lifa-cobex
Member
lol I think you missed the target there. Read it again and aim for the one the family friendly company might have a problem with?
Alison Rapp Fired By Nintendo Discussion Thread -- Read Ground Rules in OP
- Thread starter charlequin
- Start date
- Status
lol I think you missed the target there. Read it again and aim for the one the family friendly company might have a problem with?
I think some people vastly overestimate how much people give a shit about corporate policy. The legality of her firing isn't in question.
But corporate policy is frequently shitty. It's legal for employers to do a whole lot of awful shit. Like, many companies benefit from child labor in third world countries and through a series of legal loopholes, they aren't doing anything legally wrong. But they're still fucking twats for doing so. I'm not going to say "well, they were within their rights" about that like it actually means anything to anyone.
But corporate policy is frequently shitty. It's legal for employers to do a whole lot of awful shit. Like, many companies benefit from child labor in third world countries and through a series of legal loopholes, they aren't doing anything legally wrong. But they're still fucking twats for doing so. I'm not going to say "well, they were within their rights" about that like it actually means anything to anyone.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Why should a family-friendly company care that someone doesn't subscribe to the demonization of prostitution? Has she commented, for instance, on the idea that kids should go out and be prostitutes when they grow up? It sounds more like someone sympathizing with people who are in a bad situation.
Bots are better than you
Banned
Hm, sad to see her losing her job. And yes, it would have been morally right if Nintendo didn't cave in.
But let's try to think a little bit further than "fuck Nintendo".
Imo, GamerGate sadly "won" the very moment they got this Foundation person on the situation. I could believe Nintendo ignoring any GG accusations if not for this.
No solution to this mess would have been a "good" one, neither for Ms. Rapp or Nintendo ...
If she kept her job, there would have been the danger of a massive controversy against Nintendo as a whole, as i can see this Foundation person using the public resources of the foundation to stir up a disgusting child-pornography campaign against the company and Ms. Rapp.
Let's be honest, many things like harassment, inequality, etc. are bad, but child-pornography is downright a public death sentence for any company, for one that has a child- and family-friendly image as Nintendo even more so.
A simple headline "Nintendo defending potential child-pornography apologist", despite the claims against her not being true at all, and you're done.
Sure, this would endanger many jobs, and makes the working enviroment worse, for Ms. Rapp and many of her colleagues.
And now, with the termination of her job, they brought the anger of many fans on themselves instead and gave a disgusting group a substantial win.
Honestly, i don't want to be in the HR person's skin right now, as this situation is just fucked up in each regard.
Nintendo, but also Sony, Microsoft and every company in the business, should learn from this, and try to battle GG on the core, because there is only going to be progress if everyone does something.
And finally, this might be a "cold" thing to post, but i do not believe that Nintendo, or any other company, should defend employees on social media at a personal level. They could have given her some legal advice or help via some kind of specialized lawyers, but that's it.
But let's try to think a little bit further than "fuck Nintendo".
Imo, GamerGate sadly "won" the very moment they got this Foundation person on the situation. I could believe Nintendo ignoring any GG accusations if not for this.
No solution to this mess would have been a "good" one, neither for Ms. Rapp or Nintendo ...
If she kept her job, there would have been the danger of a massive controversy against Nintendo as a whole, as i can see this Foundation person using the public resources of the foundation to stir up a disgusting child-pornography campaign against the company and Ms. Rapp.
Let's be honest, many things like harassment, inequality, etc. are bad, but child-pornography is downright a public death sentence for any company, for one that has a child- and family-friendly image as Nintendo even more so.
A simple headline "Nintendo defending potential child-pornography apologist", despite the claims against her not being true at all, and you're done.
Sure, this would endanger many jobs, and makes the working enviroment worse, for Ms. Rapp and many of her colleagues.
And now, with the termination of her job, they brought the anger of many fans on themselves instead and gave a disgusting group a substantial win.
Honestly, i don't want to be in the HR person's skin right now, as this situation is just fucked up in each regard.
Nintendo, but also Sony, Microsoft and every company in the business, should learn from this, and try to battle GG on the core, because there is only going to be progress if everyone does something.
And finally, this might be a "cold" thing to post, but i do not believe that Nintendo, or any other company, should defend employees on social media at a personal level. They could have given her some legal advice or help via some kind of specialized lawyers, but that's it.
Aside from job contract issues I just want to say that Rapp has been a voice of reason and rational debate from the start. Even in the face of the most prolonged, constant and violent verbal harassment and invasion of privacy she's never been anything but to-the-point in her arguments about industry issues, gender, representation, etc, never let emotions steer her arguments, always looked at things from many sides, was never what even GGers could claim to be 'fundamental' in her views. The treatment of her has been so shocking, so ugly to watch, every single fucking day, that she's a hero for standing tall amidst it.
There are certain topics a company like Nintendo doesn't want to be associated with, so I can see why they let her go, irregardless if she was in the right or not, it's about the public perception which can be easily misconstrued. It sucks, but that's just the blunt reality of the situation, and this goes for any company, especially one that targets kids.
KurtSloane
Banned
I think the issue, maybe for Nintendo is the fact that Twitter is a public platform, Alison was a public representative and will every person, young people included need to read her thesis so as to discern her aversion to the arrest of the paedophile in question?
While GG may or may not have contributed to the momentum behind her losing her job, her views and opinions, which are her entitlement can from a simple glance be a potential source of concern for some young Nintendo fans and more likely their parents.
PR is supposed to be on message and without the need for a reading a thesis or prior knowledge to understand its intent. Although her private tweets, they are in the public domain, any area within which she was paid to represent Nintendo.
element
Member
While nothing you said is wrong. From a global company perspective, these are taboo topics due to geo-political and moral views.
If Pepsi or Ford or Airbus came out with a statement on the topics you mention, they would not go over well, especially considering some of these, including Nintendo, are publicly traded companies.
Also most companies, especially for public facing people, do have morality clauses in their contacts or employment agreements. Anything that could be viewed damaging to the company could be used to terminate employment.
lifa-cobex
Member
No, the men liking children bit.
Are you doing this deliberately or somthing?
No problem. Just a reminder that your dismissal doesn't make you right, or make me wrong, or vice versa, especially if you're only going to say that your statement is "correct" and not back it up. If a good argument is presented, it's fine to change one's mind about a topic.
Also, please don't call me suspicious. I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea about the purpose of my arguments.
Bots are better than you
Banned
Sorry? Did i offend anyone or anything with this? Honest question.
As far as I see it, Nintendo has egg on their face over this. I honestly think very low of them right now.
They reacted to GG's claims and ended up doing just what they wanted. Her "second job" was anon... I bet it was another thing GG dug up to put the final nail on the coffin.
They reacted to GG's claims and ended up doing just what they wanted. Her "second job" was anon... I bet it was another thing GG dug up to put the final nail on the coffin.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I misread. Turns out that you didn't want me to reply to things that you said.
Yes, I can certainly see why a company would take misgivings with that.
I think that they agree with you that people are using this to be somewhat anti-Nintendo (which I entirely mostly do not agree with!).
I think its more like people, are naive to what corporate policies are and how they dictate our employment.
Its horrible yes, but what more can be said and done otherwise? It might not mean anything, but its exactly what happened. People need to understand the underworkings and reasonings no matter how horrific, as that's plain reality, and you can't ignore that.
Relationship data in many social media platforms are based on graph theory. To make associations that tag people as violators would probably be too easy to do and violate many personal rights in other areas.
For instance Germany goes to war with Facebook often for how and how often it uses data or doesn't delete hate speech in a timely manor. It is illegal to store personal information of some types at all according to their law.
So in fact, the very idea of flagging social media groups, movements and individuals would be a monument us effort for the sole purpose of blocking someone from call of duty or WoW. Which is why it isn't being done and any efforts to prove otherwise are marketing stunts or just idea tapping for self policing that eventually must be vetted by legal.
There should be more effort to help local law enforcement and education centers rehab constant offenders who have habitually created hate speech in an open forum. A notice from social media could be sent out to the violator and eventually to state or local offices to look into it humanely (sociopaths derserve disgression too until a legal limit has been reached.)
A Link to the Past
Banned
Huh? I never suggested using Twitter or whatever to determine bans.
lifa-cobex
Member
I could understand why ppl would be up n arms if Nintendo canned her for the photos. It was those tweets around consensual age that immediately made me think that was the reason though.
Anyway, back to my original question.....
Someone wanna fill me in on why GamerGate are the monsters to point the finger at?
The huge campaign they had to get her fired recently? They've been calling, emailing, and generally bombarding Nintendo about her for a month or so now because they think she's the reason you can't have the 13 year old in a bikini in Xenoblade X.
element
Member
This is actually an interesting question that will potentially become a larger issue very quickly. I don't think it is cold at all, unless the employee job requires them to be post publicly (example Major Nelson). It will increasingly become an issue as the Snapchat generation who typically have no filter on what is too much information to be shared at a public level. One recent example the issue with 19 year old D'Angelo Russell of the LA Lakers posting a Snapchat video of a team mate talking about cheating on his fiancee. But any given day teens are sharing content about their private lives that five years ago would set off alarms for any sane person.
lifa-cobex
Member
Has it been confirmed as that's the reason?
It seems like the point when an employer should come to an employee's defense, is when an employee is the target of harassment, due to corporate decisions.
Many things seemed to be happening in parallel in this case, but if an employee is being harassed because of corporate decisions, it does seem like the corporation has a responsibility to respond, especially if said employee seeks help.
In this case, a narrative seems to have been generated over the last several months that Ms. Rapp was responsible for changes/censoring of Xenoblade Chronicles and Fire Emblem Fates. These changes seem to have some complexity to them, and assuming a marketing specialist was doing them alone seem ridiculous, but that is just my view.
Now as for what should have been done, that is something I can't answer. I don't have a solution, but that does not mean a problem can't be recognized.
No, but you asked why people think that. I'm not saying it's 100 percent correct.
lifa-cobex
Member
Literally all I was asking
edit: Other forums aren't really saying much about GG involvement. I was just curious as to why GG was being mentioned over here a fair bit.
This is easily the most sensible post in either of the threads on this subject.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
GG were the ones that dug up the dirt on her cuz she was a supporter of the changes made to FE: Fates. For GG, it's not about taking down someone cuz they have problematic views towards pedophilia. In truth they could give two fucks about that. It's that she is gone from Nintendo period all cuz of her opinion on the changes to a game.
Also if a man would have been in her position GG would have ignored him instead of digging deeper into his personal life.
Death threats, Bomb threats, Workplace Harassment, Personal life harassment, Social Media Harassment. The list goes on and on regarding gamergate behavior.
Lets not forget John Smedley in this where people went to his parent's gravesite and vandalized their tombstones etc. all over video games. Made a call to the airlines that a plane he was on had a bomb etc.
cartoon_soldier
Member
So, Nintendo bowed down to GG information.
GJ Nintendo.
GJ Nintendo.
Yes, this is sarcasm
You don't see why Nintendo doesn't want a face of the company waxing poetic about child sexuality, posting softcore pictures of herself in lingerie, putting up her Amazon wishlist and discussing her views on rape culture all while identifying herself as a Nintendo Employee, hosting Nintendo public events, and doing sexy cosplay as Nintendo characters?
I actually think Nintendo was pretty accommodating by trying to shift her into a role where she's not public-facing. I don't think there's anything immoral or "wrong" about how she conducts herself online, but I can totally understand why Nintendo thinks that is not the public image they want.
If I did the same thing I'd probably lose MY job. PR is not a job where you should be out talking about your non-mainstream views and publically identifying yourself with your company.
Edit: For the record, Gamergate is terrible, but they are only partially at fault here from what I can tell, especially if all of the issues started before the gamergate harassment.
So actual grounds for termination should be ignored, depending on who uncovered them?
Not for this case specifically, just in general.
EDIT: Sarcasm is not really obvious, sometimes
rocketskates
Member
Wait what does tattoos and piercings have to do in any of this??
Amen.
If I was in a public-facing role where my name is instantly recognised and linked to the company that I represent, I'd think twice about what I Tweeted.
If a footballer Tweeted anything on such subjects, he'd likely be hung out to dry.
For the record, I'd also feel like adding any piercings and/or tattoos would absolutely jeopardise my role too, but maybe that's just me.
SHe mentioned in her tweets or whatever, that the "weirdness" started a long time back, and one of these "weird" things was being made to worry that more tattoos and piercings could impact her role as a public spokesperson.
It's reasonable from Nintendo imo.
Ridiculous that talking about rape culture existing and gender issues existing is what you'd label "non-mainstream" views. She's never been anything but level-headed in her discussion of those topics.
What she wears in her spare time should never be cause for contract termination.
As for her thesis on laws regarding cartoon depictions, it was an academic discussion, simple as that. There's nothing particularly notable about it.
She Tweets that it was unreasonable for Nintendo to make her feel like she couldn't have any more tattoos or piercings. Read the OP.
LudicrousSpeed
Member
When exactly do you think this magical time before this harassment existed? I'm genuinely curious what you think this timeline is.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Because GG is actually hardcore pro-pedophilia and it's very apparent that Nintendo was influenced to some extent by the harassment Rapp had been receiving (but that Nintendo hadn't been working to curb at all).
That too.
It sucks but some situations can't be handled any other way.
Gamergate harassment and bullshit aside...
The least thing most companies want is the actions of an employee been diverted towards them and seen as actions no longer by the individual but by the company.
Again, Gamergate stuff aside...
If you look around Google and Alison Rapp is mostly everything about "Alison the Nintendo employee" and not "Alison the individual".
Same thing has even happened in here. Didn't an user in here lost his job at Gamestop after a post he made? Hasn't mods has been demodded for situations that went beyond this forum, but diverted back to it?
There are things that in the end are the culmination of a long line of events that will sadly end in the termination of a person. Which will be seen as coincidence by many.
And even adding Gamergate into the mix, some say that Nintendo is to blame for not doing more. So assuming that they actually and openly did years ago and then the "famous second job" was brought to their attention anyway? It would've resulted in the same outcome.
Granted we could work theories around how if Nintendo theated her better she wouldn't need a second job...but that will follow into creating some alternate timelines that could make DC Comics jealous of.
charlequin
Banned
Have it your way.
Dragon Puncher
Member
I'm real sad GG "won" this day, especially since this will just fire them up to go after other females in the industry even more vigorously.
I will say though, looking into this, it's understandable that she was fired in the end, as she doesn't come of as a great spokesperson for an extremely family focused company like Nintendo.
I will say though, looking into this, it's understandable that she was fired in the end, as she doesn't come of as a great spokesperson for an extremely family focused company like Nintendo.
QuixoticNeutral
Member
One of the reasons I think it would be irresponsible to speculate on the nature of the second job that got her sacked is that I have a feeling—backed by zero evidence; just a hunch—that if we knew what it was, this decision would look pretty cut and dried. Both Alison and Nintendo seem to wish to keep it quiet, and we should respect that. This is someone who has spoken in the past about vulnerability to depression and other mental issues, as is commonplace among the social justice set, and I just don't think that perpetuating this media frenzy to satiate our own sense of certitude and justice is really in her or anyone's best interests.
On the matter of professionalism and marks like tattoos, something that we should keep in mind here is that Alison Rapp comes from countercultural activist circles where white-collar norms of presentability are seen as a hindrance to class mobility. She's very outspoken in favour of removing stigmas against sex workers, for instance, in concordance with a common (and not unreasonable) line of reasoning from the progressive left that if backgrounds in sex work or stereotypical class markers like piercings/tattoos hinder your employment prospects, that disproportionately keeps people from working-class backgrounds out of upward mobility in the job market. We can argue about that all day, but I don't think I'm misrepresenting the standard argument in her style of politics. To survive in an environment like Nintendo's, for her, was a point of pride.
In her last set of Twitter posts, she draws attention to how her public presence was initially met with resistance from management. But the key to this is that she prevailed. She didn't budge when management asked her to stop talking about rape. She didn't budge when management said they didn't want her to stream. And the fact that she continued to be herself on social media, and that management gave her the latitude to do so, is why she cultivated the profile she did. She was very open about wishing to use her place in the industry to push it towards progressive-left ideals, and that's what endeared her to her admirers and marked her as a target for her enemies.
Management didn't just find out about Alison Rapp's Twitter feed from an onslaught of harassers last week. Trolls have been after her for years, as she knows well from cataloguing their attacks herself. Ignoramuses blamed her for localization choices in which she had no involvement at all because she was literally the only person they could name who fit the bill of "known social justice activist who works for Nintendo and professes an intention to use her job for progressive purposes", fulfilling every lurid fantasy of what it was they were campaigning against. Filing frivolous complaints against her was nothing new and nothing recent. NoA might have shuffled her around or put a ceiling on her prospects of advancement, which is not nice, but the crucial thing is that they—and her—had weathered this sort of thing before. When they first hired her they clearly perceived her as a risk, but reached a working compromise where she didn't have to back down on her activist principles.
*
What is new, if we are to believe that the latest wave of harassers dug up the smoking gun, is that they finally found something that stuck.
Let me put it this way. (This is an imperfect analogy, but bear with me.) Suppose the Westboro Baptist Church, a known hate group that everyone knows not to take seriously because their entire reputation is built on picketing funerals with "God Hates Fags", wants to get an employee of yours removed. They stir up negative press, they complain, they bully your support lines, they waste everyone's time. Nobody takes them seriously; nobody in an official capacity even wants to dignify them by name. One day they, or somebody aligned with their beliefs, dig up evidence that your employee is up to something that, according to your corporate standards, is really not okay; not just because it would make for bad PR (like that insipid CP red herring), but because it's actually, concretely unbecoming of someone in your employ.
Do you: (a) take no action because of the atrocious optics of kowtowing to a widely reviled hate group, or (b) treat the evidence independently as a disciplinary/contractual matter?
Alison could very well have crossed a line into what is, by corporate policy, an unambiguously terminable offence—neither you nor I are in a position to know, though both her statements and Nintendo's seem to point to this as the case. And while she and her supporters may resent a corporate culture where whatever she did is terminable, and while all of us may resent the kind of unabated mob hysteria that led to someone informing on her (especially if its adherents are now emboldened to claim another scalp), we should allow for the possibility that the decision was necessary even if the optics were predictably godawful—and you can bet the inevitable backlash would have figured into the cost/benefit balance somehow.
I, for one, appreciate Nintendo's explicit statement against harassment, even if PR will be PR and even if it comes so late. It looks quite bad that they didn't support their employee and stand against harassment promptly. It would have looked even worse if they publicly defended her while a disciplinary process was ongoing, then sacked her anyway the next week.
Fairly put. I'm displeased with the chilling effect that Outraged Internet Detectives of any gang, faction, or political stripe have created to smother individual expression outside of one's employment, and one of the problems with this industry is that its customer base is a demographic that is disproportionately plugged in to the uses and abuses of social media. Most of the combatants in factional online disputes are not very principled about opposing thug tactics, only interested in sniping at their opponents. Frankly, I would find it just as dismaying if people were routinely targeted for expressing opposition to identity-progressive axioms of collective social harms and thrown out of their jobs for perceived allegiance to GG—and I don't doubt there are people who try to make this happen, but with much less traction, organization, and success because the relevant targets are more securely placed and harder to dislodge than the depression-prone twenty-something indie types trying to get their foot in the door to pay off their student loans, which is the core of the progressive demographic that GG types like to move against.
Meanwhile, there is probably a worthwhile discussion to be had on whether it is right and just for a private citizen's highly visible activism (particularly of the sort where outspoken visibility in itself is held to be a virtue) to be treated as a risk factor in a professional context on the same order as, well, tattoos. I'm uncomfortable with the chilling factor, but it must be said that this form of activism necessarily involves drawing attention to oneself as a target, for the express purpose of protesting social norms of sitting down and shutting up. How much of an encumbrance is it if the norm that big, risk-averse corporate outfits ultimately settle on, for their own protection, is to firmly put the boot down on their employees' online presence—the way that NoA specifically didn't with Alison Rapp?
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
So let me start out by saying that anybody citing her college thesis and/or her tweets as reasons that lead to her termination are just flat out victim blaming. Agree or disagree whatever she says have nothing to do with anything.
Second, let me say that I fully believe Nintendo in that she was moonlighting a job they disagreed with and didn't think she was fully fit to represent Nintendo as a spokesperson. However I also fully believe Rapp in that the actions caused by Gamergate are what put her under a microscope. It's more than just a coincidence that not too long after an indecent involving her and Gamergate that she was ultimately terminated. Weather it actually is or not, the people rallying under GG banner are going to claim this as a victory in their ongoing "culture war" narrative. She is a woman and people were coerced into believing she was responsible for some crusade against an askewed definition of freedom of speech because she's not only a woman but an outspoken feminist.
This is the kind of danger reactionary hate mobs bring in the era of social media. Get a couple of people and amplify anonymously through twitter will attract attention eventually and it's happened several times before. People can and will feel threatened not only for their jobs but their lives as well. This is how terrorists operate. However the industry has done nothing to condemn what is essentially a vocal minority of either children or no-lives because it's just that, their vocal. It's this kind of lack of forethought that's eventually led to Gamergate still seeping through the cracks and costing somebody their job.
Nintendo should be shamed miserably for letting this happen. At the end of the day weather they will admit it or not, they gave into what is essentially a terrorist hate group. As a longtime fan of the company I'm disappointed in them. As a consumer, it makes me not want to give them money ever again. What they have done should be treated as a major black mark against them. Not to mention it sends a toxic precedent wherein every woman in the industry working for large companies are in danger of facing the same circumstances Rapp has because kids and no-lives skewered the facts and amplified them through twitter. We, not as gamers, but as decent people need to do the right thing and shut down anybody who harasses, doxxes, or victim blames anyone who are at the end of the day, don't deserve any of those things.
Second, let me say that I fully believe Nintendo in that she was moonlighting a job they disagreed with and didn't think she was fully fit to represent Nintendo as a spokesperson. However I also fully believe Rapp in that the actions caused by Gamergate are what put her under a microscope. It's more than just a coincidence that not too long after an indecent involving her and Gamergate that she was ultimately terminated. Weather it actually is or not, the people rallying under GG banner are going to claim this as a victory in their ongoing "culture war" narrative. She is a woman and people were coerced into believing she was responsible for some crusade against an askewed definition of freedom of speech because she's not only a woman but an outspoken feminist.
This is the kind of danger reactionary hate mobs bring in the era of social media. Get a couple of people and amplify anonymously through twitter will attract attention eventually and it's happened several times before. People can and will feel threatened not only for their jobs but their lives as well. This is how terrorists operate. However the industry has done nothing to condemn what is essentially a vocal minority of either children or no-lives because it's just that, their vocal. It's this kind of lack of forethought that's eventually led to Gamergate still seeping through the cracks and costing somebody their job.
Nintendo should be shamed miserably for letting this happen. At the end of the day weather they will admit it or not, they gave into what is essentially a terrorist hate group. As a longtime fan of the company I'm disappointed in them. As a consumer, it makes me not want to give them money ever again. What they have done should be treated as a major black mark against them. Not to mention it sends a toxic precedent wherein every woman in the industry working for large companies are in danger of facing the same circumstances Rapp has because kids and no-lives skewered the facts and amplified them through twitter. We, not as gamers, but as decent people need to do the right thing and shut down anybody who harasses, doxxes, or victim blames anyone who are at the end of the day, don't deserve any of those things.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I don't think any other company has had it come to this before. Like I said, and correct me if I'm wrong, the only company I can recall buckling on the matter was Intel, and they eventually admitted their mistakes and came back hard with a $300 million grant to improve the industry for women. Here, Nintendo gave them exactly what they wanted, even if they felt like it had to be done, and didn't even offer a token condemnation (I don't regard a vague stand against harassment as being even token).
I'm working my way through this thread now, but this is has been picked up by a tabloid here in the UK this morning:
Nintendo FIRES feminist Alison Rapp following furious paedophile porn censorship storm.
It's extremely reductive, as you can imagine, and heavily cites her thesis as the reason (even though they admit she isn't ashamed of it and posts it on her Linkedin etc)
Sorry if this has been posted.
Nintendo FIRES feminist Alison Rapp following furious paedophile porn censorship storm.
It's extremely reductive, as you can imagine, and heavily cites her thesis as the reason (even though they admit she isn't ashamed of it and posts it on her Linkedin etc)
Sorry if this has been posted.
boredandlazy
Member
Well this has hit mainstream media in Australia.:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/h...n/news-story/af3a36b7386721666cfbadd29adf490f
Doesn't mention the moonlighting scenario though.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/h...n/news-story/af3a36b7386721666cfbadd29adf490f
Doesn't mention the moonlighting scenario though.
CaviarMeths
Member
A little OT, but I'm honestly surprised that the subject matter of Alison's thesis - that western pressure to get Japan to ban loli stuff is not addressing the actual problem of child pornography - is something that GG would take issue with. Not that I've spent any length of time trying to understand their "philosophy" or anything, but "quit trying to ban loli" seems like a stance they could get behind...
(forgive me if I'm misunderstanding her thesis, I only quickly browsed over it)
Of course that goes out the window when GG remembers that Alison has a vagina and must be stopped.
But either way, the thesis is completely irrelevant, as she wrote it years before she was even hired by Nintendo.
(forgive me if I'm misunderstanding her thesis, I only quickly browsed over it)
Of course that goes out the window when GG remembers that Alison has a vagina and must be stopped.
But either way, the thesis is completely irrelevant, as she wrote it years before she was even hired by Nintendo.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
damn thats the title.. wtf
A Link to the Past
Banned
"Alison 'Ali' Rapp discusses a Nintendo game with a child interviewer (not pictured) "
Holy fuck, they are absolutely trying to spin this as if she's a pedophile lol
charlequin
Banned
Her comments afterwards have been quite mild and don't touch on anything that could plausibly fall under her NDA. Nobody who's willing to hire a person who's been involved in a situation like this one would even blink at any of that.
This claim is bizarrely disconnected from reality. There is no vantage point from which Twitter's reaction to their epidemic of harassment has come within orders of magnitude of significant and proportionate.
On the contrary, they both point explicitly away from this. A company with a policy that allows moonlighting deciding that the specifics of an employee's side job are not reflective of the company values is very much the epitome of a discretionary offense, both in judging that it occurred and in judging the correct response. Termination might well be a justifiable response, but that's still a far cry from something being an "unambiguously terminable offense."
Well that's a horrible tabloid title and a extremely specific manner of detailing the events. This is going to be a fun ride.
- Status