61–70 of 328 posts
How did it get this bad?
Lots of people want to work in the video game industry, so they'll put up with low pay, long hours, and apparently sexual harassment for a really long time.
How many managers and executives were fired? My fear is that individual perpetrators have been fired but not the leaders who buried complaints or their own inaction dissuaded victims from complaining. A fish rots from the head.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if its the same in the USA, but in Europe there are massive legal liability issues to giving a negative reference - most places give no reference or a standard set of terms because of this
The U.S. Bill of Rights [1] protects giving negative references. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
Any HR person / lawyer will tell you providing a negative review of an employee, let alone with amount of detail, opens you up to liabilities that aren't worth it.
As an employer, I've been told that, if called, I should only provide the date a person started with the company, the date a person left, their starting and ending salaries (murky now given salary history laws) and whether they'd be eligible to be re-hired.
I ask any employee we fire for cause not to list us as a reference.
Question, when these people find a new job will the person hiring them know?
I really wouldn't boycott anything over workplace culture. If their product is good I will buy it. In the case of Blizzard their products haven't been good for a long time. I'm ok with supporting a company that's evil. I am consuming petroleum, plastic, the news media, etc. all the time. Anyone who suggests otherwise comes across as somewhat delusional and a little self obsessed to me. Blizzard would be the least of…
But I can live without buying the next loot box, and I can still be a productive member of society without the new Call of Duty game. And forgoing those might move a needle, as sales are a closely tracked metric, and being one of a few million is a much larger impact than being one of many billions.
And the CEO remains the CEO.
I brought this up when I spoke to one of their talent sourcing folks last week. They really need to coach them on better replies because the dishonesty is a terrible look.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I deleted my Blizzard account when they censored and banned a Taiwanese e-sports competitor for speaking out on Hong Kong. It's a shame because I had been planning to give WoW classic a try. Edit: While the tournament was held in Taiwan, Blitzchung is actually a native of Hong Kong.
while i do understand the plight of HK's fight, it does make sense that a non-affiliated individual should not be able to make political statements on someone else's platform, unless with prior consent. The competitor should be free to make his case in his own platform(s), but not on a platform he doesn't own if the owners of that platform doesn't want to affiliate themselves with the political discourse.
No, sorry, it makes absolutely zero sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if its the same in the USA, but in Europe there are massive legal liability issues to giving a negative reference - most places give no reference or a standard set of terms because of this
The U.S. Bill of Rights [1] protects giving negative references. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
For an extreme example, see Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School Dist [1]. In that case, the plaintiff sued several school districts for fraudulently or negligently providing positive recommendations for a teacher who ultimately sexually assaulted her. The California state Supreme Court held that the school districts were liable because there was a substantial, foreseeable risk of physical injury to a third-party resulting from the misrepresentations.
For this reason, it is common practice for businesses to decline to provide a review and instead simply confirm a prior employment relationship and the dates of the employment.
[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/14...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which platforms are left to make statements on?
I'm personally not sure where to stand on this. On one hand, you're right: you can probably come up with an excuse for every platform as to why "making a statement" shouldn't be permitted. On the other hand, do we really want everyone able to make political statements in unrelated arenas? Literally everyone feels strongly about something. Letting all causes be elevated via unrelated venues would be untenable, which m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which platforms are left to make statements on?
I do believe making a website is still cheap and easy. Not to mention some platforms like twitter do allow for political discourse on them (even if spotty). The idea is that if the platform owners don't want it, a platform user should respect that choice.
When you play in someone else's sandbox, you're going to have to deal with their rules. No one is guaranteed an audience.