonable, I decided to see if that would hold.
Very well said. Things can very easily be lost in translation from the person creating the thread & from the people commenting on it & tensions can run high. People who have the same beliefs can even have heated arguments from time to time over sometimes trivial matters, but when we look back at some of the things we say during these times we understand how far we went. This is clearly a heated topic on every site talking about it.
We all need to just make sure that we know our opinion isn't the only opinion & I very much include myself in these statements. Actually I'm typing this more for a message to myself than others. Again, great message MikeB
Below is a great vid from Liana K a youtube content creator, speaking about what they feel happened. It is a great neutral stance on the situation & I have to say I agree with pretty much 100% of what she says. It is a 34min vid but was a good watch. The reason I post it here because some of it is what Bill was trying to say & some of it is what the replies were trying to say. Or at least I think. Enjoy
This debate really doesn't really need to go any further. It was pretty clean cut. There's no mud or grey area. I really don't get what the drawn out back and forth is for.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
The thing is, if you're going to try to convince us that MO is somehow a bad guy (which is an agenda that is in very poor taste), you need to do it outside of this situation. Because to those of us who work in the real world, and not in the bubble of the gaming industry that never seems to realize that their workplaces are a fantasy land that don't reflect reality, there's nothing wrong with what MO did here.
Sure it's possible there's other things he's done that are actually bad, but this is not one of them. This is totally appropriate and normal behavior on his part and if the gaming industry is going to regain trust and respect from gaming fans, you all are going to need to realize this. When an employee of a publicly facing company, very publicly attacks the community (or customers), it's the CEO's job to apologize and fix it. That's all we have here.
This debate really doesn't really need to go any further. It was pretty clean cut. There's no mud or grey area. I really don't get what the drawn out back and forth is for.
Debate about Jessica Price or Mike O'Brien?
I don't think there is any debate about Price really. Objectively her actions led to the outcome we already know.
About Mike O'Brien? On it's own it could potential be newsworthy. Tied to the Price incident, it looks like a case of gaslighting.
Just throwing this out there, a lot of us have thrown shade at Bill for his opinion of the situation, but I can really appreciate that you guys don't moderate people's voices. Over on Massively they are deleting comments that disagree with the OP that are of any significant discussion points.
Wasn't Price let go from the people who make Pathfinder for crapping on their customers less than a year ago? How do you cover this without noticing that? I mean, that's not unimportant, is it?
I appreciate this is an opinion piece, but even if I thought your article was objective, take out the identity politics angle and there's little to no controversy here. Or in other words, no clicks, no views, no revenue.
"...the entire gaming world is talking about what a horrible thing it is for a company’s president to have fired an employee over Twitter conversations with players."
Citation? The bulk of what I've seen (on Twitter, Reddit, ArenaNet, and yes, even this very article's comment section) has been overwhelmingly critical of Price, if not outright in favor of her dismissal. The only people I've seen to be consistently sympathetic have been journalists (such as Kotaku, Polygon, and now MMORPG.com).
Worse still, (and hopefully no reflection on you, Bill) Forbes recently published a hit piece on TotalBiscuit. Pardon my tin foil hattery for a moment, but I'm finding it hard to believe that's just a coincidence.
"I don’t know what she goes through day in, day out, just to be a part of this industry."
I don't know what Donald Trump goes through day in, day out either. Should we just give him a pass too?
"And it is her personal Twitter, so she should be allowed to say what she feels in that space."
You might find this quite surprising, but I agree with you. Not because I found Price's behavior anything less than repugnant (I didn't), but because I believe in free expression. That said, I'm constantly reminded "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence" so you know, take that as you will.
"She’s not wrong in her replies..."
She went out of her way to humiliate someone who was nothing less than respectful, then compounded that with, at best, an indirect accusation of prejudice and sexism. What part of that don't you think is wrong?
"But firing her, without knowing anything else about how or who she was at work..."
Again, citation? You don't know what Price goes through day in, day out... but you're confident what O’Brien knew?
"I’ve spoken with several former employees of ArenaNet and they’ve all told me the same thing: MO is not the hero Guild Wars fans make him out to be."
You spoke with several ex-employees who were less than flattering of their former boss? Say it isn't so!
"There’s a reason that MO’s the only founder left."
And that reason is...? Or was this just a cute way to imply something sinister without risk of defamation?
"Jessica Price lost a job she obviously cared about."
You really think her behavior was (obviously) consistent with someone who cares about her job?
"Peter Fries, a 13-year employee got caught in the crossfire too."
Yet nearly every article I've seen has been far more sympathetic to Price. Imagine that. It's almost as if accusations of sexism and impropriety garner more clicks.
"The rest of ArenaNet is left feeling like the spotlight is shining on them, arguably now worried about what they might say to get themselves sacked."
Really now? Is your contention they're all children or sociopaths? The whole of AreaNet is incapable of discerning what Price did that cost her employment?
Wasn't Price let go from the people who make Pathfinder for crapping on their customers less than a year ago? How do you cover this without noticing that? I mean, that's not unimportant, is it?
Is this true? I hadn't even heard about this but yeah if she was fired from 2 companies back to back for the exact same thing I agree that it deserves a mention.
A company has the right to fire anyone who makes them look bad. That is the reality that you are faced with.
When you are posting on social media while advertising yourself as part of a certain company, you are representing them. And therefore are no longer immune to any backlash.
Arenanet has 100% full right to fire someone to save the reputation.
Don't like it? Don't post on social media while advertising yourself as part of the company. You can have "JOHN DOE" twitter with nothing tracing back to the company you work for and post whatever blasphemy you want.
The only reason the likes of Polygon, Kotaku etc have not folded completely is because they are pushed by Google. I had to manually block their insipid editorials from my news feed, simply because they were clickbait garbage instead of actual news.
Their forums are not moderated any better. In this regard mmorpg.com had the upper hand, since it was a site build around the forums, as opposed to theirs build around the news section. The focus is difference and thus the quality of the particular sections are different.
The thing is, it was the editorials that drove me away from Kotaku, Polygon etc. It was a slow process of me peddling through the nonsense to find that one article worth reading. Eventually it became too much of a chore, thus I quit reading them altogether. If they produce a good article once per month, somebody will notify me about it.
The other annoying thing about gaming press (which I guess can be true about any type of journalism) is how uniform these articles seem to be. It's as if all those people read from the same basic script, or are part of the same mailing list that contributes ideas for articles. I guess people don't understand that they undermine their own viewership, if they produce the exact same material the next guy has.
And lastly, it's about honesty. A lot of the gaming articles feel fake. This is what I call classical clickbait. Articles that are opposite to common sense and objective reality, but with the potential to engage the viewership into heated arguments. Who cares about the truth, when you can spin a plausible fairy tail that is financially profitable for you. The problem with this parasitical type of journalism is that it works as long as the main body is healthy. Unfortunately for them, they have grown in size so much, that they are killing the whole concept of gaming journalism.
I remember one article claiming "Gamers are dead. Gamers don't have to be your audience". Well, when you've turned your back on your audience, it's no wonder that audience has abandoned you.
Since I get to read this stuff as I post it, all I can say is nicely done @billmurphy !
My favorite comment in all of this that, I believe, should be shouted from the rooftops:
"I’ve spoken with several former employees of ArenaNet and they’ve all told me the same thing: MO is not the hero Guild Wars fans make him out to be. Quite often, it’s the opposite: he’s a founder and the company president, but there’s a reason he’s the only founder left at the company. There’s a reason many of the people who were responsible for the sky-high dreams of Guild Wars 2 left for other studios. There’s a reason that MO’s the only founder left."
The comment that tip toes around libel to imply there's something ominous if not abundantly shameful about ArenaNet's Mike O’Brien?
That's what MMORPG.com's News Manager believes should be shouted from the rooftops?
Comments
Someone made a good point in one of the videos addressing this situation. In the case of Peter Fries, if they didn't fire him, she would point to him not being fired as gender discrimination. Notice how she ignores him being fired because it doesn't fit her narrative. Imagine what she'd be saying if he was still employed by them after she was fired.
I'll see myself out.
How about Wild Cherry Pepsi VS Cherry Dr. Pepper?
Also, on an unrelated note, if you mix Code Red Mountain Dew with Voltage in equal parts it tastes like a bomb pop.
Of course, a disclaimer: hindsight is 20/20 and I'm no professional journalist, so what do I really even know (don't hurt me, Bill!)?
I've come to "verbal blows" with almost everyone on this forum at some point or another, but with a few rare exceptions with some especially indignant folks, we're all pretty good at keeping the sparring gloves and headgear on, so to speak. I have no problem with seeing that here, and I'm glad it's not so heavily moderated as to render the place an echo chamber of "No, you're right, I just shouldn't have posted at all because I don't agree with you! I really killed the happy-go-lucky atmosphere, my fault. I'll just go fuck myself, it's cool, really! I'm sorry!"
Who exactly is talking about that specifically? It seems like only media outlets, price, and extreme feminists are taking that stance. At least 90% of the actual gaming community seems to have sided with ArenaNet or at least against Price. Read any comments section in these articles (not Polygon). Even more liberal sites like Kotaku and MOP barely have anyone defending Price.
We all need to just make sure that we know our opinion isn't the only opinion & I very much include myself in these statements. Actually I'm typing this more for a message to myself than others. Again, great message MikeB
Help get Camelot Unchained made, a old-school MMORPG, with no hand holding!
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/13861848/camelot-unchained
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sure it's possible there's other things he's done that are actually bad, but this is not one of them. This is totally appropriate and normal behavior on his part and if the gaming industry is going to regain trust and respect from gaming fans, you all are going to need to realize this. When an employee of a publicly facing company, very publicly attacks the community (or customers), it's the CEO's job to apologize and fix it. That's all we have here.
Wasn't Price let go from the people who make Pathfinder for crapping on their customers less than a year ago? How do you cover this without noticing that? I mean, that's not unimportant, is it?
When you are posting on social media while advertising yourself as part of a certain company, you are representing them. And therefore are no longer immune to any backlash.
Arenanet has 100% full right to fire someone to save the reputation.
Don't like it? Don't post on social media while advertising yourself as part of the company. You can have "JOHN DOE" twitter with nothing tracing back to the company you work for and post whatever blasphemy you want.