I want to defend him for taking her side about this issue in particular. It was wrong for him to comment on SimCity when he didn't know the full facts, but we can assume he's familiar with Holly. He follows her, he's likely talked to her in person, worked with her, etc. So I don't see why the SimCity issue discredits his opinion in this issue.
I would argue it's far easier to divorce Phil Fish and his personality 'quirks' from his work (especially given Fez was still at least something of a group effort) than Gies from his journalistic work. It doesn't help all of Polygon's writers have something of an addiction to Twitter and tend to comment on any and every mention of their site; it's quickly colored my opinion of not only Gies but Justin and Crescente.
Though I sort of get where you're coming from with wanting people to be aware that every story has two sides, but personally I think most people *do* have that in mind... It'd just be somewhat repetitive to have to always follow up every mention of how someone dislikes Arthur Gies with "But I'm sure from his perspective he feels hard doneby, has a source that suggests otherwise or genuinely feels publishers/developers should be trusted over consumers". I'm sure Holly Green probably stands for a lot of things I also believe. Doesn't change that I feel in this situation I personally think and agree with others she was being opportunist, didn't research her accusation at all and Gies was jumping on a bandwagon.
What was Gies response to that? I was sort of on the fence since I felt the 'offending' comic wasn't making light of rape at all (and it wasn't even a rape joke in the first place), but felt Gabe handled the drama so poorly they may as well have been making fun of rape victims.It goes deeper(or shallower depending upon your point of view) for a lot of people here with Arthur than Simcity. By many he's viewed to be a Microsoft fanboy, so he'll never get the benefit of the doubt from them. For others it stretches back to the Penny Arcade Dickwolves situation.
Which is why she moved the discussion to an in-person meeting. The two of them talked in detail, reconciled, and went their separate ways.
I guess that's my point. I feel like everyone is so focused on the Twitter interactions that we're missing the discussion they had in person. And after it's published, we should read it and decide for ourselves. We're making value judgments over a Twitter conversation (and yes, I apologize for assuming Gies' innocence under the same standards).
What was Gies response to that? I was sort of on the fence since I felt the 'offending' comic wasn't making light of rape at all (and wasn't even a rape joke in teh first place), but felt Gabe handled it so poorly they may as well have been making fun of rape victims.
Sterling calling everybody who sided against PA 'femnazi-cunts' didn't help matters.
Then that's a rare situation where I fully agree with Gies' actions. I wouldn't want to attend a convention where one of the two people who run it is acting like a raging manchild trying to get a twitter army to attack people, and while far more cool-headed Tycho always acts way too limpwristed whenever Gabe goes over the deep end.He was against PA and used it as a reason to not attend. I sided with him and against Sterling. Sterling's response was typical for him. Petulant and stupid.
Then that's a rare situation where I fully agree with Gies' actions. I wouldn't want to attend a convention where one of the two people who run it is acting like a raging manchild trying to get a twitter army to attack people, and while far more cool-headed Tycho always acts way too limpwristed whenever Gabe goes over the deep end.
I feel like you're not giving the Twitter interactions the weight that they deserve. She nonchalantly dragged someone's reputation through the mud in a public setting - that's pretty messed up unless you're damn sure you know you're right.
How would Holly react if she was in attendance at party X and a reporter heard a rumor that she was making homophobic jokes all night and her friends called a guy in attendance a slur. Rather than attempt to speak with her about it privately, this reporter tweets this information to the world (for all of Holly's friends, colleagues, and millions of potential consumers to see) with a bunch of editorial tweets following about how homophobes suck and they are a stain on the industry. That's not OK to do even if you act like a mature individual after the fact. The damage is sometimes done and that's not fair.
I want to defend him for taking her side about this issue in particular. It was wrong for him to comment on SimCity when he didn't know the full facts, but we can assume he's familiar with Holly. He follows her, he's likely talked to her in person, worked with her, etc. So I don't see why the SimCity issue discredits his opinion in this issue.
Yeah, you have a point. I'm probably letting the post-Twitter interaction define the pre-Twitter interaction. I don't usually appreciate it when writers make the remarks visible to all followers in this (https://twitter.com/winnersusedrugs/status/317685484946063360) and this (https://twitter.com/winnersusedrugs/status/317685585525481473) fashion. That feels like trying to call others to dogpile, when she could have done his @ name before and made it semi-private.
But there's also this to consider: https://twitter.com/pkollar/status/317755352546439169
I think there's room for growth to show the latter side, not the former side. And I think she's learning that over time. And I think we should give her the chance to learn it.
I want to defend him for taking her side about this issue in particular. It was wrong for him to comment on SimCity when he didn't know the full facts, but we can assume he's familiar with Holly. He follows her, he's likely talked to her in person, worked with her, etc. So I don't see why the SimCity issue discredits his opinion in this issue.
It's not the SimCity debacle solely that discredits him on his issue, it's his continued behavior and propensity to be so thick-headed about the causes he takes up. It's part of a pattern that he exhibits, so naturally when he jumps on the let's-make-this-non-issue-a-scandal bandwagon people just shake their heads.
There's no reason to believe this.
Why not? They're all thrown into the same press events, run into each other through other contacts, etc. It would be crazy to assume that they haven't crossed paths before, especially since he was already following her on Twitter before this started.
Though Phil Kollar, as evidenced by that tweet, only met her at the event, so it's also not out of the question to assume they never met before. I just find that scenario more unlikely.
And was he actually already following her, or are you just assuming that too? And how many of your Twitter followers have you met?
It's good to show some humility but that's a bit extreme; you just jumped the gun a bit and interpreted the general consensus people had in this thread as everybody gang-piling on someone with a difference of opinion.Sorry for being a dumbass guys, but I'm glad I have more information on the subject now.
I did follow the entire story you can go back and read my posts as I contributed a lot. If you want people to respect your opinion don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is an uninformed jackass. You're not going to change my mind by saying she did nothing wrong because she did, Notch should have been interviewed privately and then a story written if warranted. What she did was unprofessional and she deserves the backlash.If you followed the whole story, you would know that wasn't what she wanted to do at all. She wanted to have a dialog about this serious problem and set the record straight that it was PR's fault, not his, that caused this. Notch was friendly about this, had a discussion, set the record straight, and that was important.
She didn't do anything wrong.
