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

[Orby]

Oh, I didn't insinuate you were a Trumper. I was saying there's no reasoning with Trumpers. There's no reasoning with your logic of boycotting a company or product because of the *accused* actions of ~0.001% of their employees.

As I said I quit WoW back in January before the accusations came out. The accusations just made it easier on me to give up on the company altogether... So basically its sped up the process. IT would have happened eventually.

Also most of the devs don't seem to be very good people either seeing the way they talk to their audience online. Some of them are very hateful, spiteful and bitter human beings, that its kind of rubbed me the wrong way, that it makes me dislike their games. Now I just want no part of the company. It just seems to me that the whole company is just not a nice place and it shows because their games have fallen in quality too.

[Aleksej89]

wretched leech, destroyed everything he touched and amassed a colossal fortune then putting on a facade of giving a damn.

[crakerjack]

It scares me that someone as high up in a company as this care for a meme term like "non-binary" that the twitter mob use's to feel special.



It really is not those people you should cater towards.

What is there to take offense about? I personally don’t have any stake in gender nor do I care about all the labels, but that doesn’t mean I have to be against it. If hearing non binary or cis gender lingo agitates you, then you probably have some deep rooted problem you’re neglecting. Most people just don’t care about it, but you do.

[Shaqur]

are you impying women or non binary people dont have skills for the job? wow dude...wow

Nice strawman, that's not what he said.

[ClassicPeon]

This is very clearly a message to the investors first, reassuring them that he's taking the PR of the company seriously. And that he'll increase """diversity""" to appease game journalists and twitter creatures.

As for the players, they get to buy another mount. Lucky them.

Gotta see the positive : This basically confirm that wow is going F2P soon.

The problem with this as a PR move is that the only thing you are doing is making a vocal minority on twitter happy while loosing half your customer base.

We will see in a few years. I for one am out. The rest is probably going to have to see the more radical changes its going to make in the game - besides the incredibly stupid minor things we have already seen.

Looking forward to gender fluid tier sets, everyone doing the same damage no matter what they press because it could lead to toxic behavior, all bosses being white men and all leaders of the alliance/horde being female or lgbtq+.

its going to be a fantastic failure to watch unfolding as an outsider

- - - Updated - - -

What is there to take offense about? I personally don’t have any stake in gender nor do I care about all the labels, but that doesn’t mean I have to be against it. If hearing non binary or cis gender lingo agitates you, then you probably have some deep rooted problem you’re neglecting. Most people just don’t care about it, but you do.

Any straight person identifying themselves as cis, isnt a straight person.

[Jester Joe]

Exactly this. There were no women declined from any jobs there, because they were women. So why enforce 50% women ?

A bit weird to think that, like you're believing women would have been treated fairly by management in ActiBlizz considering the circumstance.
Also impossible for you to claim. If the company themselves is coming out to say "We need to do better with this", you're in no place to claim that they've never declined an application based on gender.

On top of that, you're completely misreading it. There is no "enforce 50% women". It's INCREASE the amount of female/non-binary workers by 50%. They even said after that their goal is to have more than 1/3rd of the company women/non-binary. That isn't half.

Lastly, it says they're investing into reaching this goal. It isn't that they're cutting workers to accomplish this, they're specifically adding workers to the company for the goal. It would be like whining that there's scholarships or aid that target specific races or genders.

[Giruy]

Sooooo many idiots in this thread.

Diversity hiring doesnt mean that you get a lesser candidate, its means that if all candidates are equaly proficiant, instead of the blatant bias that was used before, the hiring decision is weighted in favour of the diversity candidate.

Also, IF one of the candidates is head and shoulders above the rest, they get hired regardless. No company should be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Having a diverse workforce target does not mean that every single person that ticks the box is hired off the bat ffs, its a target and may take years to reach.

[ClassicPeon]

Sooooo many idiots in this thread.

Diversity hiring doesnt mean that you get a lesser candidate, its means that if all candidates are equaly proficiant, instead of the blatant bias that was used before, the hiring decision is weighted in favour of the diversity candidate.

Also, IF one of the candidates is head and shoulders above the rest, they get hired regardless. No company should be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Having a diverse workforce target does not mean that every single person that ticks the box is hired off the bat ffs, its a target and may take years to reach.

There is no such thing as equally qualified candidates. There are so many factors that play into what a qualification for one of these jobs could be thats its a virtual impossibility.

In a perfect world everyone is equally qualified and you can start talking about diversity. But that does not exist in our world.

[Gadzooks]

Any straight person identifying themselves as cis, isnt a straight person.

Yet the actual definition of cis is an antonym for transgender, and the "cis" part of cisgender is from the latin, "Cis", or "On this side of". It's a label, not an identity.

I don't "identify" as "cisgender", I just am, and it's just a label, and your implication that by saying that I'm not, is intellectually bankrupt and more indicative of an agenda on your part.

[The Stormbringer]

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.

I mean, that's what I try to do with Nestle. They still have child slave labor going on in parts of the world, and I don't want to endorse anyone that does that shit. Of course, I understand that a large number of companies do that as secretly as they can, and I can't boycott everyone in our modern society, so I chose one and do my best to stick to it.

[dwarven]

Inb4 the zero-tolerance policy gets abused. Make no mistake, I don't think harassment has any place whatsoever in the workplace. But, you get there by promoting positive culture, not by immediately firing people for unproven transgressions. If their workplace was inclusive from the beginning, then the bad people would stick out like a sore thumb.

[Godric]

Go woke, go broke. Such a shame Blizzard.

[Varodoc]

Sooooo many idiots in this thread.

Diversity hiring doesnt mean that you get a lesser candidate, its means that if all candidates are equaly proficiant, instead of the blatant bias that was used before, the hiring decision is weighted in favour of the diversity candidate.

Also, IF one of the candidates is head and shoulders above the rest, they get hired regardless. No company should be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Having a diverse workforce target does not mean that every single person that ticks the box is hired off the bat ffs, its a target and may take years to reach.

There's no such thing as two "equally proficient" candidates. It is impossible for two people to have the same level of skill, there will always be some difference, even if tiny.

[ClassicPeon]

Yet the actual definition of cis is an antonym for transgender, and the "cis" part of cisgender is from the latin, "Cis", or "On this side of". It's a label, not an identity.

I don't "identify" as "cisgender", I just am, and it's just a label, and your implication that by saying that I'm not, is intellectually bankrupt and more indicative of an agenda on your part.

Gz one picking the first google link that showed up

I AM straight. Cis is not a term i use. Just like i dont call myself "this side of". I simply am straight. Just like 98% of the rest of the world. Cis is a lgb+ term thats often used in a derogatory manner(dont believe me? check out its use on SoMe sides) which is why i have no need for it. Just like i dont use words for transgender or non-straight people that they find derogatory.

[thunderdragon2]

Obviously not hiring a woman, a person of color, transgender, etc, that is qualified, experienced, and good for the job, simply because they are a woman, because they are black, gay, and so on. That's insane

No one should lose their job or not get the opportunity due to gender, race, or sexual orientation.

but... "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" which means they will hire people over others who are qualified, experienced, and skilled at their jobs. Now qualified people will lose jobs/opportunities simply because they are white and male. So how the fuck is this sorting anything? They simply turn the tables and act like it's ok for one to do it, but not the other

Blind hire is the only way. Hire the best person for the job regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation and race. Everything else should be irrelevant.

what about the other way around? say for the purpose of this example i had all the qualifications for this job and the other applicants didn't' but i lost out on the job to some1 less qualified just because 1 of them was female?

[Jester Joe]

There's no such thing as two "equally proficient" candidates. It is impossible for two people to have the same level of skill, there will always be some difference, even if tiny.

This is becoming a level of nitpicking just to try to justify bias.

If two people are both trained and experienced in a field, they're both still equally qualified for a position then. Claiming "But this one knows a few extra tricks!" doesn't change that they're both qualified for the job.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Atleast people like Morhaime are the reason that this company is even here...

Yes just like how people like Morhaime are why it’s in its current state.

[alturic]

I mean, that's what I try to do with Nestle. They still have child slave labor going on in parts of the world, and I don't want to endorse anyone that does that shit. Of course, I understand that a large number of companies do that as secretly as they can, and I can't boycott everyone in our modern society, so I chose one and do my best to stick to it.

And it certainly sounds like it's presumably the one with the least impact on your life. =D

[ClassicPeon]

what about the other way around? say for the purpose of this example i had all the qualifications for this job and the other applicants didn't' but i lost out on the job to some1 less qualified just because 1 of them was female?

I've been in the same situation. An internship that basically hired the female even though i was much more qualified(i've known her for years and she is a good person, but she isnt nearly as qualified as me). In the end it didnt work out because she wasnt able to keep up in a satisfactory manner. Thats basically what you get for hiring based on diversity.

[alturic]

This is becoming a level of nitpicking just to try to justify bias.

If two people are both trained and experienced in a field, they're both still equally qualified for a position then. Claiming "But this one knows a few extra tricks!" doesn't change that they're both qualified for the job.

Qualified != skilled though?

I dropped out in 10th grade, taught myself everything I know in regards to software development, and I assure you I am way more qualified than someone with that 4-year piece of paper.

Unless your qualification is *needing* that 4-year piece of paper.

That's the point the poster, and myself mean though when we say no two candidates will ever be on the same playing field unless they are both fresh out of college, never worked in the field you are hiring, etc.