Greg Tito Is UHURA!

Former Escapist editor-in-chief Greg Tito is now WotC's new Communications Manager according to D&D Brand Manager Nathan Stewart -- "Please welcome Greg Tito newest member of the D&D team. Greg joins our team as Communications Manager and official bag of holding holder." Greg was laid off from The Escapist a couple of weeks ago. He mentioned his recent layoff, whihc also involved others: "Due to budget cuts at Defy Media, the parent company of The Escapist, Game Front, and GameTrailers, a large number of my colleagues have also been let go. This news sucks for everyone, including those left behind to run these publications. My thoughts are with all of you and I hope you bounce back with a new gig soon."

 

[Lily of the Valley]

Are you serious?

Yes.

EN World isn't hostile to Tito, either. Just a handful of people whose exposure to him begins and ends with a poorly-constructed narrative tied to a single event.

I'm sure he won't, but he gets to choose how much he interacts here. If he feels that this community is hostile enough to him that what he says won't be well-received, he will make a rational choice to make EN World a lower priority.

Heh. You're contradicting yourself with these two quotes from the same post. ENworld, according to you, is not hostile to him. Only a few people are. There are no reasons given why this should change. Your fears of him sulking ENworld, using your standard, are low.

It is if interacting with the EN World community involves less talking about D&D and more trying to navigate personal attacks and insults. That's not a productive use of one's time.

Simple. Ignore the negative. It is pretty easy. I am sure he did it a lot while writting for a webzine. It comes with the job.

Look

Where?

at this point you're basically making excuses for treating someone you don't know poorly

How did I treat him poorly?

(and, worse, arguing that he has to put up with it because "it's his job").

It is true. A PR person has to deal with negativity from the public. It is part of Public Relations. Is he there for PR? Not clear. Someone mentioned that communication manager might mean he manages internal communications only. We will see.

The current critics comes not from his role as a PR person. He has not started working yet. It comes from articles he made. He decided to go public with articles and now he has negative feedback from these articles. He should not be surprised. If he cannot handle it he should not have written and release these articles. I do not feel sad when a journalist's work is critiqued. It is also part of the job. I am not sure why you want someone to be exempt from critics when they sometimes need to be.

That's not really a conversation that I'm interested in having.

You've been uninterested for several posts.

If you have something to say more substantial than that, go for it.

When someone adresses what I actually said I will be sure to inform you.

 

[Dannager]

Heh. You're contradicting yourself with these two quotes from the same post.

See, this? You don't need to do this. What you're doing, right here.

ENworld, according to you, is not hostile to him. Only a few people are. There are no reasons given why this should change. Your fears of him sulking ENworld, using your standard, are low.

EN World, as a whole, isn't hostile to Tito. A tiny subset of it is. That subset, however, is here, in this thread, with Tito's name on it. If this thread is his first in-depth exposure to EN World, and this is how he sees people reacting when his name comes up, he could very easily fall under the mistaken impression that EN World is hostile to him.

This requires some nuance, I know. I'm trying to help you understand how what you latched onto as a "contradiction" isn't contradictory, at all.

Simple. Ignore the negative. It is pretty easy. I am sure he did it a lot while writting for a webzine. It comes with the job.

Wonderful advice, but it's just one way to approach the problem. I'd rather there weren't a problem to begin with.

The current critics comes not from his role as a PR person. He has not started working yet. It comes from articles he made. He decided to go public with articles and now he has negative feedback from these articles. He should not be surprised. If he cannot handle it he should not have written and release these articles. I do not feel sad when a journalist's work is critiqued. It is also part of the job. I am not sure why you want someone to be exempt from critics when they sometimes need to be.

Quit making excuses for awful behavior. "He's a journalist, he deserves the crap flung at him," doesn't give you or anyone else a moral justification for flinging the crap in the first place. Yes, I'm sure his skin is thick enough. No, that doesn't mean he will choose to put up with it when he has other options. You can "critique" him all you want, but I think it's pretty clear from this thread that he hasn't done anything remotely damning.

 

[Shasarak]

If Greg has ACKs credits under his belt then that is good enough for me.

 

[Morrus]

I hate that line. It's meaningless political garbage. It could be used as much in favor of Klingon-Human reconciliation as it could be used against it. I love that movie but that line annoys the crap out of me every time I hear it since I usually hear it coming from anti-progress-minded Conservatives (American Republicans) who are arguing against anything and everything in favor of the status-quo. /end political rant

No politics, please. Especially no political rants.

 

[Morrus]

And in general, this thread has a lot of people being pretty rude to each other. Talk about WotC's new employee by all means, but do so politely and while avoiding politics. If the two are too entwined to do so, pop over to some place more accomodating of political discussion.

 

[jhsjhs]

And in general, this thread has a lot of people being pretty rude to each other. Talk about WotC's new employee by all means, but do so politely and while avoiding politics. If the two are too entwined to do so, pop over to some place more accomodating of political discussion.

Lock the thread, time to move on.

 

[Lily of the Valley]

I'll follow Morrus' advice and only talk about the new communication manager and ignore the snark.

EN World, as a whole, isn't hostile to Tito. A tiny subset of it is. That subset, however, is here, in this thread, with Tito's name on it. If this thread is his first in-depth exposure to EN World, and this is how he sees people reacting when his name comes up, he could very easily fall under the mistaken impression that EN World is hostile to him.

He was a journalist that reviewed games for years. RPGs too. He knows about ENworld. He was also a journalist for a webzine for years. He knows about the internet and that some people are snarky. No worries. ENworld is safe from Tito's retribution.

Quit making excuses for awful behavior.

Critiquing are not necessarely an awful behavior. Heck, by that standard alone Tito himself engaged in awful behavior. Reviewing products means he was critiquing them.

On a side note, I would find it more polite if you didn't try to order me around the next time you answer my post. It is very rude. Thank you.

 

[Dannager]

Critiquing are not necessarely an awful behavior.

He isn't being "critiqued" - not in the benign sense you're using it. His personal character is being attacked; he was called divisive, unethical, morally bankrupt, other epithets within the first few posts of this thread. It's not like people are posting his articles and giving thorough point-by-point dissections of where his work could use improvement. It's just people calling him a terrible person. You're equivocating the two meanings of "critique" to make it seem like people who are engaging in poor behavior are doing nothing wrong.

Are you okay with that? Is that something that you are going to choose to defend as acceptable? If someone called a fellow forum member "morally bankrupt", they'd be shooed out of the thread pretty quickly. Why is it suddenly okay when it comes to someone who works in the industry?

 

[Lily of the Valley]

He isn't being "critiqued"

Yes he has.

- not in the benign sense you're using it.

Critiqued takes many forms. Some harsher than others.

His personal character is being attacked;

Nothing necessarely wrong with that. Politicians, philosophers, ideologues, journalists, etc, should expect that.

he was called divisive, unethical, morally bankrupt, other epithets within the first few posts of this thread.

If the shoe fits...

It's not like people are posting his articles

They have. A couple of times.

and giving thorough point-by-point dissections of where his work could use improvement.

That is one way of critiquing. There are others. Some sophisticated, some not so sophisticated. The people who posted the articles left the link there so people could read them and make up there how opinion. A very sensible approach.

You're equivocating the two meanings of "critique" to make it seem like people who are engaging in poor behavior are doing nothing wrong.

I find critiques to be very helpful and the opposite of poor behavior. There is a whole section dedicated to critics on ENworld. I guess some people believe it is useful. Even a normal acceptable human behavior.

Are you okay with that?

Obviously.

Is that something that you are going to choose to defend as acceptable?

Yes. Dictators are for censorship. I am not for censorship. Even things I do not agree with. Hate speech is a special case. Because that is discrimination. I will stop here since this can get political.

If someone called a fellow forum member "morally bankrupt", they'd be shooed out of the thread pretty quickly.

I would not object if it was accurate.

Why is it suddenly okay when it comes to someone who works in the industry?

To me, both are correct if they are accurate. Conflict comes from subjectivity. Someone might think it is accurate, someone else doesn't. The problem today is that some people believe censorship should be used to protect someone's hypothetical feelings. Personally, I think some people want censorship just because they think they are right and want comments they disagree with to disappear. The same phenomenon can be observe when some posters are called trolls. Sometimes they are trolls, sometimes they are just saying things that some people do not like. Disagreeing with someone usually makes them emotional. Humans are funny little creatures.

 

[Dannager]

Yep, that's just about enough of that.