Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ...
14
22
23
24
  1. #461
    [QUOTE=rrayy;53349646]Read what they wrote. They said hire a woman PREFERABLY with qualifications, That means hire a woman and qualifications are optional. A qualified one is just a bonus to them. [quote]

    Preferably with experiences in advocacy. So they try to fill any spot, not a specific one, for director inside the company with a woman. Considering the fact that they have to do equity reviews, the chances are actually high that there are even inside the company more qualified women who were passed off for less qualified men, so in the worst case they just fix former fuck ups in promotions. Due to the fact that the company has to do equity reviews, we have to suspect multiple men in leading positions not being hired based on merrit, combined with them trying to purge the incels, there should be tons of open positions, so statistically it would be unlikely for them to not find a qualified woman for any of them. The optional but prefered qualifications are a history of advocacy.


    So you are basically lying. The question is, why? Just failure to read and comprehend the text? Malicious intend? Dissatifaction that women will statistically proven only date chads and that a great chunk of the male population will never find love due to their facial bone structure?

    The hypocrisy in this thread is staggering.
    Yeah, MMO-C should finally ban some of the most creepy incels and probably also some of the most stupid people. Like, I've seen people here who are so stupid that I'm on the brink on supporting eugenics because of my frustration with them. I'm exaggerating a bit here...I hope at least, because damn are many of the people frustrating.

    Infracted.
    Last edited by xskarma; 2021-08-21 at 07:50 PM.

  2. #462
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    Read what they wrote. They said hire a woman PREFERABLY with qualifications, That means hire a woman and qualifications are optional. A qualified one is just a bonus to them. The hypocrisy in this thread is staggering.
    Actually read what they wrote and you will see they are not asking for one preferably with qualifications for a board seat. But one preferably with experience in advocacy. You and others keep adding "unqualified" in because you need a way to justify the hate you keep posting. It doesn't actually exist in the statement but that hasn't stopped it from being said by you and others. Weird right?

    Originally Posted by SOC
    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.
    "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..."

  3. #463
    Quote Originally Posted by Diaphin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    Read what they wrote. They said hire a woman PREFERABLY with qualifications, That means hire a woman and qualifications are optional. A qualified one is just a bonus to them.
    Preferably with experiences in advocacy. So they try to fill any spot, not a specific one, for director inside the company with a woman. Considering the fact that they have to do equity reviews, the chances are actually high that there are even inside the company more qualified women who were passed off for less qualified men, so in the worst case they just fix former fuck ups in promotions. Due to the fact that the company has to do equity reviews, we have to suspect multiple men in leading positions not being hired based on merrit, combined with them trying to purge the incels, there should be tons of open positions, so statistically it would be unlikely for them to not find a qualified woman for any of them. The optional but prefered qualifications are a history of advocacy.


    So you are basically lying. The question is, why? Just failure to read and comprehend the text? Malicious intend? Dissatifaction that women will statistically proven only date chads and that a great chunk of the male population will never find love due to their facial bone structure?



    Yeah, MMO-C should finally ban some of the most creepy incels and probably also some of the most stupid people. Like, I've seen people here who are so stupid that I'm on the brink on supporting eugenics because of my frustration with them. I'm exaggerating a bit here...I hope at least, because damn are many of the people frustrating.
    The only one lying is you. You are the one trying to spin this groups request which hire a woman solely becuase she is one and if she happens to be qualfied, great. You are the pot calling the kettle black here.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Diaphin View Post
    So they are looking for a director who actually possesses additional qualifications compared to current male directors in an environment which currently faces a lawsuit due to discrimination and who have to establish equity reviews which in itself indicates that they feel like they historically may have hired lesser qualified men over more qualified women.
    No they are looking for a director who is a woman. Qualifications are optional I

    Ity amaes me how far people will spin to defend the blatant discrimination this group is demandinig. Hypocrisy indeed.

  4. #464
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    No they are looking for a director who is a woman. Qualifications are optional
    You say people are lying and it amazes you how things will be spun yet you are the one lying and spinning things to fit your narrative. They did not ask for a woman with no qualifications to be added to the board. Qualifications were never stated to be optional. The only optional thing stated was that they want a history of advocacy. You keep adding in "not qualified". Why?
    "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. #465
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    No. Again you keep adding things that are not there in order push that it will be unqualified.
    What. The. Flying. Fuck.
    It's like the third time you are try to put those words in my mouth, when I did not say that.
    I did not say that they are asking for unqualified person.

    They said they want a woman director added, preferably one with a history of advocacy. Which means even if they don't have a history of advocacy it is still fitting with what they want.
    Yes, which is a woman. That's what they want. Nowhere did they, or me, said they are asking for unqualified woman.
    None of that is asking for an unqualified woman or a woman at all costs.
    Why you keep adding "unqualified" word. YOU keep adding it, and then tell me I am doing it.
    They are not asking for unqualified woman. They are asking for a woman. The more qualified she is the better. But it has to be a woman.
    It is simply asking for a woman preferably with a history of advocacy. You and others keep equating anything to do with women as asking for unqualified people. I don't have to keep twisting your words to say that. Because that is the argument you keep making by adding things that are not there.
    You kinda have to. I actually checked the last few pages and you are basically the only person using the word "unqualified", by putting it into someone else's mouth. And not only to me apparently.

    I guess you really need this bad strawman mysogynist to fight and in your mind you will do everything to paint someone that. So that you can feel better.

    Not going to fill that role for you anymore.
    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.

  6. #466
    Quote Originally Posted by procne View Post
    It's like the third time you are try to put those words in my mouth, when I did not say that. I did not say that they are asking for unqualified person.
    Quote Originally Posted by procne View Post
    But asking for a woman first, and qualifications second is laughable to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by procne View Post
    That pretty much sounds like "a woman at all costs"
    Quote Originally Posted by procne View Post
    Most likely they ask for a most qualified woman.
    Quote Originally Posted by procne View Post
    I'm pretty sure that if you force them to hire a woman they will instead find a passive one they can easily control.
    You don't have to say not qualified to imply it. Which is what you keep doing. You keep implying it and then getting upset when you are taken at what you post. You deny you are doing it but contradict that denial with the other things you post.
    "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..."

  7. #467
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    Hiring a person based solely on their gender is discrimination regardless company history which is what this group wants. They want a woman director and don't really care about her qualifications, just prefer her to be qualified. But I guess discrimination is OK in your world as long as it is against men. Got it.
    There's almost no point in responding here if your grasp of the English language is so weak that "preferably one with a history of advocacy for marginalized people and communities" reads to you as "qualifications totally optional". It's just straight up you not knowing how to read on top of your idiotic assumption that surely there are no qualified women for a board position. It probably also stems from your total ignorance about what a board of directors even does, much less what the qualifications to be on one entails. Go on and tell me what YOU think the qualifications for serving on the Activision Blizzard Board of Directors should be.

    If you had any clue then you'd at least understand that it shouldn't be very difficult at all to find a woman who is fully capable of serving on a board and why the focus on recruiting a woman is in no way shape or form an example of discrimination. Any new member is going to undergo training to be brought up to speed with the current board structure and governance issues, and board members for a company like Activision Blizzard will receive additional training and education throughout their appointment on the board. No single member is going to be an expert on every facet of the business that a board oversees, which is why most of them are spread out over various committees and having a diverse group has been proven to be beneficial in pooling a varied range of experience and expertise. Age, sex, nationality, race, etc aren't the only things that bring new perspectives to a group, but they do matter.

    The idea that specifically seeking out a woman for a board position is discriminatory against men is so fucking stupid, but since it seems to be crux of these low-intelligence responses talking about "reverse discrimination" I guess it has to be addressed (again). If one of the goals of an effective board of directors is to compile a group with varied experiences and perspectives in order to better see and understand challenges and opportunities, then neglecting the perspective of almost 50% of the population is clearly against the board's (and company's) best interest. Saying "we need to add another woman" isn't discriminatory against men because the very obvious connotation is that the board already has a strong and varied male perspective.
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2021-08-22 at 06:39 AM.

  8. #468
    Quote Originally Posted by Daronokk View Post
    Sound logic you have there. Fight inequality with inequality, fight discrimination with discrimination.

    Surely that fixes things.
    Why is it inequality when women are equally represented? Nobody is talking about throwing all men out, ya know.

    I think balance is healthy from a societal point of view, work climate and productivity. Had half the employees and management been
    female this tragedy would have been much less likely to occur to begin with. There must be moderation and leaving men alone
    will never achieve that.

    This discussion is not about qualification, it's about the male ego.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    Not even remotely the same. Football positions are sepcialties, not genders. They are literally demanding that Blizzard create a position and fill it with a woman despite men being just as qualified for it. That is textbook discrimination.

    - - - Updated - - -

    There is nothing wrong with equality. What you want is forced equality by use of blatant discrimination in the opposite direction. They shouldb e vchosen by their qualifications, not the gender. The hypocrisy here is mind boggling.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Hiring a person based solely on their gender is discrimination regardless company history which is what this group wants. They want a woman director and don't really care about her qualifications, just prefer her to be qualified. But I guess discrimination is OK in your world as long as it is against men. Got it.
    You have only baseless accusations. Men have been hired for forever because they were men, not because they had a better qualification than the competing women. Nobody said they would hire women just because they are women, without any qualifications.

    It's just your misogynist mindset that insinuates a woman is by default less qualified than a man. And that's just BS. There is no hypocrisy here. It's just male ego speaking out of you.

    The long term goal should be, that nobody gives two shits if you are a man or a woman when applying to a job. Looking at the comments this is a loooong way to go still.
    Last edited by Eggroll; 2021-08-22 at 01:20 PM.


  9. #469
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    There's almost no point in responding here if your grasp of the English language is so weak that "preferably one with a history of advocacy for marginalized people and communities" reads to you as "qualifications totally optional". It's just straight up you not knowing how to read on top of your idiotic assumption that surely there are no qualified women for a board position. It probably also stems from your total ignorance about what a board of directors even does, much less what the qualifications to be on one entails. Go on and tell me what YOU think the qualifications for serving on the Activision Blizzard Board of Directors should be.

    If you had any clue then you'd at least understand that it shouldn't be very difficult at all to find a woman who is fully capable of serving on a board and why the focus on recruiting a woman is in no way shape or form an example of discrimination. Any new member is going to undergo training to be brought up to speed with the current board structure and governance issues, and board members for a company like Activision Blizzard will receive additional training and education throughout their appointment on the board. No single member is going to be an expert on every facet of the business that a board oversees, which is why most of them are spread out over various committees and having a diverse group has been proven to be beneficial in pooling a varied range of experience and expertise. Age, sex, nationality, race, etc aren't the only things that bring new perspectives to a group, but they do matter.

    The idea that specifically seeking out a woman for a board position is discriminatory against men is so fucking stupid, but since it seems to be crux of these low-intelligence responses talking about "reverse discrimination" I guess it has to be addressed (again). If one of the goals of an effective board of directors is to compile a group with varied experiences and perspectives in order to better see and understand challenges and opportunities, then neglecting the perspective of almost 50% of the population is clearly against the board's (and company's) best interest. Saying "we need to add another woman" isn't discriminatory against men because the very obvious connotation is that the board already has a strong and varied male perspective.
    Ther is n point in responding anymore because you continue to spin their words into something they are not so you don't look like you support discrimination which you do and you want to force equality. That is not how you sole this problem. You hire people who are highly qualified and leave gender completely out of it.You do not fight discrimination with discrimination.

  10. #470
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    Ther is n point in responding anymore because you continue to spin their words into something they are not so you don't look like you support discrimination which you do and you want to force equality. That is not how you sole this problem. You hire people who are highly qualified and leave gender completely out of it. You do not fight discrimination with discrimination.
    because that continues to be the real issue here and not the toxic work place that caused this entire situation to happen in the first place... that's the thing all of you people complaining about this continue to ignore.

  11. #471
    Quote Originally Posted by Eggroll View Post
    Why is it inequality when women are equally represented? Nobody is talking about throwing all men out, ya know.

    I think balance is healthy from a societal point of view, work climate and productivity. Had half the employees and management been
    female this tragedy would have been much less likely to occur to begin with. There must be moderation and leaving men alone
    will never achieve that.
    Forced 50/50oesn't mean things would have been prevented. People should be hired without ANY regard to gender. If that means of the 10 most qualified 8 are men, so be it. If it is 8 women, so be it.

    This discussion is not about qualification, it's about the male ego.
    Says the one trying to force equality by having equal numbers. Talk about an ego.

    You have only baseless accusations. Men have been hired for forever because they were men, not because they had a better qualification than the competing women. Nobody said they would hire women just because they are women, without any qualifications.
    rterad what the group wrote. They lioterally said hire a woman and that qualifications were second. Qualifications should be FIRST. Not second.

    It's just your misogynist mindset that insinuates a woman is by default less qualified than a man. And that's just BS. There is no hypocrisy here. It's just male ego speaking out of you.
    Once again you spin words and misreresent them. Noboduy said that. Ever. Whgat we are saying is that people should be hired by qualifications and gender should b left out of it. You are the one one with an ego by trying to force equality by demanding one be hired by gender first then qualifications while sprinkling it with BS insults towards me.

    The long term goal should be, that nobody gives two shits if you are a man or a woman when applying to a job. Looking at the comments this is a loooong way to go still.
    Ywet you are the one demanding that women be hired solely to equal numbers thereby putting gender first. Talk about hypocrisy.

  12. #472
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    rterad what the group wrote. They lioterally said hire a woman and that qualifications were second. Qualifications should be FIRST. Not second.
    No. You keep trying to claim this but it just isn't true. The group made no mention of wanting unqualified people. You have to ask yourself why you keep insisting they want unqualified people and why you keep associating "Hire more women" as being "Hire unqualified people".
    "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..."

  13. #473
    Quote Originally Posted by NihilSustinet View Post
    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.
    Oh it was pretty blatant. Hell, if he thinks shes a Wise Latina that makes her infinitely more qualified than the token Black Republican on the bench who has been just a waste of space and has contributed no opinion of note since his appointment. I'd even suggest she knows more about the constitution than most on the bench today.

  14. #474
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    Ther is n point in responding anymore because you continue to spin their words into something they are not so you don't look like you support discrimination which you do and you want to force equality. That is not how you sole this problem. You hire people who are highly qualified and leave gender completely out of it.You do not fight discrimination with discrimination.
    You've made it crystal clear that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and you certainly don't know what the word "discrimination" even means which makes you continually look like a fool every time you drop it into your posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    People should be hired without ANY regard to gender.
    This is the dumbest thing you keep parroting.

    If you understood what makes for an effective board of directors, you'd know that gender IS an important thing to take into account. If you have a homogeneous group as your board (whether that's all men, all women, all white people, all finance experts, all ex-game designers, etc) you are 100% missing out on perspectives and experience that will improve its effectiveness. It's really not that hard a concept to wrap your head around, but since you seem dense as a brick I guess it's just never going to sink in.
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2021-08-23 at 05:41 PM.

  15. #475
    Quote Originally Posted by MoanaLisa View Post
    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.
    I don't think it matters. I think what matters is to find a qualified person, not a qualified gender.

  16. #476
    so... should this be where we post about YET ANOTHER lawsuit being tossed at blizz or does that deserve it's own thread?

Posting Permissions

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