Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9449864" data-attributes="member: 18">I mean this is the thing - the c-suite are generally substantial stockholders. They thus obviously want the stock to go up for very simple reasons. The most proven and reliable way to make your stock go up for virtually every company is to fire a small-but-significant number of people. So long as you don't fire anyone obviously vital, the market as a whole is only going to see "cost savings" and that you're bold and brave for doing something normal people rather disapprove of. Even firing people who are vital often has no negative effect, in the short term.I agree that there should be a re-examination here, but I don't think we'll find that it serves zero purpose, because a lot of elements of genuine professionalism aren't merely civility, competence, customer service or politeness, but rather adhering to a stricter code of behaviour, and there being consequences to failing to adhere to that. Part of the problem is that "professionalism" is increasing to used to excuse callous or obviously amoral behaviour, especially among jobs that aren't actually professions - i.e. there is no swearing of the oath, no code of conduct.Further, unprofessional behaviour of certain kinds is genuinely bad. If you want an easy example see Mike Mearls and the Zak S situation. To recount briefly, Zak S was credibly accused by several women of sexually and otherwise abusing them. Zak S was listed as a playtester in the 5E core books, but otherwise had no apparent relationship to WotC. The "professional" response would have to have been to allow Legal, PR/marketing, and possibly HR (if he did have some kind of unknown relationship to WotC) to handle this. Mike Mearls did not take this option. He decided to get in there, and demand that the victims talk to him, so he in his magisterial capacity as lead D&D designer (!!!), could adjudge the merits of their claims. And it seems he "accidentally" sent all the details they provided him to Zak S. The "professional" or "rules-following" approach would have been better for literally everyone involved here.</blockquote>

Verification