Personalities in the Gaming Industry and Politics

[WayneLigon]

...With what you are saying an employer would have the right to fire anyone who did something that might offend someone when they are not working. Say you go to a poltical rally or a protest march and someone reconizes you and gets offended and tells your boss that because of it they will no longer do business with your company so your boss fires you or tells you you can no longer exercise your freedom of speech if you want to work.

There have been a few excellent articles in recent news about the relationship between bloggers and their employers.

Fired Microsoft Blogger
Fired Google Blogger
A Blogging Policy
Bloggers on the Payroll

Yes, several bloggers (even bloggers that, in their blog, never identify themselves or the exact company) have been told to either trim comments or been fired outright. People that have been arrested in protest marches or who have, on their own time, made certain comments have been fired.

While it is 'dangerous', the company also has a right to protect itself. Obviously debate about whose rights are paramount is still ongoing, but currently the rights of the employer are generally recognized over those of the employed. I guess it usually comes down to how much control they like to have, how fearful of bad publicity they are, and how hard they are willing to fight for every single dollar that may or may not come their way.

The second seems to be the main reason: they don't want someone to change a carefully managed image that has been created in the mind of the public. If I were a programmer, the famous ea_spouse article certainly would make me think twice about ever working for them specifically or in the gaming industry in general. If I were a really hot-shot programmer, able to code with my feet and still put a project in under time and under budget, that would mean that, technically, ea_spouse had cost EA a good programmer; it's an opportunity cost. I love EA's games, love 'em to death, but the article has made me at least think twice about buying some of their stuff. I have not yet failed to buy an EA game I wanted, but if I was on the fence about something of theirs, ea_spouse's revelations might make me put it back. Technically, she's cost them a sale that might otherwise have been made. Since any company exists not provide employment but to make money, the question obviously becomes 'why should we continue to pay someone who is hurting the company?'

I applaud Pramas and others who don't fear to lose some sales by people who disagree with their personal views. It's good to be able to compartmentalize some things and thus be able to consider a product just on it's own merits - generally I'm able to do that. I'll go see a movie with Person X even though Person X might be an idiot outside that current persona; I go to movies to see characters, not stars. I could, though, see myself passing on a film if a star did something that deeply offended me. It would have to be something pretty horrific, thuogh. I'm able to compartmentalize very well, but not 100%. As we see, though, sometimes that's not possible. Myself, I agree with pretty much every non-gaming-related thing I've read on the sites profiled and it's made me more likely to think of the associated companies in a good light.

 

[nothing to see here]

Polls tend to be designed to give you the answer you want regardless of how someone answers. I was laughing at the polls that said the last US election was centered on moral values. Who in their right mind would say that are against "moral values?"

The general problem with exit polls is that it is impossible to verify a true random, representative sampling of the voting population -- at least compared to more scientific research exercises. Americans have the last two presidential elections to verify just how suspect the practice is.

As for polling language...absolutely there is a lot of agenda-driven loaded polling out there...which has reared it's head most nastily in push-polling. With that said there is a core group of three or four pollsters who base their business on staking out accureate non-partisan research. 'Morale values' as an issue cluser is less a "for/against" proposition than it is a priority placement compared to the economy, foreign affairs, terrorism etc.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Polls tend to be designed to give you the answer you want regardless of how someone answers. I was laughing at the polls that said the last US election was centered on moral values. Who in their right mind would say that are against "moral values?"

Well made polls are designed to be neutral in that regard. Most major AP polls are pretty well done. The election polls asked the question "what is most immportant to you in this election," or a variation of that. A certain group of folks answered "moral values" more often than other groups; other questions identified what that group was and which specific moral values were the issue.

Re: Universities becoming more hide-bound and less open to ideas - I think people sometimes have tendency to romanticize the past. I'm sure the universities of the 60's, 50's and before were just as bad in their way as the ones are now. Higher education does not equal better people, just as the reverse is also not true.

My experience of the college grad/non-college grad difference is that people who hav attended college have a wider range of knowledge as opposed to non-college attenders, but non-college attenders can be just as talented in specific areas. College will make you a little more well-rounded in your outlook and experiences.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

That's the tricky part about voicing one's opinion. There are a bunch of people out there with a "don't push your crap in my face rule," and you might make them angry and they might make a mental note to not buy anything associated with you. I call this the Freedom Fries effect.

To be equal-opportunity about this, one could call it the Florida Orange Juice effect, or the Dr. Laura TV Show effect, too.

 

[eyebeams]

Folks it seems to me, whether consciously or not, this debate has evolved into discussing the objective nature of truth.

I can now categorically lump the participants in this thread into a largely objectivist camp (not necessarily the Ayn Rand version, eitehr), a post-modernist camp...as well as those admirably looking for a middle.

The problem is there is no middle.

There are some severe problems with your analysis. To start with there is no non-Randian "objectivism"; there's empiricism, which isn't the same thing. Besides, objectivism is kind of stupid, so I wouldn't want to curse so many of this thread's participants.

I learned a long time ago that it's damn near impossible to argue with a postmodernist because they will call into question the relative 'objectivity' of every single basis of fact.

That's not postmodernism. That's philosophical idealism.

The gulf between postmodernists and people who believe in objective reality (and, as an extension, objective truths) is, in my experience, far wider than that which exists between the political poles in most societies.

That's still not postmodernism. It is still idealism. Postmodernism is a set of theories about what parts of our experience are *significant.* In other words, the postmodern critique of this thread would be that a discussion about the nature of truth is not only divorced from how people assess truth in everyday life, but the actual topic of the thread.

What would we do from here? We'd ask why it drifted and what this thread means to participants. None of this has to do with what is eternally true, which is such a pretentious drift from the original topic that it's scarcely worth touching on. If you were a Derridean, you'd look at the language used and how it can mutate. If you were a Foucaultian you'd talk about the power relations involved and the commonly accepted story that comes from it.

Postmodernism is the theory that allows you to question constructions like, "Have you stopped beating your kids?" or "How can the (ethnic community) take responsibility for the violence of some of its members?"

(This last is a pop quiz; can you spot the problem with the second statement? Can you tell how these framing problems are significant to this thread?)

Idealism is the philosophical position that reality is reductible to thought, and was mostly notably articulated by George Berkeley. Idealism *does* say there's no objective truth.

It always amazes me when people who appear to have never studied postmodern and post-existential thinking as more than a one-off course or a unit in university feel qualified to hold court on it.

(And before you ask: My BA majors were in *both* postmodern/existential and emperical philsosophy, so I do in fact have a solid basis for comparison. This is why inaccurate descriptions of either annoy me.)

 

[tonym]

To be equal-opportunity about this, one could call it the Florida Orange Juice effect, or the Dr. Laura TV Show effect, too.

Huh? It appears that you are trying to dilute my branding of certain like-minded people as the Freedom Fry Fellowship.

Freedom Fry Fellowship!
Freedom Fry Fellowship!

There, the damage has been undone. Democracy has been saved.


Tony M

 

[GMSkarka]

Basic problem - what's making sure that your aim has anything to do with who actually reads the thing?

Absolutely nothing.

Then again, there's nothing guaranteeing that a game is played in the manner intended by the designer, either, so we're used to that sort of disconnect.

I wont' speak for Chris, but my point is simple: I don't worry about pissing people off in my journal posts, because the sort of person who is (in my opinion) shallow enough to let the clearly-labeled personal opinions of a creator affect their decision to purchase their works, is not somebody that I'm particularly going to miss as a customer.

Plus, the past decade and more that I've spent in this business have shown me conclusively that Internet Crusades (tm) and loudly-proclaimed-boycotts have NEVER had a negative impact on sales, ever....and often lead to a sales spike as non-involved gamers pick up the product to see what the fuss is about. So, gamers who only want product from people they agree with don't affect me in the slightest...because even if they get irritated enough to bitch loudly, the only discernable effect (aside from the personal aggravation) will be a slight JUMP in sales.

 

[Steel_Wind]

The trouble is that it is not really an objective truth that evolution is the best explanation of the origin of species. To say so is tantamount to declaring that there can be no other theory that can explain it better, even theories that are currently unknown. Just because something is the best theory currently going that fits the evidence does not make it an objective truth.

This is sophistry. It is the very worm wriggling on the hook.

The death penalty is routinely applied by the states and the Federal Government in the USA based on a standard of proof which is a lesser standard than the one you propose.

Absolute certainty is not required for that; it ought not to be required for assessing whether a political question or fact is objectively true. If you wish to make determinations and evaluate policy based on the doubts and "but ifs" that men and women each routinely discount as they make decisions which effect their daily lives, then such considerations are, in my view, reasonably adjudged to be without merit and are wholly subjective.

Which was exactly my point in the original post.

 

[nothing to see here]

.

(And before you ask: My BA majors were in *both* postmodern/existential and emperical philsosophy, so I do in fact have a solid basis for comparison. This is why inaccurate descriptions of either annoy me.)

I certainly wouldn't dare match up my philosophical credentials against yours...and yes you are quite right to rephrase my use of 'objectivism' to empiricism (I just find objectivism a more intuitive word to somebody with a non-philosophy background).

Ad for your somewhat spirited (if ironic) defence postmodernism -- I would argue that my central point -- that the one side in this debate believes there are objective moral standards outside of context, the other doesn't. But then again my readings of Derrida are limited and Foccault, admittedly, nonexistant.

As for your charge of my pretentiousness -- my only response is that "you can't please everybody"...so please my apologies if my hazy recollections of my philosophy education offend your scholarly sensibilities.

I read a thread I enjoy and contribute to it. I know a thing or two about the political process, so I occassionally jump in to clarify points other people make about it -- always done in good humour and good faith. Unless you inform me otherwise, I'll take your criticism of my post likewise.

 

[nothing to see here]

Plus, the past decade and more that I've spent in this business have shown me conclusively that Internet Crusades (tm) and loudly-proclaimed-boycotts have NEVER had a negative impact on sales, ever....and often lead to a sales spike as non-involved gamers pick up the product to see what the fuss is about. So, gamers who only want product from people they agree with don't affect me in the slightest...because even if they get irritated enough to bitch loudly, the only discernable effect (aside from the personal aggravation) will be a slight JUMP in sales.

Very True. Indeed some people (ranging the gamut from Howard Stern and Eminem to 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and "Desperate Housewives") have intentionally used the fact they infuriate certain demographics as a marketing tactic.