A Letter From CEO Bobby Kotick Regarding Progress and Commitments Made at Acti-Blizz

[Gaebryel Quintyne]

And if the company was composed mostly of minority groups then I'd hire someone that is not a minority group, assuming equal excellence. Your logic is still stupid, if you hire one of the non-minorities you are still racist. Where is the win? There is a very clear goal, diversify the company but not at the expense of excellence. That is a goal everyone should aspire to, and is the best outcome for all. It's really quite simple if you don't try to unwind every detail and inject the essence of Karen.

THIS said it better than I could say myself (wish we could like posts in these forums). I mean, why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both?

[ClassicPeon]

Odds are good this is Wilmerhale's recommended action, being easy ways to calm investor concerns and get the workers to simmer down, especially after the recent John Deere and Kellogg's strikes.

How about diversity for the sake of diversity - never?

I mean why? Why would that ever be a thing? Only ever hire people based on merit. Thats it.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it's not. Because here's how the situation would turn out in real life:

Angry Person: *files false complaint against their boss*
Boss: *allows the complaint to be investigated*
HR: *finds that the complaint was false and reprimands or fires the Angry Person*
Angry Person: *becomes even angrier due to their own actions*
Boss: *lives their life normally*

How do you prove a negative? You cant...

Here in lies the problem with blizzards current direction.

You are guilty until proven innocent and because its a negative you cant prove yourself innocent.

[Boddhi]

Any Activision Blizzard employee found through our new investigative processes and resources to have retaliated against anyone for making a compliance complaint will be terminated immediately.

Like "terminated immediately" in the sense of employees have to wear a collar with a small explosive charge to rend the carotid when Bobby pushes the button or what?!

[alturic]

"2. We will increase the percentage of women and non-binary people in our workforce by 50% and will invest $250 million to accelerate opportunities for diverse talent –Today, approximately 23% of our global employee population identifies as women or non-binary. Building on the success that King and other business units have achieved, we will seek to increase our percentage of women and non-binary professionals by approximately 50% – to more than one-third across the entire company – within the next five years and hopefully faster. Each franchise team, business unit, and functional area will be expected to have plans to help fulfill this ambition"

And this is the end of a once great company.

You will get flammed to hell for this comment. I agree with you, but just to make sure we are on the same page the reason I fucking utterly despise shit like this.

It literally means a.) they purposely went out of their way to NOT hire people in X categories, even if they were a better candidate or b.) they will purposely go out of their way to hire more people in X categories to appease the 'flakes.

Both of which are garbage.

[Xath]

Funny enough, a company in AUS did that with genderless/nameless resumes and quickly found out that 9/10 of their new hires turned out to be men..... It didn't last long after that.

I believe Sweden did something similar.

[Kralljin]

No, it's not. Because here's how the situation would turn out in real life:

In real life however, a lot of cases of sexual harassment come down to "He said, she said".

That's what makes these cases actually so damn difficult, if you have people that are degenerate enough to harass others at work, they do quite often do it in a fashion that it can barely be proven unless the company has security cameras installed everywhere.

What do you do when a guy frontally just *bumps* into a female employee that happens to have large breasts?
Did he do it on purpose?
Was it an accident?
Did it even happen at all?

Let's say a female employee claims she received unwanted shoulder massage from a male employee, the male employee calls it utter BS and nobody is around to verify the story?
Is the woman lying?
You want to exonorate a potential sexual harasser?
You want to fire a potentially innocent man?

You won't find a lot of people that defend sexual harasses when proof exists, but that's the problem: Proof rarely exists and even when multiple women verify similiar experiences with a given person, there still often no definitive proof that it happened.

Because on the other end of the spectrum, what you describe can easily turn into a huge fallout for the company when they falsely exonorate a sexual harasser when that guy did in fact harass women at work.

[Mardux]

"We will increase the percentage of women and non-binary people in our workforce by 50% and will invest $250 million to accelerate opportunities for diverse talent"

I love how today's society no longer allows hiring based on merit or skill and instead forces (in the same sense that blizzard "forces" anyone to do anything in game) hiring based on gender.

[darklogrus]

That's literally what I said, excellence first, diversity second.

When you applicants are all "excellence", then its diversity for the sake of diversity..

[alturic]

In real life however, a lot of cases of sexual harassment come down to "He said, she said".

That's what makes these cases actually so damn difficult, if you have people that are degenerate enough to harass others at work, they do quite often do it in a fashion that it can barely be proven unless the company has security cameras installed everywhere.

What do you do when a guy frontally just *bumps* into a female employee that happens to have large breasts?
Did he do it on purpose?
Was it an accident?
Did it even happen at all?

Let's say a female employee claims she received unwanted shoulder massage from a male employee, the male employee calls it utter BS and nobody is around to verify the story?
Is the woman lying?
You want to exonorate a potential sexual harasser?
You want to fire a potentially innocent man?

You won't find a lot of people that defend sexual harasses when proof exists, but that's the problem: Proof rarely exists and even when multiple women verify similiar experiences with a given person, there still often no definitive proof that it happened.

Because on the other end of the spectrum, what you describe can easily turn into a huge fallout for the company when they falsely exonorate a sexual harasser when that guy did in fact harass women at work.

I mean, while it sucks, if you can't prove they did what you accuse them of...

But surely no-one thinks the accused should be the one to prove they didn't do what they are accused of? It's the epitome of can't prove a negative.

Now, my brain is a bit fucked, but there does come a point where if ~60 women accuse you of raping them (a la Cosby) you clearly did it. In the eyes of the law, however, without evidence, nope.

[Orby]

Blizzard can do what they want, I stopped playing their games altogether after the lawsuit and WoW back in January, and I won't be returning no matter how diverse their structure is, their games are just tainted I am moving on and by the sounds of it most of you people here need to do the same and stop getting mad over this shit.

[alturic]

When you applicants are all "excellence", then its diversity for the sake of diversity..

While a handful of applicants are never equal, in all honesty, if it was, I would much rather assign a number to each and roll the dice for who gets the offer.

But yes, diversity for the sake of diversity is shit.

- - - Updated - - -

Blizzard can do what they want, I stopped playing their games altogether after the lawsuit and WoW back in January, and I won't be returning no matter how diverse their structure is, their games are just tainted I am moving on and by the sounds of it most of you people here need to do the same and stop getting mad over this shit.

Imagine not buying a product, or playing a video game for the rest of your life because of something a few people at the company did a number of years ago.

Hell, imagine doing that when a few people at a company are just *accused* (to date) of doing something.

[uuuhname]

few too many lawsuits to try and deny breaking the law anymore... a good sign I guess.

- - - Updated - - -

Ohh noes the scary women are taking all the jobs, people dont seem to understand that just becouse they want to hire more women dont mean that standards or requirements will be lower.

this has been repeated ad nauseum but clearly some people rather believe that to be the case to stay mad at the absolute wrong things going on at that company.

[Orby]

Imagine not buying a product, or playing a video game for the rest of your life because of something a few people at the company did a number of years ago.

Hell, imagine doing that when a few people at a company are just *accused* (to date) of doing something.

Blizzard is that you? No I will not be resubbing to your games... you being a very naughty compnay.

[alturic]

Ohh noes the scary women are taking all the jobs, people dont seem to understand that just becouse they want to hire more women dont mean that standards or requirements will be lower.

It doesnt mean they will hire some women for the art departement who cant even draw art just becouse they are women, and in the case of art department more women would probably be a good thing becouse i seen alot more really good artist who are women then men.

But here's what I don't get then.

Either a.) they purposely didn't hire women/trans/minorities or b.) they *will* actually go out of their way to hire sub-standard applicants now.

Only one can be true, which is it?

- - - Updated - - -

Blizzard is that you? No I will not be resubbing to your games... you being a very naughty compnay.

So you agree that the logic you have is extremely silly?

[Kralljin]

But surely no-one thinks the accused should be the one to prove they didn't do what they are accused of? It's the epitome of can't prove a negative.

The problem is that at least certain movements essentially demand that in cases of sexual harassment / rape, the story of the accuser has greater bearing than the one of the accused.

And it frankly leads to this "shoot first, ask later" mentality when it comes to this, Blizzard is by no means a stranger to this behavior in the larger spectrum.

Swifty was accused of sexual harassment, Blizzard deleted npc's that paid homage to him within days - turns out the accuser was mentally not very stable and no claims have been verified.
Quinton Flynn (VA of Kael'thas) was also accused of sexual harassment on Twitter - turns out that the accuser was once again mentally not very stable and even had a restraining order placed on her.
Blizzard still scrubbed Flynns work entirely out of WoW by replacing all voiced Kael'thas lines with the ones of a new VA (and didn't even bother to change course when it was shown that those claims are complete horseshit)

It seemingly turns into a question of how valueable that person is to the company, when they are relatively expendable (like a contractor or prominent figure within the community), Blizzard acts before even hearing them out, when those people however have some pull within the company, they are seemingly given the benefit of the doubt (for better or worse).

Now, my brain is a bit fucked, but there does come a point where if ~60 women accuse you of raping them (a la Cosby) you clearly did it. In the eyes of the law, however, without evidence, nope.

There is a high likelihood that is true and obviously a company should act when multiple women verify similiar behavior of a person, but you will not reach clarity that definitive proof has.

It's frankly a shitty situation, the majority of people agrees that sexual harassers should be removed and punished but it's difficult to claim that justice has been met without ever being presented definitive proof of a single claim.

[agentsi]

Ah yes. Let's focus on hiring more women, and non-binary folks, instead of just hiring the best human being for the job, regardless of their sex or sexual identity.

Do you want to know how you can cause a massive drop in the quality and efficiency of your product and or services? Do what Blizzard is now doing. Catering to a mob is absolute fucking madness.

I'm all for fixing sexual harassment issues in the workplace, they need to be fixed and addressed, but immediately, not 10 years down the road. Once you start hiring less qualified workers because you need to meet a quota based on nonsense, you've fucked up. Hiring Xy over Yx because of their biological sex or sexual identity, instead of their merits or work ethic or skill, you've fucked up.

These people are going to cater to the mob, and their quality, which is already on a decline, is going to get even worse.

And before any of you jump the gun, none of this is stating that females or people who identify as something other than their biological sex aren't good workers or skilled workers. It's stating that when you make an effort to appease ideologies in your hiring practices, it 100% causes declines in overall quality. There just aren't enough "skilled" folks as it is in this field, but now you're only going to hire certain ones?

This might be what finally kills Blizzard. Legit.

[ReD-EyeD]

Why would you jump to that kind of negative conclusion, especially about a company like Acti-Blizz?

Yeah, I wonder why.

Also the post doesn't containt the most important lawer part:

This press release may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We may, in some cases, use terms such as “predicts,” “believes,” “potential,” “proposed,” “continue,” “estimates,” “anticipates,” “expects,” “plans,” “intends,” “may,” “could,” “might,” “will,” “should” or other words that convey uncertainty of future events or outcomes to identify these forward-looking statements.

Meaning: JK LOL

[tomolak]

Vote with your wallet. I'm done at end of Shadowlands, will not buy another Blizz product ever again.

[Gadzooks]

Not gonna jump into the shitshow that this thread has devolved into, but my take on this is...Bobby is on thin ice with the board, and has had his job threatened.

I think there's a good chance ATVI may have a new CEO in the near future. This all reeks of desperation. Kotick, if you dig into his past, is a mean, vindictive and petty guy. This is not a press release from that guy. This is a press release from a guy who was told recently he could be replaced, and potential candidates have been reviewed. This is a guy who just got reamed out by the Board after the preliminary financials were released to them for the upcoming investor's call.

Won't write a blog post about it, but going by my experiences in the corporate world...yeah. Bob's on thin ice. Very thin ice.

[ReD-EyeD]

Bobby is on thin ice with the board, and has had his job threatened.

Bobby is fine. He is board member of Coca Cola company anyway.