Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

[RA92]

Do you happen to have the link stating that he practiced wage discrimination in the NBA?

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/12/sports/sp-elgin-baylor-suit12

Elgin Baylor, who had worked for the Clippers as general manager for 22 years, had his pay frozen to a paltry $350k since 2003. For comparison, the Caucasian head coach Mike Dunleavy who replaced him, was given a four-year, $22-million contract.

 

[RJ 17]

I just want to know why everyone's making a big deal over Sterling right now when it's been a known fact for a long time that he's a racist. Despite this, the NAACP has given the man an award back in 2009 and planned on giving him another one this month...

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/lawrence-sterling-blind-spot-nba-avoided-years-article-1.1773491

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/clippers/2014/04/28/donald-sterling-clippers-naacp-alice-huffman/8411441/

 

[Callate]

I think you can feel that Sterling is a terrible human being and still acknowledge that he has a certain right to privacy- just as any individual has a right to privacy, to not being judged for things they do that they've intended to keep private, to not have revelations of same intrude on one's life or threaten one's employment. Let he who would happily turn over the entirety of his Internet history for the last three years to his employer or school cast the first stone.

Others have pointed out that Sterling has a history of inappropriate behavior, and this may well be true. It also seems true that it was these particular comments, brought to light, that were if not the specific cause of his ban then at least the "straw that broke the camel's back", so to speak.

One can think Sterling is a terrible person- a "old bigot" in Olin's words- and still find the precedent disturbing. Principles worth defending are sometimes brought to light in cases involving awful people. The principles don't change.

I think Olin could have phrased this better- calling Sterling a "victim" sets my teeth on edge a bit, partly because we increasingly seem to be a culture in which everyone calls themselves a victim- but I'm not about to join a mob calling for Olin's termination or his game's boycott; that seems thoroughly absurd, and threatens to have a chilling effect on discussion of matters that do have more than one side worth considering.

To play extreme devil's advocate, though- the Supreme Court has ruled with increasing consistency that campaign contributions- money- constitute free speech... If, then, you have your income curtailed for stating your opinion, is your employer curtailing your speech?

(I recognize this argument is ridiculous, and I think the SCOTUS' rulings regarding political spending have been among the most partisan and abhorrent of the last few decades, but I can also imagine a lawyer making such a claim before a bench in complete, or at least mock-faced, seriousness.)

 

[kajinking]

Just waiting for the update to this story when the offical company behind the game makes a statement about all this before I get too far into it but this seems like another case of people really not thinking too much before posting online.

 

[Church185]

you guys are the definition of petty

Also, anyone who thinks this is gonna stop anyone from buying Evolve... well you're a fooling yourselves. The fact that you would punish and entire game development team for the opinion of one man makes you little more than a child participating in kindergarten politics. In all honestly, the entire gaming community would be better off without you.

Lol, tell me how you really feel.

I was on the fence about the game, but I'm fairly positive that I won't bother now. You may not like it, but it is my right to spend the money as I see fit.

 

[MCerberus]

Just waiting for the update to this story when the offical company behind the game makes a statement about all this before I get too far into it but this seems like another case of people really not thinking too much before posting online.

In a rational world this would be a place for a "this does not necessarily represent the views of our company," a talk with HR, and then the guy goes back to work after being told "seriously, you work in PR, you know what will happen if you cause a ****storm again."

Whether there's an apology or admission of wrong depends entirely on the guy.

 

[Lightknight]

You may be unfamiliar with the discrimination laws built on the 1st amendment. Do you think the NBA could ban all Christians or Muslims from attending their games because they believe in a divine being and not what the NBA thinks they should believe in?

Or do you think they'd be successfully sued into the ground for trying that? Discrimination based on beliefs is against the law in the US and does not just apply to the government. Wrong as he is, denying him services is illegal. These laws are in place to protect us and need to be upheld in these situations to ensure they're there to protect people that history finds is in the right. There was a time where people who are pro-diversity and pro-gays would have been banned.

Everything you have said is irrelevant, and quite the slippery slope.

No, that's common legally established precedence. You do realize that a slippery slope argument is actually what many of our laws are based on right? The notion that companies can choose which beliefs to refuse services for is a dangerous and illegal practice.

The reason he is being banned and may be forced to sell his team is because he has damaged the leagues image. It would be easy to defend that position in court if he ever tried to counter with claims of discrimination.

Then there is the matter of all of his other alleged misdeeds, but I haven't been able to find any hard evidence about that stuff.

Agreed. However, if he really did do things like sexually harass players or practice racial wage discrimination then his being banned from games wouldn't be unlike banning someone from games for getting in a fight or throwing something.

All the links I've seen either have him doing something illegal in industries outside the NBA for which he has already legally settled the issue or show that he is a racist a-hole. Something that I don't think anyone can justifiably argue against.

 

[Lightknight]

Do you happen to have the link stating that he practiced wage discrimination in the NBA?

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/12/sports/sp-elgin-baylor-suit12

Elgin Baylor, who had worked for the Clippers as general manager for 22 years, had his pay frozen to a paltry $350k since 2003. For comparison, the Caucasian head coach Mike Dunleavy who replaced him, was given a four-year, $22-million contract.

So... he used the fact that the guy was black as rationalization for paying him less than a white guy and in his mind justifying racial discrimination?

... ok then. How does this guy manage to chew food properly? His team of lawyers must routinely have heart attacks.

 

[Church185]

Agreed. However, if he really did do things like sexually harass players or practice racial wage discrimination then his being banned from games wouldn't be unlike banning someone from games for getting in a fight or throwing something.

All the links I've seen either have him doing something illegal in industries outside the NBA for which he has already legally settled the issue or show that he is a racist a-hole. Something that I don't think anyone can justifiably argue against.

Ok, so we've agreed that the NBA can ban him because he hurt their image and by extension could hurt their business right?

Sorry if I seem so confused, arguments rarely ever get resolved on this site, and I just feel so lost once it does happen.

Is this real life?

 

[Baresark]

You aren't going to change his opinions on certain races by banning Sterling from the NBA

I wasn't aware that was anyone's intent. Can you point to some people who have said "If we ban him from the NBA, maybe he won't hate black people anymore?"

Also, anyone who thinks this is gonna stop anyone from buying Evolve... well you're a fooling yourselves. The fact that you would punish and entire game development team for the opinion of one man makes you little more than a child participating in kindergarten politics.

I'm confused. How are they fooling themselves? Not buying products gets the intended result, from getting rid of the Mozilla guy to getting back the Duck Dynasty guy. Even if you think it's "childish" or "kindergarten politics," it works. And by your own rationale, they're already not buying the games, so they can't be fooling themselves into thinking this will stop people from buying the game, because they already have a body of proof.

Point 1: The actions are meant to punish him for his opinion and use him as an example. If they aren't trying to change his opinion, they are doing it completely wrong. It's punishment for the sake of punishment. It's pointless if the intent is not rehabilitation. You make my point beautifully. You seem to think that punishment is the end, when that is a false and hurtful view that does not benefit anyone. It most cases, it only serves the strengthen the feelings of people who have negative opinions about other people based on race. It is more of an injustice than anything else. I'm not sitting here calling the man a victim. But your opinion of punishment for punishments sake is literally what is broke about the entire US prison system. It's what happens when nothing but emotion is observed by people such as yourself.

That said, as a private organization they can do as they wish. They can get rid of a guy for his opinion, just like Sterling used his opinion to justify his unequal treatment of players. So, I'm guessing that in this, we are in agreement. We can certainly agree that if your entire livelihood is dependent on a certain subset of people, then you should probably have a favorable opinion of said people.

Point 2: They are fooling themselves because most people do not care about the opinion of the community manager enough to skip a good game. You basically mentioned two very front facing individuals in the aforementioned situations. No one even knew this guy existed before this article, at least not the gaming community at large. And in 15 minutes, they will have forgotten about it till some "journalist" brings it up again. And I'll tell you why. His opinion is not incorrect. His example is definitely poor in the user of this opinion though We should not have to worry about though policing in our own homes. If you can't see that, then you are among the most short sighted people on this site.

But don't worry, in your observance of the emotional need for punishment, I'm sure this guy will get fired for his opinion. And I'm sure we will all be better off for it, at least in the views of some folks.

 

[medv4380]

I'm not sure how to express my concern when people state this. It's like they understand the 1st amendment, and yet don't understand it at all.

Technically Donald has a right to be an ignorant bigot. That part is true. However, everyone else has the right to speak out against him as well. That's what the 1st amendment protects. The Rich and entitled seem to think that the 1st amendment only applies to them, and not to everyone who might speak out against them. The Freedom of Association is by far the most important right in this argument in the First Amendment since I have the right to Associate with, or not associate with, people, and vise versa. If I don't want to Associate with the Clippers because it's owned by a bigoted nut job who's form of racism is so antiquated I can't understand it in the slightest. Heck I can see a fair number of Racist KKK members probably see his 'views' as unacceptable. If the NBA no longer wants to associate with Donald, and have a contractual out then they are free to exercise their rights. The only protection the First Amendment offers is it prevents the government from stopping you. That doesn't mean everyone has to tolerate your.

However, Calling Donald a "victim" is a kin to calling a slave owning plantation owner a "victim".

 

[Baresark]

Lol, he is absolutely right. The guy is a bigot and a dick. But he has the right to say what he wants in the confines of his own home and not face public consequences. You aren't going to change his opinions on certain races by banning Sterling from the NBA, and it's not going to make Josh Olin any less right to punish Turtle Rock. The right thing to do would be to let this slide by unnoticed, but the media has already got their dirty little hands on it. It's race, so it's a click through.

Also, anyone who thinks this is gonna stop anyone from buying Evolve... well you're a fooling yourselves. The fact that you would punish and entire game development team for the opinion of one man makes you little more than a child participating in kindergarten politics. In all honestly, the entire gaming community would be better off without you.

Ahh yes...."Anyone who does something I disagree with is a child" is such a old classic line used in internet debates.Honestly I wonder if you would say the same things to people who boycotted businesses like Chik-Fil-A who have gone on record as hating gay people and attended a anti gay law meeting in Africa?The gaming community would be better off without people who defend bigots or people who think doing so is okay.

The fact you think this incident should've just slid on by without notice says alot about yourself and quite frankly I don't like it.

I didn't say you are a child for not agreeing with me. You are caught up in kindergarten politics which is the politics of children. One kid does something bad, now no one gets recess. I was speaking specifically about people who think that the whole game should fail because of one guy who can't control himself on Twitter. If you agree with that: then yes, you are a child. I wasn't even defending a bigot, you should read more closely. I was simply saying that anyone should want the same rights, to not be attacked for his opinion that exists behind closed doors. Not all of anyone's opinions are going to be in perfect alignment with society as a whole. Thought policing is a threat to everyone. But I forgot, it's all the rage on the internet.

 

[chikusho]

I don't get why anyone is defending this guy.

Imagine you heard a friend of yours saying that they hate your guts and find you repulsive.
Would you reason that:
"oh, but he said that in a private conversation, so it's fine. he has a right to hate my guts and find me repulsive without any reaction or consequences from me. we can still hang out and stuff, it's all good!"?

 

[Church185]

You basically mentioned two very front facing individuals in the aforementioned situations. No one even knew this guy existed before this article, at least not the gaming community at large. And in 15 minutes, they will have forgotten about it till some "journalist" brings it up again. And I'll tell you why. His opinion is not incorrect. His example is definitely poor in the user of this opinion though We should not have to worry about though policing in our own homes. If you can't see that, then you are among the most short sighted people on this site.

Nice ad hominem by the way. You are really good at that.

The statement I quoted above makes me think you have completely forgotten that Adam Orth no longer works for Microsoft because of comments made on his personal Twitter account. He was an unknown at the time too.

 

[Baresark]

you guys are the definition of petty

Also, anyone who thinks this is gonna stop anyone from buying Evolve... well you're a fooling yourselves. The fact that you would punish and entire game development team for the opinion of one man makes you little more than a child participating in kindergarten politics. In all honestly, the entire gaming community would be better off without you.

Lol, tell me how you really feel.

I was on the fence about the game, but I'm fairly positive that I won't bother now. You may not like it, but it is my right to spend the money as I see fit.

Are you kidding me. I support your right and decision to not buy the game for any reason you choose. I'm on the fence because I want to see how they balance the 4v1 before I ever consider dropping a dime on this. I just don't think that it is right for a bunch of people to suffer because one guy feels compelled to give his opinion on Twitter. It defies reason. But I will do my best to assuage your fears and your need for emotional payback and say that the guy probably cost himself his job.

 

[PCPLX]

I bet that what this PR guy saw was a lot of people using current events as an excuse to scapegoat some rotten old fool for all racism and classism ever. Sure, the only thing old Americans love more than ignorance is voting, and that sucks and should be resisted so that when the Not-So-Greatest Generation finally dies we can start protecting social progress with policy more easily. However, turning into a hysterical mob to figuratively lynch a person is not an admirable thing under any circumstances.
It's not about the specific issues - just how much of a troll this wretched old guy may be on a personal level simply isn't the point. It's about the fact that, when you get down to the sheer violence of the thing, a liberal mob coming after someone who disagrees with their principles is uncomfortably similar to a conservative mob coming after someone with a different race or religion.
Pointing out that the lynch mob are also the bad guys (albeit for different reasons) does not make someone a defender of bigotry. If you really want to affect political change, go do something productive, instead of taking potshots at the scapegoat-du-jour from behind your friends.
God, it's like none of you people played Bioshock Infinite!

 

[Church185]

Are you kidding me. I support your right and decision to not buy the game for any reason you choose.

Calling me a child and saying the gaming community would be better off without me because of that decision hardly seems like you support my right to make it.

The situation with the Evolve devs is kind of ironic when you think about it. The coach is going to get canned by the NBA because they want to protect their public image and their bottom line. The community manager is going to get canned because the devs want to protect their image and potentially their bottom line.

I don't understand why someone with a public platform that is entirely unrelated to politics, would use that public platform to spout off about politics. Especially when they have no idea what they are talking about. I realize it is his private twitter, but he is being followed by 150K people because of his job, and his Twitter is plastered with material from the dev studio and their upcoming game, indirectly getting them involved. Because of him, they are now damned if you do, damned if you don't when it comes to firing him. I'm sure there are people who won't by the game now because of what he said, and I'm also positive there will be people who don't buy the game if he gets fired. He has hurt his company either way.