[karajorma]

Has anyone on this thread bothered to actually find the guy's twitter account and actually look at the context of that tweet before commenting on how bad/innocuous it was?

[Beskargam]

This is indeed a stupid argument. Freedom of expression is trumped when it comes to matters of public safety in every western nation (I don't know how others handle it). The degree of such varies, but that's not the point. You can't shout fire in a crowded movie theater is a prime example of this public safety vs freemdom of expression. You have the right to not be silenced, or have views forced upon you by the federal government in the US. That does not give you carte Blanche to say whatever you want. Death threats fall into this category.

[Scourge of Ages]

Has anyone on this thread bothered to actually find the guy's twitter account and actually look at the context of that tweet before commenting on how bad/innocuous it was?

According to the article, the tweet itself was deleted, but they had this nifty preservation screen capture:
(Apologies to those with auto-censor, this image is a bit blue. Extremely, actually...)

[karajorma]

Yeah, I going to have to file this one under "Stupid, but understandable" I don't think I'd ever read that as an actual death threat rather than simply being someone venting, even if it was aimed at me. Especially as the following post goes back to ranting about Steam rather than naming Valve again.

[Mr. Vega]

Actually I think it looks worse in context. The guy was building up.

[SypheDMar]

I think it actually looks worse in context too. But that's besides the point. Valve took an appropriate response against an unprofessional business customer.

A monopoly has nothing to do with this particular context, and why that's even going on a tangent is typical HLP behavior.

[Grizzly]

I can, because I don't really want to have to live in a world where everyone's actions are subject to massive sanctions for the sake of political point-scoring.

Where did you get the impression that this is for the sake of political point scoring?

[Phantom Hoover]

Because it is, or at least it's definitely political. Nobody seriously contends that by punishing people for actions like this you're actually preventing murders or terrorism in the real world, it's all about Setting An Example and Making It Clear We're Serious. (This does not, I hasten to add, mean that I think harassment should be tolerated; but harassment goes significantly beyond making some kind of context-free 'threat'.)

This is indeed a stupid argument. Freedom of expression is trumped when it comes to matters of public safety in every western nation (I don't know how others handle it). The degree of such varies, but that's not the point. You can't shout fire in a crowded movie theater is a prime example of this public safety vs freemdom of expression. You have the right to not be silenced, or have views forced upon you by the federal government in the US. That does not give you carte Blanche to say whatever you want. Death threats fall into this category.

I absolutely agree that there are situations where freedom of expression needs to be restricted for the collective good, but the consequences of imposing those restrictions are serious enough that they need some pretty major utilitarian justification behind them.

[Flipside]

I suppose the way I see it is, whilst I wouldn't expect him to be arrested for it, I can understand how that would have a severely negative impact on any business relationship.

[Phantom Hoover]

That the guy was grossly unprofessional and freely skewered his own business relationships is something I'd agree with, but this idea that he deserves it all for saying in the same breath the words "Gabe Newell" and "die" is pretty questionable.

[headdie]

A death threat is an expressed desire for someone to die, while I accept that amongst friends who understand each other's emotional state this can be taken in context of that relationship, this was aimed at a person with whom there was no such understanding so yer on its own it would be grounds for me to terminate a business relationship.  add in the context of the other tweets then you have no chance.

[StarSlayer]

If I mouthed off to any of my clients in a similar manner I would be fired, my companies' relationship with the client would be tarnished and/or irrevocably damaged.  There is shooting the **** with your friends and there is the professional environment.  If you are unable to distinguish the difference then take this as an object lesson as to the results of treating your job like a youtube comments section.

This isn't acceptable behavior if you are in retail dealing with a random customer across the table or in a company dependent contract with your distributor.  In both cases you would be in a well deserved pile of deep ****.

[Luis Dias]

You are taking this too seriously. People should remember the manner how CEOs are constantly talking to each other. Throwing chairs in boardrooms and whatnots. It's called a "tantrum" and it happens. The problem here is not that Gabe basically told him to get his business elsewhere. That's entirely appropriate. What is scary is how this is more than just "that" and basically sending the guy to rot in poverty hell because Gabe just "happens" to hold a monopoly of pc gaming distribution.

I said scary, not "evil". It is true that Gabe was on the right here. But eventually he might be less so. And then people will start worry as I worry right now.

[headdie]

While it is far from ideal in a consumer society in the absence of someone with a competitive platform then there is literally nothing to be done other than attempt to launch such a platform.

[Luis Dias]

I propose that that particular issue is the only reason why this is even news and being discussed.

[headdie]

I propose that that particular issue is the only reason why this is even news and being discussed.

rather than the fact that this was aimed at a high profile person in the gaming industry?

[Luis Dias]

Yeah that too you're right.

[StarSlayer]

You are taking this too seriously. People should remember the manner how CEOs are constantly talking to each other. Throwing chairs in boardrooms and whatnots. It's called a "tantrum" and it happens. The problem here is not that Gabe basically told him to get his business elsewhere. That's entirely appropriate. What is scary is how this is more than just "that" and basically sending the guy to rot in poverty hell because Gabe just "happens" to hold a monopoly of pc gaming distribution.

I said scary, not "evil". It is true that Gabe was on the right here. But eventually he might be less so. And then people will start worry as I worry right now.

None of the business owners I've dealt with comport themselves like an idiot child in the public domain, chair throwers included.  Having a screaming fit in your own office is one thing, losing your **** in public, especially when you are dependent on the target party is stupid.  I don't see this shaking out any differently in most professional environments.  The only reason it has traction here is because its the games industry.

[Luis Dias]

Social networks so public like facebook and twitter are pretty novel. Some people are slower than others to pick up the right etiquettes. This episode surely helps.

[karajorma]

One thing I did notice is that this guy didn't mention GoG as a distribution platform. Perhaps he should look into it (or actually get his partner to look into it since he's actually since sold his stake to him and left the business).