Author Topic: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)  (Read 5635 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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.
'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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.
'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline Spoon

  • 212
  • ヾ(´︶`♡)ノ
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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.
Urutorahappī!!

[02:42] <@Axem> spoon somethings wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> critically wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> im happy with these missions now
[02:44] <@Axem> well
[02:44] <@Axem> with 2 of them

 
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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.

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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".
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

  

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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.

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)

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.

 
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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.

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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.


 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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?

« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 06:28:10 pm by Enioch »
'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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.

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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?
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 07:39:34 pm by Akalabeth Angel »

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
@ 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.
'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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?
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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.

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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.

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. He, too, is the subject of much ire among the easily offended gamers set; he too was forced to apologize 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.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 

Offline Spoon

  • 212
  • ヾ(´︶`♡)ノ
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
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?
Urutorahappī!!

[02:42] <@Axem> spoon somethings wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> critically wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> im happy with these missions now
[02:44] <@Axem> well
[02:44] <@Axem> with 2 of them