Support NeoGAF

[DrROBschiz]

So two things are true here

The level of invasion and harassment GG engages in should be illegal

Alison has to bear responsibility for her public expression and the consequences that entails

Its not ideal but this is how professionalism is conducted. Maybe she could argue that such reactions would have never taken place without the pressures exerted by gamergate. I dotn think that appeal could get her job back and Im not sure why she would want it back at this point

 

[NinjaCoachZ]

I feel like women and men alike will be more aware of the dangers of discussing sensitive issues via social media when representing a huge, influential, image-conscious company.

And they should be, because it seems not enough are aware of the fact that YOU DON'T DO IT, EVER, judging by the outrage over this.

Was Nintendo 'morally' wrong to do this? Probably. Should Rapp have know to keep her mouth shut, stayed away from asserting/addressing sensitive opinions, and been a good, silent little corporate robot? If she wanted to keep her job, absolutely.

All she did to earn Gamergate's ire was express feminist opinions. You're saying that's a sensitive issue that doesn't merit talking about?

What should Nintendo have done instead ?

"Well, you tried to hide your second job from us, which shows that you knew we wouldn't be cool with it in the first place, but because you were harassed on Twitter, we'll just ignore it !"

Yeah. That doesn't sound reasonable, does it ?

It doesn't, because they knew full well she was being harassed and did jack about it while it was happening.

Also, having a second job wasn't the issue. Alison Rapp said that it was part of policy that such a thing is accepted.

The problem is the content. We don't know Alison Rapp's "other job" was. There's no way for us to know how and in what way it "went against their corporate culture". That's a discussion of its own. What could she have possibly done and how does it "go against their corporate culture"? Plus, the only reason they know about it is because of the harassment campaign.

Nintendo failed to show any empathy whatsoever to a victim of harassment while it was happening. They're just one part of an ongoing problem in the industry, and their complicitness with it is just sad.

the fact that I'd find it hard to excuse if it were a Nintendo twitter account she were running that was being targeted, and they chose to ignore it, but if it were her PERSONAL account, then I can understand why, as my workplace don't monitor or care about my personal online presence.

Eh? So because it's her personal account that justifies her targeting? Am I reading this right? Sorry, I just... can't interpret this any other way.

 

[JP_]

Was Nintendo 'morally' wrong to do this? Probably. Should Rapp have know to keep her mouth shut, stayed away from asserting/addressing sensitive opinions, and been a good, silent little corporate robot? If she wanted to keep her job, absolutely.

Sad state of corporate-owned society.

 

[navy]

So they should've fired her for having a second job when? She's now immune to being fired for having a second job that conflicts with Nintendo's interests because a hate group is harassing her on the internet?

It is shitty that they did not try and help Alison with the harassment, but a company has to protect its image.

People are basically saying Nintendo was not allowed to fire her. It's ridiculous.

 

[Draxal]

If you think that Jim says that Alie and Chris cases are similar you either didn't read properly or you didn't understand the article.

I stand by it, the two situations are so unlinked to each other, as Pranger was terminated before the fan outrage over his comments began, while Rapp's harrassment was going on for 6 months before her termination.

Pranger said unflattering things about Nintendo, especially Sakurai (which goes against "They didn’t mouth off to their bosses").Pranger's termination is 100% justified, Rapp's is only justified legally, but the moral quagmire's of her is only a billion times more iffy than Prangers.

 

[jonno394]

So if you're getting harassed on your professional account, that's a no-no. Harassment on a personal account, though? That's okay! It's still harassment.

She was targeted because she is a woman and she worked for a game company. I have no clue what Twitter account she was using, but either way the harassment involved her job.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean!!!!

NO

I mean that if she is being harassed on a professional Nintendo account, then they have should have intervened, no doubt about it. If it is her own personal account, and some of her own tweets are getting negative reactions, then that is not on Nintendo to turn round to cyber bullies and say stuff.

End of the day, Nintendo saying something would not have stopped her getting abused, the inherent fault here is with twitter and gamergaters, not Nintendo imo.

 

[marrec]

So two things are true here

The level of invasion and harassment GG engages in should be illegal

Alison has to bear responsibility for her public expression and the consequences that entails

Its not ideal but this is how professionalism is conducted. Maybe she could argue that such reactions would have never taken place without the pressures exerted by gamergate. I dotn think that appeal could get her job back and Im not sure why she would want it back at this point

I think we need to add a third truism though:

Nintendo was complicit in the continued harassment via their silence and by remaining silent have emboldened an anti-woman hate group to further harass women in video games.

 

[cr0w]

What are you getting at here?



Being the target of a harassment campaign was not Alison Rapp's choice. The only reason they have a vendetta against her was because she expressed feminist opinions. If that is a "decision that has consequences" then this is a scary world to live in.

I worded that wrong.

In the world we currently live in, any single, solitary thing you put online can lead to horrific shit. There are no boundaries left. I realize that in today's world it's a radical idea, but not having a social media presence is the absolute best thing you can do for yourself.

 

[Bots are better than you]

Lime's argument is that Nintendo legitimized GG, GGers see that one of the three biggest video game companies in the world is responding to their harassment by rewarding them, they'll feel empowered to do the same to other women.

GGers have been empowere before Nintendo's decision, simply by having the director of the Wayne Foundation at their hand, who went on this situation. It's people/organisations, who hold value and image, playing by the GG hands that's empowering them.
And a known and valid foundation, that fights against sexual crimes, sexual trafficking, etc. is on a whole other level of opposing force compared to those GG bastards.

This could have gotten huge child-pornography controversy against Rapp and Nintendo, and had the potential to endanger even more jobs of good people, who had nothing to do with all this.
The worst thing is, the damage would be done, despite all those claims against Rapp being false, as we all know.

 

[DrROBschiz]

I think we need to add a third truism though:

Nintendo was complicit in the continued harassment via their silence and by remaining silent have emboldened an anti-woman hate group to further harass women in video games.

Thats a tough legal angle to follow

Is it their liability of that of the public domain

We would need a legal precedent, to protect people whose privacy is exposed from illegal means, to prevent discriminatory termination in this manner.

UGH this is complicated

 

[Velkyn]

Just read Jim's write-up.

Fantastic summary and opinion piece. I really don't think he gets enough credit. Nintendo really needs to enter the 21st century. It's unreasonable to expect your employees to be faceless, mindless drones once they leave work.

 

[JP_]

So two things are true here

The level of invasion and harassment GG engages in should be illegal

Alison has to bear responsibility for her public expression and the consequences that entails

Its not ideal but this is how professionalism is conducted. Maybe she could argue that such reactions would have never taken place without the pressures exerted by gamergate. I dotn think that appeal could get her job back and Im not sure why she would want it back at this point

You didn't read her tweets? That's exactly what she argued. They're in the OP.

 

[RichiRamjag]

Yes, that's exactly what I mean!!!!

NO

I mean that if she is being harassed on a professional Nintendo account, then they have should have intervened, no doubt about it. If it is her own personal account, and some of her own tweets are getting negative reactions, then that is not on Nintendo to turn round to cyber bullies and say stuff.

End of the day, Nintendo saying something would not have stopped her getting abused, the inherent fault here is with twitter and gamergaters, not Nintendo imo.

I kind of agree. My company would look at me like I lost it if I said I was being racially harassed on my personal Twitter and wanted them to make a statement.

Laws in general need to be updated in regards to online harassment. Some actual consequence would help deter this kind of shit more than a statement.

 

[Ripenen]

Legal advice/aid would've been smart once they notice a hate mob about 1 person.

Do you mean Nintendo should have provided legal aid to her when she was being harassed?

 

[Curufinwe]

I will also say that if Nintendo's statement is true, it's ludicrous to agree with Adam Orth losing his position for going against the "corporate messaging" that Microsoft expressed but not being okay with Alison Rapp losing her position for ostensibly doing the same thing and self-promoting something Nintendo wouldn't agree with on her public twitter.

The difference exists, but the baseline is they both lost their jobs for going against corporate policy in some way. You can disagree with Nintendo's policy--but the fact is, if she was let go for going against said policy, that blame lies partially on her. You can't keep secrets for long in the modern age, as terrible as that is.

It's a big if, I think, because the timing is still suspect; But still.

Compromising the corporate message on social media can be dangerous for anyone. Orth's career at MS ended and his family was driven from his home all because he said "why on earth would I live there" in a tweet.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/11/6/5075106/adam-orth-xbox-one-gdc-next

Orth showed a sample of some of the harassment he said he received through Twitter, a stream of racist, homophobic and threatening messages. The "abuse and hatred," he said, continued to pour in through email, phone calls and messages from all of his social media outlets. Orth described the barrage of abuse as "unbearable."

"When someone threatens you on the internet, it's very hard to take that seriously," he said. "Were any of these threats credible? Unlikely, but I wasn't going to put myself and my family at risk. Ultimately we had to leave town to feel safe. We had to completely rebuild our life and fortify our digital life as well as all of our financial accounts in order to protect ourselves and our assets.

"Many people have asked me 'Did you contact the authorities?'" he said. "In the end I chose not to. It felt pointless. I mean, how do you report the entire internet?"

Orth said his experience dealing with internet hate and harassment is indicative of a larger trend of acceptable toxic behavior.

"The reason the internet threats are terrifying is not the possibility of the realization of a violent act, it's that society has regressed to a point where this behavior and discourse is an accepted response to something someone doesn't like or agree with," he said. When showing the stream of vile tweets to other developers, he said most don't bat an eye at the language used.

"As an industry, we've become desensitized to this insane behavior, because it is overwhelming, ubiquitous and unstoppable. It's an epidemic and it's getting worse."

 

[ShaggsMagoo]

While I do see your point, I'm afraid that I must respectfully disagree.

During one of my corporate communications courses, there was quite a bit of discussion as to when to remain silent or when to "get out in front" of the narrative to attempt to control the message as best you can. This is always a balancing act and I don't envy anyone who has to perform it.

I really do believe that this is one of those instances where an attempt to get out ahead of the narrative with a relatively banal, non-committal message is simply better than saying nothing at all, especially when the timing of the termination really does make it appear that the firm "surrendered" to a howling internet mob.

Again, I'm certainly not arguing against the firing. I'm stating that their failure to even attempt to shape the narrative in some way represents a failure of executive leadership.

Nothing but respect back at you man. I get why you would possibly want to get out in front of the story, however you do that when a story has already broken wide and you need to do something right then.

GAF and kotaku does not count as breaking wide. It's when you are faced with it hitting true mainstream media that you want to get out in front of the story.

That's why you want to try to minimize the story.

Your average soccer mom knows nothing about what appears on GAF or Kotaku, she does know what appears on FOX News.

 

[marrec]

Thats a tough legal angle to follow

Is it their liability of that of the public domain

I'm speaking less legally and more morally. They have a moral responsibility to their female employees and consumers to offer greater protection from the horrific harassment that women have gone through because of gamergate.

They've abdicated that responsibility by letting Rapp get targeted without saying a word. Because of this, I don't know if I can continue to buy Nintendo products.

 

[DrROBschiz]

You didn't read her tweets? That's exactly what she argued. They're in the OP.

She would need the law on her side here at this point

Much like how evidence unlawfully aquired in court isnt admissable

You would need a legal protection of employees whose private information is used against her as a means of termination

But Nintendo could easily have fired her over her tweets which were her own choice even IF they were a response to harrassment

I'm speaking less legally and more morally. They have a moral responsibility to their female employees and consumers to offer greater protection from the horrific harassment that women have gone through because of gamergate.

They've abdicated that responsibility by letting Rapp get targeted without saying a word. Because of this, I don't know if I can continue to buy Nintendo products.

Ok so even if Nintendo takes the high road on their own...

they would still have to reconscile what is now public facing information thanks to the actions taken by Alison herself

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

So they should've fired her for having a second job when? She's now immune to being fired for having a second job that conflicts with Nintendo's interests because a hate group is harassing her on the internet?

It is shitty that they did not try and help Alison with the harassment, but a company has to protect its image.

Here's a good suggestion: if the second job thing was an actual problem, why is the first contact about it "You're fired" and not "Hey, you can't have this second job"?

Nintendo's behavior in this does absolutely nothing to convince me that the second job stuff was anything but a pretext.

 

[RichiRamjag]

I'm speaking less legally and more morally. They have a moral responsibility to their female employees and consumers to offer greater protection from the horrific harassment that women have gone through because of gamergate.

They've abdicated that responsibility by letting Rapp get targeted without saying a word. Because of this, I don't know if I can continue to buy Nintendo products.

They've got a responsibility to any of their employees, unfortunately, I can't think of many large companies who are going to intercede on someone's personal Twitter issues.

 

[DrROBschiz]

I get criticising Nintendo for not taking the high road

but if we really want this landscape to change we need enforcement and change at a legal and public level guys

 

[Glendemonium]

Wait... I need to stay up to speed. This is the person "That One Group" tried to publicly shame her as a pedophile while they have no problem with sexualized anime schoolgirls as avatars or memes?

That's just insane levels of ironic I don't even know where to begin.

On a different note, it's not just Nintendo who has similar policies. Many companies want a clean and professional image. They've always been known for being family centric, especially with children. My company has a similar policy regarding piercings and tattoos, and moonlighting as well. You become a face of the company there's a bit of responsibility to keep up. Which is unfortunate because while I agree that workers should be more than the company identity, this is the world we live in I'm afraid.

 

[marrec]

They've got a responsibility to any of their employees, unfortunately, I can't think of many large companies who are going to intercede on someone's personal Twitter issues.

I can't think of many companies with the cultural and social power that Nintendo has with the market they service.

Take, for example, Disney threatening to pull out of Georgia if the governor signed an Anti-LGBT law there. Disney wielded their considerable cultural (and financial) power to influence social views across the country.

Nintendo could do similar things, especially for a woman in their employ who is targeted by a very well known and very vocal hate group.

 

[BrokenBox]

Yes, that's exactly what I mean!!!!

NO

I mean that if she is being harassed on a professional Nintendo account, then they have should have intervened, no doubt about it. If it is her own personal account, and some of her own tweets are getting negative reactions, then that is not on Nintendo to turn round to cyber bullies and say stuff.

End of the day, Nintendo saying something would not have stopped her getting abused, the inherent fault here is with twitter and gamergaters, not Nintendo imo.

Doing nothing and then firing her (for her second job) doesn't help either. I agree that the fault belongs to GG, but sitting on your hands and not trying to do something for employees who are getting harassed doesn't help matters. This just tells GG what they did was okay.

 

[snikky]

...The problem is the content. We don't know Alison Rapp's "other job" was. There's no way for us to know how and in what way it "went against their corporate culture". That's a discussion of its own. What could she have possibly done and how does it "go against their corporate culture"? Plus, the only reason they know about it is because of the harassment campaign. Nintendo failed to show any empathy whatsoever to a victim of harassment.

...

We still don't know if this is true. Timing would suggest this. But I'm starting to think whoever tipped Nintendo off about her second job was not part of the harassment.

According to A herself, Nintendo's management was tolerant of second jobs. Yet she still felt the need to work under an alias to hide this job from Nintendo. This suggests that whatever the contents of the job were, it would most likely not reflect well on her.

A smear campaign's goal is to corrode someone's public image, so I think it's safe to assume that if someone participating in the smear campaign had known what the contents of such a job the very target of the campaign was trying to hide, this information also would have been weaponized in the public harassment tactics, which it was not.

Thus, I think it premature to think it fact that Nintendo would not have been tipped off about this second job if not for the harassers.

I'm thinking someone from another party just saw an opportune time to submit the tip while there was a convenient smokescreen to misdirect attention.

 

[mjp2417]

I've spent the night mulling over this and at the end of the day I think the firing and the reasons for it are irrelevant either way.

The cold hard truth is that an internet hate mob relentlessly attacked a Nintendo employee over a company decision that wasn't even made by that employee and they did nothing. The industry is doing nothing. The silence is deafening.

The whole damn system is rotten. From us right here on NeoGAF all the way to the bigwigs at the top. It's horrible and it breaks my heart. We need change across the board, and I don't mean censoring butts and cleavage. That's not even close to being the problem.

You're a good man, Charlie Brown.
Fuck Nintendo for casting this woman to an internet hate mob over a company localization decision.
Fuck the corporate apologists and ball-lickers who aid and abet internet hate mobs because they care more about a cynical multinational corporation maintaining "a family friendly image" than they do about women being thrown to the fucking wolves.
And fuck the vast majority of the gaming press for their cowardice and silence in covering anything related to GamerGate.

 

[NinjaCoachZ]

I get criticising Nintendo for not taking the high road

but if we really want this landscape to change we need enforcement and change at a legal and public level guys

Nintendo is a cog in the overarching landscape's machine. One of the biggest there is. They're big enough and have the power to take a stand, using their influence to lead to this kind of enforcement and change. Look at all they've done for gaming world in the past, legally and socially.

In spite of having that power they squandered it completely, if anything making the landscape even more volatile.

We still don't know if this is true. Timing would suggest this. But I'm starting to think whoever tipped Nintendo off about her second job was not part of the harassment.

According to A herself, Nintendo's management was tolerant of second jobs. Yet she still felt the need to work under an alias to hide this job from Nintendo. This suggests that whatever the contents of the job were, it would most likely not reflect well on her.

A smear campaign's goal is to corrode someone's public image, so I think it's safe to assume that if someone participating in the smear campaign had known what the contents of such a job the very target of the campaign was trying to hide, this information also would have been weaponized in the public harassment tactics, which it was not.

Thus, I think it premature to think it fact that Nintendo would not have been tipped off about this second job if not for the harassers.

I'm thinking someone from another party just saw an opportune time to submit the tip while there was a convenient smokescreen to misdirect attention.

Even if the tipster wasn't a GG'er... If they did what you said and just thought of it as an "opportunity", they're not much better. And Alison Rapp ALSO said that the GG harassment nonsense put her under a closer microscope from her higherups than before. GG had a role in this that Nintendo did nothing to solve, and that doesn't change regardless of if they as a collective tipped her off.

You also start getting into dangerous territory if you separate "the individuals" from "the group". That's what GG did to avoid taking the blame for doxxing people like Felicia Day, claiming they were just a "rogue" when really, said individual's MO is fairly similar to that of the group.

 

[Alo0oy]

Not only GG, but it also tells other employees at Nintendo that the company won't ensure their well-being over the harassment from a misogynist consumer base. This can also extend beyond Nintendo as a company to other parts of the games industry: that women are repeatedly thrown under the bus due to toxic misogynist elements in gaming consumership.

This is a clear message that has been sent out for many years to women in the major games industry.

They're also deterring young women from majoring in tech or other video game-related studies, when they keep seeing women get abused on a regular basis, why would they ever want to have a future job in the industry? Women's passion for video games are basically being suppressed, and the industry has done a piss poor job in changing that.

 

[marrec]

I get criticising Nintendo for not taking the high road

but if we really want this landscape to change we need enforcement and change at a legal and public level guys

I 100% agree... but you know who could help change the legal landscape going forward?

Nintendo.

 

[cr0w]

The responsibility should begin with the sites who refuse to do anything to stop harassment, i.e. Twitter and the like.

Should Nintendo publicly support someone who is enduring harassment? Absolutely they should. They should condemn bullying of any sort.

The problem is the people in charge are older than me, and I'm old enough to be baffled by the current generation's reliance on social media for, well, everything. To them it is literally a non-issue, because the harassment isn't tangible. If it were within the office, sure, it'd be handled (I assume). But online harassment...their solution is to hit the "log out" button.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Nintendo is a cog in the overarching landscape's machine. One of the biggest there is. They're big enough and have the power to take a stand, using their influence to lead to this kind of enforcement and change. Look at all they've done for gaming world in the past, legally and socially.

In spite of having that power they squandered it completely, if anything making the landscape even more volatile.

Nintendo is a company not a person

Its up to us to choose who to hold accountable and you guys need to see that

This is the same debate going on in politics right now and expecting corporate entities to get on board with public social issues is a crapshoot

 

[Neff]

All she did to earn Gamergate's ire was express feminist opinions. You're saying that's a sensitive issue that doesn't merit talking about?

It's an incredibly sensitive issue. And for all we know Nintendo may be a very equality-oriented company. But there's a world of difference between a carefully-worded, approved, official statement and an employee saying whatever the hell they like on social media.

Nintendo failed to show any empathy whatsoever to a victim of harassment while it was happening.

Sadly, 99% of corporations are neither our family nor friends. They've no obligation to take interest in your personal problems until it hurts them.

Sad state of corporate-owned society.

Pretty much. But it's a rulebook older than all of us and it isn't going to change anytime soon.

 

[akidnamededdy]

I 100% agree... but you know who could help change the legal landscape going forward?

Nintendo.

Nintendo can't even make a competent online account system, and now they're supposed to be at the forefront of digital harassment countermeasures? Yeah it would've been GREAT if they'd spoken out against the harassment (I guess doing it after Rapp was fired doesn't count?).

 

[clockpunk]

Maintaining a professional image and behaviour is absolutely key when one is the primary face of any company. That Rapp was previowuly warned about her personal image (tattoos and piercings issue), and moved to another position due to her outspoken nature, should have served as two separate warnings that her behaviour was not suitable for her current position.

Now, the second job has remained anonymous, with neither side refusing to clarify or confirm exactly what it entailed - which in turn leads one to presume as to its nature. Not that there is anything wrong with *any* form of activity or career option taken, but if that was at odds with her primary position, as public face of a corporation - anything that might harm that corporate image is very much something they have a right to address. Comparison with that professor who was fired from his lecturing position after starring in adult films - under a pseudonym and in his own personal time - are very much relevant here - in that his actions could undermine the public image of that institution. Especially if the personal activities are at odds with what that corporation attempts to promote.

There is no difference here, imho. Maintain professional behaviour at all times, if you are publicly representative of anyone other than yourself.

 

[NinjaCoachZ]

Nintendo is a company not a person

Its up to us to choose who to hold accountable and you guys need to see that

This is the same debate going on in politics right now and expecting corporate entities to get on board with public social issues is a crapshoot

Sadly, 99% of corporations are neither our family nor friends. They've no obligation to take interest in your personal problems until it hurts them.

Pretty much. But it's a rulebook older than all of us and it isn't going to change anytime soon.

"It is what it is". Doesn't mean we can't call out "it" for what "it" is. Apathy on our part isn't going to do anything other than further a dangerous status quo.

Nintendo can't even make a competent online account system, and now they're supposed to be at the forefront of digital harassment countermeasures? Yeah it would've been GREAT if they'd spoken out against the harassment (I guess doing it after Rapp was fired doesn't count?).

Nintendo of Japan's handling of online accounts and Nintendo of America doing something to speak out against harassment, whether as small as a PR statement or something much greater, are two entirely unrelated things. Even if they are apparently equally as ineffective.

 

[Welfare]

Here's a good suggestion: if the second job thing was an actual problem, why is the first contact about it "You're fired" and not "Hey, you can't have this second job"?

Nintendo's behavior in this does absolutely nothing to convince me that the second job stuff was anything but a pretext.

Businesses can and will fire someone for moonlighting without having to ask them to stop. Alison went so far as to use a fake name to not be found out, so that probably worsened her chances of a second chance, if they were to be kind enough to offer that in the first place.

 

[marrec]

Nintendo can't even make a competent online account system, and now they're supposed to be at the forefront of digital harassment countermeasures? Yeah it would've been GREAT if they'd spoken out against the harassment (I guess doing it after Rapp was fired doesn't count?).

They did it as an aside to Rapp getting fired, it was spineless and didn't even get specific, just calling the targeted harassment as coming from "some social media".

If they were to come out and make a more nuanced and passionate statement against the culture of harassment in Video Games and against GamerGate itself, that would be very welcomed I imagine.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

"It is what it is". Doesn't mean we can't call out "it" for what "it" is.

Yep.
Sadly, there seems plenty who think we shouldn't.

 

[potatohead]

Nintendo is a company not a person

Its up to us to choose who to hold accountable and you guys need to see that

This is the same debate going on in politics right now and expecting corporate entities to get on board with public social issues is a crapshoot

Except they do regularly.

Bank of America, along with many other large companies which work in North Carolina or are headquartered there, are threatening to pull out all of their business if they move forward with "religious freedom" bills which discriminate against LGBT communities: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35928098

Even in Georgia AMC (creators of The Walking Dead TV series) threatened to pull out of the state if they continued with anti-LGBT legislation, Marvel as well: http://www.polygon.com/2016/3/28/11...georgia-governors-decision-to-veto-anti-lgbtq

This week, the governor of Georgia vetoed a "religious liberty" bill that would have allowed faith-based organisations to refuse service to gay and transgender people after being pressured by business interests.

Social activism from corporations really isn't that new. In a lot of ways they can be ahead of the curve at least compared to backwards societies within our larger society.

 

[Dr Amazon MD]

We still don't know if this is true. Timing would suggest this. But I'm starting to think whoever tipped Nintendo off about her second job was not part of the harassment.

According to A herself, Nintendo's management was tolerant of second jobs. Yet she still felt the need to work under an alias to hide this job from Nintendo. This suggests that whatever the contents of the job were, it would most likely not reflect well on her.

A smear campaign's goal is to corrode someone's public image, so I think it's safe to assume that if someone participating in the smear campaign had known what the contents of such a job the very target of the campaign was trying to hide, this information also would have been weaponized in the public harassment tactics, which it was not.

Thus, I think it premature to think it fact that Nintendo would not have been tipped off about this second job if not for the harassers.

I'm thinking someone from another party just saw an opportune time to submit the tip while there was a convenient smokescreen to misdirect attention.

This is my feeling as well. If the hate group knew what the 2nd job was, they would be spreading it as fast as possible.

 

[Jumplion]

Yes, that's exactly what I mean!!!!

NO

I mean that if she is being harassed on a professional Nintendo account, then they have should have intervened, no doubt about it. If it is her own personal account, and some of her own tweets are getting negative reactions, then that is not on Nintendo to turn round to cyber bullies and say stuff.

End of the day, Nintendo saying something would not have stopped her getting abused, the inherent fault here is with twitter and gamergaters, not Nintendo imo.

Do you really think anything aimed her way was isolated to either professional or personal account?

And so if it wouldn't have stopped anything, they shouldn't do anything?

And do you really think any of this was discretely isolated on Twitter? Hint, it wasn't.

 

[Lime]

Not your mama's gamer gave their take on it as well that deserves a repeat:

Alison Rapp’s story is not new. We have seen this level of harassment before. We have seen women threatened out of the industry or terminated by their employers because they had just become too much “trouble.” It’s become so common that Kotaku’s Patrick Klepek has identified the specific pattern these campaigns follow: “discredit, harass, shame, isolate, maybe find a skeleton in a person’s closet that calls their reputation into question.” That’s what’s happened here, with the added bonus of outright lies throw into the mix, and now another woman in the industry has been punished, fired by a company that never spoke out through the months of harassment she faced, and has only now drummed up a reason to speak out (some 60,000 trending tweets later).

But that goal impacts someone’s life and livelihood, and we need to remember that. Alison Rapp is a person, and this is her life. This is not a boss battle; no epic loot drops when she falls. Words and actions have real world repercussions. And it is infuriating that this continues to happen unchecked to women in and around the video game industry.

http://www.nymgamer.com/?p=13345

 

[Orca]

But we don't know if Nintendo did. Maybe they did ,maybe did mothing. She always described Nintendo as a safe place. Openly saying anything will result on the same as even today's message did: seen as a canned PR response to throw a topic under the rug.

A problem and part of this situation is that Nintendo always remains silent. Which sucks from an outside perspective. No matter what. Like with the yearly "green companies" that they get a 0 because they don't talk about it.

Alison has been the target of this threats before she worked at Nintendo even. And she admitted that things got worse in the last months to the point ahe had to contact authorities and advise her family.

Sorry for the late reply - posted just before heading to bed. We absolutely DO know whether Nintendo did anything simply because they did nothing. Where BioWare employees had the company execs condemning - publicly - the actions of those trying to tear them down, Nintendo was silent, as you even admit, and that's the problem.

 

[SturokBGD]

Just caught up with Jim's piece. Good stuff.

My initial disgust at all of this yesterday was largely driven by immediately thinking how much my oldest daughter loves Nintendo games... Mario, Splatoon, Nintendogs, and she's OBSESSED with Pokemon... and I couldn't imagine sitting with her to play some Nintendo knowing that they're happy to take her money but they've got no interest in her safety and well being. I've been approached by a lot of family and friends over the years looking for recommendations for family friendly games for their kids and I've always steered them to Nintendo. I was almost reaching out to them all last night to apologise for being so wrong.

But this isn't Nintendo. This is the whole damn video game industry. Rotten to the core.

Sorry for repeating myself but it really it a punch in the gut for me. I'm fanatical about video games, have been for nearly 4 decades. I can no longer be a cheerleader for something so vile. Maybe I'm being melodramatic, but the industry has yet to show me any evidence that I'm wrong... and I have two little girls to think about. They're more important than any video game.

 

[snikky]

Even if the tipster wasn't a GG'er... If they did what you said and just thought of it as an "opportunity", they're not much better. And Alison Rapp ALSO said that the GG harassment nonsense put her under a closer microscope from her higherups than before. GG had a role in this that Nintendo did nothing to solve, and that doesn't change regardless of if they as a collective tipped her off.

You also start getting into dangerous territory if you separate "the individuals" from "the group". That's what GG did to avoid taking the blame for doxxing people like Felicia Day, claiming they were just a "rogue" when really, said individual's MO is fairly similar to that of the group.

I'm not saying an individual with some reason to snitch on her is better. All I'm saying is I think it premature to assume whoever the tipster was wouldn't have eventually tipped Nintendo off either way, harassment or not. It also sounds like she was under management's microscope long before for unrelated reasons.

I'm also not separating individuals from the group. I'm avoiding the fallacy of assuming an individual is associated with a group when there's no evidence either way.
Although, as mentioned, the information the tipster knew not showing up anywhere in the public harassment tactics does suggest those involved in the public harassment tactics didn't have that information.

 

[PopeReal]

Oh geez, look at all the gaters (and friends) who have been banned from this thread so far.

They just can't stay away.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Except they do regularly.

Bank of America, along with many other large companies which work in North Carolina or are headquartered there, are threatening to pull out all of their business if they move forward with "religious freedom" bills which discriminate against LGBT communities: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35928098

Even in Georgia AMC (creators of The Walking Dead TV series) threatened to pull out of the state if they continued with anti-LGBT legislation, Marvel as well: http://www.polygon.com/2016/3/28/11...georgia-governors-decision-to-veto-anti-lgbtq

Social activism from corporations really isn't that new. In a lot of ways they can be ahead of the curve at least compared to backwards societies within our larger society.

Thats great! Good for those that join

Still doesnt change the paradigm. The public at large needs to act. By all means criticize company stances

Still need grassroots participation in lawmaking unless you want to continue to bank of public pressure on corporate entities to be the gamechanger

 

[Neff]

"It is what it is". Doesn't mean we can't call out "it" for what "it" is.

By all means, but there are very deliberate reasons for 'what it is', and they're far from trade secrets.

Apathy on our part isn't going to do anything other than further a dangerous status quo.

But it's really not that dangerous at all. If you join a big, prestigious, influential company, you represent it, whether you like it or not. Do your best, make them look good, in return, they give you a living. Invite unwanted attention or controversy their way, and expect repercussions. That's pretty fair.

We have freedom of speech, but only to a point, and it's entirely relative to your standing. It doesn't matter who you are- at the end of the day it's your business to know what you can and can't say publicly without it blowing up in your face.

 

[jonno394]

Do you really think anything aimed her way was isolated to either professional or personal account?

And so if it wouldn't have stopped anything, they shouldn't do anything?

And do you really think any of this was discretely isolated on Twitter? Hint, it wasn't.

DO you really think Nintendo saying something would have stopped anything? I don't

 

[potatohead]

Thats great! Good for those that join

Still doesnt change the paradigm. The public at large needs to act. By all means criticize company stances

Still need grassroots participation in lawmaking unless you want to continue to bank of public pressure on corporate entities to be the gamechanger

I agree. Everyone should be involved in defending the individual rights of others. Even just by doing that we protect our own rights.

Just by talking about this issue however we are raising our voices in support of what may apparently be an unfair and unjust decision against one of our fellow citizens.

RE: paradigm shifting: those are huge paradigm shifts, 25 years ago that stuff wouldn't happen in support of gay or transgender people who are discriminated against. And those companies employ huge numbers of people in those states.