NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ondath" data-source="post: 8644039" data-attributes="member: 7031770">While I understand that, having read the Twitter thread of the panelist who was offended by the utterance, I think it's a bit of a reach to say that she would've been unsatisfied. She only shares her personal experience hearing the word, doesn't even point to Lackey by name but only warns people who'll listen to the panel that they should look out for the moment - in case they also become uncomfortable with it. I hardly think she'd have wanted Lackey (and her husband, who had nothing to do with the panel where this occurred and was writing glowing tweets about how wonderful the event was the day before) to be humiliated and banned in this way. This to me looks like the organisation overreacting in the worst way possible, even beyond what the person who was initially offended by the statement had in mind.To be clear, what I meant by handling the issue in private was reaching out to Lackey in private at first, and maybe asking for her to make amends with the offended person and then making a statement with everyone involved (the idea of an impromptu panel on proper language is a decent idea and I don't think anyone would've opposed to that, I think). If Lackey would've doubled down at this stage, then the decision they've taken in its current form would've been justified. Instead they seem to have decided to ban Lackey while she was sleeping (if what her husband said is anything to go by), and then make a public statement that just says that Lackey said a slur with no context (making everyone think she uttered something far worse). This isn't crisis management, it's crisis production.</blockquote>

Verification