Her poor judgement got their services DDoS'd off the net for 5 hours today. Sounds like a pretty good case for firing to me.
No, the actions of a handful of man-boy dickwaffles got their services DDOS'ed off the 'Net for five hours. Don't blame her for how others choose to react.
Was there cause to discipline her? Possibly so -- SendGrid didn't pay to send her to that conference to stand up for women's rights. But I don't think it was a firing offense.
What if my 'frat buddies' are also my 'coworkers'?
Then you recognize that there's a time and a place for the "frat buddies" BS and a time to work, and you keep them separate. That's the professional thing to do.
if 'you' get offended by something 'you' hear in a private conversation that clearly did not include you that's YOUR problem not mine...
In an auditorium of 1,000-plus people, there's no such thing as a private conversation.
Something tells me the rules for good conduct are a bit different on Slashdot than they are at a conference of professionals. I mean, I'm not a professional myself, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Correct. Even the most casual reading of twentieth-century history shows that the majority of gun violence has been perpetrated by military and police forces, most often against their own fellow citizens.
Do you have anything to back that up? My understanding is that most gun violence is related to suicides, accidental shooting deaths and homicides.
I don't know about UK law, and I'm not a lawyer, but I do have an Associated Press Stylebook handy. And according to the AP Stylebook, which references U.S. law, reprinting someone else's libel doesn't let you off the hook:
A republisher of a libel is generally considered just as responsible for the libel as the original speaker. That you were simply an accurate conduit for the statement of another is no defense to a libel claim.
... When the press reports that X has leveled accusations against Y, the press may be held to account not only for the truth of the fact that the accusations were made, but also for the steps taken to verify the truth of the accusations. Therefore, when accusations are made against a person, it generally is prudent to inveistigate their truth as well as to obtain balancing comment with some relation to the original charges.
Moreover, in the U.S., a plaintiff (generally) has to prove that the defendant knew the statement was a lie and that he made the statement with the intent to cause harm (money, reputation, etc.) to the plaintiff.
It's been two months, and you know how much the sequester has affected real Americans?
Not at all.
I know at least 40 people who would disagree with your assessment. You can expect more companies to feel hits like this as the full effects of sequestration start to kick in.
I'm sorry, I just do feel any sympathy for government workers having their pay reduced. I just don't. People who work for the government and universally people who couldn't make it in private enterprise due to a lack of talent and skill, and so decided to take the government route where they don't have to worry about being any good at what they do in order to get paid.
How many government employees do you know personally?
Funny, that spending reduction doesn't feel very "minor" to me. Maybe that's because it's going to cost me about $800 per month once furloughs kick in.
Yes. I think Metacritic will have to change their method, too, to accommodate reviewers like Polygon who update their review scores based on server conditions.
Additionally, here's another story produced by WebProNews, based on the RockPaperShotgun article produced a day earlier. From the story:
This week, Stephanie Perotti, Ubisoft’s worldwide director for online games, confirmed in an interview with Rock, Paper, Shotgun that Ubisoft has ditched always-on DRM. In fact, the company hasn’t implemented such tactics in over a year. Ubisoft’s policy is now to require only a one-time activiation when a game is first installed. In addition, the company now allows gamers to activate a game on as many PCs as they want. Perotti stated that Ubisoft changed its policy based on feedback from its customers.
"Whining" helped. "Creative protests" helped. Not buying Ubisoft's DRM-encumbered games helped.
Not going to bother posting more citations; I have decent karma already. I'll just leave this here and let you find some examples of your own.
Wait. You're seriously suggesting that a retail employee would say stuff that drives revenue away from the store? That's the fastest way to get shitcanned in retail.
Not at all. Anyone behind the counter who's worth his salt will recommend something else that Johnny can play right out of the box.
No, seriously. Show me one time where this was the case. Show me a single road bump this sort of thing has ever caused in either Ubisoft's or EA's business plans.... Yeah. You won't find any examples. You CAN'T find any examples. I know you can't.
There ya go. Took me about 10 seconds on Google, by the way.
Reviews need to stop calling such previews "reviews" and call them by what they are. Once the game is launched, they then should go back to do an actual review of the game. That's how things should be done anyway. Getting a preview mislabeled as a "review" out of the door faster than everybody else seems to trump the disservice they are doing to their readership.
In full agreement with you here. Reviewers are still basing their methods on a single-player model. That needs to change. Polygon did OK by updating their review, but I think Metacritic still has SimCity somewhere in the 60s... which is about 60 points more than EA and Maxis deserve.
How many of those people are 14? Or grandparents-oh-look-sonny-I-got-you-a-game? And how many are slobs with your average consumer's short-term memory, though?
They're going to buy the game from somewhere. If they go into a GameStop and walk up to the counter with a copy of the game, there's a good chance the guy behind the counter might warn them away from it. If they go to Amazon and see that it has 1½ stars, they're probably less likely to buy it. Game reviewers will (or had better) point out that EA's dicked customers over in the past, therefore caveat emptor.
What other avenues are available for EA at this point? What bridges has EA not burned here?
Slashdot Mirror
Her poor judgement got their services DDoS'd off the net for 5 hours today. Sounds like a pretty good case for firing to me.
No, the actions of a handful of man-boy dickwaffles got their services DDOS'ed off the 'Net for five hours. Don't blame her for how others choose to react.
Was there cause to discipline her? Possibly so -- SendGrid didn't pay to send her to that conference to stand up for women's rights. But I don't think it was a firing offense.
What if my 'frat buddies' are also my 'coworkers'?
Then you recognize that there's a time and a place for the "frat buddies" BS and a time to work, and you keep them separate. That's the professional thing to do.
if 'you' get offended by something 'you' hear in a private conversation that clearly did not include you that's YOUR problem not mine...
In an auditorium of 1,000-plus people, there's no such thing as a private conversation.
Something tells me the rules for good conduct are a bit different on Slashdot than they are at a conference of professionals. I mean, I'm not a professional myself, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Mod parent up: Insightful, ironic and funny all at once.
... Rather than the cracked computer that Grandma hasn't updated since she bought it 8 years ago.
Right, and this is why the DOD hasn't really come down on one side or the other where cyberattack response is concerned.
Correct. Even the most casual reading of twentieth-century history shows that the majority of gun violence has been perpetrated by military and police forces, most often against their own fellow citizens.
Do you have anything to back that up? My understanding is that most gun violence is related to suicides, accidental shooting deaths and homicides.
I don't know about UK law, and I'm not a lawyer, but I do have an Associated Press Stylebook handy. And according to the AP Stylebook, which references U.S. law, reprinting someone else's libel doesn't let you off the hook:
A republisher of a libel is generally considered just as responsible for the libel as the original speaker. That you were simply an accurate conduit for the statement of another is no defense to a libel claim.
... When the press reports that X has leveled accusations against Y, the press may be held to account not only for the truth of the fact that the accusations were made, but also for the steps taken to verify the truth of the accusations. Therefore, when accusations are made against a person, it generally is prudent to inveistigate their truth as well as to obtain balancing comment with some relation to the original charges.
Moreover, in the U.S., a plaintiff (generally) has to prove that the defendant knew the statement was a lie and that he made the statement with the intent to cause harm (money, reputation, etc.) to the plaintiff.
You're right. A gun is not speech. It's even more elemental: self-defense, and the fundamental right to defend your own life.
Your statement would mean something if guns weren't overwhelmingly used to kill people for reasons other than self-defense.
Unless they make their motives abundantly clear in the process of committing the crime.
So it's OK to say something in the UK as long as a High Court judge says it first? And you don't see a problem with that?
It's been two months, and you know how much the sequester has affected real Americans?
Not at all.
I know at least 40 people who would disagree with your assessment. You can expect more companies to feel hits like this as the full effects of sequestration start to kick in.
I'm sorry, I just do feel any sympathy for government workers having their pay reduced. I just don't. People who work for the government and universally people who couldn't make it in private enterprise due to a lack of talent and skill, and so decided to take the government route where they don't have to worry about being any good at what they do in order to get paid.
How many government employees do you know personally?
Funny, that spending reduction doesn't feel very "minor" to me. Maybe that's because it's going to cost me about $800 per month once furloughs kick in.
I thought Earth Hour was about reducing light pollution?
Can't hear you. I've got earplugs in.
Yes. I think Metacritic will have to change their method, too, to accommodate reviewers like Polygon who update their review scores based on server conditions.
Five stars. Would LOL again.
I think GP was trying to be funny.
Because the multiplayer portion of the game is optional?
Point. I didn't quite get the logic there, either, but I still think the new score is more accurate, whatever the reasons.
This week, Stephanie Perotti, Ubisoft’s worldwide director for online games, confirmed in an interview with Rock, Paper, Shotgun that Ubisoft has ditched always-on DRM. In fact, the company hasn’t implemented such tactics in over a year. Ubisoft’s policy is now to require only a one-time activiation when a game is first installed. In addition, the company now allows gamers to activate a game on as many PCs as they want. Perotti stated that Ubisoft changed its policy based on feedback from its customers.
"Whining" helped. "Creative protests" helped. Not buying Ubisoft's DRM-encumbered games helped.
Not going to bother posting more citations; I have decent karma already. I'll just leave this here and let you find some examples of your own.
Wait. You're seriously suggesting that a retail employee would say stuff that drives revenue away from the store? That's the fastest way to get shitcanned in retail.
Not at all. Anyone behind the counter who's worth his salt will recommend something else that Johnny can play right out of the box.
No, seriously. Show me one time where this was the case. Show me a single road bump this sort of thing has ever caused in either Ubisoft's or EA's business plans. ... Yeah. You won't find any examples. You CAN'T find any examples. I know you can't.
There ya go. Took me about 10 seconds on Google, by the way.
Reviews need to stop calling such previews "reviews" and call them by what they are. Once the game is launched, they then should go back to do an actual review of the game. That's how things should be done anyway. Getting a preview mislabeled as a "review" out of the door faster than everybody else seems to trump the disservice they are doing to their readership.
In full agreement with you here. Reviewers are still basing their methods on a single-player model. That needs to change. Polygon did OK by updating their review, but I think Metacritic still has SimCity somewhere in the 60s ... which is about 60 points more than EA and Maxis deserve.
How many of those people are 14? Or grandparents-oh-look-sonny-I-got-you-a-game? And how many are slobs with your average consumer's short-term memory, though?
They're going to buy the game from somewhere. If they go into a GameStop and walk up to the counter with a copy of the game, there's a good chance the guy behind the counter might warn them away from it. If they go to Amazon and see that it has 1½ stars, they're probably less likely to buy it. Game reviewers will (or had better) point out that EA's dicked customers over in the past, therefore caveat emptor.
What other avenues are available for EA at this point? What bridges has EA not burned here?