Support NeoGAF

[SneakersSO]

I'd say this paragraph needs a whole lot more "what if"s and other speculative indicators in it, or you need to pony up something that indicates that the second job was something unsavory enough that a national story would stem from it.

Because for all we know, that second job could have been that she accepted a staff writing position for a feminist blog under a pen name, which would do neither of those things but would likely send Nintendo corporate into a panic.

There were already people & noted groups targeted Allison for her stance on child pornography. If it was something that innocuous, we'd have heard it by now, at least from GG, since they love parading this stuff around.

Could it have been a national story? Probably not. The CP stuff could've become one, if The Wayne Foundation kept pushing for it. We don't know what the job was, but obviously whatever it was, Nintendo found it incompatible with their corporate interests & moved on. Thats all we actually now. Everything else is just window dressing.

 

[devilhawk]

Yeah, there's really two things going on: 1) Nintendo's silence and poor handling of this situation and how that relates to the ongoing problems in the games industry when it comes to dealing with misogyny and harassment, and 2) Rapp's employment status.

No. 2 sucks, and it shouldn't be minimized, but it is magnified by No. 1, which affects the entire industry.

Rapp herself has consistently tried to shift the conversation back to No. 1, as have many in this thread. But it's not sticking. (And to be fair, I've discussed No. 2 in these past two threads, as well. And though I've believe I've mostly done it to relate back to No. 1, I'm sure I could have done much better).

The thread essentially being titled "Come discuss point No. 2" isn't going to help your desires of truly discussing point No. 1.

 

[razoftblend]

Victims don't have to be blameless in matters that are peripherally related to the action against them. If someone runs a red light and crashes into me then it's discovered that I was driving without insurance that's still on me.

Rapp did not deserve to be harassed but it turns out that she was doing things, in secret, that she obviously knew could get her fired or else she would't have been doing it under a pseudonym. It came to light, as a result of the smear campaign, and the expected consequences ensued. She is not blameless in that respect.

I see some people desperately trying to construct a narrative that Nintendo is completely wrong here but that doesn't seem consistent with what we know. Of the three parties/groups involved Nintendo seem to be the least at fault for anything.

Agreed. People somehow think Nintendo is at fault for not defending their employee, even though she had already been warned just month after being hired. Over two years went by with this shit, so I don't see how Nintendo is to blame here.

 

[Not]

No. There are two points of discussion. One, which I think most could agree on, is the lack of support and repositioning being bang out of order and akin to silently supporting gg. The second point is about why she was fired and whether or not you choose to believe the two are related. What I think is plain wrong, is people saying that Nintendo shouldn't care what else she was getting up to. Only people who have literally no commercial experience could come up with such a statement and believe it to be true.

I just always think it's strange how often people's interest in a discussion tends to lean a little further in favor of corporations over actual people. Especially in cases where women are the victims. But I'm glad we agree on that first point.

Sorry guys, I'm probably not dispassionate enough to really discuss things with objectivity here. I hope I contributed something meaningful to the discussion.

 

[kiryogi]

What kind of protections do you have in mind aside from what exists under existing labor law?

Well that's a dead end, the existing labor laws are really weak in general. But at least to have something contractually binding to enforce better standards in a cutthroat industry such as the video game industry would be a good first step. Things like crunch time, and job security. Being able to even speak out about workplace issues period without fear of termination or harassment would be a huge step too, especially in these regards. Like her coworkers could petition for Alison. But right now they really can't, because for fear of their jobs.

 

[domlolz]

As part of a union in America, I agree with your concerns about labor laws. But I've also worked at businesses in states without such protection, and regardless of the arguments that are continually on display here, the corporate structure does take note of how people react to their decisions, assuming they are public-facing. They do make decisions both from the outside and the inside, and the internet has forced more businesses out of their comfortable bubbles than ever before. Kicking and screaming maybe, but unless people let them know there's a problem, it's a sure thing the problem continues unabated.

I agree that the labor laws and the treatment of unions in the US are awful, but that's not really the point of this discussion.

yeah it only takes a loud public outcry threatening to harm a corporations bottom line for them to do something that isn't squeezing every last cent of profit using every shady practice available. thank god the internet got large multinational corporation to stop using pink for their womens products or something while they still destroy large swathes of the worlds carbon sinks, exploiting cheap labour in poor countries using outsourcing and tax loopholes to make sure they don't have to pay the actual amount of tax they should be. hope the internet can sort that out. intersectional!

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

Agreed. People somehow think Nintendo is at fault for not defending their employee, even though she had already been warned just month after being hired. Over two years went by with this shit, so I don't see how Nintendo is to blame here.

So you don't actually understand the reason she was fired but still decided to come in the thread?

 

[blankempathy]

This is a very old way of looking at business structure. Who is "outside" and who is "inside" continues to blur further everyday. What's more, most people who are "at the top" of corporate structures (especially US ones) probably aren't from the company internally. Anymore, it is not uncommon for much of the corporate structure to simply be chosen from among a cadre of known entities, and becoming someone known for that usually meant you did something that got a lot of attention. In other words, you took a big risk and it had a large impact. It's relatively rare for a person to work up from being rank-and-file to being a person capable of directly influencing policy. What rank-and-file can do is discuss their issues on a public forum, which will then reach people who can make policy decisions, rather than taking it to their boss who likely doesn't have power to make the changes they want to see. It's far easier to get the attention of someone in a position of power when there are ten-thousand people stating they are seeing the same problem, than when one rank-and-file member of their work force makes a complaint about it.

Look, you might be right. There might be a way to do exactly what you want. But it's likely going to be slow, highly bureaucratic, and unlikely to lead to a long-term solution to ills that may not even be relevant by the time you're in the position to make such a decision. I think it's far more effective to speak to power directly than try to filter your way through a misguided business so you can (maybe) eventually influence the decisions you find problematic.

I do agree that it's a slow process but eventually the people running the show today will be gone and new blood will come in and it's important to have those blood to be better then the ones before them. And sure the situations and problems of today may be different then tomorrow but teaching people today the values and morals they need to handle any issue is also important. Like I said in my previous post. I'm not against speaking out. I just think there are many paths that can be taken.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

There were already people & noted groups targeted Allison for her stance on child pornography. If it was something that innocuous, we'd have heard it by now, at least from GG, since they love parading this stuff around.

Could it have been a national story? Probably not. The CP stuff could've become one, if The Wayne Foundation kept pushing for it. We don't know what the job was, but obviously whatever it was, Nintendo found it incompatible with their corporate interests & moved on. Thats all we actually now. Everything else is just window dressing.

Why do you think you would have heard about the job if it was so innocuous? Nintendo was never going to say what it was, she decided early on she didn't want to attach it to her real name and so clearly she wasn't going to say what it was, and, last I checked, GG's incentives run the other direction. They would have paraded around the job if it was something salacious, but they would never parade around something mundane like "she was doing freelance web design" because it's not ammo that helps their cause.

 

[SturokBGD]

I think that the organizers behind Gamergate, the ones directing who to harass and what the talking points of the day are, are not quite as devoid of intellect. Certainly not intelligent, very certainly deluded, but composed enough to set an agenda for themselves and actually follow it. Difference is, these people do not hold the stated "ethics in video games" malarkey as anything more than a convenient smokescreen and a means to an end. Their real goal as demonstrated by their actions is to harass women out of gaming to prevent market forces and the lure of money from convincing developers to stop excluding women - which would mean that mainstream developers would no longer be exclusively pandering to them in a manner that pushes away others. And plenty of people just ride along to have an excuse to further bash women and spread the toxicity of the alt right: people like Milo who just a couple of years ago dismissed all video game players as manchildren.

My read of the situation is the exact opposite. These people are intelligent trolls. They see the hypocrisy clearly, they just don't care. They want to attack people and hurt people, and the 'ethics in video games' stuff was only ever a cloak with which to recruit people. As we can see in this case, they're good at research, good at finding corporate pressure points, and good at recruiting unwitting people who don't have the proper context to see through the poison etc.

Trolls have been around forever.

I think the thing is... how I see it... I figure, a smart man at some point would become aware of himself. But these guys never do.

 

[TM94]

I think she definitely crossed some lines on Twitter as a public representative of her company.

Whether she ever would have been fired for it without the GG harassment is another thing altogether. She was under scrutiny after attention was drawn to her social media posting, and I'd have a hard time believing that Nintendo wouldn't have had some problems with some of it.

The explanation of her second gig was a bit odd as well. She kind of moved right along past the point that she was using a fake name to work anonymously, which was probably what got her fired. Even the most progressive companies wouldn't tolerate a PR employee saying what she did on twitter and working a second gig under a fake name, no matter how talented or well respected you are. That part seems lost on her, which is a bit puzzling. I think Nintendo was entirely justified in letting her go, but the fact that GG was the catalyst that caused them to scrutinize her is what will keep people pissed off about it for eternity.

Agreed, the nature of the second job isn't any of our business really but if it wasn't allowed in her contract at Nintendo then it's very cut and dry in them letting her go.

 

[SneakersSO]

I understand the reality of why Nintendo chose to fire her and what could happen if they completely ignored it, but there's a very large spectrum of choices other than "completely ignore public outcry to the point where your entire corporation is in danger" and "fire her ass immediately". You mention that corporations have been essentially taught that they need to react to any and all public outcry, but they actually didn't do that. They didn't react to the outcry when there was a large smear campaign against Alison, they simply sat by the sidelines because engaging with the smear campaign was inconvenient for them. But they only listened when it was convenient to listen, and surprise surprise, it was only to fire her. So they took the worst of both worlds by reacting only when it involved marginalizing an outspoken feminist, someone whose personality wasn't a secret and Nintendo obviously was fine with.

Nintendo's own logic is not consistent here. I don't buy the notion that their hand has been forced simply because the GG doxxing revealed something they didn't like about Alison. If that's truly the case then Nintendo's a LOT more easy to manipulate than they try to let on. No, what's more likely is that Alison's outpsoken, socially progressive personality was convenient for them until it wasn't, and the minute it wasn't they showed her the door because it was the easier thing to do.

Nintendo was not fine with her outspoken personality. She said that after a month of working at Nintendo, they approached her to stop tweeting about controversial topics such as rape culture. Do you think any employer wants to hire someone they're gonna have to discuss their social media profile with literally within 30 days of hiring them?

There was nothing convenient about her outspoken, socially progressive personality. At least, nothing from what we know infers that Nintendo welcomed it. Allison has even said she wants to work at a place now where she will be way more open on speaking her mind on such matters. No matter which way you slice it, Nintendo tried to suppress this part about her. They even moved her away from a public speaking position in the company prior to letting her go.

If anything, the only thing we know about Nintendo through all of this is that they wish to remain as uninvolved in the larger culture war that rages across social media. They don't want any part of it, they don't want to be associated with it. Thats their prerogative. Coming out during the harassment campaign simply to denounce it, an act Ubisoft tried with Jade Raymond, that EA tried with the writer for Dragon Age, and that both attempts had zero effect in stopping or stemming those efforts whatsoever, would've resulted in nothing happening but an escalation of efforts on the part of their harassers, as we've seen whenever this situation has occurred in other instances.

 

[Draxal]

No. There are two points of discussion. One, which I think most could agree on, is the lack of support and repositioning being bang out of order and akin to silently supporting gg. The second point is about why she was fired and whether or not you choose to believe the two are related. What I think is plain wrong, is people saying that Nintendo shouldn't care what else she was getting up to. Only people who have literally no commercial experience could come up with such a statement and believe it to be true.

Well, said. I pmed a mod about making a thread about that first point and closing this one because that's the issue that needs to be discussed.

 

[diaspora]

Coming out during the harassment campaign simply to denounce it, an act Ubisoft tried with Jade Raymond, that EA tried with the writer for Dragon Age, and that both attempts had zero effect in stopping or stemming those efforts whatsoever, would've resulted in nothing happening but an escalation of efforts on the part of their harassers, as we've seen whenever this situation has occurred in other instances.

A common thread I'm seeing in the harassment of Raymond, Helper, Rapp, Quinn, etc is that the harassers seem to be able to use Twitter, Reddit, and to a lesser extend Facebook as a platform for attacks with damn near impunity.

 

[Sianos]

yeah it only takes a loud public outcry threatening to harm a corporations bottom line for them to do something that isn't squeezing every last cent of profit using every shady practice available. thank god the internet got large multinational corporation to stop using pink for their womens products or something while they still destroy large swathes of the worlds carbon sinks, exploiting cheap labour in poor countries using outsourcing and tax loopholes to make sure they don't have to pay the actual amount of tax they should be. hope the internet can sort that out. intersectional!

geez mate, i know the revelation that whataboutery is a word that exists is exciting, but you have to slow down a bit

the reason corporations get away with that is a group of people we call "republicans" scream very loudly to convince people that climate change doesn't actually exist because "hey look i threw a snowball in the senate" and that rich people "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" and deserve all of their illicit profits

you'll note that they use the verbal conveyance of information to trick people into actively working against solving the very problems that cause those people so much harm - and if you say something stupid like "lol one woman getting harassed isn't 'so much harm'" i'll be disappointed in you

maybe we could try hijacking that interesting new idea of conveying ideas through constructive phonemes and use it to show people that there actually is a problem that is being obfuscated

 

[Cyrano]

I think it is another point of discussion related. A lot of what's going on here is the treatment of females in the industry, and there's really no workers rights that protect them. In fact, there is no workers rights standards in the industry period. At least recently, thanks to Lily ledbetter, was there congressional action to get women paid equally all across any industry. But that said, if there was workers rights in the video game industry, it would lead the industry to be a more inclusive place.

I'm not necessarily sure legislation at a federal or state level would solve the cultural dimension of this. And this really feels like a cultural issue among Nintendo and videogame industry related work. I'm not saying the issue doesn't exist elsewhere, but I don't think any policy that is a one-size-fits-all solution works here.

Out of curiosity, what would you propose to change?

I do agree that it's a slow process but eventually the people running the show today will be gone and new blood will come in and it's important to have those blood to be better then the ones before them. And sure the situations and problems of today may be different then tomorrow but teaching people today the values and morals they need to handle any issue is also important. Like I said in my previous post. I'm not against speaking out. I just think there are many paths that can be taken.

That's pretty understandable. I'm not sure it's the best way, but it's definitely a way change has occurred among these large entities for a long time. Still, am preferable to change we can see now or soon™ rather than something more vague and distant.

 

[ApharmdX]

I saw yesterday that Rapp was fired and I'm of two minds on this.

On the one hand, Nintendo is running a business, one that is primarily focused on family-friendly games or toys. They have every right to protect that business, including firing an employee (a company spokesperson!) who espouses positions, and who engages in conduct that could possibly damage the public perception of Nintendo. Rapp's firing makes sense from this point of view.

On the other hand, Nintendo didn't do a very good job of standing behind this woman as she was being harassed. This is disgusting and I think was rooted in their very pragmatic desire not to lose customers, even repulsive sexist/racism/bigoted harassing customers.

Ultimately, and I hate to say it, Alison Rapp made a very poor decision. After the gator harassment-mobile had her in its sights, including for stuff like the thesis arguing for laxer enforcement against CP, which Rapp didn't disavow, she should have dialed down her behavior and commentary. Jim Sterling says:

So what does make a “good representative of the company”? As near as I can tell, Nintendo would be happiest with mindless humanoid flesh poured into Mario T-shirts and decorated with rows of grinning white teeth.

It’s not like Rapp or Pranger leaked secret NX information, punched a nun, or denied the Holocaust. They didn’t mouth off to their bosses, bring a monkey to the office, or refuse on principle to flush the communal toilet. They spoke. They had private lives. They existed in ways Nintendo decided it didn’t like. They were not faceless, sinless, or quiet.

Nintendo wants to maintain a family friendly facade which it does through scrubbing away any ounce of personality from its employees, a rather self-defeating plan when you think about it. All that’s left behind are the awkward scripted moments, executives with smiles etched like scars on their cold faces, and no amount of genuine heart on display.

Which is how Nintendo likes it. It would rather employ clay dolls in the shape of people, devoid of distinguishing features.

But, well, that's their prerogative. When you're acting as the public face of a corporation, you lose the ability to be outwardly controversial in a way that contradicts with that corporation's vision. Nintendo has the right to expect their representatives to not damage the company's image. If Rapp had a problem with that expectation, she should have found an employer where she wasn't expected to toe that same line.

 

[SneakersSO]

A common thread I'm seeing in the harassment of Raymond, Helper, Rapp, Quinn, etc is that the harassers seem to be able to use Twitter, Reddit, and to a lesser extend Facebook as a platform for attacks with damn near impunity.

True. They also have their own platforms they utilize, particularly for the most illicit activities that occur against these victims. For example, you're not gonna go on reddit & find people planning anything illegal or conspiring. Just like-minded folks discussing events & ongoings, much like we do here, only from their perspective. As long as their discussion remains within Reddit guidelines, they can't do anything against them. Same thing for Facebook, and on facebook you can get large private chat groups, so its not even evident whats going on there. Twitter is another matter entirely, though.

 

[Sianos]

I think the thing is... how I see it... I figure, a smart man at some point would become aware of himself. But these guys never do.

The followers, the true believers - they're exactly as dumb as you think. But I think the ones organizing the charge and the ongoing harassment campaigns really just want an excuse to harass women, and don't give a fuck about their apparent hypocrisy because they don't actually care about "ethics in video games" either way.

The leaders are still stupid misogynistic pricks, but at least they are goal-oriented ones - it just happens that they have a very simple goal of harassing women.

They're also exceeding transparent about it, though, so I guess that makes them still stupid fools, right?

 

[kiryogi]

I'm not necessarily sure legislation at a federal or state level would solve the cultural dimension of this. And this really feels like a cultural issue among Nintendo and videogame industry related work. I'm not saying the issue doesn't exist elsewhere, but I don't think any policy that is a one-size-fits-all solution works here.

Out of curiosity, what would you propose to change?

Alright, that's fair enough.

Well what I just mentioned right there, I think Job Security would be a tremendous step to an industry that's known to churn and burn, but also treat people as absolutely expendable. The latter being such a huge factor. There's always that new college graduate that will take up your job if you don't do it. This would then afford folks not only stability knowing they have a job, but they could start to also speak up to further improve gender and workplace conditions.

As someone mentioned, the h1b1 is something extremely dangerous, and horrific that they would even treat domestic IT workers like that. This alone is something that was enacted politically, as good as it sounds on paper to the people for tech companies.

 

[Drake]

So heres the thing - nothing about her second job has, fortunately, come to light (at least to my knowledge). You're Nintendo. And you discover, before it goes public, that a public face of your company, that you moved out of the public spotlight a few weeks ago specifically to try and deescalate the negative attention an ongoing hate campaign against this person had brought onto your company, has had a moonlighting job that you deem unsavory to your corporate interests. Do you risk hanging onto the employee or waiting until the news of this 2nd job getting out & becoming a national story?

When Nintendo does something right, they have to do whats right by them & their other employees as well. You're saying the entirety of Nintendo should sacrifice itself because some bad stuff about one of their public faces came to light?

Here's the reality - we now live in an age of weaponized social media outrage. Pure & Simple. For years, we used these tactics against targets The Internet deemed to be harmful or problematic. We got people fired or removed from positions of power & influence, and people celebrated. We never thought that ideological opponents would use these same tactics against us, but this was bound to happen. This is political escalation. You cannot expect a company, or any company, to now sit there & ignore public outcry when we have basically spent the last decade teaching corporations to react to any & all public outcry. Adding onto to that, the double whammy in this case, where a group like The Wayne Foundation is accusing said employee of supporting pedophilia culture, and you can begin to appreciate just how difficult of a position Nintendo was really in.

The internet was well aware that Allison had nothing to do with the Fire Emblem localization. That isn't why she was being targeted. She had been targeted for years prior to the FE localization fiasco. She was targeted because she was an outspoken ideological opponent to these people, and she was employed in a highly public organization. You're right in that, going forward, people who are deemed ideological opponents of theirs are going to have to dot their i's and cross their t's on social media. Its an unfortunate reality for the internet now.

Damn, you make a good point. This really made me think.

 

[tfur]

Nintendo was not fine with her outspoken personality. She said that after a month of working at Nintendo, they approached her to stop tweeting about controversial topics such as rape culture. Do you think any employer wants to hire someone they're gonna have to discuss their social media profile with literally within 30 days of hiring them?

There was nothing convenient about her outspoken, socially progressive personality. At least, nothing from what we know infers that Nintendo welcomed it. Allison has even said she wants to work at a place now where she will be way more open on speaking her mind on such matters. No matter which way you slice it, Nintendo tried to suppress this part about her. They even moved her away from a public speaking position in the company prior to letting her go.

If anything, the only thing we know about Nintendo through all of this is that they wish to remain as uninvolved in the larger culture war that rages across social media. They don't want any part of it, they don't want to be associated with it. Thats their prerogative. Coming out during the harassment campaign simply to denounce it, an act Ubisoft tried with Jade Raymond, that EA tried with the writer for Dragon Age, and that both attempts had zero effect in stopping or stemming those efforts whatsoever, would've resulted in nothing happening but an escalation of efforts on the part of their harassers, as we've seen whenever this situation has occurred in other instances.

I do not know the time lines, but the circumstances in those first two paragraphs could very well set management against you. If you are seen as not following the rules and then being moved around in a company, they might not be happy with what you are doing and not supportive of what you are doing.

 

[Schnozberry]

Well that's a dead end, the existing labor laws are really weak in general. But at least to have something contractually binding to enforce better standards in a cutthroat industry such as the video game industry would be a good first step. Things like crunch time, and job security. Being able to even speak out about workplace issues period without fear of termination or harassment would be a huge step too, especially in these regards. Like her coworkers could petition for Alison. But right now they really can't, because for fear of their jobs.

Perhaps a resurgence of independent studios would help fix this problem. More room to experiment with ideas and culture. I think the consolidation in the industry has left it in a position where companies have become leviathans that nobody is willing to take on or question because of how far their influence spreads out. Even journalists from major outlets avoid talking about how the structure of the industry is completely upside down.

Instituting better labor protections won't help people if they breach a contract, however.

 

[Schnozberry]

A common thread I'm seeing in the harassment of Raymond, Helper, Rapp, Quinn, etc is that the harassers seem to be able to use Twitter, Reddit, and to a lesser extend Facebook as a platform for attacks with damn near impunity.

This should be discomforting to everyone, regardless of where you stand ideologically on an issue. The internet can become a cesspool at a frightening pace when it's left to it's own devices, and the very principles that make the internet such a fascinating social phenomenon also make it ripe for exploitation by people who have no class or conscience.

 

[Cyrano]

Well what I just mentioned right there, I think Job Security would be a tremendous step to an industry that's known to churn and burn, but also treat people as absolutely expendable. The latter being such a huge factor. There's always that new college graduate that will take up your job if you don't do it. This would then afford folks not only stability knowing they have a job, but they could start to also speak up to further improve gender and workplace conditions.

As someone mentioned, the h1b1 is something extremely dangerous, and horrific that they would even treat domestic IT workers like that.

Alright, but how do you implement something like job security at a high enough level to allow for these things, especially in a country as gung ho about "at will work" as the United States? Also provides some really salient questions for migrant workers and other populations whose work doesn't fit neatly into traditional corporate structures. Would likely encourage an intern culture or contract culture as a backlash without some worker protections that include full time wages after a certain employment period and force businesses to hire for certain rigidly-defined employment periods (such as quarterly/montly/bi-weekly/etc.). Feel like this would either result in a lot of gaps or a lot of businesses trying to find a way to outsource.

 

[border]

Here's the reality - we now live in an age of weaponized social media outrage. Pure & Simple. For years, we used these tactics against targets The Internet deemed to be harmful or problematic. We got people fired or removed from positions of power & influence, and people celebrated. We never thought that ideological opponents would use these same tactics against us, but this was bound to happen. This is political escalation. You cannot expect a company, or any company, to now sit there & ignore public outcry when we have basically spent the last decade teaching corporations to react to any & all public outcry. Adding onto to that, the double whammy in this case, where a group like The Wayne Foundation is accusing said employee of supporting pedophilia culture, and you can begin to appreciate just how difficult of a position Nintendo was really in.

Yep. I hate how questionable or disingenuous smear tactics and Twitter lynch mobs became acceptable simply because their targets were distasteful. And now that same monster that we willfully created is beyond our control. Five years ago it was fun bloodsport to get some woman fired for a bad AIDS joke, but it's not so entertaining today to see another woman fired for expressing some mildly unconventional and progressive viewpoints.

In this day and age, I am kinda surprised that anybody in a public-facing position would post anything other than official updates on Twitter/Facebook.

 

[kiryogi]

Alright, but how do you implement something like job security at a high enough level to allow for these things, especially in a country as gung ho about "at will work" as the United States? Also provides some really salient questions for migrant workers and other populations whose work doesn't fit neatly into traditional corporate structures. Would likely encourage an intern culture or contract culture as a backlash without some worker protections that include full time wages after a certain employment period and force businesses to hire for certain rigidly-defined employment periods (such as quarterly/montly/bi-weekly/etc.). Feel like this would either result in a lot of gaps or a lot of businesses trying to find a way to outsource.

This ultimately goes back to the political spectrum, and more so along the lines of how Bernie ideally puts it, having corporations play by the rules. Keeping jobs here, paying taxes etc. A lot of this would basically have to be government regulation to even realistically happen. And that's realistically a sad thing here, is that this is all political in the end. In terms of who and how its all influenced, if you trace it down to the very core. Things like the H1B1 and the TPP, are what allows/encourages outsourcing, and that's a political play.

 

[border]

To what extent was Nintendo aware of her Twitter activities over the course of her employment?

Rapp says she was frequently worried that getting a new tattoo might cause them to take away her public-facing roles. But at the same time she was comfortable enough to post boudoir photos of herself. Something doesn't really add up there. If you're afraid that having an unprofessional appearance might negatively affect your job, then I don't know why you would push the envelope with racy photography that will almost certainly be seen in a worse light than a new tattoo. Did she at some point get the impression that she was free to do whatever she wanted on Twitter?

Her recent string of Tweets at least seems to imply that Nintendo really had no idea what she had been doing on social media until it was brought to their attention in the last couple of months. "because the GG mess meant they 'looked at my tweets' and decided I wasn’t a good representative of the company."

It's difficult for me to determine if Nintendo was actually really liberal about letting her be herself on the internet, or if they were just grossly negligent in enforcing any kind of social media policy and had no idea what Rapp was up to. She says that during her first couple months of employment they had previously told her not to Tweet about "rape culture", so it's clear that at least initially they were keeping a close eye on her social media accounts.

 

[diaspora]

True. They also have their own platforms they utilize, particularly for the most illicit activities that occur against these victims. For example, you're not gonna go on reddit & find people planning anything illegal or conspiring. Just like-minded folks discussing events & ongoings, much like we do here, only from their perspective. As long as their discussion remains within Reddit guidelines, they can't do anything against them. Same thing for Facebook, and on facebook you can get large private chat groups, so its not even evident whats going on there. Twitter is another matter entirely, though.

You're right about them organizing, but I'm referring to their coordinated attacks using these platforms.

 

[SneakersSO]

To what extent was Nintendo aware of her Twitter activities over the course of her employment?

Rapp says she was frequently worried that getting a new tattoo might cause them to take away her public-facing roles. But at the same time she was comfortable enough to post boudoir photos of herself. Something doesn't really add up there. If you're afraid that having an unprofessional appearance might negatively affect your job, then I don't know why you would push the envelope with racy photography that will almost certainly be seen in a worse light than a new tattoo.

Her recent string of Tweets at least seems to imply that Nintendo really had no idea what she had been doing on social media until it was brought to their attention in the last couple of months. "because the GG mess meant they 'looked at my tweets' and decided I wasn’t a good representative of the company."

It's difficult for me to determine if Nintendo was actually really liberal about letting her be herself on the internet, or if they were just grossly negligent in enforcing any kind of social media policy and had no idea what Rapp was up to. She says that during her first couple months of employment they had previously told her not to Tweet about "rape culture", so it's clear that at least initially they were keeping a close eye on her social media accounts.

One of her tweets from yesterday tells us that Nintendo approached her within a month of working there & asked her to not tweet about controversial topics such as rape culture. In my professional opinion, Nintendo was only aware of Allison's social media activities only when it was brought to their attention, probably by people who did not agree or like what she was saying.

Considering we had another well-known Nintendo rep within the last few months who had their employment terminated when they went on a podcast to discuss something not-really Nintendo related, but without corporate's consent mind you, and its easy to see that outspokeness by individuals and Nintendo do not go well together.

 

[TheBaldEmperor]

From time to time I've seen Nintendo suggested to be the Disney of the video game world and I tend to agree with that. How many Disney PR people would get away with personal Twitter accounts talking about rape culture, posting nsfw pics, and speaking about lowering the age of consent? Are there any? I know context is important and I don't know if she deserved to lose her job or not. That being said I don't see her Twitter history as something Nintendo would be cool with and was often surprised to see some of the things a Nintendo employee was saying and tweeting. In that mindset I imagine her second job didn't fit in with the image they want to portray either. If it did, I don't think there would be the secrecy around it that exists at this point and time.

 

[SneakersSO]

You're right about them organizing, but I'm referring to their coordinated attacks using these platforms.

Thats the problem - you have to prove that they are coordinating attacks on those platforms in order to get them to act. Trust me, there are people on Reddit who salivate at the idea at getting the main GG reddit forum closed down. In fact, Reddit recently went on a banning spree and closed down a plethora of subreddits that they discovered were brigading or coordinating attacks & shut them down. The main GG subreddit survived that purge, specifically cause no one could nail anything on the GG subreddit itself in terms of proving they were coordinating attacks on the platform. That GG subreddit carefully avoids breaking Reddit rules, as they know they are walking on extremely thin ice.

As for Twitter - they do what they can, but honestly, Twitter's biggest problem when it comes to combating harassment is manpower. Sure, they've suffered a decrease in users this last year, and started posting financial losses, but theres no way they have the funding needed to hire the amount of people needed to properly moderate such an open platform. Not only that, bans are borderline irrelevant - users can just jump right back on with burner email accounts and resume the campaign however they see fit. Unfortunately, the best piece of advice you can give someone if they are suffering from a vicious harassment campaign on twitter is 'set your twitter to protected & do not engage with the harassers". It sucks that this is the best solution we have right now, but its the reality that we're dealing with.

 

[lord_of_flood]

So heres the thing - nothing about her second job has, fortunately, come to light (at least to my knowledge). You're Nintendo. And you discover, before it goes public, that a public face of your company, that you moved out of the public spotlight a few weeks ago specifically to try and deescalate the negative attention an ongoing hate campaign against this person had brought onto your company, has had a moonlighting job that you deem unsavory to your corporate interests. Do you risk hanging onto the employee or waiting until the news of this 2nd job getting out & becoming a national story?

When Nintendo does something right, they have to do whats right by them & their other employees as well. You're saying the entirety of Nintendo should sacrifice itself because some bad stuff about one of their public faces came to light?

Here's the reality - we now live in an age of weaponized social media outrage. Pure & Simple. For years, we used these tactics against targets The Internet deemed to be harmful or problematic. We got people fired or removed from positions of power & influence, and people celebrated. We never thought that ideological opponents would use these same tactics against us, but this was bound to happen. This is political escalation. You cannot expect a company, or any company, to now sit there & ignore public outcry when we have basically spent the last decade teaching corporations to react to any & all public outcry. Adding onto to that, the double whammy in this case, where a group like The Wayne Foundation is accusing said employee of supporting pedophilia culture, and you can begin to appreciate just how difficult of a position Nintendo was really in.

The internet was well aware that Allison had nothing to do with the Fire Emblem localization. That isn't why she was being targeted. She had been targeted for years prior to the FE localization fiasco. She was targeted because she was an outspoken ideological opponent to these people, and she was employed in a highly public organization. You're right in that, going forward, people who are deemed ideological opponents of theirs are going to have to dot their i's and cross their t's on social media. Its an unfortunate reality for the internet now.

Bolded statements are excellent. The concepts of privacy or public decency basically don't exist on social media, and I really hope everyone understands that. Social media allows a lot of people to be easily connected, but that same thing is also highly dangerous, as it allows for cases like Ali's where she was harassed for her views and her harassers essentially forced her out of her job because of things she decided to make public.

It sucks, but welcome to the Internet, where nothing is private and public decency doesn't matter.

 

[Eolz]

To what extent was Nintendo aware of her Twitter activities over the course of her employment?

Rapp says she was frequently worried that getting a new tattoo might cause them to take away her public-facing roles. But at the same time she was comfortable enough to post boudoir photos of herself. Something doesn't really add up there. If you're afraid that having an unprofessional appearance might negatively affect your job, then I don't know why you would push the envelope with racy photography that will almost certainly be seen in a worse light than a new tattoo. Did she at some point get the impression that she was free to do whatever she wanted on Twitter?

Her recent string of Tweets at least seems to imply that Nintendo really had no idea what she had been doing on social media until it was brought to their attention in the last couple of months. "because the GG mess meant they 'looked at my tweets' and decided I wasn’t a good representative of the company."

It's difficult for me to determine if Nintendo was actually really liberal about letting her be herself on the internet, or if they were just grossly negligent in enforcing any kind of social media policy and had no idea what Rapp was up to. She says that during her first couple months of employment they had previously told her not to Tweet about "rape culture", so it's clear that at least initially they were keeping a close eye on her social media accounts.

From what I remember, Nintendo tried to change some time ago by letting their employees be a bit more free on social networks.
After that good will, guess they will think it was a mistake, and at least watch everyone again... (At worst, stop them from talking freely there)

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Why? I understand that "bad PR" is viewed as harmful to those in pursuit of the soulless dollar, but how come maintaining a controversy-free business is more important than supporting a female employee who is obviously under attack by the kind of people who you shouldn't want to give a win to in any form?

I guess if you want to get into that argument, the main point would come down to whether you think maintaining a puritanically-leaning "clean" face of a company is more important than protecting employees who need it and shoving that protection in the face of entitled, narcissistic assholes.

That's why it doesn't matter what the 2nd job was. If it was illegal or disturbing, we'd probably know about it. I'd rather give an observably victimized person the benefit of the doubt rather than go through an exhaustive laundry list trying to prove the accusers innocent until proven guilty. At the VERY LEAST, Nintendo should have had ongoing discussions with her about options, discretely giving her choices that favored her future career prospects in order to avoid projecting even the appearance of indirect support for GG, instead of just dropping her at the height of the altercation with a wishywashy "not connected" statement.

I just don't understand the logic that whatever the second job was unequivocally does not matter *because* she was being harassed and the people who brought it to Nintendo's attentions were horrible shitbags who relentlessly harassed her.

The harassment was one thing. The job that apparently broke Nintendo policy was another.

I guess I don't see how a specific set of circumstances should change Nintendo's response to a breach of policy.

Even if you're adamant about the fact that her circumstances should have changed their response to what they saw as grounds for termination, do you have evidence that indicates there were no discussions about options, etc. in light of the policy breach and the immediate response was termination (even if that was standard practice in such a situation)?

 

[razoftblend]

So you don't actually understand the reason she was fired but still decided to come in the thread?

What's there to understand? There was a contract between an employer and an employee. Employee has a public view position representing the company. Employer warned employee about employee's conduct on social media because employer has a cultural image to keep. Employee ignored those warning and then employer was made aware of some info about employee from outside forces. Employer decided employee was an a safe person to keep anymore for the company.

It sucks that some douchbag on the Internet would jeopardize her job out of hate, but nobody forced her to do whatever it is that was discovered of her according to her statements.

People seem to bring up some sort of justice morale in here, but they ignore personal and professional responsability that comes with PR positions.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

What's there to understand? There was a contract between an employer and an employee. Employee has a public view position representing the company. Employer warned employee about employee's conduct on social media because employer has a cultural image to keep. Employee ignored those warning and then employer was made aware of some info about employee from outside forces. Employer decided employee was an a safe person to keep anymore for the company.

It sucks that some douchbag on the Internet would jeopardize her job out of hate, but nobody forced her to do whatever it is that was discovered of her according to her statements.

People seem to bring up some sort of justice morale in here, but they ignore personal and professional responsability that comes with PR positions.

So you don't. Thanks for answering the question.

 

[border]

In my professional opinion, Nintendo was only aware of Allison's social media activities only when it was brought to their attention, probably by people who did not agree or like what she was saying.

If Rapp was not operating with Nintendo's implied or explicit consent, then it is absolutely mind-blowing to me that she would have thought that publishing lingerie photos of herself was an appropriate decision. How can anyone be a college graduate and believe their employer will look kindly on that? How can anyone be a lifelong Nintendo fan and believe that's what they want from a PR representative? How does she not know that those actions are essentially career suicide?

Even more mind-blowing is that fact that those sexy tweets were made in December and apparently went under Nintendo's radar.

The reason I thought her Twitter posts might have been company-approved is just because of how crazy it would have been for that stuff to have been posted without approval (and that there were no subsequent repercussions for months).

People in the other thread had claimed that she was doing important outreach to particular groups and demographics that Nintendo has difficulty reaching and that's why her behavior was tolerated.....she was an ambassador to the Feminist Frequency crowd or somesuch. Increasingly though, it's beginning to sound like she was just operating with no oversight whatsoever and Nintendo got caught with their pants down when her most outrageous postings were brought to light. Which would in part explain why they did not exactly leap at the chance to defend her.

 

[border]

From what I remember, Nintendo tried to change some time ago by letting their employees be a bit more free on social networks.
After that good will, guess they will think it was a mistake, and at least watch everyone again... (At worst, stop them from talking freely there)

I doubt that it was good will. I can almost guarantee that policy change went something like this

EMPLOYEES: Let us be more casual on social media!

MANAGERS: Nope. That is a terrible idea.

EMPLOYEES: Social media is an important part of our lives, and a tool we need to utilize!

MANAGERS (to each other): Just give them what they want. Somebody is bound to screw it up within six months, and when they do we will be completely justified to put a gag on everyone again.

MANAGERS (to employees): Congratulations everyone.....you can now speak freely on Twitter!

 

[hey_monkey]

First, this story was in The Guardian and CNN today. It's hardly a small thing.

Second, this notion that there's just nothin anyone can do about social media is incredibly fallacious. It's not easy to police or to enforce, certainly, and it'll be pricey, but eventually there will be enough cost that platforms wil crack down or governing bodies will.

 

[vaniel]

I am an HR manager, and have worked as a consultant with numerous companies in writing policy. I'd like to clear a few things up:

Many of you are saying that Nintendo was infringing on her Freedom of Expression and her Freedom of Speech.

If you think that, I'd take another look at exactly what that means. Nintendo isn't saying that she CAN'T say/do those things. She has an absolute right to say or do anything she wishes, just as Nintendo has an absolute right to not do business with her if her speech or actions do not line up with their company values.

Washington is an "At-Will" state, meaning that both the employee and the employee are able to sever a working relationship (employment) at any time, for any reason except those prohibited by law.

Nintendo did not let her go due to her gender, race, religion, age, sexuality, national origin, disability, etc (at least according to them) so what they did is LEGAL, though pretty shitty.

Most companies have (and I've never seen a big corporation like Nintendo NOT have) a policy regarding multiple jobs. Most of the time these policies state that you are able to have another job as long as

1) It does not interfere with your work with them
2) Is not in the same industry.

We simply don't know what Alison's second job was, besides a few clues that she has provided on her twitter. From what I've pieced together it probably did not interfere with #2, but may have with #1 due to the position at Nintendo she was in.

I don't think Alison is wrong in that Nintendo allows for a second job. I think the way her tweet was written (calling it moonlighting, which usually has a negative tinge to it) as well as perhaps not understanding the policy thoroughly may have magnified her feelings on the reasoning behind the termination.

I'm sure she will find something else quickly. She's a smart, resilient, and driven person. I wouldn't be surprised if she has already received calls from other companies offering her a position.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

So you don't. Thanks for answering the question.

If you're referring to the GG shitheads bringing whatever she was doing to light to Nintendo, then that's not the reason. That may have been what led Nintendo to discovering the reason for termination, but it in and of itself was not the reason.

GG'ers deserve all the hate in the world. None of us actually know the details (nor should we, probably), so we just have to go by Rapp's Tweets and what Nintendo put out. Both have mentioned the reason for termination (without the details), and that reason was not "unwanted attention of hate groups."

 

[razoftblend]

So you don't. Thanks for answering the question.

I think all of us know her story already, but outside of what we have been told, we are all in the dark about the details that led to this. Some people seem to want to bring their sense of justice to the table while ignoring the relationship of the parties involved; in this case, that is the contract between Rapp and Nintendo.

 

[axisofweevils]

From what I remember, Nintendo tried to change some time ago by letting their employees be a bit more free on social networks.
After that good will, guess they will think it was a mistake, and at least watch everyone again... (At worst, stop them from talking freely there)

All this has made me wonder if Treehouse Live was a good idea. I loved it at the time, but it turned previously anonymous employees into celebrities and harassment targets. GAF is better than most sites, but even here, we had a really creepy obsession with the private photographs of Erik on vacation ("the hot one").

Last year, Nintendo's E3 underwhelmed. Treehouse was the face of that disappointing E3. Guess who angry gamers decided to take out their frustrations on? I'd be amazed if it returned this year.

 

[hey_monkey]

If you're referring to the GG shitheads bringing whatever she was doing to light to Nintendo, then that's not the reason. That may have been what led Nintendo to discovering the reason for termination, but it in and of itself was not the reason.

GG'ers deserve all the hate in the world. None of us actually know the details (nor should we, probably), so we just have to go by Rapp's Tweets and what Nintendo put out. Both have mentioned the reason for termination (without the details), and that reason was not "unwanted attention of hate groups."

She did say that it increased scrutiny. And that's what a lot of people have been saying, too - that the coordinated smear campaign contributed to whatever else was going on. That's what's so frustrating to me. You suffer harassment and shitbaggery and eventually it contributes to fucking up your professional life. Awesome.

I won't speculate on her other job, except to say that she said it wasn't against policy (which could mean it was a loophole excuse) or it could have been a bigger deal. No one knows. Doesn't even really matter. None of this had to happen.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

All this has made me wonder if Treehouse Live was a good idea. I loved it at the time, but it turned previously anonymous employees into celebrities and harassment targets. GAF is better than most sites, but even here, we had a really creepy obsession with the private photographs of Erik on vacation ("the hot one").

Last year, Nintendo's E3 underwhelmed. Treehouse was the face of that disappointing E3. Guess who angry gamers decided to take out their frustrations on? I'd be amazed if it returned this year.

Yeah, the people creeping all over that guy was embarrasing and killed the treehouse live thread for me, maybe is for the best if they no longer do that.

 

[PopeReal]

I still see so many people carrying the exact narrative in this thread that GG does. Whether those people are GG themselves doesn't even matter when it is the exact same bullshit.

So either they are playing dumb or are just idiots doing GG work for them in this thread. Congrats on being part of the problem.

 

[@MUWANdo]

All this has made me wonder if Treehouse Live was a good idea. I loved it at the time, but it turned previously anonymous employees into celebrities and harassment targets. GAF is better than most sites, but even here, we had a really creepy obsession with the private photographs of Erik on vacation ("the hot one").

Last year, Nintendo's E3 underwhelmed. Treehouse was the face of that disappointing E3. Guess who angry gamers decided to take out their frustrations on? I'd be amazed if it returned this year.

I think a lot of people are unaware that the animosity towards Alison Rapp didn't start with Fire Emblem or XCX, it started much earlier--Treehouse streamed an in-house tournament for Smash or Splatoon or some other game and a little while after the stream ended, Alison complained online about how she wishes people would stop posting vile comments about the female staffers, complete with screencaps of peoples' comments about individual Treehouse members, and from that moment on she became a target, it just took a while for them to find a means of attack.

 

[joedick]

I just googled Nintendo, and there's way more articles about Alison Rapp than Miitomo on its launch day.

Hopefully that gets Nintendo to take notice, though they're probably waiting for this to blow over. It's up to us to keep the conversation going.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

All this has made me wonder if Treehouse Live was a good idea. I loved it at the time, but it turned previously anonymous employees into celebrities and harassment targets. GAF is better than most sites, but even here, we had a really creepy obsession with the private photographs of Erik on vacation ("the hot one").

Last year, Nintendo's E3 underwhelmed. Treehouse was the face of that disappointing E3. Guess who angry gamers decided to take out their frustrations on? I'd be amazed if it returned this year.

Yeah, I can see Nintendo not doing that anymore. It's a shame how something that was meant to meant to make game promotion more human and friendly ended up evolving into something so dark.