Community manager for CDPR compares gamergate to the KKK

[Sardukhar]

Buuuuuuuuut we don't live in a perfect world ....an eight-month-long hornet's nest of bitterness and spite.

The "not a perfect world" perspective is used to sign off on a lot. Maybe we should try to make it a better world and instead, behave as if we were in that better world?

I don't think the GG is a hornet's nest beyond a small, vocal minority. I don't see it on Google news, I don't see it on Blues News, doesn't show on any of my friends or family FB posts across multiple age and interest groups...hell, I hardly see it at all. It doesn't seem to affect sales or the development of good and bad games.

I really think it's a tempest in a teapot and that 99.9 % of CDPR customers won't notice or care. Wonder if there is a way to measure that? If Witcher 3 sells like mad after this, would we agree it's pretty much nonsense, an offhand hyperbole comment blown out of proportion by an angry minority?

Forums are their own worlds, I find. Reading the forums after, oh, Watch Dogs came out, you'd expect it to crash hard. Instead, it sold like hot cakes, was critically well-received and is having a sequel.

Which is reality? In terms of business and success-metrics, I'm going to go with not-forums.

 

[227]

The "not a perfect world" perspective is used to sign off on a lot. Maybe we should try to make it a better world and instead, behave as if we were in that better world?

But we could try to behave like we were in that better world while still accepting the realities of the world we currently live in so as to gradually shift it in a better direction rather than trying to pivot people in a way that would require, to put this into perspective, a lot of people apologizing to that basketball owner who lost his team for saying racist things. It's not necessarily a binary decision, nor one that we should allow turn us into insta-apologists for those who say stupid things.

I really think it's a tempest in a teapot and that 99.9 % of CDPR customers won't notice or care. Wonder if there is a way to measure that? If Witcher 3 sells like mad after this, would we agree it's pretty much nonsense, an offhand hyperbole comment blown out of proportion by an angry minority?

Who ever said it wasn't an angry minority or that it would end up having a noticeable effect on sales? A few people have supposedly canceled their preorders, as many did when the expansion pass was announced over on GOG (also a worthwhile thread to read through), but it'd be insane to assume that CDPR would have anything but success and cartoonish sales given the hype surrounding Witcher 3.

Forums are their own worlds, I find. Reading the forums after, oh, Watch Dogs came out, you'd expect it to crash hard. Instead, it sold like hot cakes, was critically well-received and is having a sequel.

It sold well, but also sparked a public opinion of Ubisoft as "that other EA" that was cemented by their Assassin's Creed debacle. They had a really, really tough year in terms of PR despite releasing awesome games like Child of Light, and a company's public image seems (to me, at least) more like a long-term thing than an indicator of how well the next title will sell. Reminds me of that time in Divinity: Dragon Commander where I sacrificed all my wives for short-term gain, only to have the bearded buzzkill guy tell me that he wasn't going to let me marry anyone anymore. Or maybe not like that time.

 

[Sardukhar]

It's not necessarily a binary decision, nor one that we should allow turn us into insta-apologists for those who say stupid things.

Granted, but I'm not suggesting we become apologists - just that we have perspective and realize holding a person's job responsible for something not-too-quick they said outside of their work might not be a reasonable response.

Reminds me of that time in Divinity: Dragon Commander where I sacrificed all my wives for short-term gain, only to have the bearded buzzkill guy tell me that he wasn't going to let me marry anyone anymore. Or maybe not like that time.

Why don't I remember this part? Hmmm. Public opinion, like forum opinion, is also tough to measure. I think EA proves that success is quite possible while a vocal minority hate the hell out of you. Ubisoft's share price, one metric that can be used to measure success, is up in the last five years, doubling. And steadily climbing this year.

I'm not doing this to win some kind of debate, you understand, I'm still curious as to how we measure affect in this mediaplace. Partly I blame the Sims. When I was younger, they were the hottest franchise. For years. Crazy sales. And yet no one I knew or hung out with, virtually or otherwise, played even a game. Or admitted to it. It occurred to me that maybe I was seeing only what I wanted to see on the Internet, an easy and foolish thing to do. So, I'm always wary of that teapot/tempest effect.

Also CoD and Halo selling so well and being so loved. Just not that great, you know? But there you go. Meanwhile, Troika goes out of business. So much for what my Internet clique knew...

 

[JackalJ]

Let's just forgot about GamerGate?
It has been compared to ISIS and nobody seemed to care.
Both sides; GG and the 'fememists' had some dicks in them.

Those dicks were the ones who threatened the fememists and who destroyed the credibility of GG.
At this point does anyone know what GG still stands for? Because apparently people on this forums are still a fan. Does that mean they are fememists? (And in what way?) Or are they for more ethecal journalism or anti feminism?

I mean let's be honest, nobody truly knows what is happening with GG anymore. I'm nog going to watch a 30 video and hope it give me a fair view of this trainwreck. So at this point I suggest: cut our loses and move on, stop giving attention to people who solely fees on it. Because neither side is honest or 'good'. GG did somethings, and what the feminists did was just as bad: calling gamers filthy neckbeards. And making a certain person parts of a top 100 most influencing people, a person who frauded her way through the internet, doesn't get this kind of discussion on the internet?

 

[227]

Granted, but I'm not suggesting we become apologists - just that we have perspective and realize holding a person's job responsible for something not-too-quick they said outside of their work might not be a reasonable response.

Is it any less reasonable to hold someone whose job is to handle the community responsible for saying something bound to rile a portion of them than to, say, question the qualifications of this guy given his position? I'd argue that both reflect their abilities when it comes to their jobs and question whether they should remain in that position.

Why don't I remember this part? Hmmm. Public opinion, like forum opinion, is also tough to measure. I think EA proves that success is quite possible while a vocal minority hate the hell out of you. Ubisoft's share price, one metric that can be used to measure success, is up in the last five years, doubling. And steadily climbing this year.

Which is why despite being sometimes annoying, vocal minorities can play an important role. Was it not a vocal minority of DRM-haters that allowed for GOG.com to become so successful? Or for Ubisoft to drop their always-on DRM? Or for Polygon, Kotaku, and a handful of other sites to update their ethics and disclosure policies? Most people simply don't care either way (not just about gaming stuff, either), so you kind of have to appreciate vocal minorities actually getting stuff done. At least, when they're doing stuff you like.

And you probably didn't sacrifice everyone you could. It was actually really sad, and you only get some lame cards for it. Totally worth doing once, though, for everyone's comments and growing suspicion. I think Catherine says something to the effect of, "What have you done, Commander?"

I mean let's be honest, nobody truly knows what is happening with GG anymore.

Sure we do. I have a 7000-word breakdown on my site that covers up to... October 2014, I think? Basically, some fairly baseless sex drama touched a nerve with some websites, who then went on the attack against anyone who considered themselves a "gamer." What followed was a hilarious Twitter slap fight with some actual, ugly crimes committed by insane people on both sides (and some on no side who just wanted to be monsters on the internet). Conclusion: even today no one (EDIT: that should probably say "most no one," actually) on the anti side knows basic facts about how things played out, which highlights how the games media is agenda-driven. That's basically the whole thing in a nutshell, from its inception to current-day.

 

[Sardukhar]

Is it any less reasonable to hold someone whose job is to handle the community responsible for saying something bound to rile a portion of them

Yes. Absolutely it is. And a portion of the community is always going to be riled - sometimes over important things, others, not so important. If you fire people because they rile a ( to me, small) portion of your audience, you will only end up with employees afraid to move or speak.

Which is why despite being sometimes annoying, vocal minorities can play an important role. Was it not a vocal minority of DRM-haters that allowed for GOG.com to become so successful? Or for Ubisoft to drop their always-on DRM?

I think GoG is successful because they offer great games for a good price. The No-DRM thing is a marketing gimmick of dubious value. Steam is crazy successful and they have plenty of DRM-like behaviour.

As for a vocal minority convincing Ubisoft to drop the always-on thing, how do you know that is what convinced them or that it was a minority? We love to think our voices are louder than they are.

I don't think a vocal minority convinces anyone of anything unless they are reasonable and clear, and the behaviour in question is an issue for said entity. Always-on DRM is not held in favour by really anyone, for example. The GG issue is a lot more nebulous and the screaming just makes people want to stay well away.

I don't think Ubisoft sales were negatively affected by their bad press year, if they in fact had one at all.

It's hard to say what effect vocal minorities have. I think little, actually, unless metric reveal that they are the front of a trending wave. In which case their very existence was an inevitablilty and they aren't groundbreakers, they are early adopters.

I suspect, note I say suspect, that a well-written, on-point article on a subject can go further to change a corporate entities' direction than 2,000 angrily tweeting fans. But how would I know for sure?

 

[227]

Yes. Absolutely it is. And a portion of the community is always going to be riled - sometimes over important things, others, not so important. If you fire people because they rile a ( to me, small) portion of your audience, you will only end up with employees afraid to move or speak.

They don't have to fire anyone, though. Even some of the upset people in this thread have only called for an apology. And it'd be nice if people were afraid to speak stupidly. Maybe that's just me.

I think GoG is successful because they offer great games for a good price. The No-DRM thing is a marketing gimmick of dubious value. Steam is crazy successful and they have plenty of DRM-like behaviour.

So does digital store Gamersgate (who has received a massive amount of harassment for having a similar name to GG; feel free to look it up and question which side is actually harassing here). GOG is number 2 if the sales of games like Defenders Quest and Witcher 2 are any indication of store popularity, and tapping into that niche no doubt plays a big part in that. Otherwise one would imagine that the numerous Steam-key resellers would be more serious contenders.

As for a vocal minority convincing Ubisoft to drop the always-on thing, how do you know that is what convinced them or that it was a minority? We love to think our voices are louder than they are.

Yeah, I was wrong about that one. Their PC sales dropped 90% without a rise in console sales, so... not really a minority so much as "DEAR LORD EVERYONE HATES US." Still makes me feel warm and fuzzy to think about.

I don't think a vocal minority convinces anyone of anything unless they are reasonable and clear, and the behaviour in question is an issue for said entity. Always-on DRM is not held in favour by really anyone, for example. The GG issue is a lot more nebulous and the screaming just makes people want to stay well away.

Arguing against people who have been indoctrinated to believe a number of things that are objectively false (that no corruption was found, for example: google Patricia Hernandez's failures of disclosure that were found without days of the GG tag forming) is frustrating, and it's been nonstop. It's been what? Eight months? More pro-GG people have been doxxed than anti, and yet this GG harassment narrative persists because a bunch of one-sided douchebags control the media. If someone lied through their teeth about you for eight months, you'd probably be inclined to yell a little, too.

EDIT: By the way, is DD still around these forums? He knows what my username means, which makes a bunch of the misogynist claims really, really funny.

 

[epathykills]

Granted, but I'm not suggesting we become apologists - just that we have perspective and realize holding a person's job responsible for something not-too-quick they said outside of their work might not be a reasonable response.




Why don't I remember this part? Hmmm. Public opinion, like forum opinion, is also tough to measure. I think EA proves that success is quite possible while a vocal minority hate the hell out of you. Ubisoft's share price, one metric that can be used to measure success, is up in the last five years, doubling. And steadily climbing this year.

I'm not doing this to win some kind of debate, you understand, I'm still curious as to how we measure affect in this mediaplace. Partly I blame the Sims. When I was younger, they were the hottest franchise. For years. Crazy sales. And yet no one I knew or hung out with, virtually or otherwise, played even a game. Or admitted to it. It occurred to me that maybe I was seeing only what I wanted to see on the Internet, an easy and foolish thing to do. So, I'm always wary of that teapot/tempest effect.

Also CoD and Halo selling so well and being so loved. Just not that great, you know? But there you go. Meanwhile, Troika goes out of business. So much for what my Internet clique knew...

that's fine however as anyone that was in biowares forum will tell you chris is a horrible community manager, he's heavy handed, unfunny and usually causes more issues in any community he's introduced to then he solves.
i personally could care less about his comments about GG he made outside of his work but his actual work history tells me if that's the kind of CM CDPR wants to hire they're probably expecting a lot of hate from the core community and needs someone very ban happy to keep the riot in check.

 

[dragonbird]

EDIT: By the way, is DD still around these forums? He knows what my username means, which makes a bunch of the misogynist claims really, really funny.

Haven't seen him for a long time.

 

[epathykills]

I suspect, note I say suspect, that a well-written, on-point article on a subject can go further to change a corporate entities' direction than 2,000 angrily tweeting fans. But how would I know for sure?

you'd be surprised, 200 angrily tweeting people got several companies to change aspects of their game or apologize for assets found in their game. well written articles have almost no impact.
look at the ME3 ending disaster, the fans asked for it to be changed, the media said it should stay the same, the ending got changed. developers tend to listen to the people actually keeping them in business and that's not the journalists.
as for how much this will effect witcher 3 sales, i'm not going to buy in on launch anymore if that guy doesn't apologize, not sure if i'll buy it at all. that's 1 sale and i doubt many people will follow me, so almost no effect honestly.
this isn't like ME3, this isn't the community criticizing the game, it's the community criticising something outside the game so it'll effect sales very little.
however if the community does come to the forums to complain about the game and chris is going to be chris and behave the way he did in the bioware forums it's going to have a major effect over the sales of future CDPR games.
nobody likes feeling like they bought a bad product and then go bad costumer service when he came to complain, and that kind of irritation travels far.

 

[Sardukhar]

that's fine however as anyone that was in biowares forum will tell you chris is a horrible community manager...and needs someone very ban happy to keep the riot in check.

I've been in the bioware forums - I wouldn't tell you that. Wait. Did you just join to post that little anger-blurb? You -did-! Hm. How adorable. Anyway, Chris hasn't banned hardly anyone. Anyone? Maybe not anyone since he got here.

That's our job! And I -am- ban happy! I love doing it. Makes me feel like a man.

@227, who is DD? I feel I should know that name.

I am used to people lying through their teeth about me and my business and my people. I've been used to it for decades - small community. I'm not encouraged to yell - won't do much good anyway.

Seems to me nowadays the Internet in general needs a thicker skin. People get all ructioned at the drop of a hat.

 

[epathykills]

I've been in the bioware forums - I wouldn't tell you that. Wait. Did you just join to post that little anger-blurb? You -did-! Hm. How adorable. Anyway, Chris hasn't banned hardly anyone. Anyone? Maybe not anyone since he got here.

That's our job! And I -am- ban happy! I love doing it. Makes me feel like a man.

i admit i laughed, i do hope i took it as it was intended (a joke).
anyway yeah, i'm probably gone now, forums are REALLY not my cup of tea, seems sorta obsolete when stuff like reddit and chans are around. just saw a link to this on reddit and thought i'd pitch in.
feel free to ignore me as i'm clearly not your target audience but if you honestly didn't see chris's behaviour in the bioware forums as deplorable we have very different ideas on what constitutes good community management.

 

[227]

Haven't seen him for a long time.

Sad. A lot of older posters seem to have fallen away into the cracks of the internet. Bloth, DD, secondchildren (I don't know if she's still active here, but she never comes to visit us on futureforum). Stupid jerks with their stupid jerk real lives and responsibilities. Pfft.

@227, who is DD? I feel I should know that name.

DragonsDream. 'Course, he could be anyone since the forum merge. Come on, you've been here since 2008, which means you've been stalking us for years without us knowing. You should know these things.

I am used to people lying through their teeth about me and my business and my people. I've been used to it for decades - small community. I'm not encouraged to yell - won't do much good anyway.

Acquiescence... isn't really my style. It doesn't have to do with thin skin so much as, again, that personality quirk about truthfulness I mentioned earlier.

 

[Sardukhar]

i admit i laughed, i do hope i took it as it was intended (a joke).
anyway yeah, i'm probably gone now, forums are REALLY not my cup of tea, seems sorta obsolete when stuff like reddit and chans are around. just saw a link to this on reddit and thought i'd pitch in.
feel free to ignore me as i'm clearly not your target audience but if you honestly didn't see chris's behaviour in the bioware forums as deplorable we have very different ideas on what constitutes good community management.

Hell, more than 100% of what I say is a joke, so good call.

Yes, that's why I'm not a community manager. Everyone would be wearing tights and singing, in falsetto, "Sard, you glorious, glorious bastard, we loooove thee!" if they wanted to post. Anything. Ever.


Mmm.


Tights. So tight.

which means you've been stalking us for years without us knowing. You should know these things.
.

I know, right?! The things I should know and constantly don't are a real challenge. To others. Also people at intersections. Fools!

 

[227]

I know, right?! The things I should know and constantly don't are a real challenge. To others. Also people at intersections. Fools!

Right? It's called a four-way stop, not a four-way stop-and-then-go-one-at-a-time. And stoplights! If people really wanted me to turn left when the arrow turns green, they'd call it a golight. That's just science.

 

[Neothanos]

Sardukhar if you were called everything under the sun for 8 months and continously linked and compared to groups like KKK and Isis and people saying shotting people of your group or opinion should be shot or gassed , how personaly would you take such statements?

 

[Sardukhar]

If yellow -really- meant slow down and prepare to stop, it would be pink or something more red. Yellow always makes me think of lemons. Which are sour. I don't like sour things, so I want to get away. So I do! How is that worth a ticket? Which, IRONICALLY, is pink. Ha ha Motor Vehicle Branch. HA-HA.

And that's how I saved Britain.

Sardukhar if you were called everything under the sun for 8 months and continously linked and compared to groups like KKK and Isis and people saying shotting people of your group or opinion should be shot or gassed , how personaly would you take such statements?

Well, by whom? If I value their opinion, I'd have to assess why they were doing that.

If not, I'd laugh my ass off. For eight months. Every time. Ah, humans. They are dummmmb.

This isn't a rhetorical question in my case. I've -actually- been accused of a serious crime I didn't commit. After I realised -why- they were asking me the whereabouts questions, I did laugh. Come on, it's not like I was going to get convicted! When I -do- commit crimes, I'm waaay more careful!

I've been called lots of names and had my name and business dragged through the mud by disgruntled customers and upset visitors. By name. In print. Helped that these people were silly as hell.

Either it's true and you adjust your shit, or it's not and you laugh at them.

 

[dragonbird]

Sardukhar if you were called everything under the sun for 8 months and continously linked and compared to groups like KKK and Isis and people saying shotting people of your group or opinion should be shot or gassed , how personaly would you take such statements?

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? They don't mean you personally, you'd probably get on great with a lot of them if you met in a different setting. They mean "Them". The great demonised mass that They have created.
Because We know that We as individuals are sane and intelligent.
And We know that when one of Us says "I want to kill Anita", or "I want to kill all men", they're either crazy and don't represent the rest of Us, or they're just joking.
And We know that when one of Them says "I want to kill Anita" or "I want to kill all men" it represents a majority viewpoint, because They are demons.

I can't stop you being offended, I was offended as well by a lot of it, but I'm pretty sure that those statements generally weren't made by someone with a mental picture of Neothanos in their head. A picture of a Dragonbird? Well, maybe. So not going there.

The statement above was made by Dragonbird the Forum Member. What follows is by Dragonbird the Moderator.

We're not restricting comments on what's happened over the last 24 hours. But anyone bringing in Chris's history at BSN needs to be wary. I for one don't like witch-hunts, and I always supported Abigail (and no, it wasn't for the sex).

 

[Neothanos]

How long the statements lasted and they included the implication of physical harm at you or your group and were they done to you in multiple national and international publications for 8 months?

At this time you can guess the value I give to msm journalism and the people doing the allegations. And again they arent going just at you personaly and you avoided any consequences of the accusation, and I think you are well aware what we've been continously accused of. Not everybody has the luxury of laughing it off.

Let me ask you this this if Chris had linked feminist frequence with the KKK and called it a hate group would he still have a job in the next day? Or at least have to redract the statement?

 

[227]

And We know that when one of Us says "I want to kill Anita", or "I want to kill all men", they're either crazy and don't represent the rest of Us, or they're just joking.
And We know that when one of Them says "I want to kill Anita" or "I want to kill all men" it represents a majority viewpoint, because They are demons.

You know what helps counter that "the other" demonizing? Jennifer Hale came out against GG early in a radio interview, but she did it in a respectful way, even if one could argue that she was a bit misinformed about the topic. Awesome, positive person, though, and it's impossible to hate Fall-From-Grace. Having people on the "other side" you genuinely respect makes it a bit easier to avoid demonizing entire swaths of people.

There have been been some individual attacks too, though. It's not all wide-spanning; sometimes it really is directed at a single user with them in mind as the sole target of that attack. Especially on Twitter. And my memory of the early months is a bit fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure someone asked me straight-faced if I didn't just secretly hate women. Or maybe that was directed to someone else. It happened to somebody, though.

EDIT: Wait wait wait, you can do mod comments, too? Can you mod comment on top of another mod's mod comment?