Support NeoGAF

[Nephrahim]

Its a pretty typical corporate response. Distance yourself from all the anger and never address the heart of the issue. Its only funny because they've spent so much time making fun of publishers releasing similar statements of nothing.

It's sad but I guess that's what these people do.

A few months ago on Rooster teeth there was a blow up when Goeff and Gavin told people about how they would sneak up on girls in their car as a joke. People reacted negatively, accusing them of scaring the poor girls who might have thought they were being stalked. A few days later they released a statement apologizing for TELLING the story on the air. It seemed like such a backhanded non-apology to me, but the people on the site acted like it was just what he needed to say.

 

[stump sock]

Its a pretty typical corporate response. Distance yourself from all the anger and never address the heart of the issue. Its only funny because they've spent so much time making fun of publishers releasing similar statements of nothing.

that's a pretty big leap to make though. talking circles around why BF4 is a broken game is not the same as discussing the details of HR and hirings/firings. People, even those who make their living by talking in public mediums, have the reasonable expectation to have some right to privacy in workplace matters.

 

[Fallout-with-swords]

I'm genuinely curious how people who think Jeff should have been more direct about the hiring controversy think he should have handled it?

 

[SteveWinwood]

Who is "we"? You or I didn't prevent WW3

i certainly did not sure what youre talking about

 

[CambriaRising]

Its a pretty typical corporate response. Distance yourself from all the anger and never address the heart of the issue. Its only funny because they've spent so much time making fun of publishers releasing similar statements of nothing.

They don't really owe us or anyone else an explanation of why they hired who they did.

 

[p2535748]

I guess I don't understand the letter other than to be a rallying cry about GB being inclusive (which it has a bit of a spotty record of being). I thought Patrick's E3 post on tumblr to be a little more focused and substantial, even if most of the complaints leveled against him (the rolodex issue) was brought up last year by a few of us. I guess if another year goes by without any sort of changes, do we just wait again and again?

I'm not sure there's a lot GB/Jeff can do about the initial criticisms though. What would he possibly write at this point that would simultaneously mollify those upset and also not throw his new hires under the bus? He can't really apologize for hiring the people he did, he can't really say "next time, we'll hire a woman", and they can't change the hiring decisions now. All he can really say is "we hear the criticism, and we appreciate it".

This is not to dismiss the criticism, it's just to say that at this point, I'm not sure there's a lot he can say, and that criticizing the vocal minority that are causing serious harm to the community and making it clear that this will not be tolerated on the site is probably about as much as he can do.

Also, I think this is different from Patrick's rolodex post because there, he's just discussing booking guests. That doesn't have the legal ramifications that hiring does. Additionally, it's less of a zero sum game in booking guests. Patrick can admit that he should have invited more women without explicitly saying he should not have invited some of the people he did. Jeff can't make the same statement, he can't say "we should have hired women" without also saying "we shouldn't have hired Dan or Jason."

 

[frostyxc]

Wait... I didn't get the job at Giant Bomb? This is the way I find out?!?

Also, people don't have to apologize for every conceived slight. So they didn't hire your mom--life goes on!

 

[Shosai]

Humanity?

You think it's humans that are in control? You are so naive

 

[EmCeeGramr]

*looks in comment section*

*sees permabanned former Bomb-GAF regular trying to twist Jeff's words into an attack on the critics*

lmao

 

[Jimmyfenix]

Huh in ireland pants mean Joggies jeans and the sort? Never knew that.

 

[shadyspace]

I know how oxbow lakes are formed, but am not 100% on all things World War II.

I know about drumlins, prevailing winds, and other glacial landforms too

I DO NOT KEEP POSTING IN THIS THREAD ABOUT IT

Tell me about drumlins

 

[Majine]

I hope the expansion means they get to travel more. The best content comes out of that. Case in point: Drews North Korea trip, Iceland and ofcourse, Liverpool.

 

[CosmicQueso]

I know how oxbow lakes are formed, but am not 100% on all things World War II.

I know about drumlins, prevailing winds, and other glacial landforms too

I DO NOT KEEP POSTING IN THIS THREAD ABOUT IT

wait just glacial landforms or do you also have glacier knowledge? Like, how f'd are we on the whole global warming/melting glacier thing? Cuz I'm interested...

 

[Fallout-with-swords]

You think it's humans that are in control? You are so naive

 

[Spirit of Jazz]

Also, ultimately, I'm not sure I agree that Jeff needs to address people's criticisms about their hiring, at least not openly. He probably should keep this all in mind for next time, of course, but GB is not run openly, and their business decisions are not really open for scrutiny by the general public. People are free to comment, of course, but they're also not entitled to a response.

I'm of the mind that when dealing with issues pertaining to race, gender, and sexual orientation ignoring it completely doesn't help ease the concerns of those who put the criticisms forward and is often implicit of people's concerns being a reality. It's not a matter at all of people being entitled to a response however in not responding they risk losing the trust and respect of those who criticised them.

 

[erawsd]

that's a pretty big leap to make though. talking circles around why BF4 is a broken game is not the same as discussing the details of HR and hirings/firings. People, even those who make their living by talking in public mediums, have the reasonable expectation to have some right to privacy in workplace matters.

They don't really owe us or anyone else an explanation of why they hired who they did.

Absolutely, I'm not saying that they owe anyone an explanation. What I am saying is that this isn't some wonderfully constructed statement that addresses the issue, which is what a lot of other reactions seem to be saying.

 

[silentcapybara]

What specifically sparked this firestorm? Was it on the GB forums?

 

[Manbig]

There are no way to disclose hiring decision without getting sue, how can you prove that one person fit the editors better? How do you prove one person had better personality? How do you prove you like one's "writing" more than another?

Actually what you brought it makes it difficult to actually sue employers. It is difficult to prove intent unless the employer REALLY fucked up. It's why companies like Walmart can get away with the nonsense that they do despite their terrible practices being obvious to everyone. It's just the way our crazy legal system works.

 

[Tan]

I hope the expansion means they get to travel more. The best content comes out of that. Case in point: Drews North Korea trip, Iceland and ofcourse, Liverpool.

That sounded like a big motivator when they first started talking about hiring people.

 

[Tamanon]

I'm of the mind that when dealing with issues pertaining to race, gender, and sexual orientation ignoring it completely doesn't help ease the concerns of those who put the criticisms forward and is often implicit of people's concerns being a reality. It's not a matter at all of people being entitled to a response however in not responding they risk losing the trust and respect of those who put the criticisms forward.

Eh, there are some pretty big legal ramifications for talking about why people aren't hired.

 

[daydream]

Rorie doing good work in the comments section.

What specifically sparked this firestorm? Was it on the GB forums?

Nah, all Twitter.

Absolutely, I'm not saying that they owe anyone an explanation. What I am saying is that this isn't some wonderfully constructed statement that addresses the issue, which is what a lot of other reactions seem to be saying.

It addresses the issue that HAD to be addressed, the rest, like you acknowledge, is up to them. So I don't see what you're referring to.

 

[popo]

The comments on Jeff's post are pretty funny. A lot of bewildered "what happened" comments reminding us of our niche hardcore forum posessed position and a few trouble makers yelling censorship because the mods are deleting their sarcastic posts. Rorie in there calming people. If that was a gaf thread the bans would be in the double digits by now.

 

[CambriaRising]

Absolutely, I'm not saying that they owe anyone an explanation. What I am saying is that this isn't some wonderfully constructed statement that addresses the issue, which is what a lot of other reactions seem to be saying.

I think it addresses what needed to be addressed in terms of the way some members of the community behaved themselves very well. As for what initiated it, like I said before, they don't owe anyone an explanation. And even if they did, they probably couldn't talk about it anyway.

 

[TharpDaddy]

What specifically sparked this firestorm? Was it on the GB forums?

The two places most firestorms originate: Twitter and Reddit.

 

[Spirit of Jazz]

Eh, there are some pretty big legal ramifications for talking about why people aren't hired.

I'm sorry but I find it pretty hard to believe there's no way from them to respond to the critique (whether it's through a statements, discussion or action) without facing legal ramifications.

 

[TharpDaddy]

The saddest part about all this? Rorie can't get a cold soda to help him cool off after dealing with all the comments.

 

[sneaky77]

I'm sorry but I find it pretty hard to believe there's no way from them to respond to the critique (whether it's through a statements, discussion or action) without facing legal ramifications.

Other than saying they appreciate the criticism, and will keep it in mind, what else is there to say? What can Jeff actually say that will satisfy you?

 

[Vire]

Weird, I almost think they would have been better off without writing the letter. While well written, I didn't even know about this whole fiasco till I saw that post on the front page of GB.

 

[Doopliss]

Having watched the Sniper QL I really think Dan is a perfect fit for Giant Bomb. I was worried when Vinny announced his move that it would mean a drop in the level of entertainment provided by the main crew but now I don't think that will be the case and I could not be happier with who they got!

 

[daydream]

I'm sorry but I find it pretty hard to believe there's no way from them to respond to the critique (whether it's through a statements, discussion or action) without facing legal ramifications.

Why does it have to be legal? There's only two ways they could go - agree with the critique which would be a dick move from Dan & Jason's perspective, or dismiss it which wouldn't satisfy anyone. I guess there's also the diplomatic "we'll be mindful of it in the future" route which also wouldn't help with the situation at hand. So even if they could say something about it, choosing not to would clearly be the professional way to handle this. Unless you can come up with a really cunning approach?

 

[Iksenpets]

I'm sorry but I find it pretty hard to believe there's no way from them to respond to the critique (whether it's through a statements, discussion or action) without facing legal ramifications.

Maybe not legal, but there are probably corporate concerns. There's no way to talk about it without talking about internal hiring practices that CBS may not want discussed, and there's no way to talk about how they plan to address it without talking about future business expansions that, again, CBS may not want discussed. They may want to come out and say that they plan on hiring x many more people between SF, Chicago, and NY over the next two years and that they think at least y many of those hires are going to be targeted at adding diversity, but I doubt the people who are in charge of their budget want to be publicly on record committing to any of that.

 

[BTA]

I'm happy that Jeff posted that, especially as it looked like Rorie might be the only one saying anything official. That being said, I do wish that it would have talked about the hiring a little and at least acknowledged the criticism (given that he was talking about being more inclusive and all), and perhaps would have been less vague about the harassment- Alex being specific about it being directed largely at women when he called it out yesterday was a good start.

 

[BearPawB]

I think there is not much they can do at this point. What is done is done.
All that they can do is learn from this experience for next time.

 

[funkystudent]

I dont think a quickly worded letter is the time or place for GB to make and big decisions about future hires. Best for them to talk about things in private because there is a whole bunch of "what is giant bomb now and what we want the site to be in future" that needs to happen.


Also I already feel bad for the next hires. If they hire a women that person is going to be looked at like they have been hired purely because they are a women and they will get shit and if its another man this storm will just repeat itself.

Its amazing people cares so damn much about who a website hires even if its a little intense.

 

[Incandenza]

The well has, unfortunately, been poisoned on the diversity discussion for the time being, so I think it's probably smart of Jeff to just focus on the urgent harassment issue and leave the rest of it for later. I'm sure that discussion also gets weird for him due to legal reasons and "I just hired this dude so it'd be kinda shitty of me to immediately start writing about whether or not I should have hired this dude" reasons.

 

[firehawk12]

I was expecting that Jeff would just come out and say that Dan was a pre-hire and that the position was never "really" open... but I guess that's something they really can't do.

Having to put out this kind of message is sad though, but I'm sure all the guys who think "SJWs" and "feminzazis" are stupid won't really change their ways.

 

[Die Squirrel Die]

I'm genuinely curious how people who think Jeff should have been more direct about the hiring controversy think he should have handled it?

What does Jeff think of the lack of diversity in the industry from the diversity represented within the game, to the people that make them, to the people that cover them and the audience that plays them?

Is diversity just a high minded goal, or is it something that could be beneficial in more particular ways, both for the industry at large and for Giantbomb?

What does he feel Giantbomb has done to promote diversity and what things could they do in the future, beyond just who they hire? Given that the accusations that Giantbomb aren't a diverse workforce are hard (impossible?) to refute, how would he go about addressing that without merely being seen as pandering?



There's some questions that I would like to see him answer. I must say I find it odd that there are people taking Jeff's letter as a sign that we can pack up all this controversy and move on, as though somehow the very true accusations against GB that still stands has been addressed. They still don't have, and have never had, anyone on their staff that isn't a white male whose age falls within a decade and a bit range.

Moreover I don't think this issue as a whole is going to go away either, if anything I think representational diversity is only going to become something that is more intensely focused on. We are only just coming off Patrick addressing the predominance of white male guests at the E3 panels, and you've also got Ubisoft talking about having tonnes of women in Far Cry 4, after they received criticism for a lack of female characters in ACU's coop and there laughable reasons for it (reasons that I'm sure GB themselves took shots at).

I don't think this is a one-off and now that the cat is out of the bag, until GB address this in a significant way they are going to be scrutinised for every new hire and every panel guest at GDC, at PAX, at E3.

 

[TheSadRanger]

What specifically sparked this firestorm? Was it on the GB forums?

People were calling out GB being an all white male staff, and when the hires were announced that it would be two more white males some people were disappointed. Some people on their own forums were asking why the site is all white males and were quickly met with resistance. Some were calling hypocrisy because of Patrick's articles pushing for equality. The main thing was some people on Twitter blew up on a woman for her criticisms and it got nasty.

It's an issue with the industry at large but I think the reason why it blew up on GB so much is because it's such a personality driven website where they spend a ton of time in front of a camera. No one really gives a shit if IGN or gamespot hires some white dude because it's unnoticed since they're hardly ever in front of a camera. It's a multitude of different things that had been building over a period of time with the industry at large that just kind of blew up.

I think the industry will change in being more diverse but it's going to have to come from the outside via Youtube or some other means with fresh blood. I don't think it's going to come from inside the industry itself.

 

[Antiwhippy]

Nice way of Jeff to tell other people to stop harassing people who brought up the issue, but I'm bewildered that people think that makes it ok to reveal their hiring processes.

It's a goddamn business decision. It's a private matter and they owe us nothing when it comes to explaining the process.

 

[popo]

I hope Game Informer announce their replacement hires for Dan and Jason soon. That way everyone can go on to congratulating or castigating them for their hiring choices.

 

[firehawk12]

People were calling out GB being an all white male staff, and when the hires were announced that it would be two more white males some people were disappointed. Some people on their own forums were asking why the site is all white males and were quickly met with resistance. Some were calling hypocrisy because of Patrick's articles pushing for equality. The main thing was some people on Twitter blew up on a woman for her criticisms and it got nasty.

It's an issue with the industry at large but I think the reason why it blew up on GB so much is because it's such a personality driven website where they spend a ton of time in front of a camera. No one really gives a shit if IGN or gamespot hires some white dude because it's unnoticed since they're hardly ever in front of a camera. It's a multitude of different things that had been building over a period of time with the industry at large that just kind of blew up.

I think the industry will change in being more diverse but it's going to have to come from the outside via Youtube or some other means with fresh blood. I don't think it's going to come from inside the industry itself.

Well, there was the added abuse where, like when trolls attack Carolyn Petit or any trans person, people were being shits and using "he" in an attempt to attack one of the critics for their position.

I hope Game Informer announce their replacement hires for Dan and Jason soon. That way everyone can go on to congratulating or castigating them for their hiring choices.

You look at their staff pages and, at least based on previous editors, GI has been fairly diverse.

 

[Patryn]

Eh, there are some pretty big legal ramifications for talking about why people aren't hired.

It could also lead to some major emotional damage and possible workplace difficulties for the two people who just uprooted their whole lives and moved halfway across the country. They already likely feel a little shitty and unwanted by the community.

 

[ignata]

Nice way of Jeff to tell other people to stop harassing people who brought up the issue, but I'm bewildered that people think that makes it ok to reveal their hiring processes.

It's a goddamn business decision. It's a private matter and they owe us nothing when it comes to explaining the process.

Seeing what you just said makes me wonder if their frequent peeks behind the curtain are now backfiring on them. There is no way that anybody at CBSi can go into the details of why they hired who they hired, or really any details from the interview process. That is asking for all sorts of trouble, up to and including lawsuits. As I've mentioned before on here, I used to be in a position which had me interviewing and hiring, and there are so many rules you have to follow to avoid legal repercussions it's insane. I'm glad that Giant Bomb shows us way further behind the curtain than other sites, but if people are expecting a look at their interview process or details from that, they're not going to get it. Hell, even Dan and Jason can't talk about their interviews, and they're the ones who got the positions.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Honestly, the ONLY thing Jeff could possibly say about the hires is "We thought they were the best for the job" wether thats true or not, cause everything else would be pretty insulting towards Dan and Jason and after all backing his employees (and co workers!) has to be more important than apologizing to some people on the internet. And even that would probably only add fuel to the fire so I doubt we'll ever hear this. Not that we are in any way entitled to get insights into their hiring process.

It could also lead to some major emotional damage and possible workplace difficulties for the two people who just uprooted their whole lives and moved halfway across the country. They already likely feel a little shitty and unwanted by the community.

I don't think the GB community at large has any problems with them.

 

[Mully]

I never expected this to blow up.

 

[firehawk12]

Seeing what you just said makes me wonder if their frequent peeks behind the curtain are now backfiring on them. There is no way that anybody at CBSi can go into the details of why they hired who they hired, or really any details from the interview process. That is asking for all sorts of trouble, up to and including lawsuits. As I've mentioned before on here, I used to be in a position which had me interviewing and hiring, and there are so many rules you have to follow to avoid legal repercussions it's insane. I'm glad that Giant Bomb shows us way further behind the curtain than other sites, but if people are expecting a look at their interview process or details from that, they're not going to get it. Hell, even Dan and Jason can't talk about their interviews, and they're the ones who got the positions.

I guess the thing is that if they did actually interview other candidates for the position, presumably those people are free to talk about their experiences?

Have we heard from anyone else who may have been considered for the position?

 

[wenis]

I never expected this to blow up.

You never expected a matter of gender and race to blow up on the internet?

 

[Will M]

I don't think the GB community at large has any problems with them.

Qft. Like many things on the Internet, it's a small group that's really loud.

Hell, there are avid bombcast listeners who rarely visit the site.

 

[ignata]

I guess the thing is that if they did actually interview other candidates for the position, presumably those people are free to talk about their experiences?

Have we heard from anyone else who may have been considered for the position?

They are, however if they were serious about the position and wanted to interview for it again, that would not reflect very highly on them to go public about their experience, be it in a positive or negative light. Again, that's just from my perspective and the perspective of every employer I've worked for, two of which were two of the largest media conglomerates in the world.

 

[Fotheringay]

Seeing what you just said makes me wonder if their frequent peeks behind the curtain are now backfiring on them. There is no way that anybody at CBSi can go into the details of why they hired who they hired, or really any details from the interview process. That is asking for all sorts of trouble, up to and including lawsuits. As I've mentioned before on here, I used to be in a position which had me interviewing and hiring, and there are so many rules you have to follow to avoid legal repercussions it's insane. I'm glad that Giant Bomb shows us way further behind the curtain than other sites, but if people are expecting a look at their interview process or details from that, they're not going to get it. Hell, even Dan and Jason can't talk about their interviews, and they're the ones who got the positions.

This has been a double-edged sword for them for as long as I can remember. It helps to create the level of super fandom they have from a minority, but can blow up spectacularly. How many times have you seen in this thread, or more likely the bombcast thread, someone voice a complaint about either the quality of the content, or the output of it, only to be met with 10 voices immediately explaining why they're wrong, or oblivious. There's so much secondary content that most aren't aware of (individual twitters, tumblrs, Jeff's mixlr, this thread, the something awful thread) that there's quite a few tiers of knowledge and fandom about this site.