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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

The only reason that Alison Rapp is being talked about here is that she is a woman

Objectively wrong statement. Imagine a male PR manager saying that he appreciates how rape is presented in Japanese mangas and that the West should open itself for this portrayal as well. You're saying that anything similar to this would not cause such a stir. I beg to differ. A lot.

That's the thing though; if it were a man he'd have been fired in 2012, there might have been an article or two about it, and we wouldn't be talking about this now. There is preferential treatment based on gender here, just not the way people are claiming. Not to defend what is a very real problem with misogyny, but if this were a guy no one would have cared after a week.

http://www.usgamer.net/articles/nintendo-is-a-business-not-your-friend

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
You're saying that anything similar to this would not cause such a stir.

To the extent that it is being talked about on a wargaming forum? I very much doubt it.

You are correct, men only make it to a wargaming forum when they get treated like dirt by female sexists because of wearing the wrong shirt. Eh.

Let's drop it between us two. You have made your very personal bias very clear.

 Sigvatr wrote:
You have made your very personal bias very clear.

Go home Sigvatr, your drunk.

Well so I presume as otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm coming into this as a Brit (and am probably going to get accused of being part of the anti-American brigade again) but...

Stepping away from the 'messy' stuff involved in all this specific case, as having a second income source a particularly big deal with jobs in America?

I mean, take modelling, or house cleaning, or, I dunno, commission painting toy soldiers. Surely these sorts of income sources (or 'jobs' if you will) aren't exactly competing with the business of Nintendo. So, in short... Why is it any of their business what you do in the hours that they aren't paying you?

And surely a company twitter account would be something official looking, right? Like @nintendo_news or @nintendo_Compel

Not just having a twitter account that says, "oh yeah, I do stuff for Nintendo" in the description or whatever.

These are my sorts of questions and, to be honest, in my view, it's probably the sorts of things unions should be going up and saying, "hold on a second here."

Sure, work is work. And I could understand companies doing social media research before they hire someone to see if their personality is a correct fit, or whether they're telling porkies on their CV. And I could even, understand a company doing an occasional checkup to make sure that the employee isn't badmouthing them publicly.

But aside from that, it's none of their business.

In my humble opinion.

 Compel wrote:
I'm coming into this as a Brit (and am probably going to get accused of being part of the anti-American brigade again) but...

Stepping away from the 'messy' stuff involved in all this specific case, as having a second income source a particularly big deal with jobs in America?

I mean, take modelling, or house cleaning, or, I dunno, commission painting toy soldiers. Surely these sorts of income sources (or 'jobs' if you will) aren't exactly competing with the business of Nintendo. So, in short... Why is it any of their business what you do in the hours that they aren't paying you?

And surely a company twitter account would be something official looking, right? Like @nintendo_news or @nintendo_Compel

Not just having a twitter account that says, "oh yeah, I do stuff for Nintendo" in the description or whatever.

These are my sorts of questions and, to be honest, in my view, it's probably the sorts of things unions should be going up and saying, "hold on a second here."

Sure, work is work. And I could understand companies doing social media research before they hire someone to see if their personality is a correct fit, or whether they're telling porkies on their CV. And I could even, understand a company doing an occasional checkup to make sure that the employee isn't badmouthing them publicly.

But aside from that, it's none of their business.

In my humble opinion.

No it really isn't a big deal in America to have a second job. Who you might want to ask is somebody from Japan....because Nintendo is Japanese not American. So maybe see what their corporate policy is on having a second job and what is and isn't allowed. Rather than goining on a rant about the work culture of the wrong country.

Personally, I'd call it more of a extended question than a rant.

And was it not described as being an employee of "Nintendo of America?"
And therefore, would presumably, be an American section of the company, located in America and more likely adhering to American culture?

 Compel wrote:
Personally, I'd call it more of a extended question than a rant.

And was it not described as being an employee of "Nintendo of America?"
And therefore, would presumably, be an American section of the company, located in America and more likely adhering to American culture?

The issue seems to be more in the type of work she was involved in rather than her nationality (or that of her employer). Apparently it isn't uncommon for companies involved in creative endeavors to have a no moonlighting clause in their employment terms. Since she was a marketing/PR person for Nintendo such a clause may have been relevant. Companies like Disney and even GW have similar clauses to prevent creative ideas from being leeched and or utilized by competitors.

Also, referring to Ms. Rapp as "it" in your post is just rude.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Also, referring to Ms. Rapp as "it" in your post is just rude.

The it in this case refers to the reported situation and not the individual so its a perfectly legitimate use of the word.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Also, referring to Ms. Rapp as "it" in your post is just rude.

The it in this case refers to the reported situation and not the individual so its a perfectly legitimate use of the word.

Way to crap on a joke, man.

"I am going to force my kids to watch gore"

Wow. She must be a really... interesting person.

And she was PR manager? It is a miracle she was not fired in 2012 then

But what exactly is the issue here? People get fired all the time, so what? To me it seems some people are just way too obsessive.

Also, there is an anti-American brigade here? Can I join?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Way to crap on a joke, man.

Thanks.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
But what exactly is the issue here? People get fired all the time, so what? To me it seems some people are just way too obsessive.

Yea, I missed the start of this too. What's the fact-check say here?

 Breotan wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
But what exactly is the issue here? People get fired all the time, so what? To me it seems some people are just way too obsessive.

Yea, I missed the start of this too. What's the fact-check say here?

People were angry at Alison Rapp for some of her tweets, so now Nintendo firing her is "a consequence of a harassment campaign against Alison Rapp by gamergate".

But it's not, it expressly denied that fact.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But it's not, it expressly denied that fact.

Of course. Won't stop the angry horde of SJW saying that's a lie, though.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But it's not, it expressly denied that fact.

To entrain the position for moment imagine we have two guys, bob and tim. Tim does do not like bob. This one time bob really dissed Tim's favorite movie said the writing as totally bad, the characters were stupid and the cinematography was totally amateur. Tim is angry. Tim's gonna make bob pay. So Time starts yelling a bob, tim parks his car in places inconvenient for bob, Tim starts a rumor that bob has been cheating on his wife and just generally being a dick. However Tim really hates bob and Tim figures he could stand for some public humiliation. Tim has nothing on bob but knows everyone has some skeletons in their closet. Tim starts shadowing bob, reading whatever mail bob throws out and asking everyone he can where they've seen bob.

Suddenly, jackpot! He finds some hardcore gay porno film bob has been doing on the side. Not like just the regular stuff either I mean this is real kinky gak, like they're breakin' skin and stuff (his wife is there for the filming, all on the level in their marriage apparently). Everything in the film is legal mind you, but I mean it's super freaky and so not mainstream and the average reaction would probably "Oh that is just so NOT OK". So Tim buys a copy sends to Bob's boss and waits for the sparks to fly.

Now bob has clearly been breaking company policy what with his hardcore gay blood porno side-job here, and so he's like super fired. The film was also available for public consumption. Maybe not direct line of sight of bob's boss all the time, but he certainly could have found it had he bothered to look.

Is Tim dick?
Is it fair to consider Tim responsible for bob losing his job? If not is it fair to consider him a contributor to the event.

 Chongara wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But it's not, it expressly denied that fact.

To entrain the position for moment imagine we have two guys, bob and tim. Tim does do not like bob. This one time bob really dissed Tim's favorite movie said the writing as totally bad, the characters were stupid and the cinematography was totally amateur. Tim is angry. Tim's gonna make bob pay. So Time starts yelling a bob, tim parks his car in places inconvenient for bob, Tim starts a rumor that bob has been cheating on his wife and just generally being a dick. However Tim really hates bob and Tim figures he could stand for some public humiliation. Tim has nothing on bob but knows everyone has some skeletons in their closet. Tim starts shadowing bob, reading whatever mail bob throws out and asking everyone he can where they've seen bob.

Suddenly, jackpot! He finds some hardcore gay porno film bob has been doing on the side. Not like just the regular stuff either I mean this is real kinky gak, like they're breakin' skin and stuff (his wife is there for the filming, all on the level in their marriage apparently). Everything in the film is legal mind you, but I mean it's super freaky and so not mainstream and the average reaction would probably "Oh that is just so NOT OK". So Tim buys a copy sends to Bob's boss and waits for the sparks to fly.

Now bob has clearly been breaking company policy what with his hardcore gay blood porno side-job here, and so he's like super fired. The film was also available for public consumption generally maybe not direct line of sight of bob's boss all the time, but he certainly could have found it had he bothered to look.

Is Tim dick?
Is it fair to consider Tim responsible for bob losing his job? If not is it fair to consider him a contributor to the event.

'To make your analogy more in-line with what happened, you ought to add that Bob publicly advertised his porno film on Twitter, and that he also talked about how he'd make his kids watch gore and how pedophilia is totally okay.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Not as weird as you might think.


Hardcore gamers, especially fanbois/fangirls of certain development studios and distributors, generally keep up with the who, what, where , how, and whys in the industry.


They're not exactly secrets that you have to be a creeper, and go digging for James Bond-style, to get the scoop. There is a lot of interaction between game companies and gamers.

I'm familiar with it. I have friends who follow all this kind of industry gossip, despite being purely consumer of games. And it's weird, very weird.

Imagine if people who liked pop music spent time on forums not just talking about recording artists, but who EMI just appointed as a PR rep. Actually, they're probably are such ridiculous people out there, but that doesn't make the gamers who do it any less strange.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
The thing is that people who are not well known are often targets of shaming. So you can have a person that only has a handful of followers and some other person comes across what they said and retweets it or whatever. Then a celebrity sees it and retweets it and news of what the person said is spread far and wide. Maybe a blogger gets a hold of it and writes an article about it And then all of sudden that person is overwhelmed with a huge wave of angry responses.

This touches on something a lot of people need to learn about the internet - we should all stop having opinion on people we only know through their internet postings. Whether they work at a company that makes games we like, or whether they've commented on one of those games, even if they're one of the above and have done something pretty gakky, like said something racist or sexist. Just... have less of an opinion, especially when we don't know anything about these people beyond what they've put on the internet.