Switch Theme:

Pablo has been let go from FLG  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Been Around the Block




If this was something personal like they had a massive row, he slept with Reece's sister or they had a punch up, even if he was caught doing coke in the company toilets or something, those thing would probably merit his sacking but none of those things would explain the wording in that statement.

The statement tells you everything without telling you everything, its very clever.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/17 22:25:06


 
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 Polonius wrote:
Pickled_egg wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
Re-reading the statement by FLG, it is actually interest how carefully worded it was. It avoids even the slightest hint of statement about his actions. It says merely that he "behaved in a manner not in keeping with our values" which is 100% a statement of opinion, and could reflect anything from a sharply worded email to criminal activity. It talks about a break of trust, but trust is a unilateral emotion, and thus also essentially an opinion.

The more I think about it, the more this was a very well thought out statement, in that it stated that he was dismissed for cause, but gave zero suggestion what that cause was.


In this day and age they probably got legal advice on the wording. I would if I was running a company.


If they did, they probably didn't follow it. Very few lawyers are going to advise putting out a statement like that.


What, you think a lawyer's advice wouldn't be 'put out some vague insinuations' instead of a simple 'We've parted ways with Bob and he is no longer affiliated with our organization?' Shocking thought.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

If the only assurances that FLG has to back up their claim that they need to protect customers from him is THEIR "honor"....that's a foundation for a crappy building.

"Trust FLG, better not to do business with Pablo" apparently is all that's required?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Pickled_egg wrote:
If this was something personal like they had a massive row, he slept with Reece's sister or they had a punch up, even if he was caught doing coke in the company toilets or something, those thing would probably merit his sacking but none of those things would explain the wording in that statement.

The statement tells you everything without telling you everything, its very clever.



Except it doesn't, LOL. Either they need to man up and explain what it is or they're going to get continuously (and rightfully so) badgered and questioned about what happened.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

yukishiro1 wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
While none of our customers were affected by Pablo’s actions, his breach of our trust left us with no alternative but to dismiss him. His actions were such that this was the safest way to limit the damage to our company and to continue to protect our customers. We wanted to warn you that any goods or services he offers up in the future, are independent from us and undertaken at your own risk.


I highlighted the bits that, taken together, certainly amount to leaving the reader with the factual impression that Pablo did something that threatened both FLG and its customers, and that he is a danger to anyone he approaches in a business context.


There are two problems with your theory of this case. The first is that when you read it closely, it doesn't say that. It uses semi scary words like "warn" and "risk," but when read plainly, they don't suggest anything but a subjective sense of concern by FLG over their business and it's customers.

Which leads to the bigger problem: proving that those statements are false. Defamation requires a false statement, and FLG can prove that their statement is true using information that is commonly available. For example, they could say "we trusted pablo with a podcast. Unfortunately, we've gotten steady feedback that he was not a good host. As that podcasts is a profit center, a way of building the brand, and a valued source of information to our customers. Continuing to allow him to share inaccurate information and speak over hosts would hurt us, and we had to let him go." So, their statement becomes true, and truth is an affirmative defense.

Courts will not allow a clear insinuation to slide, but a vague statement about loss of trust and harm to the brand or customers can be such a wide range of actions, it's unthinkable that they couldn't name one.

Again, I'm not saying I'd sue over it if I was him (even if it is 100% false and made-up). Actually suing over defamation is almost always a fool's errand. But it is certainly a defamatory statement in the way the term is commonly used.


The way the term is used most commonly is incorrect, of course. Its certainly a statement that harms somebody's reputation, but that's not the actual definition of defamation.

My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in gb
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine




UK

This reminds me of when that drama Queen you went to school with posts something like.

“I wish people would stop stirring in my business.”

Followed by ten comments from her friends asking..

“U ok hun?”

 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

Racerguy180 wrote:
If the only assurances that FLG has to back up their claim that they need to protect customers from him is THEIR "honor"....that's a foundation for a crappy building.

"Trust FLG, better not to do business with Pablo" apparently is all that's required?


Again, reread the statement. You're filling in gaps that aren't there. They said they will continue to protect their customers, but not from him. They warn people that Pablo's goods and services aren't FLG, but they do not say not to do business with him.

My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in gb
Hard-Wired Sentinel Pilot





 Polonius wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
If the only assurances that FLG has to back up their claim that they need to protect customers from him is THEIR "honor"....that's a foundation for a crappy building.

"Trust FLG, better not to do business with Pablo" apparently is all that's required?


Again, reread the statement. You're filling in gaps that aren't there. They said they will continue to protect their customers, but not from him. They warn people that Pablo's goods and services aren't FLG, but they do not say not to do business with him.


You're correct, they don't overtly say those things.

But come on, the implication in that statement is abundantly clear. The most generous possible reading of what is said, leaves little in the way of illusion as to what they are communicating regarding the individual in question.

When you wish to not throw someone under a bus professionally, you write a statement like:

'We here at X have parted ways with Y, and while the circumstances that lead to this were not ideal, we wish them the best in their future endeavours'.
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

Yeah, their statement STRONGLY implies it.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




People are filling in "gaps" that are intended to be filled in by the way the statement is constructed. Just like "John and Mike's wife are a bit loose with their morals" is inviting a certain kind of speculation. You can't then turn around and say "oh, I didn't mean they were having an affair, just that I saw the two of them litter the other day!"

The idea that they weren't intending to communicate that they were protecting their customers by firing him is, frankly, not serious.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 23:54:09


 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

yukishiro1 wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly it seems like you're primed to view any statement as defamatory just because the other guy has not commented.


If they had just said "Pablo no longer is employed by us, please keep in mind in any future dealings with him that he does not represent us and is not endorsed by us" nobody would be talking about it, other than to say that "wow, they must really have fallen out."

Please don't make accusations of bad faith (i.e. you would have done X anyway, you said Y but you don't really mean it, etc), they destroy any potential for discussion.

You've done that pretty well yourself to start with, immediately leaping to this whole thing being "defamation".
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Kanluwen wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly it seems like you're primed to view any statement as defamatory just because the other guy has not commented.


If they had just said "Pablo no longer is employed by us, please keep in mind in any future dealings with him that he does not represent us and is not endorsed by us" nobody would be talking about it, other than to say that "wow, they must really have fallen out."

Please don't make accusations of bad faith (i.e. you would have done X anyway, you said Y but you don't really mean it, etc), they destroy any potential for discussion.

You've done that pretty well yourself to start with, immediately leaping to this whole thing being "defamation".


FLG isn't a participant in this thread. We have to speculate about their intent from what they said elsewhere, because they haven't said what their intent was here. The problem with hurling bad faith accusations at people you are discussing things with is it kills any discussion, because there's nowhere to go from "no, I know better than you do what you think." Interpreting a statement someone has made isn't a bad faith attack - a bad faith attack is "I don't care that you told me you think X, I know you really think Y and that's why you're wrong."

It is absolutely a defamatory statement, in that part of the intent is unambiguously to damage Pablo's reputation. Surely not even you would disagree with that?

Now if your point is that it isn't defamatory if it's true...that's the whole issue people have with the statement: it is an attack on Pablo's character and integrity without providing any of the details necessary for someone reading it to make an opinion on its truth. So that's exactly why it feels defamatory in this case.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/18 00:00:53


 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

yukishiro1 wrote:
It is absolutely a defamatory statement, in that part of the intent is unambiguously to damage Pablo's reputation. Surely not even you would disagree with that?

Now if your point is that it isn't defamatory if it's true...that's the whole issue people have with the statement: it is an attack on Pablo's character and integrity without providing any of the details necessary for someone reading it to make an opinion on its truth. So that's exactly why it feels defamatory in this case.


Not sure the talk about defamation matters. Hiring a lawyer costs a lot and a trial offers no guarantees. Pablo is probably not flush with cash right now.

Sometimes people in this hobby get egos and use them to hurt other people. Frontline Gaming fired an employee, it should have ended there. But they used their position to end his career and that is wrong. Whatever Pablo did may not matter as much as what Frontline Gaming is doing. At the very least, they need to remove that letter and offer Pablo a heartfelt apology.

This kind of stuff really ticks me off. Last time something this bad happened was when Blue Table Painting fleeced someone out of thousands to paint an army at a really low level of quality. That money was returned after an open, spirited and robust discussion of BTP's corporate ethos.

When it happened, these posts were in the top 5 Google Results for keyword searches on BTP, Painting Service, and a few other key phrases for months.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/706117.page#9106283

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/180/706117.page#9124915

Each had a few hundred backlinks from search engines and were copied word for word in a number of blogs. Ironically, someone set up some signpost pages offering strong encouragement to use Frontline Gaming's painting service instead of BTPs. Someone might have told me it had about 20k clickthroughs over the course of a year, which probably means a fair amount of revenue was redirected from one to the other.

Looking at Frontline Gaming's SERP, looks like they get about 8k searches a month and the key phrases associated with them are mats, store, second hand store, ebay, terrain and itc. The average web page that ranks in the top 10 has about 17 backlinks and a domain authority of 68. That drops off significantly for every one of their actual lines of business, which implies a lot of their authority comes strictly from articles. There's also a lot of overlap in results from video game companies that include frontline in the name, which opens some vectors in forums for high-traffic gaming sites.

Looking at SERP for Las Vegas Open, their situation is a little less stable. Average of 5 backlinks for Top 10 links on search engines and a DA of 69. Fortunately, that name has a ton of overlap with traditional sports - high traffic boxing, food and wine, health and wellness sites, gun sites, etc all include this exact phrase. It would be very easy to saturate the first few pages of search engine listings with links leading back to complaints about these events. I mean, between Facebook, Dakka, and Twitter - there are tons. And paid search engine advertising can be had for less than a $0.01 CPC.

Anyways, Frontline Gaming does next to nothing to manage their own reputation, they shouldn't be doing this to other people. Might be fun to manage their reputation for a while until they act responsibly with the influence they have left.


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I wasn't using defamation in its technical legal sense, just in the more generally understood sense of an attack designed to damage someone's reputation. And it very clearly is precisely that.

Two wrongs don't make a right, I don't see how showing them a taste of their own medicine really serves anybody's interests. We ought to be aiming for a friendlier hobby where self-appointed guardians of the community don't do things like this statement. If he really did something serious enough to warrant a statement like that, FLG owes it to the community it purports to care about to say what it actually was that was so terrible. It's so mealy-mouthed and irresponsible to say "he did something really bad, it's going to take us months to recover from the mental shock because it was so bad, but we won't tell you what it was."
   
Made in gb
[MOD]
Villanous Scum







As this thread has devolved into making vague assertions and baseless speculation about Pablo I am locking it. If any actual news comes to light as to the situation at FLG then please PM a mod to have this thread reopened.

On parle toujours mal quand on n'a rien à dire. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: