Alex is verbose, and you owe it to yourself (and the rest of us) to read the statement in its entirety. Remember, when making comments/claims to provide proper evidence, facts etc. Arguments based on incorrect assumptions, facts and straw men, will be dealt with swiftly. If in doubt, PM a mod or ask IRC. Do NOT spread misinformation, when in doubt, check your sources.
You're giving a transparently post-hoc rationalization borne directly out of cognitive dissonance far too much credit. (Though I don't blame you for wanting to believe these people are capable of more.)
What?
I'm not giving these people any credit, I'm calling them fools.
They explicitly make the arbitrariness of signifiers argument in their blatherings, although they don't know enough to call it that.
Sorry if I seemed combative. I disagree with you only to the extent that you think these people are thinking this through at all. I don't think there's any kernel of an idea under their arguments except "I can't be accountable for this." Otherwise I've generally enjoyed your posts in this thread, so, again, sorry!
NP I was just confused :D
There's generally two camps of apologists. The first are the basements dwellers and the second are the people who try to pursue the "if you are offended you give the word power" line, which is total bs. I'm referring to the second camp here.
Yeah. Those in the second group strike me as simply disingenuous. The argument can't survive even cursory disinterested scrutiny. They're just offering up the nonsense that cognitive dissonance flushes into their heads when confronted with their irreconcilable positions that (1) there is a good reason to be using racist language, but (2) they are not racist. But maybe we're saying the same thing at this point?
The pretentious condescension in this post is literally awe-inspiring. The constant assumptions you make about the people who disagree with you make me think you have some severe hypocritical prejudices against people on the internet who may not have the same paradigm as you.
So, show how my "assumptions" are wrong. Present a coherent argument. I'm not ashamed of condescending to those who won't do their homework.
What's "pretentious" about my posts anyway? What am I pretending to be, in your opinion?
Well, you're pretentious because of how unnecessarily verbose you are. The fact that everyone other than you is arguing in layman's terms so that everyone can be involved in the debate can somewhat attest to that.
The assumptions I'm referring to are the instances of calling people basement dwellers and social rejects and what not.
Edit: Well, turns out I fucked up. You're only crime is being somewhat pretentious and verbose. It's that Samdzat guy who's constantly assuming everyone's a social reject.
I don't assume anything. People in this thread reveal themselves to be social rejects.
I'm not a social reject!!!
Never said you were. Dunno where that accusation came from, other than that I classified a broad swath of substantially similar positions into the category "basement dweller."
You're not a basement dweller, you're a sophomoric denialist
Personally I've always thought of orb as an abrasive, cocky, and rage filled individual. This opinion was formed from my experience watching his personal stream. When he came onto the scene as a caster I thought he was pretty decent but I never watched his casts due to my knowledge of his "true" personality. With that said I'm not surprised that his poor behavior finally bubbled to the surface for all to see. Unacceptable behavior for anyone, let alone someone attempting to be big time caster in the community.
I'm not giving these people any credit, I'm calling them fools.
They explicitly make the arbitrariness of signifiers argument in their blatherings, although they don't know enough to call it that.
Sorry if I seemed combative. I disagree with you only to the extent that you think these people are thinking this through at all. I don't think there's any kernel of an idea under their arguments except "I can't be accountable for this." Otherwise I've generally enjoyed your posts in this thread, so, again, sorry!
NP I was just confused :D
There's generally two camps of apologists. The first are the basements dwellers and the second are the people who try to pursue the "if you are offended you give the word power" line, which is total bs. I'm referring to the second camp here.
Yeah. Those in the second group strike me as simply disingenuous. The argument can't survive even cursory disinterested scrutiny. They're just offering up the nonsense that cognitive dissonance flushes into their heads when confronted with their irreconcilable positions that (1) there is a good reason to be using racist language, but (2) they are not racist. But maybe we're saying the same thing at this point?
The pretentious condescension in this post is literally awe-inspiring. The constant assumptions you make about the people who disagree with you make me think you have some severe hypocritical prejudices against people on the internet who may not have the same paradigm as you.
So, show how my "assumptions" are wrong. Present a coherent argument. I'm not ashamed of condescending to those who won't do their homework.
What's "pretentious" about my posts anyway? What am I pretending to be, in your opinion?
Well, you're pretentious because of how unnecessarily verbose you are. The fact that everyone other than you is arguing in layman's terms so that everyone can be involved in the debate can somewhat attest to that.
The assumptions I'm referring to are the instances of calling people basement dwellers and social rejects and what not.
Edit: Well, turns out I fucked up. You're only crime is being somewhat pretentious and verbose. It's that Samdzat guy who's constantly assuming everyone's a social reject.
I don't assume anything. People in this thread reveal themselves to be social rejects.
I'm not a social reject!!!
Never said you were. Dunno where that accusation came from, other than that I classified a broad swath of substantially similar positions into the category "basement dweller."
You're not a basement dweller, you're a sophomoric denialist
Oh, sounds tasty. I really don't condone Orb's behaviour, but as far as my Kantian morality goes, I take issue with the fact that he insulted someone period, not with how he chose to do it. Ultimately, for some brief instance he wished to demean another human being. His intent is sufficient for me to establish his immorality. The rest is just details :D.
This whole story, especially the comments on Reddit, have reminded me of something I watched recently that I think is quite relevant to this. It's quite enjoyable to watch, too.
Please, don't go on about how some of his stunts don't make any sense. It's about the moral of this epiosde
What about jokes about the holocaust or Hitler? Can those just be funny? Violence is encoded in language. The nihilistic internet generation that we're a part of sometimes forgets that and wants to make a joke out of everything, especially the void in their heart.
No, the word "nigger" cannot just be funny. Funny to whom?
Or people can let shit go. Everything can be funny eventually. The overblown reaction towards the word nigger just makes it a bigger issue than it is. It's the same with Black history month, and the aggressive homosexual perpetuation groups. ALl you're doing is promoting victim groups, identifying people as different for no other reason than to tell people that they aren't. It's stupid.
I'm pretty sure those groups were identified as different (while also being relentlessly persecuted and subjugated) when those words were first invented. Or does your memory not go back that far?
And the difference is constantly perpetuated by further generations constant obsession with what has already happened. Affirmative action, black schools. etc have all created an aura of difference that`s unnecessary. We`re all people, and we all be treated based on our character and not because of our ethnicity( or sexual preference as we`re on the topic of discrimination).
Edit: I responded late because I actually didn`t see your message when you posted it.
On March 10 2012 07:10 SeraKuDA wrote: Oh what the hell... I don't even like orb's casting, but I feel sympathetic for him here. Who gives a shit about random words like that? It's not like we live in the 1950s. Times have changed. People are oversensitive sometimes, and they need to grow up. If you can't even say the word, let alone spell it I think you have a problem.
If times have changed, why do so many people persist in using racist language? It's not as though times changing makes the language less racist (if you think it does, please explain your reasoning).
Edit: note that I agree that times have changed in some ways--I just don't see how that's relevant here.
Times have changed in the sense that the words don't have the same connotation to them. None of us grew up during slavery, and only our parents, and grandparents have a real understanding of what it was like to live in a very racist era. This is a new time, new generation, and our culture is diversified. The words don't carry the same weight they once did, and thus when spoken people generally aren't offended. It's the select few, the sensitive ones, that cry out over the use of them. Those people are the problem-starters.
You know what? Fuck you and people like you who willfully remain grossly ignorant of the world in which we live. Try growing up as a minority. We have a very real understanding of what it's like to grow up in a very racist era. Would you like an example?
When my family went to a restaurant during pride week in my city my father would not go to the bathroom by himself because "he didn't want the faggots doing anything to him in there." I am not being overly sensitive. I am reacting to a word that is regularly thrown in my face with hatred and vitriol.
If you legitimately believe that nigger means the same thing today that it did 20 years ago you're completely lost.
If you legitimately believe that you're in a position to understand what nigger means then you should never be given a platform from which to speak.
Let me rephrase this: If you know what you are talking about, you should never be heard.
The prevalence of this thought is the major problem of modern democracy.
My assumption there was that he was a white guy acting like he understood discrimination. He responded that he is in fact, half black. While I still vehemently disagree with his point of view he does ACTUALLY speak with more authority than any non-minority that posts in this thread.
If your defense is going to be subjective, then you can't really argue it, since by definition literally everyone not already discriminated against is incapable of arguing with you. To me, that's just a convenient excuse not to think, and this is coming from someone who regularly types essays trying to convince people that homosexuality is deserving of the same rights as heterosexuality. Apparently all of this is invalidated by the fact that I've called people "faggots" before when I'm angry.
Surely you see how using discriminatory language erodes your credibility when you argue for equality.
Alright, I apologize for having to post a third time about the same topic, apparently my thoughts about it come to me very slowly. My previous two responses were about EG's policy, because their official decision can be associated with them as an organization: + Show Spoiler [previous posts] +
On March 09 2012 13:20 figq wrote: Well, EG is free to hire and fire whoever they want, and the esports audience is free to follow Orb's excellent casting to whatever other leagues that are lucky enough to get him as a caster.
As I said in the other thread, I consider all this in the end more of an attack that hurts EG (for losing Orb as a caster), than an attack that hurts Orb, who will continue to be such a great caster anyway, and probably find an even better position.
On March 09 2012 23:27 figq wrote: As I said before, EG, of course, is free to hire and fire people as they wish, but after some more contemplation, I can't hide that I'm personally disappointed with EG (yet again). In a case that revolves around what usually would be called "progressive thinking" (though I dislike the term, as I find it absurd and relative), issuing any kind of irreversible punishment is disturbing. The whole premise of overcoming any kind of bigotry and segregation is the belief in the human ability to adapt, change, evolve and not be set in stone by the past. In view of this, I find it disheartening to see doors being closed forever, for anyone, even for a murderer, let alone for a verbal abuser. That's not a sign of purity of principles, but rather a sign of fear and weakness. It took me some time to realize what was it that I found so subtly disturbing in EG's official position, and then I realized it was this.
However, this post is more about Alex Garfield's personal reasoning, which he outlines so eloquently in the OP, and which of course cannot be fully attributed to EG as a whole.
Three things bothered me about the presentation of the case by Alex. First of all, he didn't manage to convince me. He had a very interesting preface designed around pointing out how much he can't stand a word. Then he proceeded to announce that his employee is therefore fired, never to return. Sure, a CEO's decision-making process is solely under his own power, and dictatorship, if you will. But then again why is this decision-making even presented to the public. It didn't seem substantiated enough for me. Basically, it's at the same level as "I hate black people, so I fired that black guy". I'm trying to be supportive of Alex about his personal phobia of the word "nigger", but I wouldn't expect a CEO to be so open about applying professional decisions about people's career, based on his own personal reaction towards something as simple as a word.
And then the second thing to mention - though both are obviously inseparable - is just the fact that a CEO would be so vulnerable, in his reasoning, to a word, by itself. As far as not willing to write it, read it, hear it. You know, most German people I've met don't have such fearful reaction about Hitler jokes, the holocaust, or swastikas. They appreciate context, humor, intent. In Slasher's public shows, you can often hear jew jokes, and Slasher himself laughs about them, or even initiates them. Why is that? It's because it's more important what people actually mean.
I can write a system of equations using for variables "nigger", "nigger1", "nigger2"...; the equations work just the same. Has mathematics not witnessed the centuries of oppression? It has, it existed all along, but it doesn't care about formal sequences of characters, only about the value you put behind them.
I can write a computer program and replace all identifiers in it with "nigger", "nigger1", "nigger2"...; the program works just the same. It's also based inherently on the formal languages that have basis in mathematics and more specifically logic. The understanding that there's a great separation between an identifier and the value that it carries is fundamental for the existence of modern computers - and thus computer games.
So, especially in the gaming community, people are much more likely to comprehend that difference between symbols, avatars, nicknames, and the actual value behind them. I'm surprised, and a little scared, that a CEO within the gaming industry would have so much hard time given by a word. And that it would be so difficult to separate all its historical connotations with its meaning in a completely different context.
Finally, the third thing that bothers me is that apparently the intention is of so very little value. So Alex admits that he doesn't really think Orb to be a racist. Good, I'm glad about that. Apparently that's not enough though, because just calling someone "racist" nowadays is of almost no meaning, as Alex again so very well has described. Then it becomes unclear exactly what is the accusation towards Orb. Apparently his behavior did contain a trait of what could be seen in our modern day as racially offensive language and that's enough for him to be fired, never to return. What about his intentions? If we all agree that in fact he never had any racially offensive intentions to mind and separating people by their color hasn't been a part of his real life reasoning, then again what is his real fault? Is his fault entirely formal, is there any substance to it? It bothers me that a formal fault would be more important than a true character evaluation. For all we know, someone could be an active racist - to the point of actually discriminating people of other races when having the opportunity to get away with it, but still maintain a completely clean sheet in the formal department. Isn't it really more important to analyze people's real intentions and goals rather than their formal means?
So to summarize my three posts and their points: - EG is free to conduct their business as they wish, of course - EG loses more than Orb, the attack here could have been against EG - "Progressive" reasoning should not lead to irreversible punishment, even for a murderer - The transition to the decision itself was not convincing enough, and too personal - A CEO in the gaming industry should not be so intimidated by identifiers, by themselves - Value should be more important than a formal expression, especially in the gaming community
That said, despite a lot of criticism in my posts, I enjoy Alex's presentations a lot, they are always so educating, well written and a pleasure to read, even when I disagree with many points. So, I thank you. Alex, for taking time to write to us, and I would greatly appreciate any future threads of yours too, hopefully on less troubling matters for EG.
On March 10 2012 07:10 SeraKuDA wrote: Oh what the hell... I don't even like orb's casting, but I feel sympathetic for him here. Who gives a shit about random words like that? It's not like we live in the 1950s. Times have changed. People are oversensitive sometimes, and they need to grow up. If you can't even say the word, let alone spell it I think you have a problem.
If times have changed, why do so many people persist in using racist language? It's not as though times changing makes the language less racist (if you think it does, please explain your reasoning).
Edit: note that I agree that times have changed in some ways--I just don't see how that's relevant here.
Times have changed in the sense that the words don't have the same connotation to them. None of us grew up during slavery, and only our parents, and grandparents have a real understanding of what it was like to live in a very racist era. This is a new time, new generation, and our culture is diversified. The words don't carry the same weight they once did, and thus when spoken people generally aren't offended. It's the select few, the sensitive ones, that cry out over the use of them. Those people are the problem-starters.
You know what? Fuck you and people like you who willfully remain grossly ignorant of the world in which we live. Try growing up as a minority. We have a very real understanding of what it's like to grow up in a very racist era. Would you like an example?
When my family went to a restaurant during pride week in my city my father would not go to the bathroom by himself because "he didn't want the faggots doing anything to him in there." I am not being overly sensitive. I am reacting to a word that is regularly thrown in my face with hatred and vitriol.
If you legitimately believe that nigger means the same thing today that it did 20 years ago you're completely lost.
If you legitimately believe that you're in a position to understand what nigger means then you should never be given a platform from which to speak.
Let me rephrase this: If you know what you are talking about, you should never be heard.
The prevalence of this thought is the major problem of modern democracy.
My assumption there was that he was a white guy acting like he understood discrimination. He responded that he is in fact, half black. While I still vehemently disagree with his point of view he does ACTUALLY speak with more authority than any non-minority that posts in this thread.
If your defense is going to be subjective, then you can't really argue it, since by definition literally everyone not already discriminated against is incapable of arguing with you. To me, that's just a convenient excuse not to think, and this is coming from someone who regularly types essays trying to convince people that homosexuality is deserving of the same rights as heterosexuality. Apparently all of this is invalidated by the fact that I've called people "faggots" before when I'm angry.
Surely you see how using discriminatory language erodes your credibility when you argue for equality.
Perhaps if deliberate, thought-out essays were in the same category of discourse as irrational rage-speech, then yeah.
SIGHHH.... saying the N word over a game shows that Orb had little respect towards black people. Why say Nigger when there are so many other slurs to use \o_O/.
Using Nigger as a way to express your rage makes orb look like a redneck ... I mean ffs, just call the other person a fucker or mother fucker... Pathetic to use a racial slur.
Sorry if I seemed combative. I disagree with you only to the extent that you think these people are thinking this through at all. I don't think there's any kernel of an idea under their arguments except "I can't be accountable for this." Otherwise I've generally enjoyed your posts in this thread, so, again, sorry!
NP I was just confused :D
There's generally two camps of apologists. The first are the basements dwellers and the second are the people who try to pursue the "if you are offended you give the word power" line, which is total bs. I'm referring to the second camp here.
Yeah. Those in the second group strike me as simply disingenuous. The argument can't survive even cursory disinterested scrutiny. They're just offering up the nonsense that cognitive dissonance flushes into their heads when confronted with their irreconcilable positions that (1) there is a good reason to be using racist language, but (2) they are not racist. But maybe we're saying the same thing at this point?
The pretentious condescension in this post is literally awe-inspiring. The constant assumptions you make about the people who disagree with you make me think you have some severe hypocritical prejudices against people on the internet who may not have the same paradigm as you.
So, show how my "assumptions" are wrong. Present a coherent argument. I'm not ashamed of condescending to those who won't do their homework.
What's "pretentious" about my posts anyway? What am I pretending to be, in your opinion?
Well, you're pretentious because of how unnecessarily verbose you are. The fact that everyone other than you is arguing in layman's terms so that everyone can be involved in the debate can somewhat attest to that.
The assumptions I'm referring to are the instances of calling people basement dwellers and social rejects and what not.
Edit: Well, turns out I fucked up. You're only crime is being somewhat pretentious and verbose. It's that Samdzat guy who's constantly assuming everyone's a social reject.
I don't assume anything. People in this thread reveal themselves to be social rejects.
I'm not a social reject!!!
Never said you were. Dunno where that accusation came from, other than that I classified a broad swath of substantially similar positions into the category "basement dweller."
You're not a basement dweller, you're a sophomoric denialist
Oh, sounds tasty. I really don't condone Orb's behaviour, but as far as my Kantian morality goes, I take issue with the fact that he insulted someone period, not with how he chose to do it. Ultimately, for some brief instance he wished to demean another human being. His intent is sufficient for me to establish his immorality. The rest is just details :D.
I think the problem with your view is that you underestimate the importance of the act and the modality of that act as it is embedded within a social context.
Basically, your ethics is centered on the individual in an absolute way, while mine is always centered on individual actions in a socially structured context.
Your ethics would censure someone because the act itself was bad, while mine would censure someone because their actions were a bad strategy for achieving justice in society. This is what I meant earlier when I said it wasn't an ethical question; I'm not concerned with whether or not orb did a bad thing and is a Bad Person, but whether or not the acceptance of such language is a good strategy for achieving social justice. I think it isn't.
What I've learned through this whole thing is that you can bring down EG, and any other team for that matter, simply by contacting their sponsors and complaining about the conduct of their players. Which, to be perfectly honest, is a good way of making people accountable for their actions, albeit somewhat of a harsh step to take...
On March 10 2012 08:46 zefreak wrote: So this thread has officially been invaded by philosophy undergrads eager to apply their recently acquired 'knowledge'.
Because calling someone a nigger definitely requires philosophical discussion!
As much as I laughed at the accuracy of this post. Everything requires some degree of philosophical inquiry.
There's generally two camps of apologists. The first are the basements dwellers and the second are the people who try to pursue the "if you are offended you give the word power" line, which is total bs. I'm referring to the second camp here.
Yeah. Those in the second group strike me as simply disingenuous. The argument can't survive even cursory disinterested scrutiny. They're just offering up the nonsense that cognitive dissonance flushes into their heads when confronted with their irreconcilable positions that (1) there is a good reason to be using racist language, but (2) they are not racist. But maybe we're saying the same thing at this point?
The pretentious condescension in this post is literally awe-inspiring. The constant assumptions you make about the people who disagree with you make me think you have some severe hypocritical prejudices against people on the internet who may not have the same paradigm as you.
So, show how my "assumptions" are wrong. Present a coherent argument. I'm not ashamed of condescending to those who won't do their homework.
What's "pretentious" about my posts anyway? What am I pretending to be, in your opinion?
Well, you're pretentious because of how unnecessarily verbose you are. The fact that everyone other than you is arguing in layman's terms so that everyone can be involved in the debate can somewhat attest to that.
The assumptions I'm referring to are the instances of calling people basement dwellers and social rejects and what not.
Edit: Well, turns out I fucked up. You're only crime is being somewhat pretentious and verbose. It's that Samdzat guy who's constantly assuming everyone's a social reject.
I don't assume anything. People in this thread reveal themselves to be social rejects.
I'm not a social reject!!!
Never said you were. Dunno where that accusation came from, other than that I classified a broad swath of substantially similar positions into the category "basement dweller."
You're not a basement dweller, you're a sophomoric denialist
Oh, sounds tasty. I really don't condone Orb's behaviour, but as far as my Kantian morality goes, I take issue with the fact that he insulted someone period, not with how he chose to do it. Ultimately, for some brief instance he wished to demean another human being. His intent is sufficient for me to establish his immorality. The rest is just details :D.
I think the problem with your view is that you underestimate the importance of the act and the modality of that act as it is embedded within a social context.
Basically, your ethics is centered on the individual in an absolute way, while mine is always centered on individual actions in a socially structured context.
Your ethics would censure someone because the act itself was bad, while mine would censure someone because their actions were a bad strategy for achieving justice in society. This is what I meant earlier when I said it wasn't an ethical question; I'm not concerned with whether or not orb did a bad thing and is a Bad Person, but whether or not the acceptance of such language is a good strategy for achieving social justice. I think it isn't.
I don't really think the language needs to be "accepted" on my view; I just think that in this particular case I'd look at it for what it is: degrading someone. The implications of the offense should it be made public are only really relevant if that's what the agent intended.
And yeah, I'm a transcendental egoist, I guess. Sue me :p
If times have changed, why do so many people persist in using racist language? It's not as though times changing makes the language less racist (if you think it does, please explain your reasoning).
Edit: note that I agree that times have changed in some ways--I just don't see how that's relevant here.
Times have changed in the sense that the words don't have the same connotation to them. None of us grew up during slavery, and only our parents, and grandparents have a real understanding of what it was like to live in a very racist era. This is a new time, new generation, and our culture is diversified. The words don't carry the same weight they once did, and thus when spoken people generally aren't offended. It's the select few, the sensitive ones, that cry out over the use of them. Those people are the problem-starters.
You know what? Fuck you and people like you who willfully remain grossly ignorant of the world in which we live. Try growing up as a minority. We have a very real understanding of what it's like to grow up in a very racist era. Would you like an example?
When my family went to a restaurant during pride week in my city my father would not go to the bathroom by himself because "he didn't want the faggots doing anything to him in there." I am not being overly sensitive. I am reacting to a word that is regularly thrown in my face with hatred and vitriol.
If you legitimately believe that nigger means the same thing today that it did 20 years ago you're completely lost.
If you legitimately believe that you're in a position to understand what nigger means then you should never be given a platform from which to speak.
Let me rephrase this: If you know what you are talking about, you should never be heard.
The prevalence of this thought is the major problem of modern democracy.
My assumption there was that he was a white guy acting like he understood discrimination. He responded that he is in fact, half black. While I still vehemently disagree with his point of view he does ACTUALLY speak with more authority than any non-minority that posts in this thread.
If your defense is going to be subjective, then you can't really argue it, since by definition literally everyone not already discriminated against is incapable of arguing with you. To me, that's just a convenient excuse not to think, and this is coming from someone who regularly types essays trying to convince people that homosexuality is deserving of the same rights as heterosexuality. Apparently all of this is invalidated by the fact that I've called people "faggots" before when I'm angry.
Surely you see how using discriminatory language erodes your credibility when you argue for equality.
Perhaps if deliberate, thought-out essays were in the same category of discourse as irrational rage-speech, then yeah.
Irrational rage speech doesn't get a free pass. If you can't maintain some level of control over yourself when you get upset then don't expect people to take you seriously.
On March 10 2012 08:46 CommanchyWattkins wrote: ah so true.... Eg only cares if reddit cares.
SIGHHH.... saying the N word over a game shows that Orb had little respect towards black people. Why say Nigger when there are so many other slurs to use \o_O/.
Using Nigger as a way to express your rage makes orb look like a redneck ... I mean ffs, just call the other person a fucker or mother fucker... Pathetic to use a racial slur.
cunt motherfucking cocksucker is so much more enjoyable to say imo
Oh, what a delightful read. I enjoy playing CS more than I enjoy SC, but I switched game for similar reasons to yours, Alex. The CS scene is simply bloated with bigotry. It may be a joke to some, it may be "ladder rage" to others, and I personally feel bad mannered behavior is often excusable, but the backlash is wonderful and proves that the community has integrity. In-game you smacktalk and start raging, but if you express equally stupid ideas in the serenity of a web forum, you are a detriment to e-sports and the gaming community at large.
Therefore, from a personal viewpoint, I feel Orb's behavior is excusable, and in 6 months, I won't care. But professionally, this is the best move from EG. Orb might work his way through the lower ranks of professionalism, such as youtube casting, and prove that he is enough of a benefit to be excused.
EPT
