Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ...
14
22
23
24
25
26
LastLast
  1. #461
    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.

  2. #462
    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.


  3. #463
    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.

  4. #464
    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.

  5. #465
    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.

  6. #466
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,489
    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..."

  7. #467
    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.

  8. #468
    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.

  9. #469
    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.

  10. #470
    so... should this be where we post about YET ANOTHER lawsuit being tossed at blizz or does that deserve it's own thread?

  11. #471
    Not really news anymore, but:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/wow/comment...left_blizzard/
    https://www.ign.com/articles/activis...d-shareholders

    As I was afraid, Jen was chosen mostly as a token, without any real power. This kind of solutions come when people ask for diversity and equity.
    Fortunatelly, and I respect her for that, she didn't accept to be tokenized and moved out of the company.
    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. #472
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,489
    Quote Originally Posted by procne View Post
    As I was afraid, Jen was chosen mostly as a token, without any real power. This kind of solutions come when people ask for diversity and equity.
    Fortunatelly, and I respect her for that, she didn't accept to be tokenized and moved out of the company.
    She wasn't "token". That isn't what happens when diversity and equity is asked for. She also wasn't paid less for her role as co-leader. Both were paid at their existing contract rates until new contracts, for the new position, were offered. When they were offered they were equal pay as both asked for. The only bad thing that happened was how slow Activision Blizzard was to offer the new contracts.
    "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 rhorle View Post
    She wasn't "token". That isn't what happens when diversity and equity is asked for. She also wasn't paid less for her role as co-leader. Both were paid at their existing contract rates until new contracts, for the new position, were offered. When they were offered they were equal pay as both asked for. The only bad thing that happened was how slow Activision Blizzard was to offer the new contracts.
    Are you trying to say she wasn't wronged in any way, and that she's lying, and is an attention-seeking, entitled, self-cetenred bimbo? Who got the leadership position why?
    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.

  14. #474
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,489
    Quote Originally Posted by procne View Post
    Are you trying to say she wasn't wronged in any way, and that she's lying, and is an attention-seeking, entitled, self-cetenred bimbo? Who got the leadership position why?
    It is pretty clear how biased you are on this subject when you are insulting a woman just because she is the topic of discussion. Was she wronged because of pay? Hard to say. Activision Blizzard, or the co-leaders, should have had a new employment contract right away rather then waiting for X time after the promotion. Them being paid at the pay rate they were prior doesn't mean she was wronged. As the head of a single studio under activision isn't equal to running "Battle.net and Online products". Should she have been paid more or him paid less with those existing contracts? Maybe.

    I already said the bad thing was how long Activision Blizzard waited to offer the new contracts. They should have been in place the moment they took over leadership.
    "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..."

  15. #475
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    It is pretty clear how biased you are on this subject when you are insulting a woman just because she is the topic of discussion. Was she wronged because of pay? Hard to say. Activision Blizzard, or the co-leaders, should have had a new employment contract right away rather then waiting for X time after the promotion. Them being paid at the pay rate they were prior doesn't mean she was wronged. As the head of a single studio under activision isn't equal to running "Battle.net and Online products". Should she have been paid more or him paid less with those existing contracts? Maybe.

    I already said the bad thing was how long Activision Blizzard waited to offer the new contracts. They should have been in place the moment they took over leadership.
    Is this public information or where exactly are you sourcing this from?

  16. #476
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Is this public information or where exactly are you sourcing this from?
    It is tweets made by Mr. Ybarra. Wowhead did a write up on it as well as other gaming/news sites. https://www.wowhead.com/news/activis...n-oneal-324927
    "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..."

  17. #477
    The Unstoppable Force Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    24,561
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    She wasn't "token". That isn't what happens when diversity and equity is asked for. She also wasn't paid less for her role as co-leader. Both were paid at their existing contract rates until new contracts, for the new position, were offered. When they were offered they were equal pay as both asked for. The only bad thing that happened was how slow Activision Blizzard was to offer the new contracts.
    The idea that they were just slow seems really far fetched it would take no effort for the higher ups to say “ya we’ll see to it give us a some time for a new contract” instead of what actually happened which is them apparently ignoring the issue until she said she was quitting at which point they tried to placate her by giving in.
    Last edited by Lorgar Aurelian; 2021-11-22 at 05:19 PM.
    All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.

  18. #478
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    It is pretty clear how biased you are on this subject when you are insulting a woman just because she is the topic of discussion. Was she wronged because of pay? Hard to say. Activision Blizzard, or the co-leaders, should have had a new employment contract right away rather then waiting for X time after the promotion. Them being paid at the pay rate they were prior doesn't mean she was wronged. As the head of a single studio under activision isn't equal to running "Battle.net and Online products". Should she have been paid more or him paid less with those existing contracts? Maybe.

    I already said the bad thing was how long Activision Blizzard waited to offer the new contracts. They should have been in place the moment they took over leadership.
    Isn't it such a coincidence that the new contract all of a sudden cleared the day after she left 3 months after getting promoted? You would think paying a woman equally for same position would be priority #1 on day 1 considering WHY they created the Co-Lead positions in the first place. Contracts should reset when responsibilities and titles change. This "contract" excuse is complete bullshit.
    Last edited by GreenJesus; 2021-11-22 at 05:31 PM.

  19. #479
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    It is pretty clear how biased you are on this subject when you are insulting a woman just because she is the topic of discussion. Was she wronged because of pay? Hard to say. Activision Blizzard, or the co-leaders, should have had a new employment contract right away rather then waiting for X time after the promotion. Them being paid at the pay rate they were prior doesn't mean she was wronged. As the head of a single studio under activision isn't equal to running "Battle.net and Online products". Should she have been paid more or him paid less with those existing contracts? Maybe.

    I already said the bad thing was how long Activision Blizzard waited to offer the new contracts. They should have been in place the moment they took over leadership.
    And again you are trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I'm not insulting her. You are. She said it herself she was "tokenized, marginalised and discriminated against". And that she was offered a new contract only AFTER she said she was leaving. By saying "She wasn't "token"" you are directly accusing her of lying.

    I am biased, you are as well. So what?

    For me the case is clear - either she was tokenized, or she wasn't and she's overreacting / lying. Any of those cases puts Blizzard's methods of hiring in bad light.

    When she was hired I expected her to be a token. Not because I hate women, as you are trying to prove so hard, but because that's how it works. She prove to be a bigger person, and not an obedient token, and decided to leave when she saw that she's not allowed to change things.
    Last edited by procne; 2021-11-23 at 12:55 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.

  20. #480
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,489
    Quote Originally Posted by procne View Post
    And again you are trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I'm not insulting her. You are.
    You typed the words and were the first to use them in your post. At least own up to your own actions. At no point did I insult her or say such hateful things about her. I'd like you to point out where I actually did. It is amusing how you say not to put words in your mouth when that is literally what you are doing here.
    "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..."

Posting Permissions

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