I love how people in this thread are so concerned about tone and somehow convinced that if we just watched our tone, things would be so different.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Two Riot Employees "Leave" Under "Complicated Circumstances" After PAX Session Excluding Men.
- Thread starter Deleted member 5853
- Start date
I love how people in this thread are so concerned about tone and somehow convinced that if we just watched our tone, things would be so different.
Do you often go back and edit posts to include more information about yourself? I think there's a chance that other people aren't the only ones making it about you. It's a shame because I do think your points are correct. Naturally, you don't care about how you come across - not just to people who disagree with you (which I don't) but just kind of, to anyone. Anyways, admittedly I'm part of the problem for talking about you :P so I'm concluding this. Happy posting.
The complaint Razor Mom made wasnt about tone, it was about content. Try to keep up champ.
Knew it!
All that "show of goodwill" towards under-represented people at Pax was just that: a show. When the rubber met the road and Riot could either support or not their employees who put their necks out there to *actually* support under-represented people, the company showed that they are still a toxic POS place that is not really trying to change anything and threw those employees under the bus and forced them out.
We need to stop being naive and applauding companies for PR moves designed to buy goodwill. No benefit of the doubt for Riot until we hear that high level bro that reportedly farts in meetings and makes everyone that works for him uncomfortable actually being the one fired. THAT would be a real sign of change.
And for folks that say any effort towards inclusion is better than nothing: that is not true. People/companies that do these superficial acts of support are actually detrimental to any cause because it gives you a false sense of having more supporters than you really do and when you try use that for real change that will cost them something more than lip service, they leave you high and dry.
Best of luck to the 2 employees forced out, there are better and more progressive places in gaming that hopefully will welcome them.
All that "show of goodwill" towards under-represented people at Pax was just that: a show. When the rubber met the road and Riot could either support or not their employees who put their necks out there to *actually* support under-represented people, the company showed that they are still a toxic POS place that is not really trying to change anything and threw those employees under the bus and forced them out.
We need to stop being naive and applauding companies for PR moves designed to buy goodwill. No benefit of the doubt for Riot until we hear that high level bro that reportedly farts in meetings and makes everyone that works for him uncomfortable actually being the one fired. THAT would be a real sign of change.
And for folks that say any effort towards inclusion is better than nothing: that is not true. People/companies that do these superficial acts of support are actually detrimental to any cause because it gives you a false sense of having more supporters than you really do and when you try use that for real change that will cost them something more than lip service, they leave you high and dry.
Best of luck to the 2 employees forced out, there are better and more progressive places in gaming that hopefully will welcome them.
He wasn't calling their entire audience manbabies. Just the manbabies.
It really comes down to whether management wants to stand by their employee, preaching the exact values they're trying to convince people they share, or the sexist manbabies. Obviously, management sided with the sexist manbabies.
I often go back and edit posts with a lot of different content because I often think up additional nuance I find relevant to add after initially clicking that reply button. But to be honest, I don't even agree that my posts are about me to any significant extent? The only reason I'm talking about me is because I sometimes substantiate my points about meta discussion (aka how we should/should not be tackling these issues in a forum setting) by citing examples from personal experience. Maybe it comes across the wrong way, I don't know, but the intent is to further discussion about the issues, not about me as a person. Part of that is, of course, not only what is being said but also how.
Me not caring about how I come across only extends so far as engaging with concern trolls, which is the point I've been making we should all apply in this context. I care deeply and obviously engage in good faith with anyone willing to debate in an honest manner, no? I'm telling you that it's frustrating to see those people not reply properly after receiving that courtesy from me or anyone else, at which point I'm simply not responsible for whether or not it seems like I'm monologuing. That's on them for refusing to add to the discussion, is all I'm saying.
So yeah, I'm not making these points to defend myself, that's not why I'm here. I'm trying to bring different perspectives on how to deal with obvious trolls on this particular forum to light because I think some of what I'm doing is actually effective. I've seen it in open up real discussion that otherwise gets stonewalled in other threads. I will say that it may have been less successful in this thread, but I'd argue that is more down to the sheer volume of trolls in ratio to people willing to truly discuss what is going on. Also there's not much to say in terms of Riot that hasn't already been said, making it kind of difficult to have a deep discussion about any of this, automatically giving more space to "oh but men though" garbage. This issue just isn't very controversial since Riot are so clearly in the wrong. None of the points people raise in defense of them hold any water, thus the thread isn't exactly a bastion of insightful debate.
I find it pretty disingenuous that people talk about how people like the individuals here and Price were fired for tone. They were people reacting to shitty people being shitty, people who, at their best, will view your company as a useful tool to get people they don't like fired. You're not going to win points in the hearts and minds of GamerGate.
You don't need much power if the people you're trying to get to fire someone are themselves powerless. GG shitheads succeeded with Gunn, they succeeded with Price, and they succeeded here too.
People using this as meaning a death threat are being pretty goofy.
"Take a long walk on a short pier"
"Did you just threaten to drown me!?"
You don't need much power if the people you're trying to get to fire someone are themselves powerless. GG shitheads succeeded with Gunn, they succeeded with Price, and they succeeded here too.
People using this as meaning a death threat are being pretty goofy.
"Take a long walk on a short pier"
"Did you just threaten to drown me!?"
Last edited:
I am actually interested in the background of the people posting here if it's relevant to the discussion, and in this case, it is. How about you skip the paragraphs you're not interested about and stop speaking for everyone else and what they find relevant or not?
Also let's not mince words here; the hostility is not towards personal details, it's towards details on how things are done in other countries outside the US (especially when they're done better), because that would deflate the entire premise of "this is how all workplaces function".
If someone's biggest complaint in a thread about employees being fired for standing up against sexism is "you talk too much about yourself / your country", perhaps it's not the other person that has to keep up.
Last edited:
I have to say I am glad that those defending the firing on the grounds of he attacked gamers, he attacked their customers, he attacked their audience, are essentially conceding that gamergaters and misogynistic tools are a core part of the gaming audience.... makes my job easier when it comes to arguing that gaming has a toxicity problem
Last edited:
Anyone saying he was justifiably fired for attacking gamers or similar is part of the problem.
If you were actually a decent human being with empathy you would feel utterly ashamed at this suggestion, and the fact is Klein was completely right about y'all.
Threads like this are exactly why gaming is one of the worst cultures.
If you were actually a decent human being with empathy you would feel utterly ashamed at this suggestion, and the fact is Klein was completely right about y'all.
Threads like this are exactly why gaming is one of the worst cultures.
That dude ain't lie one bit in his twitter thread, just goes show what's already known but will continue to exist cause majority of corporations and people don't wanna do shit about it.
Clearly something that is incredibly important to point out, champion. We got index fingers working overtime in this thread lmao. Tone, content whatever, it was an odd thing to point out given the on-goings in this thread and the thread that precedes it.
Better watch that tone bucko or the tone police will be on your case next.
Reading the first post and Reddit's comments, I find this to be a stupid question.
I mean, you just can't, at all. Right?
Yeah, foiling efforts to challenge the status quo and the failed attempts to even the playing field is so fucking entertaining and hilarious.
Last edited:
Price didn't deserve to be fired but come on, the person she was reacting too was anything but shitty.
How people in this thread feel about what DZK said (mostly agreeing with him) is entirely irrelevant.
A lot of you need to grow up and live in the real world. The bottom line is as a representative of Riot Games you cannot insult your customer base and retweet the kinds of things he did and not expect kickback for doing it. It's very unprofessional.
Anyone saying 'It was ok to insult them because they deserved to be insulted' doesn't stand up as a defense, sorry. It's basically on the level of 'I'm right because I say so.' You're welcome to have your opinions on whether he was right to say what he did, but you are not the definitive moral arbiter of truth and justice.
That's just not how the world works. You wouldn't be able to get away with calling your customer base 'dumbfucks' if they were being really stupid either. 'It was ok to call them dumbfucks because they were being dumbfucks!' Nope, sorry.
A lot of you need to grow up and live in the real world. The bottom line is as a representative of Riot Games you cannot insult your customer base and retweet the kinds of things he did and not expect kickback for doing it. It's very unprofessional.
Anyone saying 'It was ok to insult them because they deserved to be insulted' doesn't stand up as a defense, sorry. It's basically on the level of 'I'm right because I say so.' You're welcome to have your opinions on whether he was right to say what he did, but you are not the definitive moral arbiter of truth and justice.
That's just not how the world works. You wouldn't be able to get away with calling your customer base 'dumbfucks' if they were being really stupid either. 'It was ok to call them dumbfucks because they were being dumbfucks!' Nope, sorry.
It's ridiculous. As if gamers weren't already throwing their toys out of the pram at the idea of a panel they weren't allowed in.
So, in your view, it's entirely alright for Riot to cave to Gamergaters. The very kind of people and culture that this event was made as a response to.
Okay then.
User Banned (Permanent): Arguing in bad faith over a series of posts; history of severe infractions.
I think it's okay for Riot to fire someone who insults their customer base and makes them look unprofessional, yes. But your attempt to misrepresent what I said has been noted.
I would like to have a productive and civil discourse on this, but I feel that the moderation policy on this forum stifles a lot of real discussion, as opinions going against the prevailing wind are silenced and shunned from the forums. This is then followed by people bleating 'the GGers win again!' at each other, like preaching to the choir, because they already threw away their chance to change someone's mind and instead just pushed them away for disagreeing.
With that said, I'll take the risk and share my full thoughts on the issue. Should I catch a ban for it, it will only serve to prove my point. Making this forum a safe space for people who only agree with each other will never result in a change amongst the majority of people who do not frequent this forum.
I feel that the event itself had good intentions (increasing female/NB representation in the industry) but bad execution. If Riot wanted to make an additional panel that was open only to women/NB, specifically for women/NB, there would be no problem at all. The initial uproar stems from the fact that men attending PAX, who paid the same ticket price and should have the same access as everyone else, were losing access to presentations that they would be interested in. If you want to show the content to everyone, but have a specific room where women/NB can raise their concerns and receive feedback on resumes, hear women/NB oriented talks, then fine. But the list of talks on the women/NB only timeslot was in fact fairly generalised.
The negative work environment within Riot was uncovered, and Riot responded by withdrawing access from men who had nothing to do with the internal structure or environment of Riot. Understandably in my opinion, these men felt that this was unfair (but according to a lot of people on this forum, it's okay because they're men and men already dominate the industry, so this was just a way of somewhat tipping the scales in the other direction, even if the specific men who were losing out from this action had nothing to do with the imbalance anyway.)
As for what DZK said. I think it's pretty mild and I have thick skin so even as a man who disagrees, I'm not offended by it. But I think the point still stands - you represent your company and you can't insult your customers like he did. That's all there is to it. I think trying to represent everyone who disagrees as a 'misogynist' or a 'GGer' is disingenuous and the 'if you're not with us, you're against us' mentality on this forum is stronger than George W Bush.
imagine defending a company who protects their sexist/racist piece of shit audience
"it's good business!" no fucking shit, but it's also clear what their values are and they're not getting a pass for that.
next time riot tries to say anything progressive, they can fuck off with their empty words.
"it's good business!" no fucking shit, but it's also clear what their values are and they're not getting a pass for that.
next time riot tries to say anything progressive, they can fuck off with their empty words.
Chill with the persecution complex. No one is banning anyone who disagrees in a civil manner. Every time someone brings this up as a preemptive "hivemind" defense I immediately lose respect for the argument to come.
I was at PAX, and you know, I didn't really get a sense of anyone actually there being mad. And for the record, the panel in Room 613 was *specifically for women/NB by women/NB*. While the topic itself could be of interest to men ("champion design", for instance), the presentation was specifically catered for women who wanted to get into the industry, and relating their experiences at Riot and around the development community. Meanwhile, Riot also threw a huge Narrative Design panel in the main theater and showcased the full NA LCS semifinals at another venue, open to all.
Riot is not without fault and I don't want to come off like some kind of defensive fanboy, here, but this particular reaction is exactly why we need panels and events like this. You tell men they can't go to one goddamn thing, not even meant for them, and they fucking flip their shit. It's embarrassing, and they need to get over it.
W'll agree to disagree.
If that IS the case, then fine. However, that's not how it was presented:
Tentative schedule below, but all subject to change—stop by the room Friday-Monday for a daily schedule.
- 10 AM-12 PM: 1-on-1 resume review & feedback
- 12-3 PM: Presentations including:
- Art + Champions/Skins Design
- How to be a Producer
- Narrative Writing
- Production Careers
- Game Design
- Advanced Cosplay
- Art + Champions/Skins Design
Last edited:
Literally right above the schedule you posted:
"Right next door in Room 613 we're hosting a variety of sessions to support women and non-binary folks who are interested in getting into games professionally. Stop by to learn from and get to know some of the badass women of Riot!"
This isn't crystal clear, but it's pretty telling. And the people at the door were happy to answer any questions about it (they did when I asked).
And Twitter claims yet another set of victims...
It's a shame really, I do think Klein was right and his long tweet explaining his views on "sexism against men" is very good. But just like I said on the ANET thread, you can't insult your customers and not expect any consequences.
It's a shame really, I do think Klein was right and his long tweet explaining his views on "sexism against men" is very good. But just like I said on the ANET thread, you can't insult your customers and not expect any consequences.
well this just isn't going to work with the fence sitting narrative, now is it
instead of just saying "customers" say "'sexist customers" then re-read what you wrote. for an added bonus also keep in mind this company has been outed for misogynist culture from the top down.
Last edited:
You could, I dunno. Weed out that aspect of your community and attract a whole new community (ie...I dunno women). Would it hurt losing the reliable paychecks? Sure. Will the gamble benefit in empowering women, minorities and their allies in your now infamously toxic work environment? Hell yes. I think it is more beneficial to encourage this type of behavior instead of letting them go. That sends a message loud and clear that you have learned nothing.
Care to cite any examples of people being banned over disagreeing or are you just blowing smoke?
So were these sessions specifically intended for women/NB audience? Or were they intended for a general audience, just with men restricted from accessing them? Because if it was the former (and someone made a statement clarifying it was the former) I think there would have been much less of an issue with this, and conveying that clearly and calmly (rather than going on twitter rants insulting people and accusing them of bigotry) would probably have been the better course of action.
This is a genuine question by the way, because I didn't attend PAX and I don't actually know the answer. I think this in itself shows some of the confusion of the intent of the sessions, in that they are initially referred to as 'a variety of sessions to support women and non-binary folks who are interested in getting into games professionally' and then the actual schedule for the day lists a bunch of general topics that men who are interested in would also want to attend. Clearing this up would have gone a long way.
I'm not going to go hunting for banned posts. However, here is one that got banned for saying 'we should engage calmly and respectfully with people we disagree with, rather than being aggressive and insulting them.'
Last edited:
As a 41 year old, it never fails to get a hearty chuckle out of me when a random person online that's been alive for about the same time I've been working as a software engineer tells me how the world works, and to grow up. It's always the 20-somethings, man; they always think they have it all figured out.
another poster that with a quick glance has only ever participated in one other social issue thread titled "adam sandler keeps touching this woman's knee" to which they respond "i don't see the big deal"
and here they are again, to men's rescue. what's the point "discussing" with these transparent people?
it's almost like there's more context to this post. stop being dienguous and debate or whatever the fuck you're supposedly doing instead of worrying about how the mods will tolerate you.
and here they are again, to men's rescue. what's the point "discussing" with these transparent people?
"repeatedly deriding responses"
it's almost like there's more context to this post. stop being dienguous and debate or whatever the fuck you're supposedly doing instead of worrying about how the mods will tolerate you.
'on the basis of tone'
It's almost like tone is relevant, and pointing out that being aggressive to people you disagree with is less likely to make them change their mind and agree with you, is a legitimate point.
Again with this "that's how the world works" nonsense. We all know. We're all grownups. You aren't some beacon of enlightenment by telling us these revolutionary concepts. We're saying "the way the world works is bad, and Riot is bad for perpetuating it." We are specifically saying "the status quo is bad," so you saying "this is the status quo" is just...could not miss the mark more.
Oh hey look, literal days ago. Come on, at least read the thread if you're going to pretend to argue in good faith; regurgitating arguments that have already run their course in the thread isn't a good look.
That person was temp-banned for repeated tone policing, and the message there is clear: argue on content, not on tone. Others have been banned for openly supporting sexism, which is good, because it sets a standard for what ideas aren't allowable. If you engage without openly supporting sexism, you should be fine! If you're worried your posts might be misconstrued as supporting sexism, there might be a problem with your posts.
concern trolling is not the same as a "disagreement", their post history is there for you to see. i think it would be wiser to bring it up with a mod instead of acting like a victim right after telling everyone they need to "grow up" and before even attempting to make a point.
Last edited:
Whoa calm down you wouldn't want people to think you're being a smartass. Please be more polite to make your point.
They are still customers whether you like them or not. Klein is neither the CEO of the company nor is he in any position to dictate policy. It is not his place to decide which customers Riot will do business with.
I don't see the correlation between lessening toxicity on the community, attracting and integrating women and not firing an employee for mass-calling customers "fucking sealions" or "privileged manbabies" (even if they are privileged manbabies and fucking sealions).
I mean, has no-one here ever worked a job in customer service?? You don't yell "Fuck you" to a customer who's being a dick and still keep your job. You don't!
The worst thing is that these people keep sabotaging themselves, Klein is right in what he's saying but was it so hard to not insult them? Is it that hard to keep the higher ground? I'ts not about "not hurting their feelings" its about covering your own damn ass. It's about not giving those assholes a reason to get you fired. But people still don't get this...
made a mess trying to edit the post
Last edited:
More like "people shouldn't be subject to a double standard for insulting a side of the customer base that happens to coincide with the higher-ups".
In this very thread you have a former Rioter pointing out that they've insulted customers before and only been given a slap on the wrist twice, a far cry from the jumping straight into firing mode that we're seeing here.
The shoulder shrugging and saying "well, that's just how things go" makes no bloody sense. The policies that led to the firings aren't scribed in stone. They're not decreed from upon high. It's entirely possible to change shitty work culture. If, you know, the people in charge aren't shitty. Klein wasn't fired because "company policy." He was fired because the company leadership is shit, wrote a shit policy, and caters to shit people. Not every company is like this. Someone earlier in the thread said they'd be fired for insulting pedophiles and rapists on Twitter. What the fuck? What kind of shit-ass company do you work for?
Maybe the firings were a good thing, because now they're free to go work for a company with better policies. I feel sorry for well-meaning people in the company who think they can change the minds of executives who wrote a rape joke in a recruitment pitch.
Maybe the firings were a good thing, because now they're free to go work for a company with better policies. I feel sorry for well-meaning people in the company who think they can change the minds of executives who wrote a rape joke in a recruitment pitch.
Last edited:
there's not one person in that this thread that doesn't know that as an employee you are held accountable by your employer, you're not enlightening anyone with this basic fact.
what i am concerned about, as a consumer, is that they are protecting their garbage status quo after being outed for toxic company culture.
if you don't work for riot and you're jumping to their defense, it really makes me question what you actually believe in and what you're fighting for.
do you believe what this employee said it right? the question pretty much ends there, let riot be accountable for their actions.