Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Spoon on May 27, 2018, 12:00:49 pm

Title: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Spoon on May 27, 2018, 12:00:49 pm
Watching how part of the internet has reacted to TB's death has been pretty abhorrent...
This for example:
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: karajorma on May 27, 2018, 01:36:36 pm
To be honest, you get this kind of insect scuttling out of the woodwork every time a celebrity dies. Good to see that his actions have had consequences.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 27, 2018, 06:21:48 pm
Apparently the guy's pissed because of some **** TB said about ME3?  All I remember TB saying about ME3 is that he really enjoyed the multiplayer. 

Good way to commit internet suicide anyway, someone's passing should be the time when even their worst enemies have a kind word or two to say.  That's just human nature, or at least how many people present themselves publicly.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Luis Dias on May 27, 2018, 07:13:27 pm
There's always going to be people who will piss on dead ones. I mean, if you haven't made any enemies in life, you haven't really made a dent in the public in the first place. Even saints like the Dalai Lama will fade with millions of people dancing on his grave. It is despicable but whatever. I guess in this case, his attempt to place gamergate *precisely* where it should focus on earned himself a hate bonus from the people most affected by it.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: -Joshua- on May 27, 2018, 07:19:24 pm
There's been cases where TB has used his platform to punch down, despite being aware of how toxic his platform could be, because of percieved slights. Often he didn't really seem to know what he was doing in that regard. Being on the recieving end of him wasn't always a pleasant experience.

Not that I agree at all with that guy. Anything that could be said about those things had already been said earlier, there's no point to just dredge it all up again just for the purposes of pissing on someone's grave.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Lorric on May 27, 2018, 07:51:14 pm
Watching how part of the internet has reacted to TB's death has been pretty abhorrent...
This for example:
This behaviour doesn't make sense to me on any level. What, is he pissed off because the reaper got to TB before he could? Either that or him dying at a young age somehow isn't enough punishment for him. The problems he had with TB, they're over. They're all over. There's no need to go pissing on the body, what's the point?! It doesn't achieve anything!
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Nightmare on May 27, 2018, 07:55:16 pm
Yeah but dead people can't defend themselves, and probably can't hire lawyers too.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Lorric on May 27, 2018, 07:59:46 pm
Yeah but dead people can't defend themselves, and probably can't hire lawyers too.
Oh yeah, that. I get that, I just don't work that way so I didn't think of it.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 28, 2018, 06:18:08 am
Watching how part of the internet has reacted to TB's death has been pretty abhorrent...
This for example:

I too found it weird that Casey Hudson had to issue an apology for something a contractor not working for Bioware said.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 28, 2018, 07:51:46 am
Watching how part of the internet has reacted to TB's death has been pretty abhorrent...
This for example:

I too found it weird that Casey Hudson had to issue an apology for something a contractor not working for Bioware said.

The video in the previous page suggests that Crooks was employed at the time of his comments, and then promptly fired because of them.   His linkedin page at the time, and current google search results, suggests that he's a programmer there.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: karajorma on May 28, 2018, 08:10:22 am
Yeah, I got the impression he was working for Bioware too. Either way, it doesn't exactly do Bioware any harm to point out that Crooks doesn't represent their point of view. If anything it's good PR for them.









And I've just realised what a shockingly low bar is required for good PR on the internet.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 28, 2018, 08:12:18 am
I was under the impression he was only a contractor who worked on Andromeda, but okay, that explains that then.

Except, of course, it kinda doesn't.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 28, 2018, 08:27:51 am
I was under the impression he was only a contractor who worked on Andromeda, but okay, that explains that then.

Only a contractor?  Most jobs in games are probably not full time but are contractors for a specific project.  Being a contractor is the norm, not something less than it.  Only the core guys are going to be full time because they'll be retained when work at the studio is less.

Except, of course, it kinda doesn't.

Explain
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 28, 2018, 08:41:02 am
I was under the impression he was only a contractor who worked on Andromeda, but okay, that explains that then.

Only a contractor?  Most jobs in games are probably not full time but are contractors for a specific project.  Being a contractor is the norm, not something less than it.  Only the core guys are going to be full time because they'll be retained when work at the studio is less.

I am aware of that. I am also aware that being a contractor means that you're not an employee.

Quote
Except, of course, it kinda doesn't.

Explain

Why does Bioware have to address this? This is one guy who isn't willing to let bygones be bygones when it comes to TB, who has personal issues with TB, and who had a bit of a rant about TB and how he used his influence. So what? What makes this a huge PR crisis that one of the studio leads has to respond to?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 28, 2018, 08:59:50 am
I am aware of that. I am also aware that being a contractor means that you're not an employee.

They're basically temp employees.  I work as a contractor in a related industry and the only difference between myself and a full time employee is job security and sometimes benefit packages.

Why does Bioware have to address this? This is one guy who isn't willing to let bygones be bygones when it comes to TB, who has personal issues with TB, and who had a bit of a rant about TB and how he used his influence. So what? What makes this a huge PR crisis that one of the studio leads has to respond to?

Because silence on the matter can be seen as tacit approval of those comments.

Almost any professional company in this situation, will both fire and disavow the employee.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 28, 2018, 09:17:36 am

Almost any professional company in this situation, will both fire and disavow the employee.

And I'm sure the "political correctness has gone too far" crowd would jump to that employees defense in a heartbeat.

Oh, who am I kidding, of course they wouldn't. After all, that employee doesn't seem to be a right-wing extremist.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Luis Dias on May 28, 2018, 09:27:51 am
Ooh boy here we go  :p

I find the pissing-on-grave shtick quite abhorrent, but I also find the reaction to it too trigger-happy for my taste - as if all the hurt that was underneath was just below a very shallow surface ready to burst into flames again. I'd say let it be, but this is surely not the audience for that message, and the ones who would benefit from it are too blind from their own particular rages to even listen.

Oh dear.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: karajorma on May 28, 2018, 09:58:16 am
Why does Bioware have to address this?

Why are you assuming that they had to?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Lorric on May 28, 2018, 12:18:24 pm

Almost any professional company in this situation, will both fire and disavow the employee.

And I'm sure the "political correctness has gone too far" crowd would jump to that employees defense in a heartbeat.

Oh, who am I kidding, of course they wouldn't. After all, that employee doesn't seem to be a right-wing extremist.
That doesn't apply. His views aren't the issue here, he can think TB is garbage and the World is better off without him without being an unprofessional, malicious asshole.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Spoon on May 28, 2018, 12:23:53 pm

Almost any professional company in this situation, will both fire and disavow the employee.

And I'm sure the "political correctness has gone too far" crowd would jump to that employees defense in a heartbeat.

Oh, who am I kidding, of course they wouldn't. After all, that employee doesn't seem to be a right-wing extremist.
How did you even make this leap?  :confused:
This thread went from "Rip TB" to "This guy hating on TB sure is a jerk" to "Bioware shouldn't have to apologize to its employees being jerks" to "Those gosh darn right-wing extremists hating on political correctness! Reeee"
The E, are you okay? Maybe you should take a break from the internet if your eternal struggle against the right-wing is getting too much for you  :p
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Nightmare on May 28, 2018, 12:47:06 pm
Maybe because all "celebrity dead"-threads are just waiting to be derailed into ones that require staff attention/to be moved into political discussion?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 28, 2018, 12:54:47 pm
Sorry about that.

But I do find it a bit weird that criticism of TB, expecially hyperbolic and theatrical criticism, is suddenly verboten and tasteless now that he's dead. TB was, to use an euphemism, a controversial figure; he was not above whining at videogame developers when one of their employees said something mean about him (which makes this whole drama even funnier; after all, what better way to honor TB's legacy than to continue that tradition....). This guy had an axe to grind, sure. But did he truly cross an unprecedented line, one that requires him to be disavowed and fired? Nope, not as faras I am concerned.

The thing is, looking at how this drama unfolds, there's some very familiar groups banging the drums of decency and morality and proper ethical behaviour, and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone is taking them serious enough to warrant going into corporate defense mode over this.

My question for you, Spoon, is why was this whole affair relevant to you to post it here? What's the point in shining a spotlight on a Twitter rant by a random person?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: -Joshua- on May 28, 2018, 12:59:17 pm
That doesn't apply. His views aren't the issue here, he can think TB is garbage and the World is better off without him without being an unprofessional, malicious asshole.

There is a bit of an issue in dealing with people who yell that they're being oppressed for their political views whilst they're actually getting flak for being unprofessional malicious assholes though.

---

Quote from: The E
The thing is, looking at how this drama unfolds, there's some very familiar groups banging the drums of decency and morality and proper ethical behaviour, and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone is taking them serious enough to warrant going into corporate defense mode over this.

Because those groups are hardly the only ones around?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Lorric on May 28, 2018, 01:17:48 pm
Personally I'm indifferent about him being fired. Again, if it actually happened. I think they have justifiable grounds to do so, but don't think they had to.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Spoon on May 28, 2018, 01:31:20 pm
Sorry about that.

But I do find it a bit weird that criticism of TB, expecially hyperbolic and theatrical criticism, is suddenly verboten and tasteless now that he's dead. TB was, to use an euphemism, a controversial figure; he was not above whining at videogame developers when one of their employees said something mean about him (which makes this whole drama even funnier; after all, what better way to honor TB's legacy than to continue that tradition....).
I definitely don't think it is or should be verboten, but there is definitely a line between "I disagreed with and didn't quite like TB because of this and that reason" and "I'm glad this mother****er is finally dead, this world is a better place now." imo. One of these is tasteless and crude.

This guy had an axe to grind, sure. But did he truly cross an unprecedented line, one that requires him to be disavowed and fired? Nope, not as faras I am concerned.
Question: Say for example, this was some prominent transgender/homosexual rights activtist who died instead of a games critic. And this guy did a similar rant on that. Would you still feel the same way?

The thing is, looking at how this drama unfolds, there's some very familiar groups banging the drums of decency and morality and proper ethical behaviour, and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone is taking them serious enough to warrant going into corporate defense mode over this.
From what I've seen, both sides of the fence have done some very familiar drumming.

My question for you, Spoon, is why was this whole affair relevant to you to post it here? What's the point in shining a spotlight on a Twitter rant by a random person?
The relevancy should speak for itself? It's a topic about TB having passed away and the video seemed relevant enough for that? I had no particular agenda there.
I was browsing around the internet after the first news came out and I was personally pretty appalled by how tasteless and vile, parts of the internet became. I mean, at least wait until the body is cold and the relatives had some time to mourn before spouting all the vitrol and bile? Seems like common decency to me.

But hey, I don't follow celebrity news usually, so maybe this is just how these things go usually and I never had to displeasure of experiencing it before?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Nightmare on May 28, 2018, 01:38:00 pm
But hey, I don't follow celebrity news usually, so maybe this is just how these things go usually and I never had to displeasure of experiencing it before?

More of this: https://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=92959.0

Luckily, something like that doesn't happen that often (here atleast).

Generally, I think it's hard (probably impossible) for celebrities these days not to end in a lake of ****posts.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 28, 2018, 01:58:32 pm
Question: Say for example, this was some prominent transgender/homosexual rights activtist who died instead of a games critic. And this guy did a similar rant on that. Would you still feel the same way?

Personally speaking, yes. If that person had legitimate grounds for their complaints, sure, they should feel free to flame and vent as much as they want or need to. Our collective reflex to only want to see the best sides of those that have died and to dogpile people who have a different perspective on these people is one that we should work on.

Quote
I was browsing around the internet after the first news came out and I was personally pretty appalled by how tasteless and vile, parts of the internet became. I mean, at least wait until the body is cold and the relatives had some time to mourn before spouting all the vitrol and bile? Seems like common decency to me.

There is also a tendency in internet drama to blow up everything vaguely dramatic beyond reason, and this is one of those things IMHO. This is all about a few tweets by some random dude who is or has been working for Bioware. It's not about some other influential person doing anything, this is just some guy, and now he's being dogpiled for something that, if he had said it in a public place in real life, noone would've cared about. If you had heard something like that in a random conversation in the street, what would your reaction be? Would it be to intervene and demand an apology of the speaker, go to the speaker's manager and complain about him, follow the speaker home to berate him some more about what a bad person he is and tell everyone you know about the utter depravity of that man? Because that's the RL equivalent of this, and somehow I don't think that it gets more rational if it is translated into the social media space.
I am not going to claim innocence there, I have been in those dogpiles. I have done just that. But I do try not to anymore.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Lorric on May 28, 2018, 02:43:48 pm
That comparison is flawed. Because you're letting the World know if you do it online. The comparison would work if he had sent that to one or a group of friends (with no love for TB) then it got leaked. Then I would be opposed to his firing. But he didn't, he chose to do it for all to see in that way at that time out of malice.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 28, 2018, 03:00:22 pm
What is the difference between making a tweet and saying something in a packed public space?

And how do you come to the conclusion that this happened out of malice?

I mean, the original tweet that started this wasn't using any hashtags and it didn't mention @totalbiscuit in its text. That is the Twitter equivalent of saying something in a packed hall in which hundreds of conversations are happening already; to see it, you would have to be following the original poster or actively be looking for people using "totalbiscuit" in a tweet. He didn't "choose to do it for all to see", not by a long shot.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Lorric on May 28, 2018, 03:03:49 pm
Little difference if you're speaking to the whole crowd. If you're just talking to your buddies (and not loudly proclaiming it so everyone can hear) and someone overhears, that would be much the same as what I said about a leak.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Spoon on May 28, 2018, 03:05:02 pm
Question: Say for example, this was some prominent transgender/homosexual rights activtist who died instead of a games critic. And this guy did a similar rant on that. Would you still feel the same way?

Personally speaking, yes. If that person had legitimate grounds for their complaints, sure, they should feel free to flame and vent as much as they want or need to. Our collective reflex to only want to see the best sides of those that have died and to dogpile people who have a different perspective on these people is one that we should work on.
Okay, as long as you're consistent like that.  :yes:
As for that collective reflex you speak of, the general sentiment of what you post, I agree on. I just strongly feel it should be happening in a civilized manner. And well... Not in the way random twitter user who happened to work with bioware did. I mean, I understand the urge of wanting to vent. But once you put it out on social media, you can sort of expect people are going to call you out on it, no?

I was browsing around the internet after the first news came out and I was personally pretty appalled by how tasteless and vile, parts of the internet became. I mean, at least wait until the body is cold and the relatives had some time to mourn before spouting all the vitrol and bile? Seems like common decency to me.

There is also a tendency in internet drama to blow up everything vaguely dramatic beyond reason, and this is one of those things IMHO. This is all about a few tweets by some random dude who is or has been working for Bioware. It's not about some other influential person doing anything, this is just some guy, and now he's being dogpiled for something that, if he had said it in a public place in real life, noone would've cared about. If you had heard something like that in a random conversation in the street, what would your reaction be? Would it be to intervene and demand an apology of the speaker, go to the speaker's manager and complain about him, follow the speaker home to berate him some more about what a bad person he is and tell everyone you know about the utter depravity of that man? Because that's the RL equivalent of this, and somehow I don't think that it gets more rational if it is translated into the social media space.
I am not going to claim innocence there, I have been in those dogpiles. I have done just that. But I do try not to anymore.
The thing is, that comparison with real life just doesn't hold up. In real life when you overhear someone ranting like that, you don't instantly also get access to all the other information they once put out there. Where they work, what they said yesterday, last week and last month etc. Not to mention you have to be right there at the right time and place, to even hear whats being said. And you can't read back on it hours after the fact. Things on social media just carry so much farther and wider. It's just how the internet, social media and people seem to work.
Not to mention that the person on the internet can't start shouting in your actual face, or otherwise inflict physical harm on you when you speak up against them.

Imo in this case it isn't even really a bad thing. Random twitter guy said some pretty awful things imo, and getting a good proper dogpile educating him on why he's being a piece of **** might give him some food for thought. Maybe give him a moment of self reflection?

As a young teenager I once made a half-joking "Let's just kill all the gays" post on a forum once. Basically everyone in my direct real life enviroment were christian and had anti-gay views, it never occured to me that there might be people out there that don't see the humor in a remark like that. And well, I got properly dogpilled by the other forum users for it. Probably rightfully so. And you know what? It seriously made me reflect on what I had posted over the next few days.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Enioch on May 28, 2018, 03:08:47 pm
What is the difference between making a tweet and saying something in a packed public space?

Verba volant, scripta manent.


Anything you post in the internet is the equivalent of written word. You can review it, you can think about it and you can make damn sure it's exactly what you want to say before you say it. While saying something ****ty out loud in a social context in the heat of the moment is excusable, imo (I accept 'wow, what was I thinking?!' excuses in a spoken word context), when you take the time to sit down and write something that will be published in a public platform, available to most of the population of the western world, you need to take the time to think whether what you're posting is actually representative of who you are and actually conveys what you want to say.

Posting anything on social media is a conscious choice and it defines you as a human being. You should be expected to be judged based on that.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Luis Dias on May 28, 2018, 03:11:40 pm
No no no, I agree with The_E wholeheartedly. There's no point in dragging people through the mud for merely sharing some off-the-cuff primary thoughts on twitter, of all places, especially if the person in question is irrelevant in the bigger social scheme of things.

I've been consistently making this point for half a decade now, and it matters zero atoms to me if the victims in question are caught by the sjw mobs or by the anti-sjw mobs. It's utterly irrelevant to the latter point: **** is being exploded way too out of proportion for the deed made.

Personally, I find this behavior abhorrent, but let's stop the dogpiling and the destruction of a person's life because of a ****ing tweet already? Pretty please?


----


There's also a reversal of a kind happening in the gaming community regarding Battlefield V. I was always defending devs when they were being attacked by sjw mobs because their game didn't pass their purity tests of any sort "not enough black vikings in this game 0/10 bigoted crap" and other utterly stupid asinine op'eds by the likes of kotaku, polygon and all the other culprits.

But I guess stupidity and political correctness isn't something the left invented. Because a trailer came out and had a woman fighting in WW2, the hordes invaded youtube to share their disgust at the several things that "lack realism", dogpiling the devs until submition, which would probably be when they finally reveal a trailer where the main protagonist in it is a white blue eyed, blonde haired male, perhaps fighting some nazis.... I mean wolfenstein had a deep sense of irony in this, but I don't believe these morons even know the meaning of that word.

Posting anything on social media is a conscious choice and it defines you as a human being. You should be expected to be judged based on that.

I don't think firing someone for posting some shenanigan on twitter should be a thing. But hey, what do I know.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: MP-Ryan on May 28, 2018, 03:21:26 pm
WTF is even going on in here?

-TotalBiscuit was definitely controversial and said some ****ty things; he also did a number of good things for the industry, and he was a person who fought his ass off against an awful condition and lost at a young age, leaving behind a wife and parents.
-Generally, the time to grind an axe, particularly over relatively petty and trivial matters is not the time right after someone dies.
-I tend to think humanity needs to settle on a realization that instant and heavy reaction to a casual comment on social media should be scaled back and people should be given some benefit of the doubt.  15 years ago, if you said something idiotic, insensitive, or downright awful in a small group of your friends then you got judged by your peers or immediate community and that was the end of it.  Now, someone's biggest stupid moment (even if normally out of character) can be broadcast and amplified for the whole world to see in a few eyeblinks whether they meant it to go out or not.  And context is often lost.  While I do believe people should always be accountable for their words and actions, I also happen to be of the mindset that people deserve the benefit of the doubt; one "get out of 'oops' free" card if you will.
-BioWare is a corporation with a reputation they wish to maintain, and given the extreme overreaction to many things on the Internet, they are will within their rights to fire someone for comments that reflect badly on them and issue a public statement.  I am unsurprised by neither development.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Enioch on May 28, 2018, 03:25:50 pm

Posting anything on social media is a conscious choice and it defines you as a human being. You should be expected to be judged based on that.

I don't think firing someone for posting some shenanigan on twitter should be a thing. But hey, what do I know.

Too much of a blanket statement for my tastes.

From my perspective, posting anything on publicly accessible social media is the equivalent of publishing whatever you posted on a written medium (e.g. a journal, or a newspaper). You are taking what you are thinking, you are writing it down, you are taking the time to look it over and you are posting it on a publicly accessible platform, where it will remain. That is a conscious choice, to reveal something about yourself to an international audience. And iIt has been conclusively shown that deleting a tweet or an account will not purge the records, if someone has taken the time to screenshot whatever ****post you made.

Do you stand behind whatever you decided to post? If yes, then you should be expected to be judged based on that, and if your employer decides to fire you because they don't want to be associated with whatever bile you chose to put to digital paper and broadcast to the world, then you should accept that (assuming your employer are within their rights to fire you based on your employment contract, of course).

If you're not willing to stand behind whatever you decided to post, why post it in the first place?. "Just kidding, I didn't think it would cause such a backlash." is not an excuse from where I stand.

EDIT: What Mp-Ryan said. With one exception: Twitter is not a platform that equates to 'I am discussing this with my friends'. That would be a PM on facebook or something. When you publicly tweet something, then you broadcast it to the entire internet. It's more along the lines of "standing on a soapbox and screaming it out in defiance".

People might not realise this is the case. They should.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Luis Dias on May 28, 2018, 03:46:27 pm
Meh, you're basically disowning the very idea of twitter imho, which was based off of letting people share their off-the-cuff thoughts in real time. That's fine, if you think that way, great for you, but not everyone shares your draconian criteria. I, for one, don't. And I happen to think these pitchfork behaviors are one of the biggest causes of the state of utter ****tiness we are in, socially and politically speaking.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 28, 2018, 03:48:12 pm
I try to present a reasonably consistent version of myself online.

But at the same time, I am also not second-guessing every single thing I do here.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Enioch on May 28, 2018, 03:58:47 pm
Meh, you're basically disowning the very idea of twitter imho, which was based off of letting people share their off-the-cuff thoughts in real time.

Yes, I am. I despise Twitter and the ideology it seems to promote. I consider the very concept of being able to publicly share your thoughts and expect to take no responsibility for them to be toxic for any society.

If twitter limited the visibility of your tweets to your explicitly defined social circle, that would be another matter entirely, and twitter would have been a platform I could get behind. Because that would have been equivalent to talking **** with your mates and that's not something I'm willing to judge people for.

That's fine, if you think that way, great for you, but not everyone shares your draconian criteria. I, for one, don't. And I happen to think these pitchfork behaviors are one of the biggest causes of the state of utter ****tiness we are in, socially and politically speaking.

Pitchfork behaviours of this sort have been intrinsic to western societies since forever. Controversial published opinions have always been greeted hostilely by a part of the population. I think there's just more food for them in recent years, because platforms have been made available for people to expose themselves to them. Also more people can express their contrary opinion in the same platforms, which exacerbates matters.

I try to present a reasonably consistent version of myself online.

But at the same time, I am also not second-guessing every single thing I do here.

My argument is that perhaps you should. Second-guessing and re-thinking everything you write down and sign, no matter the medium it's stored and accessible in, is a good habit to get into.

I learned that when I left my comfort zone and studied abroad.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Spoon on May 28, 2018, 04:03:33 pm
Meh, you're basically disowning the very idea of twitter imho, which was based off of letting people share their off-the-cuff thoughts in real time. That's fine, if you think that way, great for you, but not everyone shares your draconian criteria. I, for one, don't. And I happen to think these pitchfork behaviors are one of the biggest causes of the state of utter ****tiness we are in, socially and politically speaking.
I for one think Enioch is wise.

Also this is good:
My argument is that perhaps you should. Second-guessing and re-thinking everything you write down and sign, no matter the medium it's stored and accessible in, is a good habit to get into.

Personally, I find this behavior abhorrent, but let's stop the dogpiling and the destruction of a person's life because of a ****ing tweet already? Pretty please?
I dunno man, you're gonna have to do beter than a pretty please to stop me from my dogpiling ways. How about a large sum of money? Or a blowjob?

But to clarify, because it sort of feels like you're shifting the narrative here to make me appear like I'm some pitchfork wielding peasant who is outraged at this particular person for tweeting bad things. I linked the video as an easy example of the specific kind of behavior I feel is abhorrent; the pissing on someone's grave when the person isn't even burried yet. Not because I specifically care about twitter guy who worked for bioware.
An easy to digest 5 minute video beats making a messy post, filled with quotes from other random horrible people from all over the internet.

Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Luis Dias on May 28, 2018, 04:15:51 pm
There are two ways you can read Enioch's suggestions. As a matter of behavioral suggestion for every individual, I agree with this 100%, and have attempted to behave like this as well, I do all of the second guessing, etc., etc.

But my point isn't individualistic, or what any individual should do regarding the context they're in. My major point is about the systemic nature of dogpiling and how all of the non-linearities pile up very very fast, and before you know it, your off-the-cuff line of thought about some guy you hated really badly that you wrote just after seeing him appear on your twitter timeline for some reason, makes the rest of your day miserable and in the end you're fired from your job and suddenly the whole project of your life is in standby.

I mean, yeah, let's blame the stupid guy who made a stupid tweet. OTOH, I don't, I blame the systemic nature of this dogpiling that is just over the top.

Much of what has been said I also agree: that dogpiling is a very old way of correcting people, that it has its positive effects, etc. But we don't live in a rural town where your lovely neighbours can smack your ass for saying the wrong heretic statements. We live in a world where if you tweet something, the entire world can suddenly notice you doing something in the fringe of its landscape and overwhelm you completely and ultimately destroy your life. It is in this context that I speak about how these problems are systemic, and we should not hold people accountable at least in this magnitude. It's totally not proportional.

And no, Spoon, I wasn't directing anything towards you, given how I think that posting anything in HLP isn't going to create anything systemically catastrophic for anyone involved whatsoever.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Enioch on May 28, 2018, 04:25:43 pm
We live in a world where if you tweet something, the entire world can suddenly notice you doing something in the fringe of its landscape and overwhelm you completely and ultimately destroy your life.

Exactly my point.

You should not tweet it, because the world will notice.

The above might seem like a joke, or a point drawn to exaggeration on my part. It is not. I am 100% serious.

But we don't live in a rural town where your lovely neighbours can smack your ass for saying the wrong heretic statements.

Once more, you compare a tweet to an off-the-cuff verbal comment. The basic axiom behind all of my argumentation is that a tweet is the equivalent of a signed-and-sealed statement, published in every newspaper, magazine and newsfeed on the planet. It does not matter if twitter users think otherwise.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 28, 2018, 04:30:48 pm
It really really does though. We can either start treating social media as a permanent, indelible record with all the social consequences of those, or we can try to adapt to the way these media are actually used by real humans.

I know which solution I prefer.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Enioch on May 28, 2018, 04:41:59 pm
I have stated above that I consider the very concept of being able to address the entirety of the world on a whim without taking responsibility for your words and while expecting this to have no personal consequences to be abhorrent. I must respectfully disagree with your position.

If you want a social media platform that limits your posts to your personal social circle, that would be another matter entirely.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Spoon on May 28, 2018, 04:45:46 pm
It really really does though. We can either start treating social media as a permanent, indelible record with all the social consequences of those, or we can try to adapt to the way these media are actually used by real humans.

I know which solution I prefer.
We can do neither of these things. Not without some kind of global, state enforced way to dictate how social media is used or viewed. Because opinions will differ. They're already different between the reasonable and smart people in this thread. Now throw in millions of mouth breathing simpletons in the mix. Good luck trying to enforce your particular view on how you think social media should be treated.

The reality is the one that Enioch is describing. You throw your tweet out there for the internet to see, and what happens after that is basically out of your hands.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 28, 2018, 05:05:10 pm
Sorry about that.

But I do find it a bit weird that criticism of TB, expecially hyperbolic and theatrical criticism, is suddenly verboten and tasteless now that he's dead. TB was, to use an euphemism, a controversial figure; he was not above whining at videogame developers when one of their employees said something mean about him (which makes this whole drama even funnier; after all, what better way to honor TB's legacy than to continue that tradition....). This guy had an axe to grind, sure. But did he truly cross an unprecedented line, one that requires him to be disavowed and fired? Nope, not as faras I am concerned.

The thing is, looking at how this drama unfolds, there's some very familiar groups banging the drums of decency and morality and proper ethical behaviour, and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone is taking them serious enough to warrant going into corporate defense mode over this.

My question for you, Spoon, is why was this whole affair relevant to you to post it here? What's the point in shining a spotlight on a Twitter rant by a random person?

It amazes me that people don't understand basic human decency.

And another thing you are deliberately overlooking is that this guy just didn't deride Total Biscuit, he derided him because of comments he made about projects he was involved in.  Do you think this guy has the authority to comment on reviews on behalf of Bioware? Of course not.  There are projects I've worked on that I've read online complaints about and I've not commented because I'm contractually-obligated not to.

Whether average joe jumped on him for these comments, I don't care.  The internet is rife with mob mentality.  But what is not wrong, is Bioware firing him not only for acting like an ass, or making them look like asses, but for breaking his contract and responding to **** he's NOT AUTHORIZED to respond to.

Public relations exist for a reason.  Official responses by large communities exist for a reason.  Any employee running their mouth off when someone doesn't like their game is not something that companies care for under ANY circumstances.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 28, 2018, 05:22:03 pm
And another thing you are deliberately overlooking is that this guy just didn't deride Total Biscuit, he derided him because of comments he made about projects he was involved in.  Do you think this guy has the authority to comment on reviews on behalf of Bioware? Of course not.  There are projects I've worked on that I've read online complaints about and I've not commented because I'm contractually-obligated not to.

And TB's use of his position to make some people's lives difficult because they dared say something mean about him. And using his influence to promote a style of games criticism that concerns itself more with """fidelity""" than quality. And using his community to bully developers and journalists. There's a lot more than "TB didn't like ME3" there. I am not overlooking this at all, in fact, I specifically called out the fact that that guy seems to have a personal issue with TB.

Quote
Whether average joe jumped on him for these comments, I don't care.  The internet is rife with mob mentality.  But what is not wrong, is Bioware firing him not only for acting like an ass, or making them look like asses, but for breaking his contract and responding to **** he's NOT AUTHORIZED to respond to.

You do not know what the contract for Bioware contractors or employees says. You do not know in what ways it does and does not curtail their freedom to talk about gaming celebrities. You do not even know that that person has been fired.

Quote
Public relations exist for a reason.  Official responses by large communities exist for a reason.  Any employee running their mouth off when someone doesn't like their game is not something that companies care for under ANY circumstances.

And this translates into a prohibition on speaking about TB how, exactly?

Nowhere in this twitter rant does Crooks claim to be speaking for Bioware. He lays out all his reasons for why he feels the way he does about TB. The only way to construct an argument about how he is a PR liability and needs to be fired immediately is by purposefully ignoring the fact that even if a bio says "I work at x" it does not and has never meant "Opinions expressed very definitely are those of my employer's".
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Luis Dias on May 28, 2018, 05:34:06 pm
I have stated above that I consider the very concept of being able to address the entirety of the world on a whim without taking responsibility for your words and while expecting this to have no personal consequences to be abhorrent. I must respectfully disagree with your position.

If you want a social media platform that limits your posts to your personal social circle, that would be another matter entirely.

Again, I have to completely disagree here. You're arguing for a kind of a state of affairs wherein everyone in a system like twitter must understand all the things they are signing on to, and this will be apparently resolved by a darwinian method where there will be enough "darwin awards" to signal to everyone the kind of dystopian nightmare they have signed on to.

I'm sorry if I'm not that cold. Especially in a world where all of this is so ****ing new. Arguing for a kinder less dogpiling world that doesn't destroy people's lives in a whim due to what you'd argue is, after all, a misunderstanding on the part of the tweeter regarding the nature of the social media he has signed on to, is a good thing, IMHO.

You do you, and go tell your kids to stay off twitter and facebook and tell everyone else to be careful. That's also what *I* do. And all of that is 100% irrelevant to what *I* have been saying here. There's the upstream and there's the downstream. You're telling me all about the upstream, when I'm discussing the downstream.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Luis Dias on May 28, 2018, 05:37:51 pm

It amazes me that people don't understand basic human decency.

I do wonder how many people who are so filled with human decency right now would uphold it if the receiver of this terrible disease would have been someone like, say, Jonathan McIntosh.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 28, 2018, 05:54:15 pm
And TB's use of his position to make some people's lives difficult because they dared say something mean about him. And using his influence to promote a style of games criticism that concerns itself more with """fidelity""" than quality. And using his community to bully developers and journalists. There's a lot more than "TB didn't like ME3" there. I am not overlooking this at all, in fact, I specifically called out the fact that that guy seems to have a personal issue with TB.

If you want to rant about Total Biscuit then at least have the balls to do it and take any flak that comes your way instead of passively expressing your views through this charade of a discussion.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 28, 2018, 06:00:02 pm
And TB's use of his position to make some people's lives difficult because they dared say something mean about him. And using his influence to promote a style of games criticism that concerns itself more with """fidelity""" than quality. And using his community to bully developers and journalists. There's a lot more than "TB didn't like ME3" there. I am not overlooking this at all, in fact, I specifically called out the fact that that guy seems to have a personal issue with TB.

If you want to rant about Total Biscuit then at least have the balls to do it and take any flak that comes your way instead of passively expressing your views through this charade of a discussion.

What does my opinion about TB have to do with anything? As far as I can tell, I haven't talked about that (and I'm not going to, because I don't care to express it and noone here would be interested in it); all I was talking about was the multitude of other reasons Crooks cited in his rant.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 28, 2018, 06:15:01 pm
And TB's use of his position to make some people's lives difficult because they dared say something mean about him. And using his influence to promote a style of games criticism that concerns itself more with """fidelity""" than quality. And using his community to bully developers and journalists. There's a lot more than "TB didn't like ME3" there. I am not overlooking this at all, in fact, I specifically called out the fact that that guy seems to have a personal issue with TB.

If you want to rant about Total Biscuit then at least have the balls to do it and take any flak that comes your way instead of passively expressing your views through this charade of a discussion.

What does my opinion about TB have to do with anything? As far as I can tell, I haven't talked about that (and I'm not going to, because I don't care to express it and noone here would be interested in it); all I was talking about was the multitude of other reasons Crooks cited in his rant.

Because it's a waste of time.  You can do one of two things:
1 - Express your opinion in your own words and discuss/defend it
2 - Express your opinion through support of what someone else has said.

You've chosen #2, but not even #2.  Instead of saying "I support what he said" you're saying "I don't understand why he was fired?", and then you've ignored or drawn upon fallacies to ignore every reason that was given to you as to why he's been fired.

I've been in enough arguments to know when someone is blindly supporting something against all facts and reason.  And it's also clear to me that your passive support of him is not the actual crux of the argument.  The crux of the argument is your opinion which may either never be expressed, or will take about 5 pages to expressed either directly or through cobbled-together bits and pieces.

So you can either express your opinion, and get it over with.  Or take the most inefficient, time-wasting approach possible and go around in circles with a bunch of other people until everyone gets tired or fed up.

But personally I'm learning to avoid discussions which are clearly a waste of time, so adios.

Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Enioch on May 28, 2018, 06:16:49 pm
You're arguing for a kind of a state of affairs wherein everyone in a system like twitter must understand all the things they are signing on to, and this will be apparently resolved by a darwinian method where there will be enough "darwin awards" to signal to everyone the kind of dystopian nightmare they have signed on to.

I am primarily describing this currently existing state of affairs but, to some extent, I am arguing for it too, yeah. You are always responsible for what you say and maintain in public ; the 'kindness' of the world does not enter into the equation.

You are arguing for a kinder world. I am arguing for a wiser and more responsible world, with people who are willing to own up to what they declared in public.

I'm sorry if I'm not that cold. Especially in a world where all of this is so ****ing new. Arguing for a kinder less dogpiling world that doesn't destroy people's lives in a whim due to what you'd argue is, after all, a misunderstanding on the part of the tweeter regarding the nature of the social media he has signed on to, is a good thing, IMHO.

I'll pre-emptively grant you that public opinion and reaction can be manipulated to an extent (and, once again, we come upon what I consider to be the utterly schizophrenic conceptual and ideological cornerstone of a Twitter-like platform), but I am a bit confused by the fact that you seem to grant Tweeter A the benefit of the doubt when he ****posts 'on a whim', but any negative responses to his original ****post, made by the hundreds / thousands / millions of other Tweeters who also react 'on a whim' against what they find offensive somehow is a bad thing. Are we judging things by the result? Is the original comment somehow less offensive / objectionable because the commenter is outnumbered unfairly?

Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Luis Dias on May 28, 2018, 07:02:29 pm
No, what I'm trying to convey here but obviously failing, is that if it is possible that the people who share their thoughts do so in an irresponsible manner throughout these social media sites, and unlike you, may well fail eggregiously in many situations, it is also possible that the reaction to these outputs is also irrational, irresponsible, out of proportion.

What I am suggesting is that the latter case is definitely an irrational one, a destructive, horrible one that we should acknowledge and fight against. It's very easy to have evidence for such a claim, just have any case whatsoever of this sort, you'll *always* find absolute misconstruals of what happened, exxagerations, conflations, all in the same direction: the person X is the devil him/herself. Nutpicking will feed the hungry for their hatred fix, and anyone on its path may well pray for the day to end and still having some kind of roof on the top of their head.

You're giving wise advice for us underlings to stay on the ground, feign death, let the noise pass above your heads. What I am saying is that enough is enough, this is not a state of affairs we should be "coping with". We should also be fighting it.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 28, 2018, 07:17:40 pm
Because it's a waste of time.  You can do one of two things:
1 - Express your opinion in your own words and discuss/defend it
2 - Express your opinion through support of what someone else has said.

You've chosen #2, but not even #2.  Instead of saying "I support what he said" you're saying "I don't understand why he was fired?", and then you've ignored or drawn upon fallacies to ignore every reason that was given to you as to why he's been fired.

Whether or not I support what he said is immaterial. My whole point in this discussion is that a) Nothing in Crooks' writing (IMHO) is egregious enough to warrant the amount of vitriol he has been slathered with and b) it is certainly nothing anyone should be fired over (and let's not forget c: I don't see why a company should have to apologize for statements a former employee or contractor has made).
Nothing in the arguments you brought forth has convinced me otherwise or explained why this should be happening. I can understand firing someone over their public statements in certain cases. There are causes so toxic that anyone supporting them publically runs the risk of being deemed a risk to their employer; being angry at a youtube influencer because of some very real bad **** said influencer has done is (again, IMHO) not one of those. If you had cited passages in Crooks' writing that directly supported your arguments that he was actively damaging Bioware, then I might have been inclined to listen to them, but you didn't. All you did was say "well, it's obvious!" and walked away; I firmly disagree that it is obvious.

Quote
I've been in enough arguments to know when someone is blindly supporting something against all facts and reason.  And it's also clear to me that your passive support of him is not the actual crux of the argument.  The crux of the argument is your opinion which may either never be expressed, or will take about 5 pages to expressed either directly or through cobbled-together bits and pieces.

You haven't been bringing up any facts though. You've brought forth supposition from contracts you've worked under. You've brought assumptions that you haven't substantiated in any way. If you want to accuse me of being blind or acting against facts and reason, fine, but don't attempt to claim that you've been doing any better here.

Quote
So you can either express your opinion, and get it over with.  Or take the most inefficient, time-wasting approach possible and go around in circles with a bunch of other people until everyone gets tired or fed up.

Again: Why do you think this is about me wanting to express my opinion about TotalBiscuit?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 28, 2018, 07:27:59 pm
No, what I'm trying to convey here but obviously failing, is that if it is possible that the people who share their thoughts do so in an irresponsible manner throughout these social media sites, and unlike you, may well fail eggregiously in many situations, it is also possible that the reaction to these outputs is also irrational, irresponsible, out of proportion.

What I am suggesting is that the latter case is definitely an irrational one, a destructive, horrible one that we should acknowledge and fight against

You're characterizing and judging individual actions as a collective whole, that's flawed reasoning.  One individual responding a single time to a comment he/she disagrees with is not "out of proportion", nor is that individual's comment necessarily irrational.  That individual is certainly not responsible for other people who respond in kind either.  As such you cannot collectively just these individuals.

You can't fault an normal individual for sharing a tweet either, as that's basic functionality of the system. Nor can you fault someone for reporting these comments to a large number of people.

The only people can find fault with are those individuals who have a large audience, share these comments and call upon people to act or think in a certain manner.  In other words, you can find fault with people who are inciting others to mob or riot - just like in the real world.

I don't see why a company should have to apologize for statements a former employee or contractor has made.

Prove that he wasn't working at Bioware at the time and prove that speaking out in this manner was not against his contract with Bioware

You haven't been bringing up any facts though. You've brought forth supposition from contracts you've worked under. You've brought assumptions that you haven't substantiated in any way. If you want to accuse me of being blind or acting against facts and reason, fine, but don't attempt to claim that you've been doing any better here.

I'm giving possible reason for why something happened.
You're dismissing those explanations and ASSUMING something else as fact.

There's a difference.

The fact that you don't even consider these explanations without proof is evidence that you're discussing in bad faith.  People who demand proof in these situations, will often go out of their way to ignore all proof.  If I said I worked at Rockstar, you'd say that's not Bioware, they may be different. If I worked at Bioware Edmonton, you'd say this guy was at Bioware Montreal not Edmonton.

It's obvious from your previous responses even if you wont admit it at this time.  I'm someone who recognizes patterns and you're closely following the one I'm describing I don't really need more than that.  Give me a reason to think otherwise and I'll reconsider.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Enioch on May 28, 2018, 07:38:50 pm
@ Bryan: Ah. OK, yes. That was considerably more understandable, thank you, and that is something I can partly get behind. I cannot presently conceive of any way that could fix the underlying problem of pack mentality and mob outrage as addressed by Akalabeth, of course, but what you are detailing now I can definitely agree is a pretty nasty social problem.

You're giving wise advice for us underlings to stay on the ground, feign death, let the noise pass above your heads.

No, goddammit. That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is: do not say anything on a public platform that you could come to regret, and be ready to stand behind anything you do say on a public platform and take responsibility for it. THAT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU THINK I'M SAYING.

My whole point in this discussion is that a) Nothing in Crooks' writing (IMHO) is egregious enough to warrant the amount of vitriol he has been slathered with and b) it is certainly nothing anyone should be fired over (and let's not forget c: I don't see why a company should have to apologize for statements a former employee or contractor has made).

*snip* [d:]I firmly disagree that it is obvious [that he was actively damaging Bioware]. *snip*

Snipped because I believe that is the bottomline of your argument; correct me if I'm wrong.

I have not followed the timeline of the Crooks matter in much depth and I am unaware of the details of the Bioware reaction. The thing is that, to my knowledge, we have no idea what contract Crooks has (had?) with Bioware. If he were an at-will employee, Bioware could fire Crooks for no reason whatsoever and be within their rights.

And, to my knowledge, Bioware has not apologised for Crooks' comments. They have simply distanced themselves from him, clarifying that he is not speaking on behalf of the company:

Quote
I was extremely disappointed to find out about the comments on the passing of John Bain (@Totalbiscuit) from someone who was previously part of BioWare. Let me be clear that they don’t represent BioWare’s views, EA’s, or my own. Our condolences go out to John and his family. (https://twitter.com/CaseyDHudson/status/1000442738578370561?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gamerevolution.com%2Fnews%2F391335-bioware-boss-apologizes-for-ex-employees-totalbiscuit-comments)
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 28, 2018, 07:41:30 pm
I don't see why a company should have to apologize for statements a former employee or contractor has made.

Prove that he wasn't working at Bioware at the time and prove that speaking out in this manner was not against his contract with Bioware


Why? You were the one bringing those elements into the discussion; All I'm going off of is Casey Hudson's statement "....someone who was previously part of BioWare.", which I read as saying that Crooks is not an employee at this time; further, since Crooks worked on Andromeda and the Bioware division responsible for that has been shut down and folded into EA Motive, it is probable that he was not working for Bioware at the time the statement was made.

As for the contract: I do not see any contract that forbids commenting on public figures as being enforceable. If Crooks had claimed, at any point, to be expressing opinions of Bioware or of other staff, then I could see that being an issue, but he didn't. He was talking about himself, his reactions to TB's death, and the reasons for those reactions, and that, to me, does not do any appreciable damage to Bioware as a company. I know there's people now going around loudly proclaiming how Bioware is dead to them and Anthem not something they'll be playing, but we all know how much stock to put into proclamations like that, don't we?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 28, 2018, 07:45:41 pm
I don't see why a company should have to apologize for statements a former employee or contractor has made.

Prove that he wasn't working at Bioware at the time and prove that speaking out in this manner was not against his contract with Bioware


Why? You were the one bringing those elements into the discussion; All I'm going off of is Casey Hudson's statement "....someone who was previously part of BioWare.", which I read as saying that Crooks is not an employee at this time; further, since Crooks worked on Andromeda and the Bioware division responsible for that has been shut down and folded into EA Motive, it is probable that he was not working for Bioware at the time the statement was made.

And do you know that many rights and responsibilities of contracts do not end at the conclusion of that contract?

As for the contract: I do not see any contract that forbids commenting on public figures as being enforceable.

The whole point of hiring people on contract is that it's easy to fire them.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 28, 2018, 07:55:08 pm
My whole point in this discussion is that a) Nothing in Crooks' writing (IMHO) is egregious enough to warrant the amount of vitriol he has been slathered with and b) it is certainly nothing anyone should be fired over (and let's not forget c: I don't see why a company should have to apologize for statements a former employee or contractor has made).

*snip* [d:]I firmly disagree that it is obvious [that he was actively damaging Bioware]. *snip*

Snipped because I believe that is the bottomline of your argument; correct me if I'm wrong.

I have not followed the timeline of the Crooks matter in much depth and I am unaware of the details of the Bioware reaction. The thing is that, to my knowledge, we have no idea what contract Crooks has (had?) with Bioware. If he were an at-will employee, Bioware could fire Crooks for no reason whatsoever and be within their rights.

And, to my knowledge, Bioware has not apologised for Crooks' comments. They have simply distanced themselves from him, clarifying that he is not speaking on behalf of the company:

Quote
I was extremely disappointed to find out about the comments on the passing of John Bain (@Totalbiscuit) from someone who was previously part of BioWare. Let me be clear that they don’t represent BioWare’s views, EA’s, or my own. Our condolences go out to John and his family. (https://twitter.com/CaseyDHudson/status/1000442738578370561?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gamerevolution.com%2Fnews%2F391335-bioware-boss-apologizes-for-ex-employees-totalbiscuit-comments)

All of that is correct.

But let me widen the field a bit. Crooks isn't the only Bioware employee caught up in this. Another guy, Mike Jungbluth (who is a senior animator working on Anthem) made these comments (https://archive.fo/XCqUR#selection-3593.62-3593.146). He, too, is the subject of much ire among the easily offended gamers set; he too was forced to apologize (https://twitter.com/lightbombmike/status/1000913368419524608) for the above statements.
Now, I would like you to first read the apology, and then the statement that caused the calls for it (and to Hudson to fire Jungbluth), then ask yourself if what he said was so bad to warrant that level of contrition.

And do you know that many rights and responsibilities of contracts do not end at the conclusion of that contract?

I am fully aware of those. But do explain to me how a clause that forbids someone from commenting on reviews of games they worked on would be worded in order to be enforceable, especially when those games and reviews have been out for several years. I can see certain internals of the game development process being under a more or less eternal NDA, but you're going to have to do a bit more work to convince me that such broad gag orders are not only a thing, but so common that noone in the past few years has ever talked about them.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Spoon on May 28, 2018, 08:07:33 pm
I get a unsecure connection warning when trying to get to that archive site and can't enter it. But I'm curious what he said, can someone copy paste or something?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Enioch on May 28, 2018, 08:10:11 pm
All of that is correct.

But let me widen the field a bit. Crooks isn't the only Bioware employee caught up in this. Another guy, Mike Jungbluth (who is a senior animator working on Anthem) made these comments (https://archive.fo/XCqUR#selection-3593.62-3593.146). He, too, is the subject of much ire among the easily offended gamers set; he too was forced to apologize (https://twitter.com/lightbombmike/status/1000913368419524608) for the above statements.
 
Now, I would like you to first read the apology, and then the statement that caused the calls for it (and to Hudson to fire Jungbluth), then ask yourself if what he said was so bad to warrant that level of contrition.

Also: @ Spoon:

Quote
If we don't speak the entire truth of a person after they pass and allow their toxic behavior go silent while only applauding their successes, we reward people for their accomplishments no matter how they achieved them. And that is a terrible precedent to set and allow.

For the record, I would not have considered the Jungbluth comment offensive, nor would I have demanded an apology of him; it is reasonable and politely worded. But I do not see why my stance is relevant. This is between Bioware and Jungbluth.

I also note that, unlike Crooks, he has not been fired (correct me if I'm wrong).
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Ghostavo on May 28, 2018, 08:16:51 pm
I really wish companies would stop firing people based on "controversies" that will die the minute the next twitter idiot decides to open his mouth.

Why fire a (possibly?) productive employee when the outcome of not firing them will be close to negligible? Just mention the usual "this employees opinions are not our own" and move on, or do we really expect every company employee to have the same opinions as the company's board?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Spoon on May 28, 2018, 08:18:49 pm
Thanks.

Yeah, that tweet by Jungbluth is a farcry from the bile that Crooks fellow wrote. And the anger at that particular tweet seems quite overblown imho.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Nightmare on May 28, 2018, 08:21:47 pm
I really wish companies would stop firing people based on "controversies" that will die the minute the next twitter idiot decides to open his mouth.

Why fire a (possibly?) productive employee when the outcome of not firing them will be close to negligible? Just mention the usual "this employees opinions are not our own" and move on, or do we really expect every company employee to have the same opinions as the company's board?

Because if you don't follow the will of these people you might end up with an outcome that's not negligible (lots of bad publicity). Think of something like "BREAKING NEWS: Company XY defends employee who mocks person that died from cancer!!". Who'd do that, especially when people can be fired for pretty much everything? That doesn't change that you're absolutly right IMO.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 28, 2018, 08:29:47 pm
I can see certain internals of the game development process being under a more or less eternal NDA, but you're going to have to do a bit more work to convince me that such broad gag orders are not only a thing, but so common that noone in the past few years has ever talked about them.

How many non-director game developers do you see publicly complaining about reviews?  The gag order can be inferred by the absence of developer feedback to reviews.  The only time we see response to a review its either a studio head, producer, ame director or some independent.  Not a "systems programmer" or "character modeller" or "QA Tester"

Also whether this guy was employed at Bioware or not at the time of these comments is irrelevant to whether the Bioware guy will respond or not.  Fact is, that at the time of his comments his linkedin profile said he was employed there so in the public eye, he IS employed there and Bioware needs to respond.

Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 28, 2018, 08:34:40 pm
I really wish companies would stop firing people based on "controversies" that will die the minute the next twitter idiot decides to open his mouth.

Why fire a (possibly?) productive employee when the outcome of not firing them will be close to negligible? Just mention the usual "this employees opinions are not our own" and move on, or do we really expect every company employee to have the same opinions as the company's board?

Because very few employees are irreplaceable and Bioware can lose sales and reputation through inaction.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: BlueFlames on May 28, 2018, 08:48:25 pm
Quote
The gag order can be inferred by the absence of developer feedback to reviews.

The United States, in its first 160-ish years of history had thirty-one Presidents, none of whom sought a third term.  We can therefore infer that term limits existed on that office from its inception through 1940.

Facts™ and Logic™
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 28, 2018, 09:07:45 pm
Quote
The gag order can be inferred by the absence of developer feedback to reviews.

The United States, in its first 160-ish years of history had thirty-one Presidents, none of whom sought a third term.  We can therefore infer that term limits existed on that office from its inception through 1940.

Facts™ and Logic™

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: BlueFlames on May 28, 2018, 09:26:13 pm
So you do understand why you can't assume the existence of clauses in a contract that you've never seen, based on the history of (in)action of other people who may or may not have been bound by a similar contract.  :yes:
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Phantom Hoover on May 28, 2018, 09:30:09 pm
twitter is absolute ****ing cancer and we'd be better off if everyone dumb enough to get caught up in its self-perpetuating cancer of culture war outrage (i am looking very directly at you, the e, you should know better than the passive aggressive 'i know this is abhorrent but i also think the people calling it out are gamergate so i have to defend it' routine) woke up and got the **** off the site
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 28, 2018, 09:31:57 pm
So you do understand why you can't assume the existence of clauses in a contract that you've never seen, based on the history of (in)action of other people who may or may not have been bound by a similar contract.  :yes:

Sorry, wrong fallacy for you. Here's yours:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

The argument from ignorance applies more to The E
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: BlueFlames on May 28, 2018, 09:47:08 pm
The only part that's lost in the comparison is that the U.S. Constitution, its amendments, and its history are public domain.  You don't know the terms of the Bioware employee's contract--unless I missed the part where you were employed by EA/Bioware around the same time and would likely have had a near-identical employment contract--so you don't know if the gag rule that you've dreamed up is actually a term of the contract or an unwritten tradition in the industry, kind of like the two-term limit on U.S. Presidents was an unwritten tradition, prior to the ratification of the twenty-second amendment.

Honestly, I've little doubt in my mind that EA/Bioware is an at-will employer who can fire employees and contractors without cause.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 28, 2018, 09:54:32 pm
The only part that's lost in the comparison is that the U.S. Constitution, its amendments, and its history are public domain.

Thousands of employess from different companies across the industry is not equivalent to 31 presidents from a single institution.

You don't know the terms of the Bioware employee's contract--unless I missed the part where you were employed by EA/Bioware around the same time and would likely have had a near-identical employment contract--so you don't know if the gag rule that you've dreamed up is actually a term of the contract or an unwritten tradition in the industry

Oh there's that appeal from ignorance along with a burden of proof requiring super-specific requirements.

Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Phantom Hoover on May 28, 2018, 10:00:58 pm
request a forum rule banning fallacy-slinging
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: BlueFlames on May 28, 2018, 10:06:03 pm
The only part that's lost in the comparison is that the U.S. Constitution, its amendments, and its history are public domain.

Thousands of employess from different companies across the industry is not equivalent to 31 presidents from a single institution.

I'm not proposing any manner of statistical analysis in my posts, so I'm not sure why you're waffling on about sample sizes.

Oh there's that appeal from ignorance along with a burden of proof requiring super-specific requirements.

Yes, I think it is a reasonable burden of proof to require someone demonstrate that they have knowledge of a contract's language, before accepting assertions from that person about that contract.  Having specifically been employed by EA/Bioware was an example of how one might acquire such knowledge of their employment contracts.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Colonol Dekker on May 28, 2018, 10:36:54 pm
It's not uncommon for employers to assume tact (meaning common bloody decency) from an employee advertises the fact that they're employed by a high profile company in their profile.   Local government employ such terms in an employment contract as do many media companies.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 28, 2018, 10:40:47 pm
The only part that's lost in the comparison is that the U.S. Constitution, its amendments, and its history are public domain.

Thousands of employess from different companies across the industry is not equivalent to 31 presidents from a single institution.

I'm not proposing any manner of statistical analysis in my posts, so I'm not sure why you're waffling on about sample sizes.

Of course you're not sure, why would someone arguing in bad faith try to understand the other person's points at any time?


Oh there's that appeal from ignorance along with a burden of proof requiring super-specific requirements.

Yes, I think it is a reasonable burden of proof to require someone demonstrate that they have knowledge of a contract's language, before accepting assertions from that person about that contract.  Having specifically been employed by EA/Bioware was an example of how one might acquire such knowledge of their employment contracts.

First you lay out unreasonable requirements, and now you try to mischaracterize them in an effort to prove they are reasonable.  Amusing

Video game contracts across most if not all professional companies include a confidentiality clause in the sense that employees cannot discuss the projects they are working on, even down to the name of it, with people as close to them as their own spouse.  It is not unreasonable to assume that this clause extends to, or encompasses, discussing the game in a public space with respect to reviews or other opinions.  This combined with the lack of evidence to the contrary is enough to prove their existence beyond reasonable doubt .





Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Luis Dias on May 28, 2018, 11:08:48 pm
No, what I'm trying to convey here but obviously failing, is that if it is possible that the people who share their thoughts do so in an irresponsible manner throughout these social media sites, and unlike you, may well fail eggregiously in many situations, it is also possible that the reaction to these outputs is also irrational, irresponsible, out of proportion.

What I am suggesting is that the latter case is definitely an irrational one, a destructive, horrible one that we should acknowledge and fight against

You're characterizing and judging individual actions as a collective whole, that's flawed reasoning.  One individual responding a single time to a comment he/she disagrees with is not "out of proportion", nor is that individual's comment necessarily irrational.  That individual is certainly not responsible for other people who respond in kind either.  As such you cannot collectively just these individuals.

You can't fault an normal individual for sharing a tweet either, as that's basic functionality of the system. Nor can you fault someone for reporting these comments to a large number of people.

The only people can find fault with are those individuals who have a large audience, share these comments and call upon people to act or think in a certain manner.  In other words, you can find fault with people who are inciting others to mob or riot - just like in the real world.

Just to say that I obviously agree with all of this, and this is why I called it systemic. Of course, we can blame it on the ways twitter works, or we can take responsibility and try to dampen / take to account all of these systemic effects both in our perception of events and the way we interact with them.

I do agree that twitter is borderline cancer, but I still love it :D
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Nightmare on May 28, 2018, 11:13:20 pm
Removing the 140 limit hasn't contained the basic issue that people still can type faster than think.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Spoon on May 28, 2018, 11:14:42 pm
I do agree that twitter is borderline cancer, but I still love it :D
It's probably what actually killed TB
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Nightmare on May 28, 2018, 11:18:47 pm
I do agree that twitter is borderline cancer, but I still love it :D
It's probably what actually killed TB

Must be some kind of Twittumor then :warp:
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 29, 2018, 06:19:48 am
twitter is absolute ****ing cancer and we'd be better off if everyone dumb enough to get caught up in its self-perpetuating cancer of culture war outrage (i am looking very directly at you, the e, you should know better than the passive aggressive 'i know this is abhorrent but i also think the people calling it out are gamergate so i have to defend it' routine) woke up and got the **** off the site

Yes, PH, that is definitely what is going on here. The only reason why I would defend someone's right to say bad things about dead people is because he's on my side of the culture war. It's got nothing to do with me being tired of outrage mongering myself, no definitely not.
I saw behaviour that, while not politically correct, was also very insignificant and when all is said and done, not even that offensive. Social media is something we need to learn how to deal with, and part of that is learning to differentiate between statements made that are definitely abhorrent, and things we just kinda dislike and wouldn't make ourselves. I'm not going to claim that seeing who was suddenly all up in righteous fury about Crooks' writings didn't influence my stance. It did. But it wasn't a deciding factor.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Phantom Hoover on May 29, 2018, 09:16:40 am
Watching how part of the internet has reacted to TB's death has been pretty abhorrent...
This for example:

I too found it weird that Casey Hudson had to issue an apology for something a contractor not working for Bioware said.

You know full well why Hudson did that: it’s a zero-cost gesture that will hopefully placate the outrage machine. Much like firing employees who complain about immigrants or pronouns on twitter, oh, but in that case, it’s just a private company exercising their right to make hiring decisions and it’s not our place to critique the mechanisms that lead up to it.

And here you are insisting that gleefully celebrating a man’s death because you disliked him as an internet figurehead ‘isn’t that offensive’? Why do you feel the need to do this! I too think Crooks is a nobody who isn’t worth caring about, who gamergaters have dredged up in a desperate and cynical attempt at scoring some points on the back of a tragedy, but for ****’s sake I don’t feel the need to minimise what he did. What on Earth do you consider offensive? Jokes about dongles?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 29, 2018, 09:58:27 am
When compared to open sexism or racism, nothing in Crooks' statements registers as offensive to me. Distasteful or objectionable, sure, but in a very ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sort of way, as far as I am concerned.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Phantom Hoover on May 29, 2018, 10:05:47 am
So are you even against outrage mongering or just outrage mongering when it’s not directed at perceived sexism or racism?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 29, 2018, 11:06:35 am
I'm starting to think that "outrage mongering", like "clickbait", is a term exclusively reserved for things one disagrees with.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Phantom Hoover on May 29, 2018, 11:21:26 am
I like to think I am capable of objecting to it even when it’s on ‘my side’, but if you can’t then I strongly suggest you get the hell off twitter, and that everyone else do the same.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: karajorma on May 29, 2018, 01:07:07 pm
I don't see why a company should have to apologize for statements a former employee or contractor has made

Once again, where do you have any proof that this happened?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 29, 2018, 01:40:34 pm
I don't see why a company should have to apologize for statements a former employee or contractor has made

Once again, where do you have any proof that this happened?

Fine. I retract all my statements as having been made in error, because clearly what Hudson did was not an apology and therefore none of what I said had any basis in reality whatsoever.

Except I don't, because even the act of having to distance themselves from a (former) contractor shouldn't be necessary; Also, if you read the comments surrounding Hudson's statement, it's clear that there are people out for blood here who will not be satisfied (or who claim that they won't be) until Crooks and others have been publically crucified and driven out of game development entirely.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: karajorma on May 29, 2018, 02:08:20 pm
And? There are always idiots. Doesn't mean anyone listened to them.

Where is the proof that Hudson didn't choose of his own volition to simply distance himself because he didn't want people thinking that Crooks was saying things that were commonly said at his workplace? You were quick to point out everyone else's assumptions but you seem to be basing your argument on a few assumptions too.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Luis Dias on May 29, 2018, 02:16:11 pm
I think The_E has already stated multiple times that he has concluded this kind of mob pitchforking to be bad, regardless of the direction. Trying to pin him down on this because there's some kind of "suspicion" that it's a tribalistic stance seems very unconstructive to me. For my part, I think his stance is very clear.

And? There are always idiots. Doesn't mean anyone listened to them.

Given how we all know these mobs can go full ballistic mode if you blink the wrong direction, I totally believe Hudson did it to appease the mob before the **** could even think of hitting the fan.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Enioch on May 29, 2018, 03:33:32 pm
Also, keep in mind that while Crooks seems to have been an ex-employee, his social media profiles still named him as a Bioware game designer.

Hudson's specific mention of Crooks status as an ex-employee is, I believe, significant.

Also, this discussion seems to be getting personal again. Joy. :doubt:
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: MP-Ryan on May 29, 2018, 06:53:43 pm
I wander off for 24 hours and the whole thread goes to ****.

request a forum rule banning fallacy-slinging

GRANTED.  At least for this thread.

Also, I really should not have to say this to this group AGAIN but it perfectly possible for everyone to have a discussion about something controversial without slinging around personal attacks and insinuations.  If you can't discuss a ****ing Internet drama topic without attacking the other people in a forum specifically designed to isolate and minimize Internet drama, then the thread is going to get closed.  I just read the last few pages since my last post and I really have very little idea what the hell is actually being discussed at this point - apparently wild guesses about contract law?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Lorric on May 29, 2018, 07:27:10 pm
I actually think this thread is pretty civil by HLP standards. Of course that's not anything to be proud of. But people are at least still talking with each other and not at each other this far into a thread. Though maybe that's just because more than one conversation is happening at the same time inflating the post count.

I wouldn't want a fallacy rule simply because I know it would be just another rule to be selectively applied even though it wouldn't effect me because I don't do it.

Yeah, I got confused a while back as well. I've failed to get a grasp on what Luis' position is.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Phantom Hoover on May 29, 2018, 07:51:40 pm
OK so I looked at the OP again and I seriously want to object to this:

David Crooks said, pretty directly, that TotalBiscuit dying slowly and in terrible pain of cancer at the age of 33 was a good thing.

When compared to open sexism or racism, nothing in Crooks' statements registers as offensive to me. Distasteful or objectionable, sure, but in a very ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sort of way, as far as I am concerned.

How can you say that, man? I read some of TB's accounts of his last weeks and god ****ing damn if you can read them and still not find it 'offensive' to wish that on anyone because you saw them as enemies in an internet gaming culture war then I'm not sure you're the person I thought you were.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: -Joshua- on May 29, 2018, 10:22:36 pm
You look at a statement that makes a joke about how the world felt like a little bit better since John Bain has passed away and don't see how people might take issue with that? It's a cancer joke. There's better ways you can have this discussion.

We could talk about the hypocrisy inherent in the "Free speech warriors" of the internet and how it isn't about free speech but simply about being able to bully others without any repercussion. You don't need to make that argument via this particular case. There's hundreds of examples in videogames, there's many examples in contemporary politics in the US, there's examples *on this very website* whether they relate to someone coming out as a transwoman on the politics board or people who make jokes about Carrie Fisher's passing. You don't need to pick this particular ditch to die in whilst you're surrounded by bloody mountains to stand on.

We could even have an entirely separate discussion about John Bain and how he was hardly a saint, and his inability to deal with his own popularity damaged a lot of people who didn't deserve that (as well as his own health, for all that matters now). That's okay too, there's a nuanced discussion in there that is worth having. I could point to Laura Kate Dale (https://twitter.com/LaurakBuzz/status/999907461187354625), for instance. Always worth it.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: karajorma on May 30, 2018, 03:21:30 am
David Crooks said, pretty directly, that TotalBiscuit dying slowly and in terrible pain of cancer at the age of 33 was a good thing.

Bear in mind that although not as direct, Mike Jungbluth also said that it was OK to revel in TB's death. And he's the one being held up by The E as an example of someone who got unfairly criticised. Here's a piece of advice, if you're revelling in anyone's death, you've probably gone too far. If you're telling people that it's OK to do that, expect people to revel in your own misfortune.


Also, The E and Luis, are you going to complain about this?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44294632
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 30, 2018, 06:35:44 am
How can you say that, man? I read some of TB's accounts of his last weeks and god ****ing damn if you can read them and still not find it 'offensive' to wish that on anyone because you saw them as enemies in an internet gaming culture war then I'm not sure you're the person I thought you were.

Also, The E and Luis, are you going to complain about this?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44294632

I'm going to lump these two together because they are more or less the same question.
I don't find Crooks' statements to be offensive enough to take action over because, as far as I am aware, it's not part of some larger anti-youtuber agenda on his part. He's just one guy (justifiably) angry at another guy. His statements were certainly crass and not something I would have posted in his place, but being crass and tasteless once does not, to me, mean Crooks now needs to be shunned and never be invited to polite company again.
As for Barr: That tweet that got her show cancelled wasn't a one-off. Her career revival (as far as I know the timeline) was partially due to her positioning herself as a Trump supporter; As I understand it, her show was based around portraying the "real" life of Trump supporters. Her off-show persona was and is largely based around not just being a Trump supporter, but being a really fervent one: There was no pro-Trump conspiracy theory too stupid for her to share and boost, and seemingly only few opinions too racist for her to adopt. Akalabeth's statements that it is permissible to fire someone over social media statements if those statements harm the company that is paying you are applicable here (whereas I do not believe they were in Crooks' case): Barr was one of the stars of the network. When her statements are promoted by the usual suspects, the name of her show and the station it airs on are linked to her, and can thus be more easily read as a sign of the network's tacit approval of her other comments.

So, we have several key differences here: Barr is a media star, her show being promoted by ABC, and her refound fame getting her airtime elsewhere. Crooks is a contractor who was or is employed by Bioware and EA, who noone has ever heard of before or likely will again. Barr is promoting racist causes and conspiracy theories, Crooks is angry at TotalBiscuit. Barr has made many objectionable statements over the past months, Crooks made one.

I think that Barr's behaviour and statements are properly offensive, as any cause that is built around stoking hatred against groups of people because of prejudice and bigotry is, to me, much more dangerous than one person revelling at the fate of another because of things that other person has done.

PH, I am not sure where you got the idea that just because I find the reactions to Crooks tweets overblown, I am also condoning and supporting his statements. As I said at least once here, my opinions about TB don't matter. Whether or not I agree with Crooks doesn't change how I feel about the way this affair has unfolded.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 30, 2018, 07:06:30 am
Barr has made many objectionable statements over the past months, Crooks made one.

Something tells me that both of these statements are either guesswork or based on second-hand interpretation.  Or did you personally verify that Crook's twitter contained no other offensive comments prior to it being made private?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 30, 2018, 07:30:38 am
No, I haven't. But I have also not seen any of the "look at this guy, he was an asshole ALL THE TIME" posts in the drama threads that were made when this blew up; Knowing how these outrage storms work, I would've expected them to exist if Crooks had made such statements.

As for Barr, well, here's an article from last year that you can read with your own human eyes (https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-roseanne-barr-abandoned-all-reason-and-embraced-the-alt-right).
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: -Joshua- on May 30, 2018, 07:53:21 am
Isn't Barr the jewish cookies in oven whilst dressed as hitler person?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 30, 2018, 08:20:52 am
No, I haven't. But I have also not seen any of the "look at this guy, he was an asshole ALL THE TIME" posts in the drama threads that were made when this blew up; Knowing how these outrage storms work, I would've expected them to exist if Crooks had made such statements.

Expectations are not proof yet you're stating it as fact.   Do you know the time frame between these tweets becoming viral and his account being made private?  Do you know if any of the individuals who interacted with his account have a past history of the kind of behaviour you're describing?  A lot of your judgement comes down to the idea that "Roseanne deserved it, this guy didn't" but that judgement is made in the complete absence of information.

The one screenshot that everyone is sharing, his tweets have not been re-tweeted at all and every one of them has only one or two comments.  There is only one visible reply by another individual: ( https://archive.li/UuEJw )  So where are the screenshots from half an hour later after everyone started to go after him?


The one, real difference between Crooks and Roseanne beyond the fact Roseanne apologized, is that the tweet that got Crooks in trouble is also the tweet that made him famous while Roseanne was famous long before.  So for Roseanne, there's a public history of her past actions and opinions while for Crooks, absolutely nothing that I've seen.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: karajorma on May 30, 2018, 08:39:59 am
Here's the problem with that approach, how many tweets defaming dead people does Crooks have to make that you'd decide he's a liability to his company? And why can't Bioware simply say "One is enough, we're not going to keep someone dumb enough to do this once on our books"

Or to reverse the situation, don't you think that ABC should have done something about Roseanne Barr earlier? If people were already posting articles about her a year back, why does it require twitter outrage before she is fired? And won't trying to hold back the floodgates on this issue mean that horrible people like her stay in place longer?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 30, 2018, 09:09:06 am
Expectations are not proof yet you're stating it as fact.   Do you know the time frame between these tweets becoming viral and his account being made private?  Do you know if any of the individuals who interacted with his account have a past history of the kind of behaviour you're describing?  A lot of your judgement comes down to the idea that "Roseanne deserved it, this guy didn't" but that judgement is made in the complete absence of information.

I don't know why you're so willing to assume that Crooks was an individual who regularly made toxic and controversial statements based on nothing either.
I have exactly as much information as you do. As anyone has, to the best of my knowledge. I am basing my statements and opinions purely on that, while also assuming that an absence of information is not automatically damning evidence.
I mean, while we're at it: You don't know if Crooks has been fired or censured either, do you?

Quote
The one screenshot that everyone is sharing, his tweets have not been re-tweeted at all and every one of them has only one or two comments.  There is only one visible reply by another individual: ( https://archive.li/UuEJw )  So where are the screenshots from half an hour later after everyone started to go after him?

Why don't you ask the people who felt it necessary to take those snapshots?

The one, real difference between Crooks and Roseanne beyond the fact Roseanne apologized, is that the tweet that got Crooks in trouble is also the tweet that made him famous while Roseanne was famous long before.  So for Roseanne, there's a public history of her past actions and opinions while for Crooks, absolutely nothing that I've seen.

And shouldn't that make a difference in the way we talk about these things and what consequences these things should have? Crooks, as far as I can tell, made one misstep that blew up. Barr made many missteps that apparently became too hard for ABC and Disney to ignore; Even while making her apology, she was still retweeting attacks on Jarrett along racist or anti-islamic lines. As far as I am concerned, that renders her apology somewhat invalid. If Barr can have such a long and well-documented history of bad behaviour online without consequences, but Crooks needs to be fired right now for his one documented misstep, then there's an imbalance there that requires addressing.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Luis Dias on May 30, 2018, 09:11:39 am
I think there's a big difference at play here between Barr and Crooks, and conflating the two only to garner points to the tribalistic narrative (what about Barr, huhh?) is not a legal move in my book.

I think, contra karajorma, that the whole Barr situation was well handled. Yes, she had previously done ****ty things and said ****ty things, and thus we can conclude that there *was* a degree of tolerance given to her that wasn't given to Crooks, and enough time so that she could realise she shouldn't speak publicly in this manner before shutting her career down.

There's also the catch that Roseanne Barr is herself the name of a show about herself. She's the one who conflated her personal opinions with a marketable brand / show, so when one becomes untenable, so goes the other.

Which brings me to the point I am trying to express here, which is a bit pretentiously more general. I am deeply skeptical / concerned about the speed to which these social media tools are (prepare for marxist jargon now) turning social relations into relations between things or brands or corporations. Bygone is the era in which someone's opinions were personal and individualistic. No, they must conform to whatever the corporation that owns their ass wants to, or else they may well be fired.

If by any chance their personal thoughts on any matter kickstart some dumb twitter mob against them, there's this kind of green light for campaigns to fire a person, the corporation then duly fires the person arguing that they were some kind of "PR nuisance", which means that right now every single one of our personal opinions are amenable to corporative censorship. If you still believe that this is a "good thing", since it's a kind of a break that stops racist douchebags from dominating the public sphere, I could say "but Trump" (and win that argument by default), but I will not, I will wholeheartedly disagree with you in the very conceptual phase, because here the incentive is not to "be a responsible and upstanding person in society", but rather "how much your opinions are hurting Corporation X or Y".

This in turn changes the whole silly notion of a "marketplace of ideas" into a zombie nightmare of a phrase that becomes all too real. The commodification of personal thoughts and ideas, the worker's alienation not just of the product of their own work as Marx predicted, but of their own personas, their own identities themselves. No longer can anyone still pretend they can work for someone else so that they may live their personal lives with some wealth of their own, no, they also have to live their personal lives in the service of their bosses.

This will only get worse.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: karajorma on May 30, 2018, 09:27:03 am
The E's point speaks directly against yours though.

I mean, while we're at it: You don't know if Crooks has been fired or censured either, do you?

Taking that as a given, what harm has actually been done to Crooks that both of you have spent two pages complaining it was too much?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Luis Dias on May 30, 2018, 10:22:28 am
Seriously? I don't know about you, but I would hate to lose my job because I made some stupid tweet. I'd actually panic over that.

The E's point speaks directly against yours though.

How so? He acknowledges the imbalance, I'm suggesting that if we are to address the imbalance, we should prefer to fail towards more tolerance, not less.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 30, 2018, 11:53:20 am
I mean, while we're at it: You don't know if Crooks has been fired or censured either, do you?

Taking that as a given, what harm has actually been done to Crooks that both of you have spent two pages complaining it was too much?

I would consider the fact that he now has a hatedom enough. I mean, we're talking about the kind of people who (and this is no joke) message me annually about a conversation I once had on twitter with Adrian Chmielarz in which I dared to opine that twitter conversations have a limited shelf-life....
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 30, 2018, 07:20:37 pm
Expectations are not proof yet you're stating it as fact.   Do you know the time frame between these tweets becoming viral and his account being made private?  Do you know if any of the individuals who interacted with his account have a past history of the kind of behaviour you're describing?  A lot of your judgement comes down to the idea that "Roseanne deserved it, this guy didn't" but that judgement is made in the complete absence of information.

I don't know why you're so willing to assume that Crooks was an individual who regularly made toxic and controversial statements based on nothing either.
I have exactly as much information as you do. As anyone has, to the best of my knowledge. I am basing my statements and opinions purely on that, while also assuming that an absence of information is not automatically damning evidence.


I'm not assuming that Crooks was toxic in the past, I'm saying it's wrong for you to assume that he wasn't.  It would also be wrong for you to assume that he was.  If you are comparing two tweets, and for one person they have a long history and for the other there is nothing, then you can't consider that history in the comparison if you're actually trying to be objective.

I mean, while we're at it: You don't know if Crooks has been fired or censured either, do you?

Is it relevant to this discussion? In both cases, a company publicly distanced itself from an individual in reaction to one specific tweet.  For purposes of the comparison the distinction is unimportant.  The more unknown variables are present in a comparison, the harder that it is to make a basis for comparison, so to make a valid comparison you must eliminate as many unknown variables as possible. Crook's history compared to Barr's is a HUGE unknown variable and if disregarded, then so to would be Barr's.  The specific circumstances of Crook's relationship with Bioware at the time are not 100% known so, you simplify each incident until the reaction is the same - hence a company publicly distancing itself from an individual.


And shouldn't that make a difference in the way we talk about these things and what consequences these things should have? Crooks, as far as I can tell, made one misstep that blew up. Barr made many missteps that apparently became too hard for ABC and Disney to ignore; Even while making her apology, she was still retweeting attacks on Jarrett along racist or anti-islamic lines. As far as I am concerned, that renders her apology somewhat invalid. If Barr can have such a long and well-documented history of bad behaviour online without consequences, but Crooks needs to be fired right now for his one documented misstep, then there's an imbalance there that requires addressing.

Many of Barr's statements that you consider missteps pre-date the airing of her sitcom (including the article you linked), so how can you claim that those had any bearing on her firing?  Can you prove that ABC/Disney considered any other tweets when choosing to cancel her show?

As for Roseanne's tweet, yeah it was racist and racism is bad.  Ultimately if your opinion is that racism is bad and deriding the dead is meh then that's your opinion.   But inherently from a social standpoint, one can argue that racism is perceived as worse because that's what society has taught us.  When Kramer and Dog the Bounty Hunter used the N-Word, they got in ****, just two examples of people being reprimanded for white racism against a minority.  But deriding the dead? Is that a thing?  As one canadian comedian pointed out, when Michael Jackson was alive everyone said he was a big pedophile, when he died everyone celebrated his life (everyone being mainstream media).   Is there a history of people behaving as Crooks has done and have those people faced backlash or apathy for their comments? I don't know and I suspect other people in this discussion don't either.  But is our ignorance from a lack of derisive comments, or from a lack of reaction to comments that do exist?

And of course as I mentioned far earlier, another factor in the comparison is your view of the individual targeted by the offensive tweet.  From what I can tell you disliked TB, whereas the subject of Barr's tweet is . . . some old lady who advised Obama? Personally I've never heard of her but I would guess your opinion of that person was amicable.

Point is if you want to objectively compare two things, these are all variables and factors that need to be considered and expressed.  And if the number of variables is too large then you simply cannot compare the two to any meaningful degree.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: The E on May 30, 2018, 09:22:26 pm
I'm not assuming that Crooks was toxic in the past, I'm saying it's wrong for you to assume that he wasn't.  It would also be wrong for you to assume that he was.  If you are comparing two tweets, and for one person they have a long history and for the other there is nothing, then you can't consider that history in the comparison if you're actually trying to be objective.

The only thing I am assuming here is that Crooks was a normal Twitter user who was largely unremarkable.

Quote
Is it relevant to this discussion? In both cases, a company publicly distanced itself from an individual in reaction to one specific tweet.  For purposes of the comparison the distinction is unimportant.  The more unknown variables are present in a comparison, the harder that it is to make a basis for comparison, so to make a valid comparison you must eliminate as many unknown variables as possible. Crook's history compared to Barr's is a HUGE unknown variable and if disregarded, then so to would be Barr's.  The specific circumstances of Crook's relationship with Bioware at the time are not 100% known so, you simplify each incident until the reaction is the same - hence a company publicly distancing itself from an individual.

I would remind you that it wasn't me who brought Barr up. I was asked to compare the two. I did. That's all.

Quote
Many of Barr's statements that you consider missteps pre-date the airing of her sitcom (including the article you linked), so how can you claim that those had any bearing on her firing?  Can you prove that ABC/Disney considered any other tweets when choosing to cancel her show?

Where do you get this idea that Barr hasn't made offensive or questionable comments after her show started airing?
And of course ABC was aware of her Twitter persona. Unless you want to assume that that part of her persona was completely ignored when the show was in production and on air? I mean, you could, I just don't see that happening.

Quote
As for Roseanne's tweet, yeah it was racist and racism is bad.  Ultimately if your opinion is that racism is bad and deriding the dead is meh then that's your opinion.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Quote
But inherently from a social standpoint, one can argue that racism is perceived as worse because that's what society has taught us.  When Kramer and Dog the Bounty Hunter used the N-Word, they got in ****, just two examples of people being reprimanded for white racism against a minority.  But deriding the dead? Is that a thing?  As one canadian comedian pointed out, when Michael Jackson was alive everyone said he was a big pedophile, when he died everyone celebrated his life (everyone being mainstream media).   Is there a history of people behaving as Crooks has done and have those people faced backlash or apathy for their comments? I don't know and I suspect other people in this discussion don't either.  But is our ignorance from a lack of derisive comments, or from a lack of reaction to comments that do exist?

We used to live in a world where there were massive barriers between people doing outrageous things and others being able to find out that they did.

Quote
And of course as I mentioned far earlier, another factor in the comparison is your view of the individual targeted by the offensive tweet.  From what I can tell you disliked TB, whereas the subject of Barr's tweet is . . . some old lady who advised Obama? Personally I've never heard of her but I would guess your opinion of that person was amicable.

Why? All I know of her is that Barr made racist comments about her.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: karajorma on May 31, 2018, 12:10:49 am
Seriously? I don't know about you, but I would hate to lose my job because I made some stupid tweet. I'd actually panic over that.

As I pointed out The E keeps saying that we don't know he lost his job.

Taking that as a given, what harm has actually been done to Crooks that both of you have spent two pages complaining it was too much?

I would consider the fact that he now has a hatedom enough. I mean, we're talking about the kind of people who (and this is no joke) message me annually about a conversation I once had on twitter with Adrian Chmielarz in which I dared to opine that twitter conversations have a limited shelf-life....

So conjecture about possible harm then? Play fair at least. If you've continually shot down conjecture from others you aren't allowed to use it yourself.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Turambar on May 31, 2018, 02:17:37 am
I could certainly lose my job over a tweet.  That's part of why I'm not on twitter and I don't run my dumbass mouth in some stupid tweets. 

Is it not up to each person to make that decision?
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Nightmare on May 31, 2018, 02:29:06 am
There are also people that have "doing Twitter" as their job, or at least as a central part of it.
Title: Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on May 31, 2018, 11:58:24 pm
I'm not assuming that Crooks was toxic in the past, I'm saying it's wrong for you to assume that he wasn't.  It would also be wrong for you to assume that he was.  If you are comparing two tweets, and for one person they have a long history and for the other there is nothing, then you can't consider that history in the comparison if you're actually trying to be objective.

The only thing I am assuming here is that Crooks was a normal Twitter user who was largely unremarkable.

And what does "normal Twitter user" mean exactly?
If I were to say "normal Youtube user" that can mean a racist, sexist, homophobe.  (See Battlefield V Trailer)

Either way, you're still making a baseless assumption with zero proof to back it up.

Being an observer of human nature, I don't think that comments like those made by Crooks pop out of nowhere.  You don't go from nice, boring guy to defaming the dead in a 9-tweet rant the next day.  Usually it's a pattern of behaviour where you say offensive **** until the one day where someone takes particular exception.