GameStop Employee Gives RapeLay Interview, Gets Fired

[chronobreak]

Such as the comment about my corporate background?

Problem is - he speaks about games and the customers he has. It's not a confidential job, he doesn't specify anyone - he could simply be working as a clerk in any store that sells games, and make that same comment.

So what is the thinking going on here? That he attaches the thought of piracy to Gamestop? That there is an image of shinyness and cellophaned cleanness that Gamestop feels their employee did something negative towards?

Obviously we have no idea if that actually was the reason - but here we are, aren't we, with both the article writer and many posters /defending/ that idea. That we don't know if actually was the reason.

So yes, I feel I can question people's ..bi...lateral thinking process because of that.

Look, I told you I had no knowledge of your background with the corporate world. I didn't go making assumptions. Go read the quote again, or better yet, let me post it for you again.

I don't know if you've had any experience in the corporate world, but if you currently do or ever do in the future, keep this story in the back of your mind.

You are right that we are speculating, that is what we do! It's a discussion forum, of course we are going to throw our collective two cents in on why we think he was fired, and it isn't too much of a stretch to think it had something to do with mentioning piracy, a game involving simulated rape, and his employer in the same unsanctioned interview. The job may not be confidential, but like I said, it is something you just don't do.

I hate analogies, but let's say I worked for Burger King. I'm giving an interview, going on the record, and I give my opinion on how meat is disgusting, and talk to the press about how cruelly the animals are slaughtered. It wouldn't matter that what I said was really of no concern to my employer, as long as the headlines read "Burger King employee opens up about the horrifying reality of meat". Companies carefully craft thier image to cater to whatever audience they need to, and when something like that happenes it's like throwing a wrench into all the work they have done, and it means they may even have to backpedal a bit to correct it.

If he was just a clerk in any game store, if he didn't give his employer or his name or anything else to the media, more than likely he would have been fine. He probably also signed something before he started working there that involved him not talking to the media and using the company name, I forget what they call it. A Non-disclosure agreement perhaps? I've had to sign a couple for different jobs, even working for small-time television networks.

So, you're defending a chilling policy?

It doesn't make it a "chilling policy" just because you keep repeating that it is.

 

[Marsell]

lol. I wouldn't have fired him. I woulda given him a raise. Would have gone something like this:
Me: So....you played Rapelay?
Employee: Yeah i played it on a lark.
Me: My favorite scene was [insert scene Here]
Employee: Yeah that was good But [insert scene here] was a much better character building moment.
Me: You Pay for it?
Employee: FUCK NO. I pirated it.
Me: You fail to disappoint me. Have a raise.

Or something like that.

I agree, these people are pirate haters

 

[twm1709]

He admitted to piracy.

Umm...no he didn't. Just because you know how it works doesn't mean you do it. I know how to fire a gun, doesn't mean I'm a killer.
I'm sorry for the guy, he said something out of place and it cost him his means to earn money. I'm amazed at how many people here can be such jerks about it.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Dude should have adhered to GameStop's "don't talk to the press" policy.

Dumb.

That said, if the media paid more attention to statements exactly like his we might see more reasonable policy making and discourse with regards to the industy.

The game isn't available here, and is only obtainable through piracy. Banning it will achieve nothing, because you already can't buy it here anyhow. Regulating this game simply sets an uncomfortable precedent, and fails to actually regulate access to the game at all.

He's 100% right in what he says.

-m

Except he wasn't representing GS. This is BS. I can't believe The Escapist actually defends a chilling corporate policy like this.

Having been identified as an employee of GS, he explicitly was representing Gamestop. He wasn't speaking on behalf of gamestop, or representing the company's opinions, but his statements reflect on the corporation. Absolutely they do.

It's written into the emplyee agreement at GS that employees are to decline to speak to the press, and forward all requests for media to the corporate communications department.

Had he identified himself as "a gamer" or "a game retailer" this would be no issue. But the moment he names his employer he bacame a representative, and an unauthorized one at that.

That he got canned should be surprising to no one.

-m

So, you're defending a chilling policy?

I am defending a condition of his employment contract, yes.

You don't go around calling it a "chilling policy" when a user of these forums gets permanently banned for saying something that expressly violates the terms of use of this forum. That user agreed to abide by certain forum rules, and were informed in advance that their continued use of thsese foums was contingent on their adherence.

Well, upon his employment with Gamestop, the fellow in this story would have signed an agreement in writing, stating that his continued employment with Gamestop was contingent on his obeying certain rules as laid out by his employer. Those rules include a clause that prohibits him revealing himself to the press as an employee of Gamestop, and require him to pass any requests for press pertaining to Gamestop to head office.

He violated that rule (which he had previously agreed to), was in breach of his employment contract, and was terminated.

This isn't a censorship or freedom of speech issue, because he did speak to the press, his statements were published, and his statements were distributed publicly. But free speech doesn't shield you from consequenses pertaining to what you say or how you say it.

He agreed to give up certain speech rights for his employment, violated his agreement and was terminated for breach of contract.

-m

 

[Terramax]

It's a pity because the man makes some very good points. I hope he finds a better job soon enough.

 

[Mcface]

I agree with gamestop.
That would be like a car dealership salesmen saying "Sure, you COULD buy this car for 40 grand, or you could drive down the street and buy this same model at a police auction for 200 bucks.

Except instead of 200 bucks it's fee... you get the idea!

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

*facepalm* Yeah...probably shouldn't tell people how to pirate things in an OFFICIAL INTERVIEW!!!

 

[SaintWaldo]

I am defending a condition of his employment contract, yes.

You don't go around calling it a "chilling policy" when a user of these forums gets permanently banned for saying something that expressly violates the terms of use of this forum. That user agreed to abide by certain forum rules, and were informed in advance that their continued use of thsese foums was contingent on their adherence.

Well, upon his employment with Gamestop, the fellow in this story would have signed an agreement in writing, stating that his continued employment with Gamestop was contingent on his obeying certain rules as laid out by his employer. Those rules include a clause that prohibits him revealing himself to the press as an employee of Gamestop, and require him to pass any requests for press pertaining to Gamestop to head office.

He violated that rule (which he had previously agreed to), was in breach of his employment contract, and was terminated.

This isn't a censorship or freedom of speech issue, because he did speak to the press, his statements were published, and his statements were distributed publicly. But free speech doesn't shield you from consequenses pertaining to what you say or how you say it.

He agreed to give up certain speech rights for his employment, violated his agreement and was terminated for breach of contract.

-m

I know what the 1st Amendment is and means and note that I never invoked it.

I do get to call it "chilling" if I think the policy goes too far in abridging someone's reasonable severablility of their own speech regardless of who they work for or what they've signed. He wasn't saying anything that harmed GameStop, he told the truth and his opinion. The reportage that someone who is factually a GameStop employee factually holds an opinion about a game and delivers factual information about how games can be obtained has zero connection to GameStop or its policies. To the extent that he wasn't representing GS (no, being employed by them does not fool the public into thinking a front line gronk is delivering company policy) and simply saying where he worked, this application and enforcement of the agreement is over the line and, yes, "chilling". These are the sorts of things journalists work around all the time, and, by the way, why doesn't the interviewer get any flak for not shielding this guy from his own possible ignorance in the situation? Is there a question of ethics on the part of the journalist here, as well?

Just like requiring an employee to sign an agreement that sexual assault and rape accusations must go through binding arbitration had to be demonstrated as a bit much to sign away, I feel that this sort of thing is also a bit much to sign away. Just like a chemist who does work for a company certainly can't be compelled into silence about factual portions of his work, there is no way a person can sign away the fact of where they work nor the fact that working somewhere does not make you a reasonable representative (esp when you identify your own opinion and that you aren't speaking for the company) no matter what you've signed. No, they aren't equal examples, but they are similar mechanics, the main point being that just because you singed an agreement doesn't mean the agreement was reasonable or wasn't "chilling". He just doesn't seem to have enough money to sue or anyone standing up to pass legislation protecting a little guy against a big one in this particular situation.

 

[Matt_LRR]

I am defending a condition of his employment contract, yes.

You don't go around calling it a "chilling policy" when a user of these forums gets permanently banned for saying something that expressly violates the terms of use of this forum. That user agreed to abide by certain forum rules, and were informed in advance that their continued use of thsese foums was contingent on their adherence.

Well, upon his employment with Gamestop, the fellow in this story would have signed an agreement in writing, stating that his continued employment with Gamestop was contingent on his obeying certain rules as laid out by his employer. Those rules include a clause that prohibits him revealing himself to the press as an employee of Gamestop, and require him to pass any requests for press pertaining to Gamestop to head office.

He violated that rule (which he had previously agreed to), was in breach of his employment contract, and was terminated.

This isn't a censorship or freedom of speech issue, because he did speak to the press, his statements were published, and his statements were distributed publicly. But free speech doesn't shield you from consequenses pertaining to what you say or how you say it.

He agreed to give up certain speech rights for his employment, violated his agreement and was terminated for breach of contract.

-m

I know what the 1st Amendment is and means and note that I never invoked it.

I do get to call it "chilling" if I think the policy goes too far in abridging someone's reasonable severablility of their own speech regardless of who they work for or what they've signed. He wasn't saying anything that harmed GameStop, he told the truth and his opinion. The reportage that someone who is factually a GameStop employee factually holds an opinion about a game and delivers factual information about how games can be obtained has zero connection to GameStop or its policies. To the extent that he wasn't representing GS (no, being employed by them does not fool the public into thinking a front line gronk is delivering company policy) and simply saying where he worked, this application and enforcement of the agreement is over the line and, yes, "chilling". These are the sorts of things journalists work around all the time, and, by the way, why doesn't the interviewer get any flak for not shielding this guy from his own possible ignorance in the situation? Is there a question of ethics on the part of the journalist here, as well?

Just like requiring an employee to sign an agreement that sexual assault and rape accusations must go through binding arbitration had to be demonstrated as a bit much to sign away, I feel that this sort of thing is also a bit much to sign away. Just like a chemist who does work for a company certainly can't be compelled into silence about factual portions of his work, there is no way a person can sign away the fact of where they work nor the fact that working somewhere does not make you a reasonable representative (esp when you identify your own opinion and that you aren't speaking for the company) no matter what you've signed. No, they aren't equal examples, but they are similar mechanics, the main point being that just because you singed an agreement doesn't mean the agreement was reasonable or wasn't "chilling". He just doesn't seem to have enough money to sue or anyone standing up to pass legislation protecting a little guy against a big one in this particular situation.

You honestly think he'd win?

His right to speak to the press was not infringed, and there is no chilling effect in the press clause of the employee agreement. I've signed it myself in the past.

He is not prohibited from speaking to the press. In fact, he is permitted to speak to the press on any issue he wishes. If he does speak to the press however, he is (reasonably) asked not to identify himself as an employee of gamestop to (reasonably) prevent anyone from associating his opinions and statements with those of the company. This is especially reasonable if he is commenting on issues within the game industry, as people are absolutely going to look to his status as an employee as putting him in a position of authority and associating him with the industry through his employment within.

He is also not forbidden from speaking to the press as a representative of the company - but his contact with the press as an employee must be vetted and approved by corporate.

He violated a reasonable clause in a contract he signed and waas held in breach. That's pretty freaking clear-cut.

 

[Gralian]

The first rule of RapeLay: Do not talk about Rapelay.

Okay, lame references aside, i think that was a bit harsh on the guy. If anything, turning the other cheek when it comes to pirating and not openly discussing the issue leads to it manifesting itself even deeper into the video game culture. I don't buy all that nonsense about "telling kids how to go about pirating". I knew how to pirate before i even got into secondary school! Try to find me a kid ten and up nowadays who doesn't know what bearshare or limewire is. By addressing the issue directly, that people do have access to piracy techniques and RapeLay, he is forcing the issue out into the open. I suspect it makes companies like GameStop uncomfortable and the easiest solution is simply to silence the problem. I don't know anything about GameStop's policies, though, it's just my two pence on what the guy actually did.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

i think the problem is the fact he was talking about a game called "RapeLay" which doesnt sit right for some reason...

 

[Kouen]

Yea OK, He deserved to get fired for stating how to pirate in an interview.

 

[funkzillabot]

Un-freaking-believable! This is BS. All you guys are like, "he deserved it... bluh, bluh, bluh", but come on. What was he 17? He really didn't say anything different then what anyone of us would have said. (Well, not about the piracy and working at Gamestop) but still. This whole thing about Rapelay is freaking stupid, he said exactly what I was thinking whenever anyone started talking about banning it. He told the truth. He spoke his mind. And this is what he gets for his trouble?

Yes, maybe that wasn't the smartest thing to say... but people have said much worst.

 

[Arawn.Chernobog]

He admitted to piracy on a non-approved interview as an Employee...


I would have fired his ass

 

[ENKC]

The comments were ill advised and reflected badly on the company. He should have made them as an general citizen without reference to his employment. In which case they would not of course have been interested in interviewing him.

I personally would not have fired him outright purely on that basis, but they were within their rights to do so and we know nothing of his standards as an employee generally, nor the other circumstances.

 

[Sven und EIN HUND]

Publicly admitted to piracy from an authoritative position etc etc Yes, he deserved it.

 

[nipsen]

If he was just a clerk in any game store,

..but he was. For goodness' sakes, what sort of secret organisation is GameStop supposed to be? Do they have a secret business going on with piracy, perhaps, and the store is just a front? Is that why they're declining to /speak/ on either piracy or the firing itself? Perhaps there are secret cia agents involved with Gamestop's banning policies?

Like I said - this is ridiculous. And.. by the way, you didn't create an analogy, you made up a different example where your argument actually made sense. So you really have to explain how speaking about a banned game-title somehow is undermining Gamestop's business.

 

[chronobreak]

..but he was. For goodness' sakes, what sort of secret organisation is GameStop supposed to be? Do they have a secret business going on with piracy, perhaps, and the store is just a front? Is that why they're declining to /speak/ on either piracy or the firing itself? Perhaps there are secret cia agents involved with Gamestop's banning policies?

Like I said - this is ridiculous. And.. by the way, you didn't create an analogy, you made up a different example where your argument actually made sense. So you really have to explain how speaking about a banned game-title somehow is undermining Gamestop's business.

As soon as he mentioned Gamestop, and his employment was found to be there, he was no longer just another clerk, he was a gamestop employee.

I don't know how to make it any more clear for you, I apologize. I'm no good at analogies, but I certainly liked that one. That is why they never work- because in the end they are usually different examples of the same type of scenario.

I did explain how it could undermine their business. Media attaches banned game about rape and comments on piracy to Gamestop employee. Gamestop obviously doesn't want that anywhere near their corporate image. Gamestop fires clerk.

I guess we could debate all day on whether it was the "right" thing to do. They don't have to be a secret organization, they are a publically traded companey beholden to their own corporate interests and the interests of the share-holders. I can see how you would disagree with the firing, but I can't for the life of me imagine you don't understand the basic underlying concept of why he was fired.

 

[nipsen]

..but he was. For goodness' sakes, what sort of secret organisation is GameStop supposed to be? Do they have a secret business going on with piracy, perhaps, and the store is just a front? Is that why they're declining to /speak/ on either piracy or the firing itself? Perhaps there are secret cia agents involved with Gamestop's banning policies?

Like I said - this is ridiculous. And.. by the way, you didn't create an analogy, you made up a different example where your argument actually made sense. So you really have to explain how speaking about a banned game-title somehow is undermining Gamestop's business.

As soon as he mentioned Gamestop, and his employment was found to be there, he was no longer just another clerk, he was a gamestop employee.

I don't know how to make it any more clear for you, I apologize. I'm no good at analogies, but I certainly liked that one. That is why they never work- because in the end they are usually different examples of the same type of scenario.

I did explain how it could undermine their business. Media attaches banned game about rape and comments on piracy to Gamestop employee. Gamestop obviously doesn't want that anywhere near their corporate image. Gamestop fires clerk.

I guess we could debate all day on whether it was the "right" thing to do. They don't have to be a secret organization, they are a publically traded companey beholden to their own corporate interests and the interests of the share-holders. I can see how you would disagree with the firing, but I can't for the life of me imagine you don't understand the basic underlying concept of why he was fired.

..that doesn't even make sense.

...tsch.. no more internet for me today..