razoftblend
Member
Depends on what gets dug up. According to her, it was not related to video games. Based on this limited information, we can assume it was something significantly enough to get her fired after keeping her long enough.
Alison Rapp Fired By Nintendo Discussion Thread -- Read Ground Rules in OP
- Thread starter charlequin
- Start date
- Status
Depends on what gets dug up. According to her, it was not related to video games. Based on this limited information, we can assume it was something significantly enough to get her fired after keeping her long enough.
Nintendo allows second jobs. Nintendo does not allow second jobs in conflict of interest, and this is what both Nitendo and Allison confirmed as the cause of her termination. What we don't know is what the job was or what the conflict was therein.
No, I'm saying Nintendo wouldn't know about it because of a clear invasion of privacy. At least...not yet. Nintendo saying it was because of the second job is okay I guess, but it still comes back to how they figured it out, which probably contradicts with their second statement that it had nothing to do with the threats from hate groups.
TheBaldEmperor
Member
I doubt we will ever know what the second job was so I don't think that question can be answered accurately. The idiocy from GG seemed to have brought that second job to Ninitendo's attention.
Her paper had nothing to do with this and she wrote that prior to getting her position in PR.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
I think this all comes down to the fact that big gaming businesses want to avoid the "women in games" controversies entirely, for fear of damaging themselves. Even if that means getting rid of staff who want to have that dialogue.
Rather than what they should be doing which is openly talking about the problems and what can be done to fix them.
Rather than what they should be doing which is openly talking about the problems and what can be done to fix them.
That's why I already suggested pushing back hard against Nintendo, or any other company that they try this shit with.
element
Member
That isn't 100% true. By her own account she talked about conflicts with policies at Nintendo and being reprimanded for them. Either it be a verbal warning or perhaps a formal warning. While GG did dig, it is highly unlikely that Nintendo wasn't aware of what she was posting online.
Why do we keep using this phrase "conflict of interest"? That's a specific idea that would include things like her working for another game developer or as a game reviewer or whatever. That's not the stated reason for her firing. Her second job is/was "in conflict with Nintendo's corporate culture".
Good for you but you are just spouting nonsense.
fvng
Member
Her tweet literally says she was terminated. that's a pretty cut and dry comment that's not open to interpretation
what a valuable contribution to this thread
A Link to the Past
Banned
Which I already have. Acknowledging GG's victory is done to demonstrate the gravity of Nintendo's actions.
Seriously, we do not even know if it was even related to a policy violation, people are just guessing on that.
She was not fired for what she was posting online on twitter. She was fired for her 2nd job being a conflict of interest. You are correct that she had been reprimanded before.
Perhaps poor wording? I thought it meant the same thing, effectively.
I blame Nintendo.
Not for firing her. Her behaviour was foolish, her actions were inappropriate.
Not for "buckling" to Gamer Gate. Please. It and GG clearly felt the same way about her work, they were two sides of the same force.
They failed her as guardians. They shouldn't encourage their employees to play the Twitter PR game. It's stupid, it's kind of pointless, it's potentially life-ruining. That's the state of things. Keep these people to the credits. Don't let their egos get them onto there. It's better that way. The system isn't safe, isn't worth it. The experiment failed.
Not for firing her. Her behaviour was foolish, her actions were inappropriate.
Not for "buckling" to Gamer Gate. Please. It and GG clearly felt the same way about her work, they were two sides of the same force.
They failed her as guardians. They shouldn't encourage their employees to play the Twitter PR game. It's stupid, it's kind of pointless, it's potentially life-ruining. That's the state of things. Keep these people to the credits. Don't let their egos get them onto there. It's better that way. The system isn't safe, isn't worth it. The experiment failed.
You come in here spouting bullshit, you don't even know why she got fired. Go read the the OP and try again. Nintendo didn't gave a shit about a paper she wrote in college. Only concern trolls do.
The problem with this boycotts/stance is that in many cases it ends as the "it thing". The "cool thing to do".
If it was about boycotting companies for not taking stances in similar situations. Ubisoft, EA, Bioware would've been through the same years ago when employees even had to quit because of the harassment. Yet things are actually worse.
So people are going to boycott one company out of many that have done and continue doing the same.
And even if the boycotts do work for Nintendo and they issue a huge PR response and start creating movements and everything what about the others?
Jennifer Hepler had to quit Bioware because of the harassment and threats towards her family in 2013. Yet Dragon Age Inquisition and the upcoming Mass Effect are the thing to talk about.
Jade Raymond went through a lot of things while at Ubisoft during Assassin's Creed. Yet most were worried at Ubisoft kiling the franchise.
This IS a serious situation that should be handled accordingly and not by selective boycotts to Nintendo while playing on Sony/Microsoft devices games from EA/Ubisoft/etc. that also "did nothing" for their employees.
If it was about boycotting companies for not taking stances in similar situations. Ubisoft, EA, Bioware would've been through the same years ago when employees even had to quit because of the harassment. Yet things are actually worse.
So people are going to boycott one company out of many that have done and continue doing the same.
And even if the boycotts do work for Nintendo and they issue a huge PR response and start creating movements and everything what about the others?
Jennifer Hepler had to quit Bioware because of the harassment and threats towards her family in 2013. Yet Dragon Age Inquisition and the upcoming Mass Effect are the thing to talk about.
Jade Raymond went through a lot of things while at Ubisoft during Assassin's Creed. Yet most were worried at Ubisoft kiling the franchise.
This IS a serious situation that should be handled accordingly and not by selective boycotts to Nintendo while playing on Sony/Microsoft devices games from EA/Ubisoft/etc. that also "did nothing" for their employees.
SneakersSO
Member
You can already tell from their actions Nintendo does not, on any level, want to get involved in the online culture wars being raged across social media. By her own admission, they approached Allison after a month to stop tweeting about rape culture - this is simply something they want no part of. They would rather never talk about it until something does happen, like today, in which case they decried the harassment she received/receives, than to ever bring it up.
Here's the thing, if Nintendo had come out - what, 4 months ago when this originally started? - do you think that would've stopped GG in the slightest? Do you think this outcome would've been any different, where someone presents NIntendo with her anonymous moonlighting activities & Nintendo decides to terminate her employment as a result? Do you think The Wayne Foundation would've taken a different stance regarding Allison? I just don't see any of that playing out that way.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Pray tell, what exactly causes them to be unable to say thing one against GamerGate? Will they continue to be silent as more and more of their employees are harassed?
No, in a vacuum, Nintendo supporting its employees and vocalizing its contempt for GamerGate would have done nothing. Nintendo is a villain of this situation for the same reason that many other corporations are - they value their image, their disconnection from this shitstorm, more than they do the safety of players, journalists, and employees who are GG's targets.
I guess my point is that acknowledging a win isn't required to demonstrate the gravity of the situation, it's very clearly demonstrable regardless of that.
And the important aspect is that it's being done in equal measure. Not to say you haven't taken steps beyond this, but for most people, they think discussions in places like GAF is enough, which is why GG is so effective, they do more to engage with corporations directly, and there isn't enough pressure applied from the side that opposes their "values".
Nintendo failed to stand up for their employee and in fact basically shit on their employee instead.
She went on vacation with her Husband and when she comes back they demote her and push her out of her position over the Gamergate shit. That is standard corporate Policy when you want someone to quit because you are too chicken shit to take the PR flack for firing them. Being demoted from what one could consider a Project Manager position to just another cog in the wheel is insulting and shows they never had her back.
Gamegate as gamergate always does didn't stop their harassment and digging and continued to harass and attack her employment at Nintendo. The wheel that is gamergate would not stop squeaking and gave them more "dirt" so they could terminate her while looking better
She went on vacation with her Husband and when she comes back they demote her and push her out of her position over the Gamergate shit. That is standard corporate Policy when you want someone to quit because you are too chicken shit to take the PR flack for firing them. Being demoted from what one could consider a Project Manager position to just another cog in the wheel is insulting and shows they never had her back.
Gamegate as gamergate always does didn't stop their harassment and digging and continued to harass and attack her employment at Nintendo. The wheel that is gamergate would not stop squeaking and gave them more "dirt" so they could terminate her while looking better
hey_monkey
Banned
Because the language about professional behavior, etc., or whatever might apply, is part of their CoC policy: https://www.nintendo.com/corp/coc.jsp
eta: lol, I did it my own dang self there, but fixed
fvng
Member
i know why she got fired, it doesn't change the fact that her beliefs were appalling and that I felt she had no place in Nintendo.
razoftblend
Member
True, but according to Nintendo's policy, the second job shouldn't conflict with their cultural image. Even if it was not related to them, it must've been something that went against their public view.
It doesn't matter who fed Nintendo the info/rumors. Ultimately what matters is what Nintendo officially found on her that led to this decision. It just seems people are taking this way out of proportion, but this is normal company behavior between contracts with employees and with other companies.
SneakersSO
Member
What do you mean when you say they 'did nothing'? In all those cases, the employing company has almost always come out a decried the harassment their employee received. But outside decrying it, what does an employer have in their power to stop an internet mob? If publishers had that sort of power, they'd probably use it to quell outcry on some of their more controversial decisions/projects/shortcomings.
element
Member
I understand that and know based off her and Nintendo's statements that it relates to her 2nd job. I'm just saying that this appears to be a long standing issues of misaligned views between employee and employer from the start of her employment. While GG might have provided the information that broke the camels back, it appears that she was being watched for reasons unrelated to GG.
It will be interesting as the Snapchap generation move into having jobs and how this concept of oversharing could have potential and longterm ramifications to ones self, either it be employment, school, personal life.
HawthorneKitty
Sgt. 2nd Class in the Creep Battalion, Waifu Wars
Only thing I could find was In 2014, only 1 top publisher spoke against them when asked to comment, but it was non-specific and under the backs of ESA comments. So no, nobody wants to talk about it.
http://fortune.com/2014/10/25/video-game-publishers-mostly-silent-on-gamergate/
Quote
Member
You don't know anything about her beliefs besides some paper she wrote for school in 2001. Go ahead and link me to some out of context tweets next.
They absolutely fired her because of outside pressure. Without that outside pressure they don't even know.
And perfect employee? Sheesh well if we are all going to be held to that standard I would guess a lot of people on gaf would be without a job tomorrow.
A Link to the Past
Banned
To be honest too, GG does not need such attention as noting their wins. For fuck's sake, GG took Blizzard's condemnation of harassment of a win because they decided that in fact, Blizzard was defending GG from harassment.
Question, did you read the thesis?
razoftblend
Member
She was first removed from public appearence and kept her for a while after drawing too much attention for being controversial. She was then terminated for good after they investigated her.
LudicrousSpeed
Member
You say that as though to imply that Alison admits there was a conflict of interest, which is not a thing she said.
What Alison has said was not "the reason she was fired", but the reason Nintendo gave her. The only value of that statement is "Alison confims that what Nintendo is saying publicly is the reason they gave her privately", which says nothing about the actual reason for why that decision was made.
I am pretty sure Bioware and Ubisoft did back their employees up. I know for certain that Bioware did.
manfestival
Member
This whole thread seems like a completely overblown reaction to a situation that nobody clearly knows anything about. Just is an internal decision to fire her based on whatever their findings are on a conflict of interest with her previous position. Seems like there is far less of a story than what is truly is only because of the unnecessary spotlight that was placed on her previously.
CuckFupertino
Banned
This isn't a court of law it's the court of public opinion. What's at stake are the hearts and minds of people, specifically Nintendo fans and video game enthusiasts.
There's nothing Alison Rapp could have done that would justify firing her given the situation. Nintendo could have chosen to make a stand and realized this is bigger than just Alison Rapp and whatever her second job is. Because it's not about her, it's about the unchecked aggressiveness of Internet mobs.
The choice for Nintendo should have been easy. Do what's right, or do what's in the "best interest" of the brand. It's clear which way they went. What's funny is that the backlash over this is going to be much more severe than if the public got hold of what Rapp's second job was/is.
consoul
Member
Nintendo can say now that they firmly reject harassment, but they haven't had a lot to say about it leading up to this dismissal.
The grounds for the decision to let Rapp go may be all legit, but their failure to publically condemn the campaign against Rapp earlier smacks of a PR department playing it safe instead of taking a stand for common decency.
The grounds for the decision to let Rapp go may be all legit, but their failure to publically condemn the campaign against Rapp earlier smacks of a PR department playing it safe instead of taking a stand for common decency.
Exactly something I tried to bring up. You also have Mattie Brice who's no longer a member of the IGF/GDC and people are still partying at those events completely forgetting how GG harassed her out.
I somewhat agree. When you work for a big company like Nintendo with a big public presence/image, you need to realise that anything you do in real life or say on social media will eventually reflect on your company, and doing or saying things which could generate the wrong Kind of attention or v headlines is not going to do well for you, no matter if the motivation behind the tweets is a good one and something many people will agree with. Nintendo would likely much rather keep out of any such affairs, and I can understand why, no matter what you say, it can be taken and turned into bad media by someone.
When I worked in retail, one of the first things I was told was that when I was wearing the polo shirt, I was a representative of the company and everything I did or said was then viewable as on behalf of said company. I was then warned that if I did something out of hours while still wearing my polo shirt, even if it was far away from work and in my own time, if it could bring the company bad attention, I would lose my job. This could be like fighting, drunken behaviour etc. Not saying tweeting on rape/attracting gg types is anything like a Street brawl, but end of the day, it still draws the wrong kind of attention to your employer. We don't know what Her second job is, and it could go against Nintendo image completely, so end of the day, it could be justified, but we won't know.
If Nintendo has come forward in Rapps defence at the right time they still wouldn't stopped ggers spreading their narrative, but they could have stopped the adoption of it in the general public.
hey_monkey
Banned
I'm sorry, what's an appropriate reaction, then? What's that look like? Who measures it? What's the objective rubric there?
I'm gonna just go on and react with as much disgust as I feel is appropriate, but you do you.
SneakersSO
Member
If there was something Nintendo could do within their power to prevent the reaction or exposure of their employees to internet hate mobs, don't you think they'd utilize it to protect their employees? How is Nintendo in any way responsible for the safety of a journalist over the internet? They are responsible for trying to control player interactions, and Nintendo has easily been one of the most conservative groups in this regard. We're talking about a company that still utilizes friend codes and canned chat messages by default in their products when creating online interactions.
Yes, Nintendo values its image, absolutely - it is the only thing they really have. They don't want to get involved in the politics of the internet. They do not want to be that company that takes stances on anything. They just want to be warm & inviting for everyone, which is an important thing to be when you're main stated audience is the family unit & people of all ages.
We keep talking as if Nintendo or other publishers have some form of power over the mobs that target them or their employees for any number of reasons. They don't. There are publishers who have gotten hugely involved in social media culture & the war that engulfs it, and the political divide that has ruptured from it. Thats not what Nintendo wants to be seen as.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Yeah. If they truly did not condone harassment, then why is it that they only say so when such a stance served to try and prevent further controversy from reaching them? It's all well and good to be anti-harassment in theory, but being anti-harassment in practice is way cooler.
These publishers absolutely have the power and, in fact, the responsibility to be the ones to stop this, because they had a hand in creating it in the first place. And what power, you ask? Well:
1. Sony, Microsoft, Valve, EA, Ubisoft, and Nintendo could do a universal ban of people who identify as GamerGate members from online services.
2. If enough companies take a firm stance on GamerGate, it becomes a lot harder for GGers to play games while also boycotting the companies that oppose them (which many try and do).
3. A company that takes a firm stance against GamerGate is less likely to see its employees targeted, because the companies are less likely to give in to GamerGate's demands and harassment.
fvng
Member
guess we'll have to agree to disagree bro. nothing much else to say here. That's how I feel, deal with it dude
Her thesis is interesting - I've only given it a cursory overlook so far, but her points about how the arguments commonly presented against the possession of animated child pornography "prove too much" are interesting without going too far into slippery slope territory. I think the establishment of a Schelling point would deal with those concerns.
The fundamental flaw in her reasoning is that children must be abused for child pornography to be created, which is most centrally why the possession of it should be illegal in the same way that possessing rhino horn is illegal because the only way to obtain it is by killing an endangered rhino. She does a poor job of addressing this in my opinion, redirecting to how animated child pornography does not involve real children yet still ends up drawing too broad of a conclusion that is not supported by her reasoning by leaving its wording too broad. If she amended her argument to be exclusively about animated child pornography she would have more to stand on, but she pretty much acknowledges that her argument takes a major hit, briefly retreats into redirection, and then returns to her unamended position - classic motte and bailey fallacy.
I also disagree with her points about cultural imperialism - moral relativism is not actually a justification for anything, just an appeal to consider things from another's perspective. It doesn't mean that you can't ever condemn anything because those who are committing the undesirable action think they are right. Now this is a line of reasoning that truly proves too much. Consider that there are "cultures" that find the ongoing harassment of women to be acceptable: invoking moral relativism does not justify their harassment.
The fundamental flaw in her reasoning is that children must be abused for child pornography to be created, which is most centrally why the possession of it should be illegal in the same way that possessing rhino horn is illegal because the only way to obtain it is by killing an endangered rhino. She does a poor job of addressing this in my opinion, redirecting to how animated child pornography does not involve real children yet still ends up drawing too broad of a conclusion that is not supported by her reasoning by leaving its wording too broad. If she amended her argument to be exclusively about animated child pornography she would have more to stand on, but she pretty much acknowledges that her argument takes a major hit, briefly retreats into redirection, and then returns to her unamended position - classic motte and bailey fallacy.
I also disagree with her points about cultural imperialism - moral relativism is not actually a justification for anything, just an appeal to consider things from another's perspective. It doesn't mean that you can't ever condemn anything because those who are committing the undesirable action think they are right. Now this is a line of reasoning that truly proves too much. Consider that there are "cultures" that find the ongoing harassment of women to be acceptable: invoking moral relativism does not justify their harassment.
Better, but we're not there yet. I don't care for your or Tron's generalizations of what GG is because they imply that the backlash is for being a woman in the gaming industry. That statement falls more in line with the definition of racism: That is, hatred or intolerance towards another person because of a certain characteristic (race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.). While it's true that some portion of GG supporters are misogynistic, and it's terrible what everyone involved is doing, GG is primarily a backlash against ideals, not people. Let's not get it twisted.
I'm probably being too picky about this TBH
Before anyone goes there, I don't condone anything that GG has done up to this point. It's terrible what happened to Rapp, and I hope she finds somewhere to work soon. Don't put words in my mouth when replying please.
CuckFupertino
Banned
That's like watching someone pull the trigger of a gun pointed at another human, watching the victim get shot, and then arguing you can't blame the shooter because you didn't see the bullet.
While I think we can all agree that GamerGate is awful and that the circumstances surrounding Alison's employment termination are questionable at best on Nintendo's part, I feel there's a bigger issue that needs to be addressed: The silence, silence in regards to a very problematic group of very vocal individuals, that has only grown as a problem in spite of its audience being more diverse than ever before and a push for greater inclusiveness in the past few years. Much like the currently few developers (Midboss, Hello Games) who have spoken up about Alison's termination and the problems with how Nintendo came to that decision i.e. this anonymous user who notified NoA of this second job, recall that while there were some gaming companies that called Gamergate what it was and continues to be, many of the largest ones within the industry, including Nintendo, remained quiet while the toxic group began its toxic targeting, the only notable exception to this being Peter Moore for Electronic Arts. Even Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime wasn't "brave" enough to mention Gamergate by name when speaking about "a small group of people which has been doing really awful things and making some people's lives miserable" at Blizzcon 2014, only inferring to the group with his mention of actions attributable to their behavior.
This current environment, unfortunate as it may be, is neither unique nor will be the last time it occurs as long as this silence continues in the gaming industry. This is not to say that the contributions made by those who spoke up about this or spoke up about Gamergate are not notable for breaking up the hush over the harassment caused in Gamergate's wake or even those who spoke up about other cases of harassment of any sort in gaming prior to Gamergate, rather to point out how sad a state the game's industry is in where a company refuses to stand by one of their employees for being the latest target of a phenomenally distasteful and misguided misinformation campaign, instead rewarding this hateful mob with their torches and flame-fueled campaign's goal by firing her. And no, it doesn't matter if Nintendo says it's due to her second job: They got what they wanted either way.
I can't say i'm too surprised to hear of this news from Nintendo, not after they hired noted homophobe Adam Baldwin and coiner of the hate mob's infamous name that originally linked to a libelous and downright disgusting video for Code Name S.T.E.A.M., a game which I own but refuse to touch and would have returned had I not opened it mere moments before being notified of their decision to have him voice the main character and, presumably, hide his inclusion due to any criticism they might receive over it given everything Baldwin had said and done at the time of the game's release. It doesn't make the reality of the situation any less infuriating, but I digress.
Nintendo deciding this was the right course of action is not going to solve the problem that the game's industry is: It's just going to make things worse. It doesn't matter whether it's Gamergate today or whatever the next nightmare to come from chan culture calls itself, but it's not opening up a discussion for how to make gaming a better place, both the people who enjoy it as a hobby and the ones who work within the industry. A hate mob like this thrives on the continuing cowardice of video game companies and we as a community need to step up and discuss this so that it doesn't happen again. This is not acceptable.
This current environment, unfortunate as it may be, is neither unique nor will be the last time it occurs as long as this silence continues in the gaming industry. This is not to say that the contributions made by those who spoke up about this or spoke up about Gamergate are not notable for breaking up the hush over the harassment caused in Gamergate's wake or even those who spoke up about other cases of harassment of any sort in gaming prior to Gamergate, rather to point out how sad a state the game's industry is in where a company refuses to stand by one of their employees for being the latest target of a phenomenally distasteful and misguided misinformation campaign, instead rewarding this hateful mob with their torches and flame-fueled campaign's goal by firing her. And no, it doesn't matter if Nintendo says it's due to her second job: They got what they wanted either way.
I can't say i'm too surprised to hear of this news from Nintendo, not after they hired noted homophobe Adam Baldwin and coiner of the hate mob's infamous name that originally linked to a libelous and downright disgusting video for Code Name S.T.E.A.M., a game which I own but refuse to touch and would have returned had I not opened it mere moments before being notified of their decision to have him voice the main character and, presumably, hide his inclusion due to any criticism they might receive over it given everything Baldwin had said and done at the time of the game's release. It doesn't make the reality of the situation any less infuriating, but I digress.
Nintendo deciding this was the right course of action is not going to solve the problem that the game's industry is: It's just going to make things worse. It doesn't matter whether it's Gamergate today or whatever the next nightmare to come from chan culture calls itself, but it's not opening up a discussion for how to make gaming a better place, both the people who enjoy it as a hobby and the ones who work within the industry. A hate mob like this thrives on the continuing cowardice of video game companies and we as a community need to step up and discuss this so that it doesn't happen again. This is not acceptable.
- Status