Activision Blizzard Shareholder SOC Letter, Diablo II: Resurrected Early Access

[procne]

Just read the comments whining about how hiring more women means that they will not get hired based on merit but because they are women.

I even wrote one such comment myself. Didn't think what you implied and can't see where did you get such conclusion from.
Neither what does it have to do with those comments.

Is your only way of dealing with comments you disagree with, to stick fingers in your ears and imagine authors being total idiots? Cause I cannot find any explanation for why would you imply someone thinks those stupid things you wrote.

And hiring all male staff (btw we're not speaking about the whole staff here, but leadership board) does not mean all women are incompetent. There are dozens reason why this could happen

[Eggroll]

I even wrote one such comment myself. Didn't think what you implied and can't see where did you get such conclusion from.
Neither what does it have to do with those comments.

Is your only way of dealing with comments you disagree with, to stick fingers in your ears and imagine authors being total idiots? Cause I cannot find any explanation for why would you imply someone thinks those stupid things you wrote.

And hiring all male staff (btw we're not speaking about the whole staff here, but leadership board) does not mean all women are incompetent. There are dozens reason why this could happen

Seriously? Just read comment #368

If they're only hired BECAUSE of their race, culture, economic status, they're worthless. Just like, for example, SCOTUS doesn't benefit from a "wise Latina," it benefits from judges who can quote the Constitution if woken up in the middle of the night.

That's exactly what this comment implies. I wasn't even referring to YOUR comment specifically. It's like they're thinking HR walks out of the door, hiring the next female, poc or gay person they encounter just to meet the quota. It implies being female, poc, or gay and being qualitfied are mutually exclusive.

[procne]

It implies being female, poc, or gay and being qualitfied are mutually exclusive.

No, it does not. Read the comment you quoted:
"If they're only hired BECAUSE of their race, culture, economic status, they're worthless"
That's basically a definition of a token.

It's like they're thinking HR walks out of the door, hiring the next female, poc or gay person they encounter just to meet the quota.

And it did happen in the past, the HRs used to hire people of color / sex just to meet their quota. Of course such hired person still might be competent, but the way they have been hired, and expectations (or rather lack of them) would never allow that person to show the potential.

Now, I don't think it does happen like that anymore. However still gender might be the primary factor, as you can see in this case where investors call specifically for a woman. Most likely HRs will look for most competent out of the women available. Although in this case - maybe not the most competent, but most submissive one, that won't cause problems, won't have any power and will be jsut a token? Who knows.

Still being hired because someone requested your gender specifically already gives a bad stench. Because then it looks it's the gender which gave you the job.

Besides, if you suspect a board of directors to be dicks who don't give a damn about sexual harassment etc. and then force them to hire a female. Who, do you think, they will hire? If you are right about them then they will choose some weak female, who is under total control. That's why such circumstances always drastically lower my opinion of any female who is hired this way.

Alternatively we might believe they are not that bad and they really mean well. Then it won't make a difference what gender they hire.

[rhorle]

And it did happen in the past, the HRs used to hire people of color / sex just to meet their quota. Of course such hired person still might be competent, but the way they have been hired, and expectations (or rather lack of them) would never allow that person to show the potential.

Not en mass otherwise more lawsuits would have been won. Since affirmative action plans require the candidates to have skills/stuff that you are looking for. And not just be a token position. Which is why you added the cavet to your statement "of course they might have been competent". You state they didn't just hire anyone off of the street to meet a quota while also saying they did. Pick one, not both.

[Adamas102]

/snip

So that's just a long winded way of saying "your solution isn't perfect and I have nothing to contribute so we should just do nothing". Cool, glad we got that out of the way.

I assumed you lived in the US since you seem to have such strong opinions on how we should handle our history of discrimination. Sorry for assuming that, but at least now I know that you really have no idea what you're talking about here.

[procne]

You state they didn't just hire anyone off of the street to meet a quota while also saying they did. Pick one, not both.

No, I never said they hired a person off the street

[rhorle]

No, I never said they hired a person off the street

And it did happen in the past, the HRs used to hire people of color / sex just to meet their quota. Of course such hired person still might be competent, but the way they have been hired, and expectations (or rather lack of them) would never allow that person to show the potential.

You implied it with that statement. Saying that the person was just hired to fill a quota. You also implied it that it is not always because they were a qualified candidate of the right skin color. Maybe you are not familiar with the phrase "off the street" but your statements fit the phrase. As in they just found anyone who would fit their quota rather then skilled and qualified applicants.

[NihilSustinet]

If they're only hired BECAUSE of their race, culture, economic status, they're worthless. Just like, for example, SCOTUS doesn't benefit from a "wise Latina," it benefits from judges who can quote the Constitution if woken up in the middle of the night.

well, agree to disagree, i guess.

also, what makes you think that she cant? do i detect latent racism? sort of proved my point there.

[procne]

You implied it with that statement. Saying that the person was just hired to fill a quota. You also implied it that it is not always because they were a qualified candidate of the right skin color. Maybe you are not familiar with the phrase "off the street" but your statements fit the phrase. As in they just found anyone who would fit their quota rather then skilled and qualified applicants.

I was commenting on a comment about general topic of "gender equity" - comments #367 and #368. Those were presented to me in #370
I thought I made it pretty clear when I talk in general and when I delve into this specific case.

[Khann]

Increase board diversity and equity by adding a woman director – preferably one with a history of advocacy for marginalized people and communities - by the end of 2021, committing to gender-balance on the board by 2025, and reserving at least one board seat for a nominee selected by current employees as their representative.

If they want a fair treatment, both men and women should have equal chances to get a job position. Demanding to "add a woman director" is absolutely insane. What do they think that they are achieving with this except pleasing petty wishes of someone?

"Reserving at least one board seat" that current employees are going to make??? Like wake up from naive teenage dreams people. Create your own company if you want things to be ridiculous.

[Celista]

Removing bonuses for executives who engaged in abusive behavior instead of firing them is pretty fucking sad.

[Nimin]

Good lord, the last three points of that letter are nothing but pure, undiluted religion. Simple as that, religion.
Nothing about merit or fitting the position or bringing value to the company.... no all they can talk about is "representation" and appearance and different skincolors.

Like what the heck is that trash.

[uuuhname]

Good lord, the last three points of that letter are nothing but pure, undiluted religion. Simple as that, religion.
Nothing about merit or fitting the position or bringing value to the company.... no all they can talk about is "representation" and appearance and different skincolors.

Like what the heck is that trash.

yes, how dare they live in a fantasy world where we hold people who enabled sexual abuse in the work place to account. we should all just shrug our shoulders and let the abuse keep happening because who dare you distract me from my viddy games.

[scelero]

Coming from a company that did this, the community/family/friend/etc environment has now been completely removed from the equation.

Be happy when less qualified individuals are hired over someone else who isnt of their sex, race, etc while not being sexist, racists, etc. Also, be grateful that same person who isn't qualified and makes more mistakes than you, gets paid the same as you.

Trust me, this is not good news for any company. This is where you officially allow donkeys into the barn of thoroughbreds. Then race them donkeys and give every horse/donkey the same prize regardless of what place they came in.

This company is lost. I will buy anything cash grab related to Lich King stuff, but I'm done with this illusion that the company I love is still Blizzard. It's not Blizzard anymore. Even then, I shouldn't enable the very thing that is them exploiting the dead. They're exploiting what they've killed. We need to stop it.

- - - Updated - - -

Look at who wrote the letter:
Dieter Waizeneggar, Executive Director


That name, from the looks of it, tells me NOT to trust them.

[uuuhname]

Coming from a company that did this, the community/family/friend/etc environment has now been completely removed from the equation.

Be happy when less qualified individuals are hired over someone else who isnt of their sex, race, etc while not being sexist, racists, etc. Also, be grateful that same person who isn't qualified and makes more mistakes than you, gets paid the same as you.

Trust me, this is not good news for any company. This is where you officially allow donkeys into the barn of thoroughbreds. Then race them donkeys and give every horse/donkey the same prize regardless of what place they came in.

This company is lost. I will buy anything cash grab related to Lich King stuff, but I'm done with this illusion that the company I love is still Blizzard. It's not Blizzard anymore. Even then, I shouldn't enable the very thing that is them exploiting the dead. They're exploiting what they've killed. We need to stop it.

hey, at least that "less qualified" person isn't sexually harassing people. never mind the mediocrity that has been Blizzard's body of work for years before this all exploded...

[Eggroll]

No, it does not. Read the comment you quoted:
"If they're only hired BECAUSE of their race, culture, economic status, they're worthless"
That's basically a definition of a token.


And it did happen in the past, the HRs used to hire people of color / sex just to meet their quota. Of course such hired person still might be competent, but the way they have been hired, and expectations (or rather lack of them) would never allow that person to show the potential.

Now, I don't think it does happen like that anymore. However still gender might be the primary factor, as you can see in this case where investors call specifically for a woman. Most likely HRs will look for most competent out of the women available. Although in this case - maybe not the most competent, but most submissive one, that won't cause problems, won't have any power and will be jsut a token? Who knows.

Still being hired because someone requested your gender specifically already gives a bad stench. Because then it looks it's the gender which gave you the job.

Besides, if you suspect a board of directors to be dicks who don't give a damn about sexual harassment etc. and then force them to hire a female. Who, do you think, they will hire? If you are right about them then they will choose some weak female, who is under total control. That's why such circumstances always drastically lower my opinion of any female who is hired this way.

Alternatively we might believe they are not that bad and they really mean well. Then it won't make a difference what gender they hire.

You, like so many others overlook the one glaringly obvious fact: that genderbased hire has been going on forever. But nobody cried out when it was solely men that were hired JUST because they were men, even if the female applicant was more qualified. Where were your outcries of injustice then?

[procne]

You, like so many others overlook the one glaringly obvious fact: that genderbased hire has been going on forever. But nobody cried out when it was solely men that were hired JUST because they were men, even if the female applicant was more qualified. Where were your outcries of injustice then?

If we were in a thread about company looking specifically for a male director I would speak up as well. Although I doubt it would ever happen - any company looking specifically for a male would be crucified, while females are fine.

I have never in my life seen a job offer exclusively for a man. I don't know, maybe I'm too young that I have only seen only the job offers for women due to equity in the recent years.

[MoanaLisa]

If they want a fair treatment, both men and women should have equal chances to get a job position. Demanding to "add a woman director" is absolutely insane. What do they think that they are achieving with this except pleasing petty wishes of someone?

"Reserving at least one board seat" that current employees are going to make??? Like wake up from naive teenage dreams people. Create your own company if you want things to be ridiculous.

Boards of director seats are an invitation-only affair so all of the arguments about qualifications and fair treatment are really are irrelevant. It's not a job that anyone ever applies for and has to submit a resume as such. Boards of directors are supposed to be representing the company stockholders, both large and small.

The recommendation is to reserve a board seat for a woman for just the reasons they're in the soup right now with a bunch of older rich men who likely approve of patriarchy. Frankly, it would not be out of hand for them to try and locate someone who would be helpful on the board (outside of Kotick who has talked about the games he's played) that had a long history with video gaming and development as well. If Activision wants to truly be a force for change (doubtful but the words have been said) the board needs to be a lot more diverse in many respects than it is now, not just gender.

[rhorle]

The recommendation is to reserve a board seat for a woman for just the reasons they're in the soup right now with a bunch of older rich men who likely approve of patriarchy.

I think it should be noted that they do have two women currently on the board. Reveta Bowers has been on since 2018. Dawn Ostroff has been on the board since June 2020. It isn't an equal balance so they have made some strides since "the lawsuit" stuff went done since it does seem like a lot of it would have been 2018 or earlier.

Hard to say based on "work history" bios given on the board of directors page on what different perspectives could be needed though. Less banks/money/corporate seems the most pressing need.

[MoanaLisa]

I think it should be noted that they do have two women currently on the board. Reveta Bowers has been on since 2018. Dawn Ostroff has been on the board since June 2020. It isn't an equal balance so they have made some strides since "the lawsuit" stuff went done since it does seem like a lot of it would have been 2018 or earlier.

Hard to say based on "work history" bios given on the board of directors page on what different perspectives could be needed though. Less banks/money/corporate seems the most pressing need.

87% of the stock is held by institutional investors. It's one reason why individual stockholders have zero say in what Blizzard does or thinks. Any time you see a post with "they do this for investors" keep that in mind. Institutional investors could not care less what goes on with WoW's development as long as ATVI as a whole sends them their dividend every quarter. Blizzard at this point is their worst performing division behind King (Candy Crush) and Activision (CoD).