No Dev feedback speeds up SWTORS demise.

[Israful]

The fact that you mentioned congress lets me assume that this is an american thing? So it is the law to say that harassment of an employee will result in them not talking to us anymore?

 

Or would saying that the the current and all future perpetrators will get banned from the game and prosecuted in a court of law have achieved the same thing?

 

I have a very simple answer to this whole situation. Its this:

Those that threatened the said developers self and family need to say:

I am very sorry, I really didn't mean to go to that extent, my passion for the game got the best of my judgement.

To that end I apologize for any wrong doing on my part and extend my deepest and most heartfelt apology. Please

forgive me. I am most sincerely sorry.

 

No need for police, no need for lawyers, no need for the developers to circle the wagons to protect themselves and their families. Just man/woman up, say you are sorry and carry on.

[Infernixx]

I have a very simple answer to this whole situation. Its this:

Those that threatened the said developers self and family need to say:

I am very sorry, I really didn't mean to go to that extent, my passion for the game got the best of my judgement.

To that end I apologize for any wrong doing on my part and extend my deepest and most heartfelt apology. Please

forgive me. I am most sincerely sorry.

 

No need for police, no need for lawyers, no need for the developers to circle the wagons to protect themselves and their families. Just man/woman up, say you are sorry and carry on.

 

You don't get it. It's not about punishing for this offense, it's about KEEPING IT FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN.

[Knorlac]

Thank you all for clarifying. If this was indeed the only thing they could say to satisfy the legal system I concede of course.

I was under the impression that issuing a warning to the community that such behaviour would result in ban and a lawsuit that could potentially ruin them financially depending on their age and occupation would already have been a strong action.

[Israful]

You don't get it. It's not about punishing for this offense, it's about KEEPING IT FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN.

 

I get it. Quite clearly. There is no way to ensure this will never happen again. That is not within the realm of possibility. I merely ask/point out this:

Lets be much much more civil and logical and compassionate in how we treat each other. If we do that the chances of this situation ever rearing its ugly head again are greatly reduced.

[Gonalius]

It's not about punishing those responsible, it's about preventing the possability of the situation ever happening again.

 

The only way to prevent such a risk is to get rid of the forums altogether, hide the names of anyone who works for them, and forbid them from ever speaking to anyone. Ever. You can't eliminate risk, and the way it was stated here, will egg on certain types of people simply out of spite and stupidity.

[lightSaberAddiCt]

The customer is not only not 'always right', they are very often almost always 'wrong.' Customers rarely understand the businesses that they make demands upon and even more rarely do they ever care about those businesses.

 

That whole 'customer is always right' is at least partly to blame for this stupid entitled attitude that a lot of people have when they deal with businesses of any sort.

 

That attitude of entitlement is what poisons these sorts of interaction between Dev and customers.

 

I agree with you infernix, and usually I am not. More then likely the poster your responing too, has never, and will never actually own a business, so it is easy to spew out the crap he/she does. I am a business owner, a restaurant owner, and 99% of the time the customer is irrational, over demanding and full of self importance. And LNF, b4 you respond my restaurant is very successful. Because customers appreciate when you care more for their dining experience, by dealing with the small minority of customers that feel they can be as disruptive as they want, because they are "paying customers".

Edited May 9, 2015 by lightSaberAddiCt

[ScarletBlaze]

The only way to prevent such a risk is to get rid of the forums altogether, hide the names of anyone who works for them, and forbid them from ever speaking to anyone. Ever. You can't eliminate risk, and the way it was stated here, will egg on certain types of people simply out of spite and stupidity.

 

There is another way and that is go back to the way the forums were ran before launch. They were a bit tougher in some situations. They eased up which makes some people think they can say or do anything and nothing will be done. If there are punishments (such as bans) for some things then maybe they will stop and think. Though, it will not stop everyone but it might help.

[Gonalius]

Thank you all for clarifying. If this was indeed the only thing they could say to satisfy the legal system I concede of course.

 

I doubt it is. I suspect that its the same type of law as the one where poorly educated 'legal experts' suggest launching spurious lawsuits to protect trademarks - Like the fairly famous case of Bethesda attempting to sue someone who's game had 'scrolls' in the title. Entirely ridiculous, and that type of case has been ruled as such in court, but as they believe it'll protect their trademarks, companies still do it.

[Knorlac]

There is another way and that is go back to the way the forums were ran before launch. They were a bit tougher in some situations. They eased up which makes some people think they can say or do anything and nothing will be done. If there are punishments (such as bans) for some things then maybe they will stop and think. Though, it will not stop everyone but it might help.

 

Mhmm this will not stop such things from happening at all I fear, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction. I read things here on a daily basis that would warrant an instant 7-14 days vacation on other boards I frequent.

[DuckKing]

SWTOR's future is looking bright! You all think the end is near just cause they aren't being responsive? I'm laughing so hard right now.

 

SWTOR will be around for a long time. Bookmark my post. If it's not then you can all laugh at me. But I reckon this game is in it for the long haul.

Edited May 9, 2015 by DuckKing

[Ghisallo]

The only way to prevent such a risk is to get rid of the forums altogether, hide the names of anyone who works for them, and forbid them from ever speaking to anyone. Ever. You can't eliminate risk, and the way it was stated here, will egg on certain types of people simply out of spite and stupidity.

 

This doesn't remove the legal responsibility that the Employer has to do what EA has done so far and stated they will do in the future if it continues. So the players on these forums have two choices

 

1. Cut it out and not go after employees, or their families IRL again and/or make overt threats (vs regular beotching "u suck comments.")

2. Or for the people that won't stop this insane crap, realize they ruined it for everyone else and for those who have spent this entire thread ignoring the law and saying EA has gone to far...realize they tried to apply pressure to the party who had legal obligations to IGNORE said pressure.

[Infernixx]

The only way to prevent such a risk is to get rid of the forums altogether, hide the names of anyone who works for them, and forbid them from ever speaking to anyone. Ever. You can't eliminate risk, and the way it was stated here, will egg on certain types of people simply out of spite and stupidity.

 

So, we have to be cowed by the possible actions of criminal members of the community? We can't 'act' certain ways, we can't do certain things, we can't talk appropriately out of fear of what some ******* in the community might do?

 

Screw that noise.

 

Again, if you take offense to Eric's post, you should probably leave the internet so your feelers don't get hurt again.

[Israful]

So, we have to be cowed by the possible actions of criminal members of the community? We can't 'act' certain ways, we can't do certain things, we can't talk appropriately out of fear of what some ******* in the community might do?

 

Screw that noise.

 

Again, if you take offense to Eric's post, you should probably leave the internet so your feelers don't get hurt again.

 

I don't take offence to Erics post.

As for your other comments, hmm well sounds like society in general. A society that has laws and mores. Can we extrapolate that to this venue and expect the same results?

I think we can and should.

[FerkWork]

How is this an issue? Don't threaten Devs, because of pixel changes. I play a Annihilation Marauder. I disagree with many of the changes and planned changes to it. But, it's still a friggin game and the Devs can and should do actions that prevent these criminal actions from happening again if it continues. End of story, nothing to quibble over.

 

It's a game. Stop treating it like it's your life.

Edited May 9, 2015 by FerkWork

[Gonalius]

Again, if you take offense to Eric's post, you should probably leave the internet so your feelers don't get hurt again.

 

Being mildly offended at being compared to filth, and being hurt, are two very different things. I'm sorry you can't wrap your head around that.

[DuckKing]

Mommy and Daddy please quit fighting. That's all I took away from this thread. Edited May 9, 2015 by DuckKing

[Lewintelamon]

Egads...

 

Coulda shoulda woulda. That's what this thread boils down to. It should be water under the bridge by now. An egregious action was performed by a fringe element of the community and was dealt with.

 

No amount of "professionalism" can completely mask our human reactions. I'm sure that Eric realized that it could have just as easily been his own family. Even so, he was legally bound to act and did. He stated that there would be clear and unequivocal consequences should such behavior continue to happen. After all, the requirements of his job can be just as well fulfilled by getting a report from the devs and relaying it to us as opposed to allowing the devs to speak to us directly. The people who perpetrated this garbage knew who he was referring to. Anyone else that took it personally needs to step back and relax. Just because he didn't single any names out doesn't mean that we should take it as he was directing it at all of us.

 

It's over. It's done. We can debate to the end of time what he "should have done" or what you "would have done". But the fact of the matter is that it's done.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Lewintelamon

[Ghisallo]

 

It's over. It's done. We can debate to the end of time what he "should have done" or what you "would have done". But the fact of the matter is that it's done.

 

The problem is you can only debate what he should have done IF you myopically look at yourself being offended and IGNORE the fact that legally, to be complaint wit existing tort law, they had to make such a statement. If they had not they would be exposing themselves to substantial liability.

 

I think this scenario shows us a host of issues in the gamer community but these are my two main takeaways.

 

1: there are those who feel the anonymity of the web provides them with a license to do whatever they want.

2: there are those who end up with a sense of entitlement that is so grossly over inflated that they simply can not imagine that non-game related realities can have an effect on them here. They basically think the two worlds are different... on the fundamental level we deal with here...they are NOT.

 

In regards to #1 if stuff like this, gamergate and other things continue to escalate the illusion of freedom we have in the virtual world will be eroded. I say illusion because while most governments do not regulate the internet in any substantive way we only have the freedoms that the Corporations give us. You can only post on FB what they let you, only do in a game or post on a forum what they let you. You can only (easily) get to the web sites that your ISP lets you. heck even 4chan has had to ban some discussions for liability reasons. If people keep acting like this they are only screwing themselves.

 

If not by law then by the policies and rules of the corporation hat control the services we use. In regards to #2 I completely get that people play these games to escpe from reality. Since there is that disconnect they can just down right freak out, or be completely blind sided and thus go into denial, when reality comes crashing through their monitor but that's life.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Ghisallo

[DarthDymond]

The problem is you can only debate what he should have done IF you myopically look at yourself being offended and IGNORE the fact that legally, to be complaint wit existing tort law, they had to make such a statement. If they had not they would be exposing themselves to substantial liability.

Okay, I am 110% on BW / Eric's side on this topic and think that those 'offended' by anything in his statement are way off-base. BUT I have to point out, in fairness to 'the other side', that what they seem to be objecting to is not that Eric made a statement at all, but that it included the line "The alternative, is that we stay silent. If the reaction of this community is to go out of your way to personally harass someone we will stop having a dialog."

 

The presence or absence of that particular 'threat' (as they call it) within the overall statement would not change EA's legal liability. Yes, as a liability matter it was a good idea to have Eric put out a statement condemning the harassment, but that doesn't mean the language the other side is arguing about had to be in there.

Edited May 10, 2015 by DarthDymond

[Ghisallo]

Okay, I am 110% on BW / Eric's side on this topic and think that those 'offended' by anything in his statement are way off-base. BUT I have to point out, in fairness to 'the other side', that what they seem to be objecting to is not that Eric made a statement at all, but that it included the line "The alternative, is that we stay silent. If the reaction of this community is to go out of your way to personally harass someone we will stop having a dialog."

 

The presence or absence of that particular 'threat' (as they call it) within the overall statement would not change EA's legal liability. Yes, as a liability matter it was a good idea to have Eric put out a statement condemning the harassment, but that doesn't mean the language the other side is arguing about had to be in there.

 

My only point is that the debate as to whether it was proportional or not, in this case, is irrelevant because it was a statement dictated by tort law. As such it was a requirement.

 

As such any argument about phrasing or proportionality should instead be focused on the tort law in question, not the statement born of it.

[Lewintelamon]

The problem is you can only debate what he should have done IF you myopically look at yourself being offended and IGNORE the fact that legally, to be complaint wit existing tort law, they had to make such a statement. If they had not they would be exposing themselves to substantial liability.

 

 

Oh, I know, I just find it silly that people ignore that because "OMG they threatened to cut off communication and didn't name names and put us ALL in the same boat!!!" If you weren't the one that did it, he wasn't addressing you. He was making the statement that needed to be said--and nitpicking over how it should have been said, given the circumstances of the situation, is pointless. People are choosing to argue over how "professional" he should have been.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Lewintelamon

[DarthDymond]

My only point is that the debate as to whether it was proportional or not, in this case, is irrelevant because it was a statement dictated by tort law. As such it was a requirement.

 

As such any argument about phrasing or proportionality should instead be focused on the tort law in question, not the statement born of it.

By the 'proportionality' debate I assume you mean Gonalius and Knorlac's argument that Eric should have instead focused his response to be targeted at the actual perpetrators, instead of directed at the community at large? (At least it looked like those are the ones you were replying to.)

 

Even in terms of phrasing and proportionality I can't see any EA lawyer saying "Okay, as long as you phrase it as 'we'll stop talking to the community' then we're covered, but if you say we're only going to 'come down like the Wrath of God on the heads of anyone who harasses our employees' then we'll still be open to civil liability if anything happens again."

 

Tort law requires reasonable steps to be taken to protect employees once the employer becomes aware of a threat or danger related to their employment - it would be a very odd case indeed that ruled that the 'wrath of god' approach fell short of that standard while the 'we will end our dialogue' approach was sufficient.

 

If there were other posts I missed where anyone was actually saying 'they shouldn't have said anything at all' or 'they shouldn't be treating it as a big deal, gawd, grow thicker skin' then yeah, those guys need to understand that EA had to put out a statement - but most people arguing are focused on the phrasing of those two sentences about 'staying silent' and 'stop having a dialogue', which aren't any sort of 'magic words' to get EA out of liability.

Edited May 10, 2015 by DarthDymond

[Ghisallo]

By the 'proportionality' debate I assume you mean Gonalius and Knorlac's argument that Eric should have instead focused his response to be targeted at the actual perpetrators, instead of directed at the community at large? (At least it looked like those are the ones you were replying to.)

 

yes

 

Even in terms of phrasing and proportionality I can't see any EA lawyer saying "Okay, as long as you phrase it as 'we'll stop talking to the community' then we're covered, but if you say we're only going to 'come down like the Wrath of God on the heads of anyone who harasses our employees' then we'll still be open to civil liability if anything happens again."

 

You are correct the statement alone is inadequate. Obviously they have to take action against the specific users and then if it is perpetrated by other users in the future they will have to isolate the devs further from communication. If they did not make such a statement then it would not be difficult to say "how are they proactively protecting their employees if all the do is punish people after the fact." There are limits to what the can proactively do. What the words do is lay the foundation of any defense in the event that they end up in litigation over the issue. In essence it shows the first step in performing "due diligence".

 

About 20% of the work I have done for the last 18 years involves proper writing of documentation (much of which is public record) in such a way as it creates this foundation and shows that due diligence is being done. Of course I can still be sued BUT the first step in getting such a suit going is showing that due diligence was not done. Mistakes can happen, bad stuff can still happen, what makes it actionable is if you can show intent, recklessness and/or utter negligence and the first step in proving that is to show a lack of due diligence. THEN you get into showing the actual "acts" (or lack there of) that followed.

 

Tort law requires reasonable steps to be taken to protect employees once the employer becomes aware of a threat or danger related to their employment - it would be a very odd case indeed that ruled that the 'wrath of god' approach fell short of that standard while the 'we will end our dialogue' approach was sufficient.

 

The thing is "the wrath of god approach" in this context really is just cutting off lines of commuication (from EA's position). The REAL wrath of god stuff (since some of it appears to have been done via non EA controlled mediums) is in the hands of John (criminal charges, civil suits etc. EA, simply has to show that they are taking the necessary steps on their end which is A) pointing out a policy and B) having the devs pull the plug if it continues. Now EA may WELL provide John with legal assistance on his end... having an EA big wig call the DA, as an example, if the local PD is hesitant to get involved in such a case, this would actually assist them greatly if they ended u subject to a suit "see we helped in a issue that was in the hands of the employee and not us because it involved his wife's FB account."

 

It's kinda like the CSR job I had right out of the service with a health insurance company. rule 1... someone is openly hostile/harassing/threatening? hang up on em and tell the boss. rule 2. if it became a trend fromt he particular client base (I handled on specific corporate accounts) there was actually a clause that said if such behavior became a consistent problem from a particular account that all requests and questions would have to be done in writing or indirectly through their HR department. basically the individual employee of the client company would lose direct phone support... which would be akin to the devs cutting off dialogue on the forums.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Eanelinea]

I don't blame the Devs if they decided to remain silent. I KNOW they see our posts whether THEY agree with them or not. There's been changes to some of my classes that I wanted to kick Bioware in the pants over, but I vent my frustrations out in the game slaying npc minions and giving some suggestions in the suggestions forums.

 

I don't give a rat's *** if the Dev decide to nerf every single class to the point where only spitting on an npc would kill the npc. It is THEIR game. They can do what they want to do whether we are all in agreement or not. It even says in the TOS that they can and will change things in the game if they see fit.

 

There is NO excuse whatsoever for players to track any Bioware employee down and insult or threaten them or their families over a *********** video game! It is a game! So you pay $ 15 a month. Big whoopty do, so do all of us other subscribers out there.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Devs booted anyone who complains about class changes from the forums for fear of this stuff happening again.

 

I play this game 7 days a week, 365 days a year. I have since Launch.

 

And guess what? It Is Only A Game!

 

/end soapbox

[DarthDymond]

You are correct the statement alone is inadequate. Obviously they have to take action against the specific users and then if it is perpetrated by other users in the future they will have to isolate the devs further from communication. If they did not make such a statement then it would not be difficult to say "how are they proactively protecting their employees if all the do is punish people after the fact." There are limits to what the can proactively do. What the words do is lay the foundation of any defense in the event that they end up in litigation over the issue. In essence it shows the first step in performing "due diligence". About 20% of the work I do involves proper writing of documentation (much of which is public record) in such a way as it creates this foundation and shows that due diligence is being done.

The proactive / reactive distinction might have some merit, but I still don't think the 'we will stop communicating' statement was really a necessary part of the post for it to do the legal work it had to in laying a foundation for employer due diligence. And I think there is at least an argument that could be made that 'we will go after anyone who does this in the future' is also a proactive deterrent. (Besides, internal published policies just as important as public statements on that front anyway.)

 

Again, I personally have no problem with that statement, I think the post is just stronger / better in general because that line is in there (it probably is technically stronger in a legal sense as well, again I'm just saying that the alternative approach others are advocating wouldn't leave it unacceptably weak). But of course whether it was better or worse from a PR perspective is the underlying disagreement in this thread.

 

My point is just that I don't think a 'they legally had to say it that way' response really holds up against those who were only arguing that the statement would have been better PR if they had said "we will go after anyone who does this" instead. Either approach would have adequately contributed to a sufficient 'due diligence' foundation. Beyond that, an internal memo about cutting back dev 'face time' in the future could have covered them just as well on the 'proactive' front if they had made the decision not to include it in Eric's public statement for PR purposes - which is what these people are suggesting they should have done. EA's hands really were not tied in this situation, they did have options over how to cover their potential liability.

Edited May 10, 2015 by DarthDymond