Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

[tzimize]

Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

Acknowledging it as an unpopular opinion, Turtle Rock's Josh Olin calls the banned owner of the Los Angeles Clippers a victim.

Update: Turtle Rock Studios has apparently removed Olin from his position as community manager as a result of his statement. "The comments made by our former community manager stand in stark contrast to our values as a game development studio," the studio tweeted [https://twitter.com/TurtleRock/status/461985205323317248] earlier this evening. "We sincerely apologize for his remarks and in no way endorse or support those views."

In his own follow-up tweets [https://twitter.com/JD_2020] posted after he was removed, Olin wrote, "I'll remind you, my remarks were in condemnation of sensational media, and support of one's privacy. Not in support of Sterling's actions... Final thoughts: I believe in racial equality & do not endorse bigotry in any way. I also believe in free speech and decry sensational media."

Original story:


Anyone who follows sports, especially NBA basketball, has been aware of the bigoted utterances of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, and the subsequent lifetime ban from the game by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver. However, the topic is far from dead, and at least one member of the game community has publicly come out to defend the man as a "victim."

Josh Olin is manager of the community and eSports team at developer Turtle Rock, which is making the sci-fi shooter Evolve. What makes this interesting is that his tweet [https://twitter.com/JD_2020/status/461613922370351104] is so out of bounds from the video game business (unless it was an NBA sports game), and a topic one would probably not expect to see from someone that deals with the community on a regular basis.

Olin's comments of Sterling as a victim seem to stem from the recording of the Clippers' owner's comments in the supposed privacy of his home. Forget for a moment that Olin is commenting on Sterling at all, but just a controversial topic outside the scope of his official duties. That seems to be a borderline issue between Olin and Turtle Rock, and any HR policies the company may have on such public comments.

Now, bring in the context of Sterling and his bigotry and Olin's perceived defense of the man, and Turtle Rock may be facing an issue similar to the NBA. The tweet, as of this posting, has been retweeted 25 times, and Olin has more than 142,000 followers. Of course, this is Olin's personal account, not a Turtle Rock one, but again, as the NBA showed, if personal feelings spoken in your home can get you banned for life, is there any difference of a public comment from your private account?

Everyone is entitled to express their opinion as part of the First Amendment, but at what point does that freedom of speech become a PR nightmare for the company said individual works for? The First Amendment allows you to say whatever you want without fear of arrest, but it does not guarantee you exemption from the ramifications those comments may bring from employers or other associations.

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.




Permalink

Its not really a dilemma. People have a right to voice their opinion. If our society takes a direction where we need to watch what we say PRIVATELY because we work in a specific place...there is WAY too much power in corporations and WAY too little freedom for individuals.

Society will become bottled up and more extremists will emerge. The only way to temper opinions is to be able to voice them, and be challenged.

As a PR person you can't just say whatever is on your mind because you are effectively representing the company at all times.This is one of those cases where Olin should've made a personal blog instead of going on Twitter,especially since he like anyone else who thinks this is a privacy issue did'nt have all the facts.Like Donald being reported to ask to be recorded out of fear of being forgetful.

This entire thing could've been avoided if people waited until all the facts out before getting on some moral soapbox about their "version" of the First Ammendment and privacy.

What you are saying makes no sense. Why would making a private blog be ok, but posting it on private twitter not be ok?

Having a "work-twitter" and a private twitter is what would help. If someone talks out of place in their work-environment, disciplinary options (including firing) is not something I have a problem with. But a blog and a twitter account represents the person. Unless it represents the company.

I havent read the fine lines in this case, but I'm guessing the guy used his private twitter. If he used his work twitter I cannot imagine this discussion every taking place. Using his private twitter for this should pose no problem. SHOULD.

Twitter is never private,never.Many people make the mistake of thinking you can post a tweet about something and delete it if it gets you in trouble,that never works because somebody is going to find that tweet and share it with everyone else.

Besides it's not a private Twitter account if you have 140,000 people following you.

A private blog is better because you air a opinion about something without people thinking you're associated with a company.It allows peple to talk about things and everyone won't find out unless you let them.

Still making no sense. The number of followers are completely irrelevant. A blog cant have that many readers? Private in this regard just means his private opinion. If he posted something and claimed his company was backing him in this, the matter is completely different. Say I work at blizzard. There is NO problem for a company making people have a "work-twitter account" marked for example; Tzimize-Blizzard. Anything I say on my work twitter would be subject to my workplace rules. Anything I say on my OWN twitter, should NOT be.

Imagine you are having a conversation with a friend. You say something your workplace wouldnt like, but you dont think anything of it. You're not at work, and you're not talking to a colleague. Someone overhears it though, and somehow your workplace finds out. You're fired. Would this be ok? OF COURSE NOT. Why the hell should a twitter-account be any different?

People have opinions no matter what other people want, and my point still stand. We have to tolerate different opinions than our own. Especially other than our own. If we push people with fringe-opinions into the shadows, some of them are going to come out guns blazing. And even one such case is much too many.

Companies should not have a say over their workers private opinions.

 

[JarinArenos]

Still making no sense. The number of followers are completely irrelevant. A blog cant have that many readers? Private in this regard just means his private opinion. If he posted something and claimed his company was backing him in this, the matter is completely different. Say I work at blizzard. There is NO problem for a company making people have a "work-twitter account" marked for example; Tzimize-Blizzard. Anything I say on my work twitter would be subject to my workplace rules. Anything I say on my OWN twitter, should NOT be.

Imagine you are having a conversation with a friend. You say something your workplace wouldnt like, but you dont think anything of it. You're not at work, and you're not talking to a colleague. Someone overhears it though, and somehow your workplace finds out. You're fired. Would this be ok? OF COURSE NOT. Why the hell should a twitter-account be any different?

People have opinions no matter what other people want, and my point still stand. We have to tolerate different opinions than our own. Especially other than our own. If we push people with fringe-opinions into the shadows, some of them are going to come out guns blazing. And even one such case is much too many.

Companies should not have a say over their workers private opinions.

The problem here is when private activity has a direct negative impact on the employer. In certain positions, there is an inherent acceptance of everything you say being public. Take politicians for example, basically nothing is out of bounds when it comes to criticisms of public officials. It's similar with major public faces of corporations. If you say or do something that reflects poorly on the company, the company can and often will choose to disassociate with you. Permanently.

First Amendment rights don't even come into play in situations like this. It's no different from your boss overhearing you viciously insulting him behind his after work. Sure, it's theoretically private; you're not on the job. Doesn't mean you're likely to be employed the next day.

 

[Vegosiux]

Wow another 10 pages from the SJWs on why it's OK for them to persecute people in their own home and anyone who speaks up in their defence.

Is there like a SJW hive chief who decrees who will have their civil liberties revoked in the court of mass hysteria?

Once they've cleared out the racists and the homophobes will they fall on each other in paroxysms of self righteous glee, each trying to out do each other by banning and censoring more and more forms of expression to prove how "open minded" they are?

Volatre is spinning in his grave. So very worrying.

Do you even know what a social justice warrior is or you just parroting what someone told you?Nobody is censoring anyone here so stop with the hyperbole.

You can't say "Nobody's censoring anyone" then follow up with "Oh and you should shut up"...that simply doesn't compute. If nobody's censoring anyone, why should anyone shut up?

 

[Vegosiux]

Wow another 10 pages from the SJWs on why it's OK for them to persecute people in their own home and anyone who speaks up in their defence.

Is there like a SJW hive chief who decrees who will have their civil liberties revoked in the court of mass hysteria?

Once they've cleared out the racists and the homophobes will they fall on each other in paroxysms of self righteous glee, each trying to out do each other by banning and censoring more and more forms of expression to prove how "open minded" they are?

Volatre is spinning in his grave. So very worrying.

Do you even know what a social justice warrior is or you just parroting what someone told you?Nobody is censoring anyone here so stop with the hyperbole.

You can't say "Nobody's censoring anyone" then follow up with "Oh and you should shut up"...that simply doesn't compute. If nobody's censoring anyone, why should anyone shut up?

I did'nt tell him to shut up,I said stop with the hyperbole.

Doesn't change much. If nobody's censoring anyone, then why should anyone be restricted from using any kind of rhetorical device?

Bottom line is, we humans are interesting creatures. We always think we're above others, and get really creative when we need to make up excuses for why our own principles shouldn't apply to ourselves. It's nothing new, but it does tend to get a little irritating now and then.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

Welp people are entitled to their opinion. If that's not the company's opinion he shouldn't be that vocal about it.

 

[Something Amyss]

It might not be censorship in the sense of a direct State ban or modification on speech but it sure as hell will stop anyone else saying the same thing and has a very similar effect..

In that case, all societies are censorship and there's nothing you can do about it because we will always bump into the needs, wishes, and desires of others. Differing ideologies, opinions, feelings and so on will always come into conflict and there will always be social pressure to "censor" even if it's just someone choosing not to say something out of courtesy. At this point, the word "censorship" has been devalued to the point of no meaning, so I have to ask: so what?

For all the cries of "Social Justice Warriors" you've merely established something no different than the normal state of affairs. Which should be telling in that people only raise the SJW flag when they don't like what's being said.

 

[Something Amyss]

Damn that sucks...this is why I wish there was a law that protected thoe who were falsely accused of things like rape and child abuse.

There are. But as you cannot mandate social policy, that's meaningless.