Activision Blizzard Sued By California Over Widespread Harassment Of Women

Stuart wrote:
But if they decide to ban Activision for accusations of harassment, then you could do the same for Ubisoft, then ban Warhorse Studios for being politically incorrect, then ban Rockstar & countless others for cruel levels of crunch.

Stuart wrote:

KK wrote:I presume Microsoft and Sony could go nuclear if they really wanted to and refuse Activision the right to publish on their systems until they get their gooseberry fool together. I mean they’ve done it before for far less, but never for such high profile titles like COD.

I hope they're not tempted to act as a moral arbiter, like the Twitter mob. If consumers individually decide they disapprove of Activision and choose not to buy their games, that's fine. But if they decide to ban Activision for accusations of harassment, then you could do the same for Ubisoft, then ban Warhorse Studios for being politically incorrect, then ban Rockstar & countless others for cruel levels of crunch. Then we're left with a few indie games on the platform, because all the AAA titles are disqualified.

jawa_ wrote:I totally support people challenging other people's views but - personally - I'm not so keen on the idea that a starting point in this process should be "look at what they said about something else". It probably won't do much to tackle the points being suggested; it feels to be more about "you shouldn't listen to this person" rather than "I disagree with x because y".

Edit: ^ Posted by the guy who liked the Wii U etc .

Hi Jawa. You are right regarding the pleasantries of conversation around a particular subject. I know it's personal, because opinions come from people, and I know it's unpleasant. Personally (in my opinion that I have, if that wasn't clear that I have one, and I will defend that opinion and address scrutiny instead of blaming somebody else for my own opinion) I don't appreciate anyone downplaying the severity of this particular corporate misconduct at a gross scale by conflating that with a fallacy that industry action or self regulation would ruin the entire industry, because human rights. That's bullshit.

It may be poor form to call a character into question in the assessing of their arguments, but it's not irrelevant either. Far too easily a get out for similarly poor form or hyperbolic statements, to point out where the opinions come from. Opinions don't exist in an intellectual vacuum, they are interrelated. In this particular respect, it regards human rights and activism in two different but related ways.

If that person was not being listened to, there would be no invitation to expand and explain. The post would simply be ignored and the views would be ignored. That might be ideal if those views are not to be interpreted and responded to at all, in the preference of the person sharing them for some other reason, but this is a discussion forum, not a blog or chronology of the abstract, isolated opinions of random people posting on the same page. That's life.

Stuart wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:

Stuart wrote:

KK wrote:I presume Microsoft and Sony could go nuclear if they really wanted to and refuse Activision the right to publish on their systems until they get their gooseberry fool together. I mean they’ve done it before for far less, but never for such high profile titles like COD.

I hope they're not tempted to act as a moral arbiter, like the Twitter mob. If consumers individually decide they disapprove of Activision and choose not to buy their games, that's fine. But if they decide to ban Activision for accusations of harassment, then you could do the same for Ubisoft, then ban Warhorse Studios for being politically incorrect, then ban Rockstar & countless others for cruel levels of crunch. Then we're left with a few indie games on the platform, because all the AAA titles are disqualified.

In my opinion this is hyperbolic. Industry peerage and scrutiny, besides regulation and consumer action, are pretty much the best and only way for markets to self-regulate inhumane behaviour, and they should.

And yes, bad views on trans activism does call your character and thus views into question, and you are open to criticism for whatever other stuff you've said.

I didn't realise this was resetera. Someone bringing up trans issues in an attempt to point score, completely off topic and mis-representing what I actually said (which was in the context of the professor being harassed out of her job) is nonsensical. And the moderation cheering them on to "call my character into question" is unpleasant.

So how is your post NOT hyperbolic? It reads sarcastically. How is it NOT bad faith posting? Back up your inferred points that self regulation would eliminate the majority of major players in said industry.

All I'm saying is that if a member peddles hyperbole or downplays human rights issues or defense of those rights, and I'm entitled to that opinion, I'm not going to act against being pulled up on that.

Opinions and views aren't in reality isolated, they come from a person who may or may not have exhibited credibility in respect of the opinions they share. You can't fault other people for that, in my opinion.

You are responsible for what you say, not beckoning the moderators to be.

Again, you are responsible for gooseberry fool you say and addressing the arguments. If you don't address the arguments, it's going to colour your overall reception in other avenues, and you own that. Not moderators, not your detractors, nobody else. If that's off topic, fine, it's off topic, but it's also a convenient way to dodge scrutiny and not address the arguments.

Mods have opinions, and are active participants in discussions and debates here. If that entitles you to compare us to another forum, then thank you for the observation.

BTW, I'm not formally a moderator here. I mod when the other mods cannot or will not mod, and this isn't the case here.

I can nonetheless opine on how inappropriate I think it is to dodge scrutiny over a subject as serious as this. Downplaying the subject or decrying sensible recourse for the problem helps nobody.

If the industry needs to change to benefit human beings and working conditions, and that affects the consumer, I'm fine with that. I literally do not care about that. If big players in the industry need shaking up, and that affects some gamers, then strawberry float the gamers. Your entertainment is not as important as the wellbeing of the people that create it.

Also, reporting my post as off topic when half of my post addresses your views, and the other half addresses some context from which similar views more generally arise is... Well ok. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps address the post instead of trying to make it go away.

Activision top brass defending Kotick again last night. He isn't going anywhere. Probably receive another bonus.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2021 ... tedly-told

Gemini73 wrote:Activision top brass defending Kotick again last night. He isn't going anywhere. Probably receive another bonus.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2021 ... tedly-told

Probably pay off the Game awards to give him a life time achievement award.

Like in the 1975 movie Rollerball in time society will no longer ran by governments, but by corporations with people like Kotick at the helm.

Green Gecko wrote:Hi Jawa...

Hey, all good, GG. I totally understand and respect your viewpoint. I'll leave this particular topic as it's complex and heated - a concoction for fire! - and, nowdays, I tend to steer clear of those.

As a quick aside, I was surprised to suddenly see Kotick on my TV screen the other day, though. I was watching the film Moneyball and I had no idea he was in it. Grr. I enjoyed the rest of the film, though.

I wondered why the strawberry float is Kotick in Moneyball, which is a pretty great movie and I'm sure there's some ulterior motive somewhere but seems fair enough on face of it:

Kotick has a small cameo (0:17 above) in the coming Brad Pitt movie, Moneyball, and we didn't know why he was in it -- turns out, it's all for charity. Kotick is buddies with Moneyball director Bennet Miller (Capote), who asked Kotick to be in the film. Kotick said yes, but only if Miller made a movie for the Call of Duty Endowment, Kotick's non-profit company that helps veterans transition into civilian life after their service. Kotick doesn't want a credit in the film and doesn't intend to pursue an acting career; he just wanted to help America's veterans.

Green Gecko wrote:Also, reporting my post as off topic

Wait......

....we can report Gecko?

We get some spam reports all the time (mostly from dual, or people who don't get dual*). It used to be against the rules but we barely get any reports of abuse etc, I would like to note that we do act on those.

It's one way to make all the staff aware of bad behaviour.

*may or may not be true

And I KNEW I'd seen Kottick in something! That horrible grin, I just knew I'd seen it, and it made no sense to me that he would be an actor.

Tbh, it's ironic I would then wonder if venerating, well, veterans, has any influence on his apparent total disregard of the wellbeing of women who should shut up and sit down or get shut out. Like, nobody has ever considered the US Army to be a toxic environment for violence and harassment.

Character doesn't matter. I've got to do my job now, sorry (not GRcade).

Tomous wrote:I wondered why the strawberry float is Kotick in Moneyball, which is a pretty great movie and I'm sure there's some ulterior motive somewhere but seems fair enough on face of it:

Kotick has a small cameo (0:17 above) in the coming Brad Pitt movie, Moneyball, and we didn't know why he was in it -- turns out, it's all for charity. Kotick is buddies with Moneyball director Bennet Miller (Capote), who asked Kotick to be in the film. Kotick said yes, but only if Miller made a movie for the Call of Duty Endowment, Kotick's non-profit company that helps veterans transition into civilian life after their service. Kotick doesn't want a credit in the film and doesn't intend to pursue an acting career; he just wanted to help America's veterans.

whats moneyball?

shy guy 64 wrote:whats moneyball?

jawa_ wrote:...I was watching the film Moneyball...

jawa_ wrote:

shy guy 64 wrote:whats moneyball?

jawa_ wrote:...I was watching the film Moneyball...

You should really try to be less helpful

shy guy 64 wrote:

jawa_ wrote:

shy guy 64 wrote:whats moneyball?

jawa_ wrote:...I was watching the film Moneyball...

You should really try to be less helpful

Surely googling it would make more sense than someone taking the effort to search and paste the synopsis for you.

Green Gecko wrote:If the industry needs to change to benefit human beings and working conditions, and that affects the consumer, I'm fine with that. I literally do not care about that. If big players in the industry need shaking up, and that affects some gamers, then strawberry float the gamers. Your entertainment is not as important as the wellbeing of the people that create it.

I'm in favour of game developers unionising, and better working hours, and Bobby Kotick being replaced. I was in the work union (Unite) myself until recently. My point was simply that I personally don't want Sony or Microsoft imposing a set of vaguely defined morals on what games they will or will not publish.

shy guy 64 wrote:

Tomous wrote:I wondered why the strawberry float is Kotick in Moneyball, which is a pretty great movie and I'm sure there's some ulterior motive somewhere but seems fair enough on face of it:

Kotick has a small cameo (0:17 above) in the coming Brad Pitt movie, Moneyball, and we didn't know why he was in it -- turns out, it's all for charity. Kotick is buddies with Moneyball director Bennet Miller (Capote), who asked Kotick to be in the film. Kotick said yes, but only if Miller made a movie for the Call of Duty Endowment, Kotick's non-profit company that helps veterans transition into civilian life after their service. Kotick doesn't want a credit in the film and doesn't intend to pursue an acting career; he just wanted to help America's veterans.

whats moneyball?

It's when you clump a load of dollar bills together to form a spherical object

Green Gecko wrote:We get some spam reports all the time (mostly from dual, or people who don't get dual*).

Rocsteady wrote:

shy guy 64 wrote:

jawa_ wrote:

shy guy 64 wrote:whats moneyball?

jawa_ wrote:...I was watching the film Moneyball...

You should really try to be less helpful

Surely googling it would make more sense than someone taking the effort to search and paste the synopsis for you.

but it requires more effort

Microsoft Corp.’s head of Xbox said he’s “evaluating all aspects of our relationship with Activision Blizzard and making ongoing proactive adjustments,” in light of the recent revelations at the video game publisher.

In an email to staff seen by Bloomberg News, Phil Spencer said he and the gaming leadership team are “disturbed and deeply troubled by the horrific events and actions” at Activision Blizzard Inc.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... activision

Was about to post that. Things have certainly got interesting. With Sony also raising concerns Kotick might find he's not quite as invincible as he likes to believe.