|
On May 09 2012 05:00 TheToast wrote:
I recall during the orb controversy, EG's Alex Garfield made a comment about Idra's inappropriate behavior on twitter: Yes, I completely agree that EG handled the orb situation much better than Quantic handled the Destiny situation. They have a much better sense of good public relations.
On May 09 2012 05:58 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I don't think contacting sponsors was the best way to get Destiny to adjust his behavior. I understand that this is the viewpoint of perhaps a majority of the community, and I understand that there are many good reasons behind this viewpoint. However, it misses the point I was trying to make. When a significant portion of the community reacts to what they perceive as an injustice, this is an issue of public relations, not morality. The correct way to handle it is to not give them anything to be angry about in the first place, rather than go around telling them why they're wrong for being angry.
On May 09 2012 05:58 Liquid`NonY wrote:
This is where it's possible for the public's voice to be irresponsibly used and destructive. This raises a very philosophical question: do democracy and capitalism work? Many of the major problems of the world today - global warming, diminishing resources, overpopulation, wealth inequality - can be ascribed to a failure of democracy and capitalism, specifically, the failure to self-moderate. However, going around telling people they're wrong for doing exactly what a democratic/capitalist society demands of them does not achieve anything except to alienate even more people. To fix problems, you need to work from within the system (eg. put some effort into public relations). You can't just throw up your arms in frustration because the system is wrong and blame it on the people who are succeeding by working within the system (eg. "OK, you guys win! Take all our players, take all our funding, we'll just go away and do something else, alright?").
On May 09 2012 07:04 Heh_ wrote:
Proof please. 1 forum post and 1 twitter post was linked. Concrete evidence please, not some dumb rumors. Your standards of evidence - concretely demonstrate the private communications of a third party - are impossibly high. In any case, the Twitter post does present concrete evidence of a public message sent to Quantic, to which they did not reply (at least, not via the same medium it was sent). Furthermore, it is not the proof that matters, but the perception. If you want people to bring their issues to you, it is your responsibility to actively maintain a reputation for responsiveness, not the people's responsibility to show evidence of irresponsiveness before going to a higher authority.
|
On May 09 2012 04:30 pirsq wrote:No, I'm a postgraduate student =P I really do think there is an issue with the public statements made by people involved. Destiny's comments on his stream are one thing, going on TL/Reddit/Twitter to say fuck you to everyone who objected (as opposed to "calm down guys, that's just my on-screen character, it's what viewers are paying for") was much more of an issue for me. Same with Mark Ferraz coming to a public forum and saying "hey public, you suck". If you want the public to treat you with respect, you need to treat the public with respect.
The problem is that the public DOES suck, at least this time. This is one of the first times in my life I was ashamed of the SC2 community, and scared of what esports is becoming. I don't want SC2 to end up like every other ultra-politically correct mainstream thing out there. If this is what getting esports into the mainstream will do to us, I don't want to go mainstream. We'll lose everything that makes esports great by going mainstream if this is what we end up turning into.
|
On May 09 2012 07:47 pirsq wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 05:58 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I don't think contacting sponsors was the best way to get Destiny to adjust his behavior. I understand that this is the viewpoint of perhaps a majority of the community, and I understand that there are many good reasons behind this viewpoint. However, it misses the point I was trying to make. When a significant portion of the community reacts to what they perceive as an injustice, this is an issue of public relations, not morality. The correct way to handle it is to not give them anything to be angry about in the first place, rather than go around telling them why they're wrong for being angry.
Significant portion? Numbers please. A vocal minority does not indicate a significant portion. For all you know, it could be the same person with multiple accounts posting about the same thing.
Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 05:58 Liquid`NonY wrote:
This is where it's possible for the public's voice to be irresponsibly used and destructive. This raises a very philosophical question: do democracy and capitalism work? Many of the major problems of the world today - global warming, diminishing resources, overpopulation, wealth inequality - can be ascribed to a failure of democracy and capitalism, specifically, the failure to self-moderate. However, going around telling people they're wrong for doing exactly what a democratic/capitalist society demands of them does not achieve anything except to alienate even more people. To fix problems, you need to work from within the system (eg. put some effort into public relations). You can't just throw up your arms in frustration because the system is wrong and blame it on the people who are succeeding by working within the system (eg. "OK, you guys win! Take all our players, take all our funding, we'll just go away and do something else, alright?").
If you want to talk about public relations, this vocal minority didn't even give quantic a chance to respond before some wise guy decided that talking to Razer would be a better idea. If I were in Mark Ferraz's shoes, I'd be pretty damn pissed too.
Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 07:04 Heh_ wrote:
Proof please. 1 forum post and 1 twitter post was linked. Concrete evidence please, not some dumb rumors. Your standards of evidence - concretely demonstrate the private communications of a third party - are impossibly high. In any case, the Twitter post does present concrete evidence of a public message sent to Quantic, to which they did not reply (at least, not via the same medium it was sent). Furthermore, it is not the proof that matters, but the perception. If you want people to bring their issues to you, it is your responsibility to actively maintain a reputation for responsiveness, not the people's responsibility to show evidence of irresponsiveness before going to a higher authority.
Impossibly high? Your shitty evidence won't hold up in any court. Forum posts are NOT accepted as an official means of communication. Emails have been accepted as a form of communication; you could argue that twitter has been too. But, the twitter message is on a completely UNRELATED note. In a murder case, you don't see the prosecutors telling the judge that the accused won the lottery a month ago. I also haven't even seen the rumored emails. Would you please kindly show them to me? Your last sentence is a joke. The burden is on the accuser to provide evidence to prove his point. Not mine. Have you heard of a guy named Russell? He was so strong that he threw a teapot into space, and now lies floating around the depths of space. The teapot is so small that you can't see it with any telescope. The teapot is known as Russell's teapot.
Evidence please.
|
Pretty sure we're talking about public relations, not court. lol.
|
On May 09 2012 08:16 Complete wrote:
Pretty sure we're talking about public relations, not court. lol.
The same rules still apply. Unless you're content with circulating baseless rumors, solid evidence is required. Did you even read my post?
|
On May 09 2012 08:02 Heh_ wrote:
Significant portion? Numbers please. A vocal minority does not indicate a significant portion. For all you know, it could be the same person with multiple accounts posting about the same thing. It was significant enough for Razer to take action. As Mark Ferraz says, "people [we] work with at sponsors are being tapped in the shoulder by executive management they usually only know by name and title". If you think it was an insignificant minority, then how do you explain this? Do you think they overreacted to just a couple of emails? Or do you think, as you suggest above, it was just one or a few people making multiple accounts to make the same complaint? Either way, I think the burden of proof is on you, because the prima facie evidence of Razer's action indicates that a significant number of people complained.
On May 09 2012 08:02 Heh_ wrote:
If I were in Mark Ferraz's shoes, I'd be pretty damn pissed too. It's fine to be "pretty damn pissed" if you're just a guy posting on a forum, but as CEO of an organisation whose primary business is to sell their image, being "pretty damn pissed" is not an appropriate response.
On May 09 2012 08:02 Heh_ wrote:
Your shitty evidence won't hold up in any court. The burden is on the accuser to provide evidence to prove his point. Not mine. Have you heard of a guy named Russell? Bertrand Russell is one of my favourite mathematicians! But back to the point, there's no courtroom here, and nothing that needs proof. Any member of the public who wishes to make a complaint has two options: 1. complain to the team; or 2. complain to the sponsors (there are more options but let's keep it simple). Why should a private individual need to demonstrate proof that Option 1 is unresponsive before he decides to take Option 2? He shouldn't, and he won't; he'll simply go with public perception, which brings us to the point that if Quantic does not want people taking Option 2, it is their responsibility to make Option 1 as attractive as possible.
|
On May 09 2012 08:38 pirsq wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 08:02 Heh_ wrote:
Significant portion? Numbers please. A vocal minority does not indicate a significant portion. For all you know, it could be the same person with multiple accounts posting about the same thing. It was significant enough for Razer to take action. As Mark Ferraz says, "people [we] work with at sponsors are being tapped in the shoulder by executive management they usually only know by name and title". If you think it was an insignificant minority, then how do you explain this? Do you think they overreacted to just a couple of emails? Or do you think, as you suggest above, it was just one or a few people making multiple accounts to make the same complaint? Either way, I think the burden of proof is on you, because the prima facie evidence of Razer's action indicates that a significant number of people complained.
It is in the best interests of companies to respond to negative comments. How many people complained? We'll probably never know. But what about the people who quietly supported Razer and Quantic but didn't make a sound? Well I was one of them until I saw this joke of a post. We'll never know the numbers of these two groups of people.
Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 08:02 Heh_ wrote:
If I were in Mark Ferraz's shoes, I'd be pretty damn pissed too. It's fine to be "pretty damn pissed" if you're just a guy posting on a forum, but as CEO of an organisation whose primary business is to sell their image, being "pretty damn pissed" is not an appropriate response.
He is the owner of Quantic Gaming, and is still human. There's no difference between your so-called "generic forum poster" and him. If you want to be so anal retentive about it, then read his quote: "Founder & CEO of Quantic Gaming - These views are mine, and not an official statement by or announcement from Quantic!". It is his own opinion, and he can do whatever the hell he wants. He is in no way or form selling an image.
Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 08:02 Heh_ wrote:
Your shitty evidence won't hold up in any court. The burden is on the accuser to provide evidence to prove his point. Not mine. Have you heard of a guy named Russell? Bertrand Russell is one of my favourite mathematicians! But back to the point, there's no courtroom here, and nothing that needs proof. Any member of the public who wishes to make a complaint has two options: 1. complain to the team; or 2. complain to the sponsors (there are more options but let's keep it simple). Why should a private individual need to demonstrate proof that Option 1 is unresponsive before he decides to take Option 2? He shouldn't, and he won't; he'll simply go with public perception, which brings us to the point that if Quantic does not want people taking Option 2, it is their responsibility to make Option 1 as attractive as possible.
Now this is simply ridiculous. Do you knock on the door of your Prime Minister just because the bus was late by a minute? No! You can say you sent a letter to the company 3 hours ago, but is that a reasonable time to respond? That's approximately the length of time it took for the situation to spiral out of control. You didn't even give Quantic a chance to take Option 1, before you executed Option 2.
|
I'm pretty sure he's arguing the public shouldn't have to give Quantic a chance to take Option 1. The public has the right to talk to sponsers immediately without being called out by prominent community figures.
|
On May 09 2012 09:03 Complete wrote:
I'm pretty sure he's arguing the public shouldn't have to give Quantic a chance to take Option 1. The public has the right to talk to sponsers immediately without being called out by prominent community figures.
That's completely illogical. There's no reason to involve sponsors over an internal affair. If you see your favorite athlete running slowly in the Olympics, do you go and complain to McDonalds? Of course not! Even if you did, they'll just ignore you. Try posting an "Open Letter" when that happens. Everybody will laugh at you. It's pretty amazing that Razer took the complaints seriously, probably because they don't want to alienate any fraction their users.
|
On May 09 2012 08:02 Heh_ wrote:
There's no difference between your so-called "generic forum poster" and him. If you want to be so anal retentive about it, then read his quote: "Founder & CEO of Quantic Gaming - These views are mine, and not an official statement by or announcement from Quantic!". It is his own opinion, and he can do whatever the hell he wants. He is in no way or form selling an image. No. If you are the CEO of an organisation, you are their representative at all times. Imagine if Barack Obama came to Singapore and said "you people suck, but that's my personal opinion, not that of my country". Do you think you'd let it slide because he's only speaking in his capacity as an ordinary person?
On May 09 2012 08:02 Heh_ wrote:
Now this is simply ridiculous. Do you knock on the door of your Prime Minister just because the bus was late by a minute? This is a very exaggerated comparison. A more apt comparison would be contacting the Transport Minister because a bus driver was making racial slurs. If I see posts on the internet from people claiming to have contacted the bus company and received no response, I'm not going to verify them or ask for evidence, I'm going to take their word for it and go straight to the Transport Minister. Why does this seem so unreasonable to you?
|
Meh, E-drama on TL.net used to be hilarious and 50/50 genius trolls, kinda like the intellectual version of bodybuilding misc
Now it's all serious and proper.
|
On May 09 2012 09:21 pirsq wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 08:02 Heh_ wrote:
There's no difference between your so-called "generic forum poster" and him. If you want to be so anal retentive about it, then read his quote: "Founder & CEO of Quantic Gaming - These views are mine, and not an official statement by or announcement from Quantic!". It is his own opinion, and he can do whatever the hell he wants. He is in no way or form selling an image. No. If you are the CEO of an organisation, you are their representative at all times. Imagine if Barack Obama came to Singapore and said "you people suck, but that's my personal opinion, not that of my country". Do you think you'd let it slide because he's only speaking in his capacity as an ordinary person? Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 08:02 Heh_ wrote:
Now this is simply ridiculous. Do you knock on the door of your Prime Minister just because the bus was late by a minute? This is a very exaggerated comparison. A more apt comparison would be contacting the Transport Minister because a bus driver was making racial slurs. If I see posts on the internet from people claiming to have contacted the bus company and received no response, I'm not going to verify them or ask for evidence, I'm going to take their word for it and go straight to the Transport Minister. Why does this seem so unreasonable to you?
Do you think the CEO of Quantic Gaming has a personal team of scriptwriters, ensuring that everything said is politically correct? No. He made a rash comment after seeing all the shit that has been posted about his team. He shouldn't be crucified for that; those shit posters should be held accountable to their words too.
Exaggerated comparisons are useful because they highlight how stupid your point is. Do you see people doing exactly that? Do you see people sending angry letters to the Transport Minister because of a late bus? Fuck, no. You might see such stuff if the whole train network breaks down. The response is proportional to the source. If you think this is too ridiculous, then look at my other example. That's exactly what you are doing.
|
On May 09 2012 09:28 Heh_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 09:21 pirsq wrote:On May 09 2012 08:02 Heh_ wrote:
There's no difference between your so-called "generic forum poster" and him. If you want to be so anal retentive about it, then read his quote: "Founder & CEO of Quantic Gaming - These views are mine, and not an official statement by or announcement from Quantic!". It is his own opinion, and he can do whatever the hell he wants. He is in no way or form selling an image. No. If you are the CEO of an organisation, you are their representative at all times. Imagine if Barack Obama came to Singapore and said "you people suck, but that's my personal opinion, not that of my country". Do you think you'd let it slide because he's only speaking in his capacity as an ordinary person? On May 09 2012 08:02 Heh_ wrote:
Now this is simply ridiculous. Do you knock on the door of your Prime Minister just because the bus was late by a minute? This is a very exaggerated comparison. A more apt comparison would be contacting the Transport Minister because a bus driver was making racial slurs. If I see posts on the internet from people claiming to have contacted the bus company and received no response, I'm not going to verify them or ask for evidence, I'm going to take their word for it and go straight to the Transport Minister. Why does this seem so unreasonable to you? Do you think the CEO of Quantic Gaming has a personal team of scriptwriters, ensuring that everything said is politically correct? No. He made a rash comment after seeing all the shit that has been posted about his team. He shouldn't be crucified for that; those shit posters should be held accountable to their words too.
I agree with this. Quantic is still essentially a small business, Mark Ferraz isn't a high powered CEO with attorneys and dozens of PR people. The situation doesn't scale very well, and as such a certain level of understanding should be afforded to him.
That being said, what he did was still stupid. I get that he was probably pretty upset, but the correct response would have been to sit back and figure out how Quantic could've handled it better. Because they definitely could've handled it better. I hope Quantic has learned something from all of this, and will be a bit better communicating with the community in the future.
|
On May 09 2012 09:14 Heh_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 09:03 Complete wrote:
I'm pretty sure he's arguing the public shouldn't have to give Quantic a chance to take Option 1. The public has the right to talk to sponsers immediately without being called out by prominent community figures. That's completely illogical. There's no reason to involve sponsors over an internal affair. If you see your favorite athlete running slowly in the Olympics, do you go and complain to McDonalds? Of course not! Even if you did, they'll just ignore you. Try posting an "Open Letter" when that happens. Everybody will laugh at you. It's pretty amazing that Razer took the complaints seriously, probably because they don't want to alienate any fraction their users.
I don't get it, the sponser is part of the team. Of course they would be involved in the 'internal affair'. Destiny represents Razor; that's how the business relationship works. Destiny did something bad representing Razor. People didn't want to buy from a company supporting racism. They told them as much.
I still don't really see anything wrong with it, though it's slightly annoying because sponsers are so important to ESPOTS.
|
On May 09 2012 08:02 Heh_ wrote:
Exaggerated comparisons are useful because they highlight how stupid your point is. Do you see people doing exactly that? Do you see people sending angry letters to the Transport Minister because of a late bus? Fuck, no. You might see such stuff if the whole train network breaks down. The response is proportional to the source. If you think this is too ridiculous, then look at my other example. That's exactly what you are doing.
I disagree with you here. My mother once wrote a letter to Gordon's Fish Sticks because we were shorted one fish stick in a package.
|
On May 09 2012 07:04 Heh_ wrote:
Do you think the CEO of Quantic Gaming has a personal team of scriptwriters, ensuring that everything said is politically correct? No. He made a rash comment after seeing all the shit that has been posted about his team. He shouldn't be crucified for that; those shit posters should be held accountable to their words too. In Mark Ferraz' own words: "I should listen to my PR folks and stay off the forums, lol". He has PR people, they gave him advice, and he ignored it.
On May 09 2012 07:04 Heh_ wrote:
Exaggerated comparisons are useful because they highlight how stupid your point is. I think you'll find that if you exaggerate anything enough, it'll sound stupid. Exaggerated comparisons don't highlight a stupid point, they create one.
On May 09 2012 07:04 Heh_ wrote:
Do you see people sending angry letters to the Transport Minister because of a late bus racial slur? Yes I do, for racial slurs. Not for late buses. That's why your exaggeration is inappropriate.
|
On May 09 2012 09:38 TheToast wrote:
Quantic is still essentially a small business, Mark Ferraz isn't a high powered CEO with attorneys and dozens of PR people. The situation doesn't scale very well, and as such a certain level of understanding should be afforded to him. On May 09 2012 09:38 TheToast wrote:
I hope Quantic has learned something from all of this, and will be a bit better communicating with the community in the future. I agree with both your observation and your conclusion. A high-profile CEO making a statement like he did would probably be fired; I think that outcome is neither likely nor desirable here. The point of my letter was to make the point that as CEO, he needs to step up and take responsibility for what happens to the team.
|
Nevermind
I get angry from people in this thread.
|
On May 09 2012 05:58 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I don't think contacting sponsors was the best way to get Destiny to adjust his behavior. It's just a way to get him fired. It's improvement by dumping anyone with any major negative incident and hoping that there are people who will fill the void left by the dumped and not have any major negative incidents. That's not the best way to improve things.
In this case, any consumer contacting Razer served absolutely no purpose. Razer doesn't tolerate that kind of language and behavior. Consumers telling them that they won't buy more Razer products if they support people who behave like that are only reminding Razer why they have that policy.
If a player has some good qualities and some bad qualities, we shouldn't want to dump the good with the bad. Hopefully the bad can be changed. For example, people like Naniwa and Idra are much better representatives now than at their beginnings. And for some other examples I won't name, there are several players who were caught cheating in previous games and have now become successful and good mannered SC2 players. So I think what we should look at is whether a person will do more good than bad and whether the bad can be changed.
For some opportunities, there are intolerable bad qualities (like in this case with Razer and Destiny). But theoretically, the public could make any bad quality or even bad incident (that could have occurred in a state of mind or under circumstances that stretched a person way out of character) intolerable by sponsors. That is, if enough of the community expresses their disapproval and hatred, a sponsor is left with no choice but to cease support. This is where it's possible for the public's voice to be irresponsibly used and destructive.
The more easygoing part of the community is beginning to dislike the hateful and easily offended part of the community because things are being destroyed for reasons that they consider tolerable. This is causing civil war. Every controversial issue brings out the people who want something destroyed in a fight against people who want it preserved.
I could go on and on describing these issues but I've got other stuff to do! Someone else carry the torch!
My question to you is why? It isn't going to go anywhere.
Anyway, it's not like this is anything revolutionary.
There's a lot of young CEO's in this line of business and they'll learn one way or another.
|
i wish i had the willpower not to post in this thread and contribute to the problem... but whoops. there are so many people that take their own narrow perspective on how things should work so seriously and this makes teamliquid forums a very annoying place to browse. it is hard for me to put forth any argument because doing so will only make me a hypocrite. i would prefer everyone to stop being so serious and 21st century about everything, however my argument that people should be allowed to act how they want also means that i have to accept all the serious drama. i really dont know what else to say. the internet has brought us amazing levels of connectivity, but combined that instantaneous connectivity with the growing political correctness required on everyone's part.... and we've created a world a lot more boring and annoying than what existed pre-internet
the whole "being politically correct" movement is just complete bullshit imo. if our intentions were actually to avoid racism/sexim/etc then we wouldnt even have the problem in the first place. by placing taboos on certain words we've done nothing but elevate those words to an even higher level of "offensiveness."
it really is frustrating sometimes to have such a "do whatever the hell you want" attitude towards everything because in turn this means i have to accept that people are going to do things i don't like, such as telling people that they can't do whatever the hell they want. WHAT DO
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
