R_thanatos
Member
That thread was disgusting. People basically lynched him for absolutely nothing.
lol @ nothing
Should we link you to the amazing list of bad press those tweet created ?
That thread was disgusting. People basically lynched him for absolutely nothing.
I'm totally lost on how this is NOT something to get fired over.
Good night Sweet Billy.
My last comment on this, but gotta disagree with the idea that he let the Internet "get to him." This is false. If you know him you'll know that what he said and how he said IS his personality. That's the kind of guy he is. And being that kind if guy caught up with him.
The screaming mobs of the net only think they have this kind of power because people let them.
When an employee hops on an internet soapbox and flagrantly sabotages your company's message and its character in the eyes of your consumers, there's one appropriate course of action, and it was taken.
I mean... the damage was already done - so firing him or not firing him wouldn't have changed the outcome of the situation in that regard.
A course of action was taken sure... but I'm not sure if it was the most optimal course of action.
On one hand, the damage done due to his thoughtlessness was significant. On the other... if we're supposed to learn by our mistakes - then this guy just learnt a valuable lesson.
I guess, in a culture that doesn't value the experience we glean from learning from failures, we castigate those that express human foibles at inopportune moments.
But something of value (the lesson learnt) is lost in the process.
I mean... the damage was already done - so firing him or not firing him wouldn't have changed the outcome of the situation in that regard. Ostensibly you fire him with the view that these mistakes aren't repeated. But... what are they going to do? Hire some new guy that may or may not understand the value of not shooting of ones mouth on twitter? At least this guy has had the first had experience of social media blowing up in his face.
Still, I'm not particularly aggreived by this guy losing his job. He was a class A doucheknuckle. I'm just saying that there's a flipside to keeping/firing employees that make mistakes.
Short term...termination of employment did not change the outcome.
Long term...it sends a message to all of the other Microsoft employees that before tweeting...use your goddamn head.
I'm sure he wasted no time in sending his resume to Microsoft for Adam's job.
A course of action was taken sure... but I'm not sure if it was the most optimal course of action.
On one hand, the damage done due to his thoughtlessness was significant. On the other... if we're supposed to learn by our mistakes - then this guy just learnt a valuable lesson.
I guess, in a culture that doesn't value the experience we glean from learning from failures, we castigate those that express human foibles at inopportune moments.
But something of value (the lesson learnt) is lost in the process.
I mean... the damage was already done - so firing him or not firing him wouldn't have changed the outcome of the situation in that regard. Ostensibly you fire him with the view that these mistakes aren't repeated. But... what are they going to do? Hire some new guy that may or may not understand the value of not shooting of ones mouth on twitter? At least this guy has had the first had experience of social media blowing up in his face.
Of course, if Microsoft deemed that this guy was too stupid and or arrogant to learn the lessons needed... then they're well within their right to fire.
Still, I'm not particularly aggreived by this guy losing his job. He was a class A doucheknuckle. I'm just saying that there's a flipside to keeping/firing employees that make mistakes.
MS didn't have to fire him and he didn't have to step down. In a year he would be "that guy who said that stupid shit".
You make a value judgment on several levels. Is he a unique, indispensable talent? Is he a genuinely good person who acted rashly but will learn and grow from the mistake? Is the company able to save face without removing him? Clearly there weren't any yeses.
Did you look up doucheknuckle? What does it mean?i had to look up the handful of words you threw out there, and thanks are given.
also, i think, by firing him - he becomes an example for the next guy that gets hired - dont frikin be a douchebag
Clearly there weren't any yeses.
I suppose that's a viable argument. And one that I would've probably made had I not been trying to make the "there's value gained in mistakes made" argument.
A consistent across the board rule that is reinforced in a fair and consistent manner does have a way of reinforcing desirable behaviour.
But it doesn't necessarily teach or explain why that behaviour is desirable. It's just a rule.
Do we have that info or are you inferring that because he got fired. If that is the case then you have to allow for the possibility that MS bowed to pressure and fired him despite there being "yeses".
On that note, might wanna make your avatar a little more SFW.
Do we have that info or are you inferring that because he got fired. If that is the case then you have to allow for the possibility that MS bowed to pressure and fired him despite there being "yeses".
"That guy who leaked information for our next big risk/investment in a bad way, further kicking up a negativity duststorm around our product" might be how MS remembered it.
"That guy who leaked information for our next big risk/investment in a bad way, further kicking up a negativity duststorm around our product" might be how MS remembered it.
I'm going to make this very clear...
HE DIDN'T GET FIRED. HE RESIGNED.
I'm going to make this very clear...
HE DIDN'T GET FIRED. HE RESIGNED OF HIS OWN ACCORD.
Also I don't understand Gies. He has an account here and can clearly defend himself rather than taking potshots at GAF on Twitter. Jason Schreier has no problems doing that and has also gained the respect of most GAF members.
We are pretty "dialed in" as far as what the potential damage done might involve regarding the disclosure of feature(s) of Microsoft's new console.
I think it's pretty safe to say that the majority of people in Microsoft's game division know why what he did is wrong...or at least considered a significant career limiting move.
It's really not that complicated as needing to spell out precisely what is and what isn't allowed.
I bet Orth knows precisely why he was let go and won't make the mistake again. I bet a number of people at Microsoft know why Orth was let go and they won't make the mistake Orth did.
I don't think it's that simple. He could have simply apologized.
Pressure from WHO?
I didn't read any of the other stories on this, but I'm sure that games journalists weren't calling for his head, and I'm even more sure that "The Internet", GAF, or any other games website comments section who were asking for his head influenced the decision that much either.
Why don't people seem to understand that he made a mistake that warrants one losing their job? This isn't "Hey, we've noticed you've been taking a few minutes extra on your break every day, so we're gonna need you to stop." tier.
What? I'm saying... he wasn't fired. He left because he wanted to leave. That's all.
I'm going to make this very clear...
HE DIDN'T GET FIRED. HE RESIGNED OF HIS OWN ACCORD.
People who get canned after PR debacles are often asked to resign rather than outright fired. It's a chance for them to save face and leave with their chin up.
I'm going to make this very clear...
HE DIDN'T GET FIRED. HE RESIGNED OF HIS OWN ACCORD.
What? I'm saying... he wasn't fired. He left because he wanted to leave. That's all.
That's what he told you? Or MS HR?But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying he resigned because he wanted to.
GAF is influential. Maybe not anywhere near influential enough to bring about his resignation or firing (whichever it may be) but with the amount of info we have I don't see how you can rule it out as a possibility (GAF's influence and whether it was considered when this decision was made).
But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying he resigned because he wanted to.
When an employee hops on an internet soapbox and flagrantly sabotages your company's message and its character in the eyes of your consumers, there's one appropriate course of action, and it was taken.
In what planet do people live on where publicly talking about unannounced products that billions are sunk into and insulting a large portion of your potential consumer base doesn't get you in serious trouble? That people seem insistent on blaming this on GAF and the Internet at large is mystifying.
You're saying know for a fact, as in he told you so?
MS didn't have to fire him and he didn't have to step down. In a year he would be "that guy who said that stupid shit".
Sure sounds like I'm saying that doesn't it?
I'm aware that we're influential, but I think that the idea that we, or any other group of people who post on the Internet have that much power, especially in a situation where it's clear that the offender did something really, REALLY stupid, is a stretch.
Wii Friend Code:
0000 0000 0000 0000
Location:
Seattle
Occupation:
Creative Director, Video Game Dev
That you Orthy?
Gies coming back here would be a blood bath.