Page 18 of 24 FirstFirst ...
8
16
17
18
19
20
... LastLast
  1. #341
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    .
    Your intentions may be good but instead of fixing the root issues you are focused on QUICK fixing the flashy visible surface with a band-aid that makes you feel so righteous and warm.

    The core reasons why these underprivileged groups are suffering (education, social care, crime/safety, medical access, harmful values in a culture etc etc) need to be solved and yet not one corporation, media or politician gives a damn.
    Everyone talks about diversity because it nets political points and views (money) on the internet/media.

    These underprivileged still are born and raised in hellholes and no one is doing anything meaningful to fix it.
    Even all these BLM and similar movements have done NOTHING to improve impoverished neighborhoods despite receiving billions in donations.

    Diversity hire is a farce that was cooked up just to farm PR points, there is not an ounce of honesty in it.
    If you talk to honest psychologists/sociologists "behind closed doors" (where pitchfork mobs cant reach to cancel them) you will learn why its a hideously flawed idea that was never even conceived as a honest truthful movement.

    I would love if there was zero difference in privilege amongst people.
    But such an achievement requires incredibly well thought out reworks of the whole socioeconomic system, and not some band-aid based on skin and genital junk.

    Forced diversity hire is one of the wrongest ways of doing it, it fixes nothing and it will cause significant issues in both short term and long term.

    And FYI i live in eastern europe so i will never in my life see any of this white privilege that i am supposedly enjoying all my life, so its not like im trying to keep all this phat privilege to myself.
    Do note how you assumed my white ancestors abused some minorities (despite the fact that MY ancestors never even left the balkans) and how you assumed that i wanted to keep the privilege to myself (of which i have none).

    You yourself already sorted me into the privileged class while by your own diversity standards i should belong in the underprivileged class (the same you are trying to help and favor).
    If that does not show you how insanely flawed, bigoted and prejudiced all this judging based on skin/sex is then absolutely nothing will and talks about this are pointless.
    Last edited by Aleksej89; 2021-08-12 at 10:53 PM.

  2. #342
    The Unstoppable Force FelPlague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Ontario,Canada
    Posts
    23,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Eosia View Post
    Yes. I am a shareholder.

    Remember the time when WoW was the cash cow? It subsidized development for 5 other games, three of which added more revenue streams. Then the philosophy turned to every game had to have a satisfactory revenue. Period. What Bobby has done is no different then when retail stores cut employee hours when sales are thought to be slow. Yeah, it makes some numbers look better potentially but those numbers mean shit in the grand scheme of things because they're robbing long term profit and survival for short-term gain. But ultimately it tanks the investment because the business either dies or gets bought out by someone who bleeds it dry. Ironically that is what Bobby is doing when he saved ActivisionBlizzard from being drained by Vivendi.

    Oh, and FYI - Bobby hasn't made me anything. My ROI on my Activision Blizzard stock is -8.56% as of writing this. I also voted in the last election. It was symbolic, but I voted against Bobby when I sent in my proxy.
    Do you not consider 8 years "long term" if not then what is "long term" to you? cause blizzard has gone up and up and up over the last 8 years since he joined, and if you think he is only "cutting long term profits for short turn gain' then idk man.

  3. #343
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    So you bought in when it was a high because of the increase brought about under the reign of Mr. Kotick. In 2013 around the time Activision Blizzard gained their independence the stock was only worth around $12. It is now trading at $85 after a high of $100 around the January of this year. You can't deny that he helped make the share holders a ton of money. The last upward trend started in 2019 after the stock dipped to $45.
    No company owes its profits to the CEOs. Let's say I bought my stock back in 2013 when Activision Blizzard was spun out of Vivendi. No decisions he made, actions he took, etc. made me that money. I'll use retail again as an example. Who makes the money for a retail store? Certainly not the CEO. It's the cashiers/sales people who do. If we extend it to Amazon, Jeff Bezos isn't earning all the money for Amazon, it's the salves that he and his partners grind through in the delivery "partners" and his own plantations.. er I mean warehouses that are earning the money while peeing in bottles, terrified an algorithm is going to fire them via email, and generally being treated like crap.

    So it would have been the developers would have been the ones who made me that money. Not some grand decision(s) Bobby made.

  4. #344
    Quote Originally Posted by Eosia View Post
    No company owes its profits to the CEOs. Let's say I bought my stock back in 2013 when Activision Blizzard was spun out of Vivendi. No decisions he made, actions he took, etc. made me that money.
    Who do you think decide to buy the independence? Is he the sole reason? No. But the captain is responsible for steering the ship even if it is the deck hands doing the grunt work. You are just trying push an anti-ceo ideology while ignoring the pay offs. Which is silly when you are profiting off of all those "slaves" right? That is the entire reason why people invest. To make money.

    Unless you are a member of WSB/SuperStonk where losses are king.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  5. #345
    Quote Originally Posted by tomolak View Post
    Equity is another word for tokenism. It is not better than anything, except perhaps putting a thousand monkeys on the comps and expecting them to produce coherent code.
    That's not entirely true, though. There is value to be found in people's varying upbringings, cultures, socio-economic status. There isn't a whole lot of variety in thought coming from a bunch of trust fund white boys who grew up in the same social circles, lives in the same rich white neighborhoods, went to the same elite private schools, and were educated in the same private business schools. I'm not saying that those kinds of people arent valuable to have, they are, if only for their connections, but other people, even if they dont have the same "elite" education, can bring a lot more to the table.

  6. #346
    Quote Originally Posted by NihilSustinet View Post
    That's not entirely true, though. There is value to be found in people's varying upbringings, cultures, socio-economic status. There isn't a whole lot of variety in thought coming from a bunch of trust fund white boys who grew up in the same social circles, lives in the same rich white neighborhoods, went to the same elite private schools, and were educated in the same private business schools. I'm not saying that those kinds of people arent valuable to have, they are, if only for their connections, but other people, even if they dont have the same "elite" education, can bring a lot more to the table.
    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.

  7. #347
    Quote Originally Posted by Eggroll View Post
    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
    Last edited by procne; 2021-08-13 at 07:26 AM.
    I have enough of EA ruining great franchises and studios, forcing DRM and Origin on their games, releasing incomplete games only to sell day-1 DLCs or spill dozens of DLCs, and then saying it, and microtransactions, is what players want, stopping players from giving EA games poor reviews, as well as deflecting complaints with cheap PR tricks.

    I'm not going to buy any game by EA as long as they continue those practices.

  8. #348
    Quote Originally Posted by procne View Post
    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.


  9. #349
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eggroll View Post
    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.
    I have enough of EA ruining great franchises and studios, forcing DRM and Origin on their games, releasing incomplete games only to sell day-1 DLCs or spill dozens of DLCs, and then saying it, and microtransactions, is what players want, stopping players from giving EA games poor reviews, as well as deflecting complaints with cheap PR tricks.

    I'm not going to buy any game by EA as long as they continue those practices.

  10. #350
    Quote Originally Posted by procne View Post
    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.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  11. #351
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksej89 View Post
    /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.

  12. #352
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    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
    I have enough of EA ruining great franchises and studios, forcing DRM and Origin on their games, releasing incomplete games only to sell day-1 DLCs or spill dozens of DLCs, and then saying it, and microtransactions, is what players want, stopping players from giving EA games poor reviews, as well as deflecting complaints with cheap PR tricks.

    I'm not going to buy any game by EA as long as they continue those practices.

  13. #353
    Quote Originally Posted by procne View Post
    No, I never said they hired a person off the street
    Quote Originally Posted by procne View Post
    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.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  14. #354
    Quote Originally Posted by tomolak View Post
    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.
    Last edited by NihilSustinet; 2021-08-13 at 05:37 PM.

  15. #355
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    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.
    I have enough of EA ruining great franchises and studios, forcing DRM and Origin on their games, releasing incomplete games only to sell day-1 DLCs or spill dozens of DLCs, and then saying it, and microtransactions, is what players want, stopping players from giving EA games poor reviews, as well as deflecting complaints with cheap PR tricks.

    I'm not going to buy any game by EA as long as they continue those practices.

  16. #356
    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.
    Last edited by Khann; 2021-08-14 at 10:43 PM.

  17. #357
    Removing bonuses for executives who engaged in abusive behavior instead of firing them is pretty fucking sad.

  18. #358
    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.

  19. #359
    Quote Originally Posted by Nimin View Post
    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.

  20. #360
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •