WotC Greg Tito On Leaving WotC: 'It feels good to do something that doesn't just line the pockets of *****'

We reported earlier that WotC's communications director Greg Tito had left his 9-year stint managing the Dungeons & Dragons brand for a political appointment as Deputy Director of External Affairs for the Washington secretary of state's office.

Greg Tito Leaves Wizards of the Coast

Greg Tito, formerly the communications manager in charge of overseeing messaging for the Dungeons & Dragons brand, is departing Wizards of the Coast for a career in the public sector. Tito announced that he would be joining the Washington secretary of state's office starting this week, ending an...

www.enworld.org

In a surprising turn of events, Tito criticized his former employers, saying "It feels good to do something that doesn't just line the pockets of a**holes." He later went on to clarify "Sorry. I meant "shareholders".

Tito is now Deputy Director of External Affairs for the Washington Secretary of State office in Olympia, WA.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There must be a culture barrier in this thread, because as a Canadian I truly don’t understand some of the offense taken by some here. He insulted shareholders, obviously meaning rich people not the small-peas average person. Is insulting the owner class too taboo for some Americans? Is the A-word too offensive to American sensibilities? Is daring to dislike a former employer’s practices a bridge too far?

Ah.

You see shareholders -- here meaning the rich and powerful and the faceless corporations, shell corporations and holding companies they control with their money -- are our undisputed betters who demand a certain amount of decorum at all times from us worthless plebs who exist at their convenience until the AI can replace us at which time we will be locked out of their superbunkers as the consequences of their actions dissolve us into the aether.

Professionalism and decorum is far more important than not ruining lives, products and economies. Our transgressions must be met with a clicking of tongues and an insistence that someone who 'goes too far' by saying mean words would never get the kind of job they clearly hate and have no intention of getting as a tacit threat to others who might step out of line. Play by their rules or you will be put into the poor hole as punishment!

But if they want to use the naughty words to say pick fights with each other, then it's okay. Again because better because money.

 

[Malmuria]

I would flip the “burning bridges” question—it’s also hasbro that seems to be generating bad will among its employees. To a certain degree, they can rely on people having passion for the game to put up with a less than ideal work environment. But over time companies acquire a reputation, and you stop getting talented people.

 

[Azzy]

Are we seriously clutching pearls over this?

 

[nerfherder]

Are we seriously clutching pearls over this?

I don't think so - my reading of the posts here is that many are surprised, but no-one is offended.

 

[Steampunkette]

It's a public account everyone can see and he's in a position where people check his posts. Generally speaking, I'm not an advocate of checking into a candidate's social media for a myriad of reasons. That said, I've had on a handful of occasions had to deal with the fallout from employees posting some pretty vile things on their personal accounts. i.e. It's tough for an African American employee to feel their yearly evaluations are fair when their supervisor is known for posting racists content online.

I just hope no employer finds out I post here. What would become of me if they knew I was a gamer? Or worst yet that I spent time typing over the internet with other gamers?

Finding out someone said something vile or horrible on their publicly facing personal accounts which might reflect poorly on a corporation and someone calling shareholders a dirty name are a wide gulf.

That's what I'm saying.

Shareholders know and understand that they routinely destroy businesses for their own benefit and probably aren't offended when the "Little People" are pissed about their career/company/life being torn apart and the carcass sold to line the pockets of shareholders.

They wouldn't be where they are if someone calling them a jerk would be enough to make them consider the feelings of other people.

 

[KYRON45]

There must be a culture barrier in this thread, because as a Canadian I truly don’t understand some of the offense taken by some here. He insulted shareholders, obviously meaning rich people not the small-peas average person. Is insulting the owner class too taboo for some Americans? Is the A-word too offensive to American sensibilities? Is daring to dislike a former employer’s practices a bridge too far?

Or maybe it’s simpler than that: some of the folks offended here by Tito’s tweet about WotC/Hasbro are the same folks offended whenever anyone else disparages WotC/Hasbro. That can’t be a coincidence…

They’re never gonna love you back, dudes. Swallow that pill, you’ll be happier for it in the long run.

Americans think it’s our god given right to complain about anything and everything.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Are there any “regular people” among the shareholders?

Like 401k sorts?

I know, this will be translated into some sort of elitist statement, but I hope my retirement account and those of my loved ones do at least passably well.

Radical, I know.

Whatever helps you sleep I guess

 

[Alzrius]

Americans think it’s our god given right to complain about anything and everything.

It really ticks me off that a lot of people think that's unironically true; jerks, the lot of them.

Spoiler

Poe's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Clint_L]

Finding out someone said something vile or horrible on their publicly facing personal accounts which might reflect poorly on a corporation and someone calling shareholders a dirty name are a wide gulf.

That's what I'm saying.

Shareholders know and understand that they routinely destroy businesses for their own benefit and probably aren't offended when the "Little People" are pissed about their career/company/life being torn apart and the carcass sold to line the pockets of shareholders.

They wouldn't be where they are if someone calling them a jerk would be enough to make them consider the feelings of other people.

The term “shareholders” is getting used pretty loosely here. I’m a shareholder: I’ve been putting money into our retirement mutual fund for years, and my son’s registered disability fund since he was three. Are we a……s?

If he meant predatory, Wolf of Wall Street types, he could have stated that, but as a communications expert he chose the broader term. Seems like trolling to me, and I would definitely be unimpressed as a potential employer unless I was looking for that. And maybe that’s where he wants to go.

We absolutely check the social media of prospective employees, just as we do criminal record checks. We’d be negligent not to.

 

[KYRON45]

It really ticks me off that a lot of people think that's unironically true; jerks, the lot of them.

Spoiler

Poe's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nothing says entitlement like anonymous internet comments.

I don’t know who this Tito fella is but good luck to him.