Page 19 of 26 FirstFirst ...
9
17
18
19
20
21
... LastLast
  1. #361
    Quote Originally Posted by Eggroll View Post
    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.
    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.

  2. #362
    Spam Assassin! MoanaLisa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Tralfamadore
    Posts
    31,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Khann View Post
    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.
    “We live in a moment where everything immediately seems to default to outrage. There’s a kind of M.O. of either it’s exactly how I see it, or you’re my enemy.”

  3. #363
    Quote Originally Posted by MoanaLisa View Post
    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.
    Last edited by rhorle; 2021-08-18 at 02:20 AM.
    "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..."

  4. #364
    Spam Assassin! MoanaLisa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Tralfamadore
    Posts
    31,180
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    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).
    Last edited by MoanaLisa; 2021-08-18 at 05:59 AM.
    “We live in a moment where everything immediately seems to default to outrage. There’s a kind of M.O. of either it’s exactly how I see it, or you’re my enemy.”

  5. #365
    Quote Originally Posted by procne View Post
    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.
    Yeah, ... well. Just because it wasn't specifically said, doesn't mean that it was not that way. I don't know where you've been living until now, or maybe you are just too young to know.

    It didn't NEED to be written down anywhere. It was a general understanding that women are incompetent for certain areas of expertise. It's culture, if you will. Role models. Like girls wear pink and boys wear blue. Women do the housework and raise the children while men are the breadwinners, that kind of stuff. Men wear trousers, women wear dresses. Women are considered incompetent for certain jobs by default even in this day and age in western countries.

    To overcome this cultural heritage a concious effort has to be made until the general understanding has changed, this takes time and some getting used to, but there is no way around it. And it's still a looong way to go - there's ample proof of this in this thread alone.


  6. #366
    Quote Originally Posted by Eggroll View Post
    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?
    As opposed to you, who has cried injustice when it was women being discriminated against, but is now completely OK with discrimination the other way? Hypocrite much?

  7. #367
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    When you only reply is a rediculous strawman followed by an eye roll emoji, even you know its over.

    Answer me this very simple question - would saying to an applicant "sorry, no black people" be acceptable to you?
    Yes if it was a place where there were 90% of the staff being black and there was a clear history of past hiring practices proving that more qualified white people weren't getting the job, promotion or pay as the black people there.

    These hiring changes arent to find some random person that fits the skin color - but to force companies to actually look past their hiring biases and seek out qualified individuals that are normally not given a second look despite their skills just because of background or skin color.

  8. #368
    Quote Originally Posted by Inoculate View Post
    Yes if it was a place where there were 90% of the staff being black and there was a clear history of past hiring practices proving that more qualified white people weren't getting the job, promotion or pay as the black people there.

    These hiring changes arent to find some random person that fits the skin color - but to force companies to actually look past their hiring biases and seek out qualified individuals that are normally not given a second look despite their skills just because of background or skin color.
    So, you are perfeclty OK with discrimination based on race got it.

    IN oder tyo eliminate discrimination, you stop the discrimination. Dicriminating in the opposite direction is still discrimination. Period.

  9. #369
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    So, you are perfeclty OK with discrimination based on race got it. IN oder tyo eliminate discrimination, you stop the discrimination. Dicriminating in the opposite direction is still discrimination. Period.
    It is fixing a problem. It isn't bad discrimination if you are just fixing what existed and was a problem in the first place. In order to comply with federal law companies are required to hire qualified candiates when using an affirmative action plan. The website I linked to at some point in the past stated "reverse discrimination" cases were less then 2% of the ones brought. So it can happen that discrimination is happening. But in most of the cases it looks like it is about fixing the diversity issue rather then discrimination against the majority.
    "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..."

  10. #370
    Quote Originally Posted by Trbn View Post
    so if 2 equally skilled persons apply
    first is a woman
    second is a man

    who should be hired?

    eeny, meeny, miny, moe.

  11. #371
    Quote Originally Posted by Eggroll View Post
    Yeah, ... well. Just because it wasn't specifically said, doesn't mean that it was not that way. I don't know where you've been living until now, or maybe you are just too young to know.

    It didn't NEED to be written down anywhere. It was a general understanding that women are incompetent for certain areas of expertise. It's culture, if you will. Role models. Like girls wear pink and boys wear blue. Women do the housework and raise the children while men are the breadwinners, that kind of stuff. Men wear trousers, women wear dresses. Women are considered incompetent for certain jobs by default even in this day and age in western countries.

    To overcome this cultural heritage a concious effort has to be made until the general understanding has changed, this takes time and some getting used to, but there is no way around it. And it's still a looong way to go - there's ample proof of this in this thread alone.
    And I feel moves like this will have the opposite effect. Just look how people are tired of having that equality pushed down their throats. At some point they will have enough of it. In some countries they already do and are turning away from the "progressive" ideals. Don't expect people to learn equality when you try to teach it by having inequality, just the opposite way.
    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.

  12. #372
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    It is fixing a problem. It isn't bad discrimination if you are just fixing what existed and was a problem in the first place.
    So the solution to discrimination is discrimination? So judging an applicant based on the colour of their skin is good, depending on the colour of their skin? Say someone is 1/16th African American, has wealthy parents, and had middling results right through school - he gains a position in college over higher qualified white students because of his 'race', and then applies for a position @ Blizzard - he has the minimum requirements for the role - although his grades were average at best.

    A second applicant is white, but comes from a very poor family - he has always excelled at school, despite having to use the library for everything as his family couldn't afford the books. He managed to be top of his class through school, and gets into college - he again tops all classes, and obtains the same qualification as the African American, but with distinctions in every case.

    They apply for the same job - under your logic, the African American SHOULD get the position - they both meet the minimum requirements for the position, but clearly one has worked much harder and sustained much higher grades, but that shouldn't matter, according to you, because one of the applicants has darker skin than the other.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssria View Post
    I'm the only guy that has a clue as to what's wrong with the game and how it can be fixed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Size doesn't matter

  13. #373
    Quote Originally Posted by procne View Post
    Don't expect people to learn equality when you try to teach it by having inequality, just the opposite way.
    How can you stop inequality if you can never make things equal? Because that is what you are saying. That the process of making something equal is actually making it unequal. In many places the scales are already one sided. Bringing it to a balanced state is not inequality. That would be if it goes to far and thus become unbalanced in favor or some one else.
    "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. #374
    Quote Originally Posted by Trbn View Post
    so if 2 equally skilled persons apply
    first is a woman
    second is a man

    who should be hired?
    This is not at all how this situation should be viewed. Let me present the exact same scenario how it SHOULD be viewed:

    Question: 2 equally skilled people apply. Who should be hired?

    Answer: The person who you feel would be the best fit for your company - the person who has the best attitude, best employment record, and best references. If you are still at a deadlock, try contacting their referees and having a chat, or, with permission, their previous employers. There is ALWAYS some distinctions to be made without EVER having to look at things like race and gender - ALWAYS.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssria View Post
    I'm the only guy that has a clue as to what's wrong with the game and how it can be fixed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Size doesn't matter

  15. #375
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    So the solution to discrimination is discrimination?
    Yes. Do you not know how a scale works? In order to bring balance you must add more to one side until things are equal. Adding to much causes inequality. Adding just enough creates equality.

    It is also illegal to hire an applicant that is unqualified for the position when using a protected status. I'm pretty sure you know this as it was pointed out to you but that could have been a different poster since this discussion has gone on for weeks now. If it was you then it is dishonest to keep using examples that are not acceptable. Under my logic the person qualified for the job gets the job. If qualifications are similar then it is okay to use a protected status as a deciding factor if they have a need for diversity. Not every place does which is why such things shouldn't be a factor. Some places do.

    And yes sometimes it is white males that are the minority that should get extra help. Male nursing is one such stereotypical profession that comes to mind. There have been efforts to reach out to more males, over females, to join that job. Just like Girls and Stem has many programs to reach out just to them. Working to create a balance and equal playing field is never bad.
    "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..."

  16. #376
    Quote Originally Posted by Nilinor View Post
    Its because the moment something like this letter comes out, the people that do get hired are going to think:

    "Was I hired because I was qualified for the job, or was it to fill a quota."

    I am sure there are many that do not care either way as long as they get paid, but thats whats going to come across MANY peoples minds. When something becomes mandatory, those little questions start to appear, and if something bad happens outside of anyones control, its going to be pointed out "Hey, look what happened when we DID do this." et, while anything good (unless its like 5-10 years down the line) will be attributed to people before they came on board due to plans/projects that were already in the pipeline.
    thats dumb,yes they were hired because they were qualified,unless you think people from group X or Y are unqualified by default

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Trbn View Post
    so if 2 equally skilled persons apply
    first is a woman
    second is a man

    who should be hired?
    depends on the situation,are you mad hooters doesnt hire big fat smelly hairy neckbeards?

  17. #377
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    Yes. Do you not know how a scale works? In order to bring balance you must add more to one side until things are equal. Adding to much causes inequality. Adding just enough creates equality.

    It is also illegal to hire an applicant that is unqualified for the position when using a protected status. I'm pretty sure you know this as it was pointed out to you but that could have been a different poster since this discussion has gone on for weeks now. If it was you then it is dishonest to keep using examples that are not acceptable. Under my logic the person qualified for the job gets the job. If qualifications are similar then it is okay to use a protected status as a deciding factor if they have a need for diversity. Not every place does which is why such things shouldn't be a factor. Some places do.

    And yes sometimes it is white males that are the minority that should get extra help. Male nursing is one such stereotypical profession that comes to mind. There have been efforts to reach out to more males, over females, to join that job. Just like Girls and Stem has many programs to reach out just to them. Working to create a balance and equal playing field is never bad.
    Your quote button seems to have snipped most of my post off - i have linked it below - maybe you would like to respond to the rest of the post?

    And be VERY clear - the 'programs' you mentioned are to encourage people to go get qualified in those fields, which i agree is a good thing - its all just marketing though. What im saying is that those fields are lacking QUALIFIED PEOPLE, not that qualified minorities are being rejected for positions - its two related, but still separate issues. For example - the only way for more females and POC to work in chemical engineering is to get more females and POC interested in getting qualified in that field.

    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    So the solution to discrimination is discrimination? So judging an applicant based on the colour of their skin is good, depending on the colour of their skin? Say someone is 1/16th African American, has wealthy parents, and had middling results right through school - he gains a position in college over higher qualified white students because of his 'race', and then applies for a position @ Blizzard - he has the minimum requirements for the role - although his grades were average at best.

    A second applicant is white, but comes from a very poor family - he has always excelled at school, despite having to use the library for everything as his family couldn't afford the books. He managed to be top of his class through school, and gets into college - he again tops all classes, and obtains the same qualification as the African American, but with distinctions in every case.

    They apply for the same job - under your logic, the African American SHOULD get the position - they both meet the minimum requirements for the position, but clearly one has worked much harder and sustained much higher grades, but that shouldn't matter, according to you, because one of the applicants has darker skin than the other.
    Last edited by arkanon; 2021-08-18 at 11:24 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssria View Post
    I'm the only guy that has a clue as to what's wrong with the game and how it can be fixed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Size doesn't matter

  18. #378
    Quote Originally Posted by arkanon View Post
    And be VERY clear - the 'programs' you mentioned are to encourage people to go get qualified in those fields, which i agree is a good thing - its all just marketing though.
    I literally responded to the entire post. You do not have to quote the entire thing in order to respond to it. Weird that you ignore everything in the post to deflect to quoting habits. Encourage people to get qualified is still discrimination according to your statements. Because it is giving preferential treatment to one group over another. It is hilarious that one you talk about discrimination and being unfair while at the same time agreeing that the other is a good thing.
    "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..."

  19. #379
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    I literally responded to the entire post. You do not have to quote the entire thing in order to respond to it. Weird that you ignore everything in the post to deflect to quoting habits. Encourage people to get qualified is still discrimination according to your statements. Because it is giving preferential treatment to one group over another. It is hilarious that one you talk about discrimination and being unfair while at the same time agreeing that the other is a good thing.
    Rubbish - encouraging people to get qualified absolutely is NOT discrimination - and i never said such a ridiculous thing. You literally contradict yourself - encouraging a certain group is NOT giving them preferential treatment at all, what makes you think it is?
    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssria View Post
    I'm the only guy that has a clue as to what's wrong with the game and how it can be fixed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Size doesn't matter

  20. #380
    Quote Originally Posted by deenman View Post
    thats dumb,yes they were hired because they were qualified,unless you think people from group X or Y are unqualified by default

    - - - Updated - - -
    Its depends on job. You get artists from all types equally and its not hard to get someone good. Coder is however likely bargain bin if its a diversity hire. Reason is quick look at grads its 99% white turbonerds and there is simply no way to grab a good one if you have to restrict yourself and omit 99% of the choices while also competing with other corps for the small pool of fitting candidates.

Posting Permissions

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