Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

[Pickapok]

But this is the nature of game press. We identify someone who says something, completely unrelated to games, and identify them with their company and that company's game to generate some kind of weird connection between the two. This whole article represents a side of gaming press I wish would go away.

Talk about "victimizing." An entire creative team's reputation shouldn't have to suffer because of the misguided political views of one member.

And he isn't even necessarily a member of the creative team, he's the guy that runs the forums. That's about as low on the team totem poll as you can get.

 

[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.

 

[James Crook]

I see Olin's point, and agree with him - I'd also like to note Olin has never said he agreed with Sterling. Sterling is an old bigoted prick, however he should be allowed to do so in the safety of his own home.

 

[Micah Weil]

I think XKCD said it best...
http://xkcd.com/1357/

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well I spent two extra minutes reading about this Sterling deal and it is obvious the guy has been walking the limits of legality for a very long time, and it is doubtful he even heard of morality. So no Mr. Olin he is not the victim of a private slip up, he is the victim of his own landslide of shit he pulled over the years.

If you took the extra couple of minutes then you would have seen it too, but hey it's an easy mistake to make.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm sorry, but he is a victim here.

He's been a known racist for a long time. Here's an excerpt from his Wikipedia page:

In February 2009, Sterling was sued by former longtime Clippers executive Elgin Baylor for employment discrimination on the basis of age and race. The lawsuit alleges Sterling told Baylor that he wanted to fill his team with "poor black boys from the South and a white head coach". The suit alleges that during negotiations for Danny Manning, Sterling said "I'm offering a lot of money for a poor black kid." The suit noted those comments while alleging "the Caucasian head coach was given a four-year, $22-million contract", but Baylor's salary had "been frozen at a comparatively paltry $350,000 since 2003".

<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_sterling>Source

Not to mention all the tenant-related incidents.

So it's not an outlier event - just the one to push things over the edge. And his bigotry has affected the people around him too (pay disputes, harassment). It's understandable if a private organization wants to distance itself from such a bigot.

Um... if you didn't cut off the next couple of sentences then maybe it'd make sense why you responding that he is racist doesn't really impact anything.

"I'm sorry, but he is a victim here. He is a racist bigot too. It's just that the two things are not mutually exclusive. "

The issue isn't whether or not he's racist. The issue is that his right to say these crazy things is a legally defensible right. As long as he isn't inciting people to violence or breaking any of the other conditions under which speech is not protected then he should be able to make these comments and not be banned. Legally speaking, them banning him is not different from banning people who support gays or are members of a religion. That's why it's important not to join the bandwagon here when a fundamental human right is being squashed. I want that right to be there for us and our children if we ever find ourselves in a similar situation.

This is civil liberties 101.

The NBA isn't the government, they have a right to ban him from their games and property for whatever reason they see fit. Making them look bad by being racist while they makes tons of money off the backs of (mostly) black athletes is probably a pretty good reason in their book. According to the NBAs constitution, if 75% of the owners want him to sell his team, he will be forced to. He signed contracts and has known about this since the beginning.

This case literally has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment because it is out of the governments hands.

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.

I think XKCD said it best...
http://xkcd.com/1357/

None of those things are what is being argued against. He absolutely deserves the criticism he gets. It's the denial of services based on his beliefs and the push for him to have to sell his business (which likely won't succeed) that aren't acceptable ramifications. Even getting fired for saying these kinds of things would quickly land someone in murky freedom of speech territory.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Looking through this thread and seeing all these people swearing off buying the game... you guys are the definition of petty.

Just because one guy out of the HUNDREDS associated with the game, somebody who doesn't even WORK ON the game but manages its forums and community plays devil advocate, you are going to punish the entire group, developer and publisher?

This^

It is pretty fucking ridiculous the amount of retardation being displayed here. Makes me want to check back to make sure I haven't done something similar in the past.

OT: I think Olin is only aware of this one scenario involving Sterling. As many people have said, Sterling has apparently done some racist crap in the past, but Olin may not be aware of that. I think he only sees that one embarrassing recording was taken covertly inside his home and released to the public, that's why he's calling 'victim' (though idk if I'd use that word for it myself).

 

[CriticalMiss]

But this is the nature of game press. We identify someone who says something, completely unrelated to games, and identify them with their company and that company's game to generate some kind of weird connection between the two. This whole article represents a side of gaming press I wish would go away.

Talk about "victimizing." An entire creative team's reputation shouldn't have to suffer because of the misguided political views of one member.

And he isn't even necessarily a member of the creative team, he's the guy that runs the forums. That's about as low on the team totem poll as you can get.

Plus he used his personal account to post this. Without having it pointed out to them, how many people would have known this guy was connected to the game? I'm guessing not many.

 

[RA92]

As long as he isn't inciting people to violence or breaking any of the other conditions under which speech is not protected then he should be able to make these comments and not be banned.

My point was that while his bigotry did not incite violence and such, it did have a negative effect on other people. He underpaid black players. He sexually harassed them by showing them off to his mistresses while they were showering. He wrongfully evicted black tenants after acquiring new properties. His ban takes into context his past behavior, not just this one incident.

By banning him NBA is not infringing on his right to speech. He can continue being a racist bigot. They are just disassociating themselves from him.

 

[MCerberus]

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.

Correction: discrimination based on religion is illegal. Discrimination based on race is also illegal. Being pushed out of an organization for wishing to discriminate based on race is super-legal, especially if the association can bring monetary harm to the organization and the person in question has a history doing so. Also this guy signed onto the bylaws of this organization.

Considering sexual orientation is not a fully protected class in the majority of states (IE-you can be fired for being gay in 29), I'm not going to shed a tear for this asswipe.

 

[Something Amyss]

While I see (but don't agree with) Olin's point of view, and at the same time abhor Sterling's bigotry, the tweet poses an interesting dilemma worth following.

I don't see the interesting dilemma here. You have the right to free speech, but not (to borrow a line from Jon Stewart) consequence-free speech. He has the right to be a bigot in his own home. He has a right to be a bigot in the streets. He has the right not hold up a sign at a black person's funeral saying "God Hates Black People," as WBC has done with homosexuals over the years. He has the absolute right to be a bigot so long as he doesn't threaten harm, attempt to incite violence, or attempt to cause panic.

He does not have the right to be employed, however, despite this[footnote]And I know the ownership of a franchise is a little more complex that that, but he still doesn't get any special right to no consequences, or for people to buy his merchandise, etc[/footnote]. And one of the great ironies is that it's largely conservatives up in arms. The same people who vote for the "at will employment" laws. The same laws that say a private business doesn't need to have a reason to fire you.

It also doesn't give you the right to be free from criticism. And it doesn't really matter if he thought he was saying it in private.

You even say this, though in less detail. So where's the dilemma? The home angle? Assumed privacy is nothing more than that: assumed.

Also, weird thing to bring up as a PR guy.

There's an old saying that I think needs updating to something like "Twitter makes fools of us all."

He apparently took women to look at the 'beautiful black bodies' of his players while they were showering, so you can through in sexual harassment as well. And lets not forget multiple tenants of his filing (and winning) lawsuits against him for using racial slurs and not following through lease agreements because the were black. So he wasn't being just a bigot at his home.

Wow. Sounds like the acts of a victim to me.

I don't necessarily agree with Olin in this particular instance, but he clearly has noble intentions.

I'm hoping it's more of a "Devil's Advocate" thing.

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.

And he isn't even necessarily a member of the creative team, he's the guy that runs the forums. That's about as low on the team totem poll as you can get.

When you hire HR/PR/Community managers, they're ostensibly there to represent your company. This seems like a poor excuse.

 

[Lightknight]

As long as he isn't inciting people to violence or breaking any of the other conditions under which speech is not protected then he should be able to make these comments and not be banned.

My point was that while his bigotry did not incite violence and such, it did have a negative effect on other people. He underpaid black players. He sexually harassed them by showing them off to his mistresses while they were showering. He wrongfully evicted black tenants after acquiring new properties. His ban takes into context his past behavior, not just this one incident.

By banning him NBA is not infringing on his right to speech. He can continue being a racist bigot. They are just disassociating themselves from him.

Whoa, holy hell on a cracker (pun intended).

Then he broke the law. Wow. I just thought he said stuff, not that he did that crap. Do you have citation? That's horrendous and illegal. Breaking the law is of course not a legally defensible position. If he actually did those things then I'd of course rescind any comments as to his victimhood.

Correction: discrimination based on religion is illegal. Discrimination based on race is also illegal. Being pushed out of an organization for wishing to discriminate based on race is super-legal, especially if the association can bring monetary harm to the organization and the person in question has a history doing so.

And the denial of services? Should he also have to drink at a different water fountain or be refused service to restaurants? While I admit that would be comic gold it's really a problem to support the refusal of service for beliefs. If he did everything the person above said then that's different.

Also this guy signed onto the bylaws of this organization.

And the bylaws say...?

Considering sexual orientation is not a fully protected class in the majority of states (IE-you can be fired for being gay in 29), I'm not going to shed a tear for this asswipe.

So... because some people don't have rights you're ok with other people not having rights? Why can't you just be pro-people having rights? Should people not have rights until everyone has rights?

 

[RA92]

As long as he isn't inciting people to violence or breaking any of the other conditions under which speech is not protected then he should be able to make these comments and not be banned.

My point was that while his bigotry did not incite violence and such, it did have a negative effect on other people. He underpaid black players. He sexually harassed them by showing them off to his mistresses while they were showering. He wrongfully evicted black tenants after acquiring new properties. His ban takes into context his past behavior, not just this one incident.

By banning him NBA is not infringing on his right to speech. He can continue being a racist bigot. They are just disassociating themselves from him.

Whoa, holy hell on a cracker (pun intended).

Then he broke the law. Wow. I just thought he said stuff, not that he did that crap. Do you have citation? That's horrendous.

I... kinda got that you didn't know the guy properly.

Here's an article with plenty of citations. There's sexism in their too, 'cause why not.

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/LA-Clippers-Owner-Donald-Sterling-Allegedly-4642519.php

Note line 11.

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/535e583569beddef2a9c9157-800-427/donald-sterling-sex-testimony.jpg

 

[Lightknight]

As long as he isn't inciting people to violence or breaking any of the other conditions under which speech is not protected then he should be able to make these comments and not be banned.

My point was that while his bigotry did not incite violence and such, it did have a negative effect on other people. He underpaid black players. He sexually harassed them by showing them off to his mistresses while they were showering. He wrongfully evicted black tenants after acquiring new properties. His ban takes into context his past behavior, not just this one incident.

By banning him NBA is not infringing on his right to speech. He can continue being a racist bigot. They are just disassociating themselves from him.

Whoa, holy hell on a cracker (pun intended).

Then he broke the law. Wow. I just thought he said stuff, not that he did that crap. Do you have citation? That's horrendous.

I... kinda got that you didn't know the guy properly.

Here's an article with plenty of citations. There's sexism in their too, 'cause why not.

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/LA-Clippers-Owner-Donald-Sterling-Allegedly-4642519.php

Note line 11.

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/535e583569beddef2a9c9157-800-427/donald-sterling-sex-testimony.jpg

Whoa! Haha, that's... geeze.

I'm walking away from this one. Thanks for the info. Glad this was the first place I said anything.

Seeing as he committed numerous legally questionable issues here I'd say that banning him would be functionally no different than banning someone for fighting in the stadiums.

 

[Nuxxy]

People seem to be missing a step with this whole thing. He did have the right to say whatever he wants in his home. But people are also allowed to think of him as a bigot. The repercussions are because of those negative opinions, because he is a brand ambassador and negative opinions on him will spread to anything associated with him.

I'm not sure what basis the NBA has to ban and fine him. I assume they can ban whoever they want, especially if apathy affects their public image. But a fine surely must have some basis through a "NBA Team Owners Code of Behaviour" or something.

 

[Lightknight]

As long as he isn't inciting people to violence or breaking any of the other conditions under which speech is not protected then he should be able to make these comments and not be banned.

My point was that while his bigotry did not incite violence and such, it did have a negative effect on other people. He underpaid black players. He sexually harassed them by showing them off to his mistresses while they were showering. He wrongfully evicted black tenants after acquiring new properties. His ban takes into context his past behavior, not just this one incident.

By banning him NBA is not infringing on his right to speech. He can continue being a racist bigot. They are just disassociating themselves from him.

Whoa, holy hell on a cracker (pun intended).

Then he broke the law. Wow. I just thought he said stuff, not that he did that crap. Do you have citation? That's horrendous.

I... kinda got that you didn't know the guy properly.

Here's an article with plenty of citations. There's sexism in their too, 'cause why not.

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/LA-Clippers-Owner-Donald-Sterling-Allegedly-4642519.php

Note line 11.

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/535e583569beddef2a9c9157-800-427/donald-sterling-sex-testimony.jpg

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

 

[Church185]

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. 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.

 

[MCerberus]

Correction: discrimination based on religion is illegal. Discrimination based on race is also illegal. Being pushed out of an organization for wishing to discriminate based on race is super-legal, especially if the association can bring monetary harm to the organization and the person in question has a history doing so.

And the denial of services? Should he also have to drink at a different water fountain or be refused service to restaurants? While I admit that would be comic gold it's really a problem to support the refusal of service for beliefs. If he did everything the person above said then that's different.

Also this guy signed onto the bylaws of this organization.

And the bylaws say...?

Considering sexual orientation is not a fully protected class in the majority of states (IE-you can be fired for being gay in 29), I'm not going to shed a tear for this asswipe.

So... because some people don't have rights you're ok with other people not having rights? Why can't you just be pro-people having rights? Should people not have rights until everyone has rights?

Again, and again, these protections do not apply to people outside of protected classes. Restaurants can ban people from their premises for being jerks. Any and all buildings (except for Georgia, whole other subject there) can bar entry to people carrying guns in states with concealed carry. Because jerks and concealed carriers aren't federally protected classes. Banning him for being white would be illegal banning him for being racist, is again, just something the NBA could do.

The NBA bylaws are actually most secret. However, all owner must adhere to them, and it appears that 2.5million and a lifetime ban is the maximum punishment. Also, the organization can force the sale of a team with the consent of 75% of all owners, which they seem to have.

Oh look, a "why can't you just" argument. Alright, first of all, this guy didn't actually have any of his rights trampled (see: above). Second of all, affording bigots rights above the people they are explicitly wanting to discriminate against is stupid as hell. This leads to the lunacy of the "religious freedom" laws that make further oppression of oppressed people protected. Which is why they get struck down as soon as they're passed.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

I at the very least think that of all the things Sterling got banned for, this was probably not the best one to make a stand on. The treatment of players and tenants should have been enough, and frankly should have been dealt with. So while he still should have been banned, being banned for this instead of everything else just seems kind of weird. Also, while he's not necessarily a victim for being banned, he may technically be one in the legal sense since I'm pretty sure it's against California law to record someone without their knowing.

As for the original topic: This is the innate problem with being a community manager for any type of project, not just a game. On the one hand, as a community manager, part of your job is to recognize what to and what not to say to your audience. In this sense, attracting unwanted attention can usually be the sign of a bad community manager. Then again, had I not been told that Olin was the community manager for Evolve, I would never have known he was even related to the project. As such, I don't really hold his views against Evolve, since he didn't really make the tweet about the game or the company at all: he made his own comments on his own twitter that had no connection to his work, so unlike some people here, this tweet will not make me refuse to buy the game (not sure I was getting it anyways, but this "scandal" definitely doesn't factor into my decision to purchase the product)