Kotaku's investigative reporting on sexism at Riot Games

#1
Hoo boy, I know I'm stepping on several land mines here. But I'm gonna trust you guys to be civil and reasonable. I believe in you!

Cecilia D'Anastasio of Kotaku has spent months investigating reports from current and former Riot Games employees -- male and female, on the record and off -- about a culture of sexim at Riot Games and the ramifications for its female employees.

Inside The Culture Of Sexism At Riot Games

This report is, in my humble opinion, really good reporting, which is why I'm braving this thread at all. Please read the whole article with an open mind.

Some of the accounts are fairly heartbreaking.

One day, Lacy conducted an experiment: After an idea she really believed in fell flat during a meeting, she asked a male colleague to present the same idea to the same group of people days later. He was skeptical, but she insisted that he give it a shot. “Lo and behold, the week after that, [he] went in, presented exactly as I did and the whole room was like, ‘Oh my gosh, this is amazing.’ [His] face turned beet red and he had tears in his eyes,” said Lacy. “They just didn’t respect women.”
Three months into her time at the company, one former Rioter was feeling frustrated by her manager’s poor performance, she said. She decided to pick up her manager’s slack. (He was later demoted.) Abiding by Riot’s motto, “Stay hungry,” she stepped up to become the team’s de facto leader. She mentored new hires. She led meetings. She updated work processes and led new programs’ rollout. At the same time, she says, she did her own job. She tells Kotaku that a manager said she was slated for the promotion, which a former colleague corroborated. Then, one day, at a party, she says a Riot superior came on to her. When she evaded him, she says, things changed for her at work. Although she was already doing her manager’s job, “a man who probably had three years less experience than me,” ended up getting that promotion. That man was a close friend of the Riot superior who hit on her.

A week after she was told she was an important asset to the team, she said, “I was no longer welcome.” When she sought feedback, nobody could tell her what she did wrong, she says, and those people were similarly in disbelief, which Kotaku corroborated with a former colleague. She was eventually fired, in 2017. “They walked me out like a criminal. They wouldn’t even let me get my bag.”
Jes Negrón said that she took on the responsibilities of her boss who left six months into her new job. Nearly a year after that, she felt she deserved the title and pay bump for doing that work. She had been asking her superiors about making the job official, she said. Negrón’s manager gave her open feedback about how successful she was in that role, and a former colleague corroborated to Kotaku that she was being groomed for the position.

Instead, Negrón was never even interviewed for the position, which three different men were given chances to fill. When she asked for feedback on why, she recalls being told that she didn’t do enough to “take” the role, and they wanted to give the man who eventually took it an opportunity to take on more responsibility. “I had to sit in a room of 50 people to announce the other guy was leading the team. It was probably one of the most embarrassing moments in my whole life,” Negrón said.
BTW I really appreciate getting anyone to speak on the record about these things, it adds a lot of credibility in my eyes (and I realize the potential for blowback makes it difficult). So, props to Jes Negrón.

I have minor quibbles with the article. D'Anastasio points out that insisting on gamer creds for hires in the areas of "office managers [and] finance specialists" is unnecessary; but it's pretty clear the author's real concern is with female game devs. For those, it seems reasonable to me to expect some gaming experience. You could argue, as the author does, that Riot takes even this too far and defines "gaming experience" along very narrow lines, and I can see that argument.

I know a woman who used to work at Riot Games -- she loved her time there, but doesn't find these stories hard to believe -- so my interest in the article is not 100% objective.

Anyway, if you'd like to discuss any of this, I humbly suggest you read the whole article first. Again, it seems like solid journalism.

Thanks...
 
#3
OP, before I give this a click are all sides of this represented and thoroughly researched with evidence provided or will I be reading only the "victims" perspective? Answering this question is more important to this post than you may believe.
It's a lengthy and well-written piece that appears thoroughly reported--having interviews with 28 current and former Riot games employees, both male and female etc.

That said, it will probably still trigger people who don't think sexism and harassment of women in male-dominated companies with "bro cultures" is a thing. But it's not just an account of one victim or two or anything.
 
#4
#metoo is hardly unbiased. These things are worth looking into internally, but to make an exposé out of it and publicizing it is just wanting to draw attention and outrage to it which doesn't help find the truth. These women could be right or they could be using #metoo to win their case.

That Jes Negron example really has no objectivity to it. She believes she deserves a promotion because she successfully took over a managing position. She doesn't know who the other candidates are or their qualifications. She simply calls it unfair because they are male. She may have done a good job, but that doesn't mean that it's an automatic promotion.

I'm a man. I've interviewed for an internal position that I was over qualified for, and I didn't get it. I'm not complaining about it because I have no idea who they hired. Business is just that competitive.
 
#5
Sounds absolutely horrendous if true, which I don't doubt. Any opinion I have on it would be fairly worthless, though. I don't have experience with the company. I read ESPN's article with Riot's response, seems like Riot acknowledge an issue with "bro culture". I don't play LoL or anything so I have no knowledge on anything around this. I only paid attention to some of the art of the characters.

I'll keep an eye on this. I would love to see Kotaku have more quality investigative pieces that can help me trust them more.
 
#6
I'll give the author props for putting the work in, but it seems like the end result is just another intentional hit piece designed to rile up the usual audience. This is where the author lost my faith that she was doing investigative reporting, as opposed to looking for ways to push the site's well known agenda from the get go:

"During hiring, Riot vets whether potential employees will be “culture fits.” According to three sources familiar with Riot’s recruiting practices, Riot focuses on finding what the company calls “core gamers” who can empathize with League players, and especially with the grind for competitive skill points. On paper, that makes sense. People who work at Riot need to understand the product they’re putting out and the community they’re meant to serve. But in practice, four sources say, the company preferencing core gamers when it hires not just game developers, but all of its full-time employees—from office managers to finance specialists—means preferencing a certain kind of person.
Those sources said that talented women have fallen through Riot’s hiring processes because they weren’t considered “core gamers,” which one source described as “an excuse.” Two sources familiar with Riot’s hiring practices say the company checks interviewees’ League of Legends stats prior to bringing them on campus for interviews. In an e-mail, a Riot representative told Kotaku, “During the interview process, we often expect Rioters to try out League of Legends, and for some League development roles require familiarity with the game, but we’re not evaluating for skill.” To correct hiring mistakes, Riot has a program called “queue dodge”; new hires who are deemed cultural “mismatches” can receive 10% of their annual salary, up to $25,000, if they leave."

Think about it. In the context of one of the most successful companies going, the author is complaining about a policy to hire only people who are deeply invested into video games. By Kotaku's own admission, this policy resulted in:

"Riot Games, founded in 2006, has become one of the biggest companies in gaming on the back of its sole release, League of Legends, which had 100 million monthly players in 2016. With 2,500 employees across 20 offices, Riot is a powerhouse. In 2013, Riot was named one of Business Insider’s 25 best tech companies to work for. Two years later, it made $1.6 billion in revenue."

Yet they still feel the need to criticize the hiring strategy that lead them there? Why? Because gamers are bad of course. Their words:

"Preferencing Riot’s definition of “core” gamers during hiring means drawing in employees from a larger pool of men than women. Avid players of MOBAs (multiplayer online battle arenas, a genre encompassing popular games including League of Legends and Dota 2) and first-person shooter fans are typically men. Game data company Quantic Foundry surveyed over 270,000 gamers worldwide between July 2015 and January 2017 on what game titles they enjoy playing and reported that only 10% of gamers who play MOBAs are female. For first-person shooters, that number is 7%. Without examining why these gaming genres are heavily male, Riot’s apparent job candidate expectations can create a very stratified workplace, where women, who are less likely to be megafans of these games, are considered lesser Rioters because of the way they grew up. Several women interviewed by Kotaku said that, even after getting hired, they felt they were not taken seriously by colleagues or managers because they weren’t steeped in the competitive online gaming tradition. League of Legends’ playerbase, which in 2012 was over 90 percent male, has earned a reputation for rampant sexist language that Riot has proactively addressed over the last few years. Anecdotal evidence suggests that women who play League of Legends have been regular targets of harassment, and data from Riot indicates that new players encountering toxic behavior are 320 percent less likely to return to the game. "
 
#7
It's a lengthy and well-written piece that appears thoroughly reported--having interviews with 28 current and former Riot games employees, both male and female etc.

That said, it will probably still trigger people who don't think sexism and harassment of women in male-dominated companies with "bro cultures" is a thing. But it's not just an account of one victim or two or anything.
It may well be a "thing," but when you go in assuming the thing is there, you'll find it. The outrage culture has muddied the waters to the point that it's impossible to tell what's actually happening. It's very possible that those who feel they were treated unfairly assume it was because of their gender, because, you know, it's a thing.
 
#8
OP, before I give this a click are all sides of this represented and thoroughly researched with evidence provided or will I be reading only the "victims" perspective? Answering this question is more important to this post than you may believe.
The article includes responses from Riot Games throughout and also quotes Riot employees who have not encountered the same sexism.

There's certainly an angle here but it's pretty responsibly reported, journalistically.
 
#9
It's a lengthy and well-written piece that appears thoroughly reported--having interviews with 28 current and former Riot games employees, both male and female etc.

That said, it will probably still trigger people who don't think sexism and harassment of women in male-dominated companies with "bro cultures" is a thing. But it's not just an account of one victim or two or anything.
Would you kindly summarize the evidence presented in the article?
Thanks.
 
#10
Read it. Been digesting it. Don't have a strong opinion, but I do have a kneejerk reaction whenever "meritocracy" comes up since we all deal with it.

Would you kindly summarize the evidence presented in the article?
Thanks.
Express an opinion or move the fuck on.
 
#12
I kinda find it iffy. With 2,500 employees I'm pretty sure someone is going to hit on someone, someone is going to give a position to a friend, and someone will get passed up for a position for a job that they have proved themselves for. The tears in the eyes of the guy was a bit odd since everyone forgot the same suggestion that she had put up earlier after just a week had passed.
 
#14
Breaks my heart to see stuff like this. It's pretty common in the tech industry, although I think the behavior is more systemic than just "against women". Management is almost comically bad in anything tech right now, unless you are a massive company that afford to pay good-quality managers. Otherwise, these companies tend to promote from within, picking managers that are friends or based on "tech knowledge". There's a significant lack of leadership qualities.

You have a major generational gap between people who are used to Gantt charts and those who are used to scrum/agile/whatever. And that's just the gap in approaches to project management. I've seen all of these stories occur, not so much split across gender but split across who was good at inflating ego.

Anyway, sad to see this wherever it occurs. Maybe this will be a wakeup call for Riot.
 
#15
Yet they still feel the need to criticize the hiring strategy that lead them there? Why? Because gamers are bad of course. Their words:

"Preferencing Riot’s definition of “core” gamers during hiring means drawing in employees from a larger pool of men than women. Avid players of MOBAs (multiplayer online battle arenas, a genre encompassing popular games including League of Legends and Dota 2) and first-person shooter fans are typically men. Game data company Quantic Foundry surveyed over 270,000 gamers worldwide between July 2015 and January 2017 on what game titles they enjoy playing and reported that only 10% of gamers who play MOBAs are female. For first-person shooters, that number is 7%. Without examining why these gaming genres are heavily male, Riot’s apparent job candidate expectations can create a very stratified workplace, where women, who are less likely to be megafans of these games, are considered lesser Rioters because of the way they grew up. Several women interviewed by Kotaku said that, even after getting hired, they felt they were not taken seriously by colleagues or managers because they weren’t steeped in the competitive online gaming tradition. League of Legends’ playerbase, which in 2012 was over 90 percent male, has earned a reputation for rampant sexist language that Riot has proactively addressed over the last few years. Anecdotal evidence suggests that women who play League of Legends have been regular targets of harassment, and data from Riot indicates that new players encountering toxic behavior are 320 percent less likely to return to the game. "
I don't really like this part, either. Going after the fans seems like an attempt to argue the game is wrong and not the just the work place culture. Going after the audience is part of why I have issues trusting Kotaku.

I'm all for inclusive hiring practices and getting toxic bro culture out of work places, no one should be pushed down and not listened to at their job. I do think it is important to hire people who match the direction the games are going in. I'm not for arguing the actual products are a problem. I only paid attention to LoL because some of the characters had appealing designs to me, particularly the sexier women. I love that stuff and I don't want to see it go to be more "inclusive" or anything. Not all games or genres are going to have 50/50 splits of female/male audiences.

Toxic people are definitely a problem with these types of games but it's not all because of sexism. Kotaku veers between arguing about sexism and toxicity as if one is exactly the same as the other. I'm male and I had a pretty bad experience trying to play Smite. I quit after 6 hours due to constant bitching at me, it wasn't worth playing just to see all the great art that attracted me to it. This has little to do with the work place environment so I'm not sure it helps Kotaku's case. They should have left the less relevant stuff like accusing the audience of sexism out, it would make for a stronger piece, in my opinion.

The sexual misconduct among employees is a real issue and I'd like to see that addressed, not arguments that people who play MOBA's are sexist males. To be clear, I'm just responding to Kotaku bringing the audience of the games into it. These are only my personal views, don't take them as gospel or anything.
 
#16
Yet they still feel the need to criticize the hiring strategy that lead them there? Why? Because gamers are bad of course. Their words:
Yeah that same part got me. The issue is right there in their face literally screaming at them and they can't make the connection because those fucking basement dwellers fat sacks of shit are to blame of course.
 
#17
I'm just halfway through the article. It's honestly way too long and it's not really a good article, the pacing is off and it honestly started boring with me a lack of flow and structure. Whoever wrote that needs to do writing classes to improve, because I usually read a ton of heavy and dry literature, but at least that keeps my attention by having a flow. It also has a clear agenda and works a bit too hard at reinforcing it at times. (oh the fans are mostly male, oh noes)

I'll give it that things like sending "would you bang" lists about people at your workplace is bad and should not be acceptable, but a lot of the examples they shows outside of that aren't bad and they're clearly working from a confirmation bias to "problematize" Riot.

Other than that, there's not really a lot to take out of this, the article itself provides the explanations itself at one point, but it's attempting to use it as "poor me", as if women are burdened because they were allowed to play with Barbie (I also played with Barbies btw and I still did tech, though I dropped out of it later and turned to the historical field). A company can choose their own company culture and if they have high standards and issues with people attempting to fake interest, then it's not surprising it'll be hard to get in. You don't get to decide the company culture and it's reasonable that they phase out people who don't fit in. It honestly seems like there's women applying to it that don't really want to be there. The articles mention many women who didn't have an issue and didn't recognize this, making me also the more skeptical. Not that I doubt the bro culture, but that's not really a complaint.
Considering how few female employees there are, I take the "promotion" story with extreme skepticism, especially since it was a story shared by multiple women. Having worked at various places, there's always thinking they're getting a promotion and getting pissed when they don't get it. There's also the weird presentation about an idea, which sounds really unlikely, unless you want us to believe that the same people heard the same idea repeated. I'd want an outspoken source on that one, because you're basically telling us that no one remembered the idea. Unless... the presentation was completely different, meaning that your colleague was better at selling the idea and what failed was your presentation, perhaps ending up confusing the people there.
 
Last edited:
#18
It really sucks if those women were ripe for leadership but weren't getting the roles because they were women, though the issue I have with a piece like this is they're only generally telling us the story from the perspective of the vexed party.

The truth is that when it comes to leading a team, there's a little more than just how hard working someone is. They can do the work of five people, but if their people skills are shit, they can't talk to groups, can't motivate others or their attitude is crappy and causes conflict then there's a chance they won't be deemed suitable and really, no work review will bring this up because your bosses generally don't want to say "You're a hard worker but you're sort of a shit person".

No idea if this is the case, the article is pretty one sided from what I can see and I guess the journalist just didn't bother asking for a statement on this from Riot games. You know generally when I come across some "good" reporting I expect there to actually be at least an attempt from the journalist to ask about the cases presented. I feel it's telling that isn't done.
 
#19
Lol. Like anyone has time to summarize long articles for random internet people who don’t want to click it and read it themselves.
Yeah, I read the whole Waypoint...collection of quotes, because I wouldn't call it an article, and responded to it line-by-line.

People complained that my posts were too long.

I saw this piece on another message board the other day. Thought it was pretty vanilla cut-and-dry. Some of the stuff presented here would get you fired at my job (likely walked out personally by your's truly).
 
#21
Hard to say without day-to-day interaction with the people involved. I too once desired a management position that I could never get. I worked like a dog and routinely conveyed my interest to leadership. I was passed up by a new guy who was buddy with the boss. 4yrs of hard work to get run over by a newb. At the time I was super butthurt. I had a family, kids, and animals to care for I needed it.

When you're desperate, you work hard, but you don't exhibit leadership qualities. In retrospect, my boss wasn't a man hater, she hired all sorts of men. She could see that: 1. I cared too much about people's feelings | 2. Did too much of work myself, which wasn't my role | 3. Lacked composure and long-term stability.

Worst of all, she could see that I was unhappy at my job. I had the wrong attitude and it was my fault for staying the situation long term. Anyway...
 
#22
quote from article :

Three months into her time at the company, one former Rioter was feeling frustrated by her manager’s poor performance, she said. She decided to pick up her manager’s slack. (He was later demoted.) Abiding by Riot’s motto, “Stay hungry,” she stepped up to become the team’s de facto leader. She mentored new hires. She led meetings. She updated work processes and led new programs’ rollout. At the same time, she says, she did her own job. She tells Kotaku that a manager said she was slated for the promotion, which a former colleague corroborated. Then, one day, at a party, she says a Riot superior came on to her. When she evaded him, she says, things changed for her at work. Although she was already doing her manager’s job, “a man who probably had three years less experience than me,” ended up getting that promotion. That man was a close friend of the Riot superior who hit on her.
This reads like complete trainwreck of expectations.

1st mistake was taking additional work without properly legalizing it. She basically worked for free like a fool hoping that extra work will change into promotion. Hint: If they were interested in her leading team they would already set up her as team leader. Which means she never was considered as material for team leader but did enough work to stay in limbo of "well it works for now" so let it stay before we will find someone new.

Secondly personal relationship is the biggest factor in companies when it comes to promotion. There are some fields were proffesionalism is at 1st place but overall people want to work with people who the like. So if boss doesn't like you and likes new guy it means new guy will gets promotion not you. I have seen to many co-workers who would spend time assuming their work will naturally be appreciated and changed to promotion when they didn't realize no one liked to work with them really even if they could pull some nice numbers.
 
Last edited:
#23
The reality is that everything in the OP's quotes doesn't prove any sort of gender-bias, just the existence of cliques within the workplace; something that while far from ideal, is commonplace. The world isn't fair. People, particularly those in positions of power, generally fall into cliques. Its easily rationalized in corporate management as there's a lot of pressure (fear, basically) about maintaining position; without allies there is a perception of vulnerability...

Point being, if "your face doesn't fit" you will have a problem irrespective of race, gender, orientation etc. And truthfully, a lot of it boils down to insecurity on the part of superiors you interact with. You can find yourself on the outs for a myriad of reasons, and I say this from experience :D

And I really have to say, one thing that always gets me is the impression of game development work-places being super "bro"-ey. In over 20 years in the business I can say hand on heart that I never encountered an environment that had any sort of locker-room feel; the work simply doesn't attract that sort of personality type. More chess club than fight club!
 
#25
1st mistake was taking additional work without properly legalizing it. She basically worked for free like a fool hoping that extra work will change into promotion. Hint: If they were interested in her leading team they would already set up her as team leader. Which means she never was considered as material for team leader but did enough work to stay in limbo of "well it works for now" so let it stay before we will find someone new..
Yeah, have no idea why you would do additional work without getting the proper framework and ensuring that what you're doing is laid into the structure and recognized as such on paper. A lot of women I've noticed fall for this and think working hard and volunteering is the way to get your foot in. It might, but you need the framework and you need to build relations with the right people, ensuring that you're someone on top and in the know. Working hard isn't the most important after all, but working smart and making sure people see your capabilities and see why things will be better if you lead, and also that they'll have a good relationship with you and have everyone feel a part of the work culture. Not spending time being the work horse. They'll mostly run that horse to the ground and discard it.
 
Last edited:
#26
Yeah, have no idea why you would do additional work without getting the proper framework and ensuring that what you're doing is laid into the structure and recognized as such on paper. A lot of women I've noticed fall for this and think working hard and volunteering is the way to get your foot in. It might, but you need the framework and you need to build relations with the right people, ensuring that you're someone on top and in the know. Working hard isn't the most important after all, but working smart and making sure people see your capabilities and see why things will be better if you lead, and also that they'll have a good relationship with you and have everyone feel a part of the work culture. Not spending time being the work horse. They'll mostly run that horse to the ground and discard it.
I'm gonna disagree with that. If you want a promotion I firmly believe showing why you deserve it is the best approach possible. Will it always work? No. But it screams "not a team player" to go to your boss, say here is something we need to do, and I am happy to help as long as you pay me more or promote me.
 
#27
I'm gonna disagree with that. If you want a promotion I firmly believe showing why you deserve it is the best approach possible. Will it always work? No. But it screams "not a team player" to go to your boss, say here is something we need to do, and I am happy to help as long as you pay me more or promote me.
Working hard is not a part of that. If you're suddenly doing extra and making up for someone else's position, that'll make you being run like a work horse for very little benefit. I've seen this at two jobs I've had and has happened to both men and women who think them taking over some work will lead to a promotion. Sorry, the secret is usually a case of visibility, working hard can show your drive and your willingness to work a lot, but it's not the justification for you to rise. It's not only your capability in terms of work, but your ability to take charge (not just taking over, but being a communicator and unafraid to set demands) and to build relations with the people who'll be your co-workers, your subordinates and your superiors. They also need to see signs that you've taken the company culture to heart to the degree they expect.
Also, you don't need the promotion at first, but you can set it up so that you're along the official promotion line and that it's clear that you are the prime candidate if you perform well. There's a lot you can do to ensure it and you can't be only thinking about it as an automatic rewards, but something you're building towards.

This is even now and then a subject in movies, where you'll have a poor old schmuck thinking they'll earn their promotion as repayment of their hard work and it of course doesn't happen.
 
#28
The problem is that it may be an incredibly well-written and factual piece, but since I don't trust Kotaku and don't find them a reliable source of any kind of information, I still won't give it any credit.

I'm not saying nothing happened. Maybe it did. I'm saying this should have come from someone else... someone trustworthy.
 
#29
The problem is that it may be an incredibly well-written and factual piece, but since I don't trust Kotaku and don't find them a reliable source of any kind of information, I still won't give it any credit.

I'm not saying nothing happened. Maybe it did. I'm saying this should have come from someone else... someone trustworthy.
How do you think a news outlet builds trust? You're basically asking them to sprinkle magic dust and suddenly become the New York Times of games journalism, with years upon years of hard-hitting stories. A well-done piece is a well-done piece, whoever it comes from.
 
#30
How do you think a news outlet builds trust? You're basically asking them to sprinkle magic dust and suddenly become the New York Times of games journalism, with years upon years of hard-hitting stories. A well-done piece is a well-done piece, whoever it comes from.
He didn't ask for them to do anything. He just pointed out he doesn't trust them. My guess is he feels their prior work has lead him to believe their agenda is more important than their journalistic integrity. And extrapolating on that guess, I would further guess he feels that to rebuild any lost trust they will need to go a long time reporting news without said agenda showing up every which way. I would further guess another route might be having the fortitude to actually engage and debate with people outside of a certain hugbox or two where everyone either agrees with Kotaku's point of view or is dog pilled if they don't (and likely banned depending on the forum).
 
Last edited:
#32
The reality is that everything in the OP's quotes doesn't prove any sort of gender-bias, just the existence of cliques within the workplace; something that while far from ideal, is commonplace. The world isn't fair. People, particularly those in positions of power, generally fall into cliques.
I feel you. There are no real meritocracies even for men — “It’s all who you know.” Management tends to promote their buddies regardless. The extra twist for women is that they’re less likely to be buddies with male management. The reality is men are never going to see women in quite that way (and if companies were predominantly run by women, I would expect to find the same issue in reverse).

I don’t know what the solution is to that, or if there even is one.
 
#33
The problem is that it may be an incredibly well-written and factual piece, but since I don't trust Kotaku and don't find them a reliable source of any kind of information, I still won't give it any credit.

I'm not saying nothing happened. Maybe it did. I'm saying this should have come from someone else... someone trustworthy.
You sound like a parody.
 
#35
You sound like a parody.

His opinion on Kotaku is a reasonable one to have and quite accurate.

Kotaku has the most conflict of interest issues out of any other games website on deep freeze:

http://deepfreeze.it/outlet.php?o=kotaku

42 perceived conflict of interest issues, 7 lesser issues. With only 8 corrections giving them a correction percentage of 16%.
 
Last edited:
#37
Kotaku has the most conflict of interest issues out of any other games website on deep freeze:

http://deepfreeze.it/outlet.php?o=kotaku

42 perceived conflict of interest issues, 7 lesser issues. With only 8 corrections giving them a correction percentage of 16%.
WOW that site is awesome. Thanks.
I would say that if it's a serious issue, the fact that Kotaku is covering it, it might be exaggerated for effect.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
#39
No comment on the story specifically, but I should note that the author here asked some seriously leading, agenda-driven questions along the lines of what I'd expect from a trashy gossip tabloid when she contacted me for comment on her NeoGAF story last October, and iirc provided an evening-->subsequent morning time window for comment before publishing (in the middle of an active crisis situation). Stark contrast with anyone else who approached me for comment during the same period, e.g. Patrick Klepek, who asked neutral, open-ended questions and had a baseline of professional conduct in those interactions at least. Wouldn't expect anything neutral or necessarily credible about this author's journalistic output based on how her work on that piece was conducted or what Kotaku ended up publishing.
 
#42
I'm gonna disagree with that. If you want a promotion I firmly believe showing why you deserve it is the best approach possible. Will it always work? No. But it screams "not a team player" to go to your boss, say here is something we need to do, and I am happy to help as long as you pay me more or promote me.
But that is not how you approach promotion at all ! You need to state your superiors that you are indeed looking for promotion. Working is shadow hoping someone will notice you will lead nowhere. Your superiors from outset can tell you if you even have a chance and if there is any position coming, if that position is not already taken because boss is yet to formalize his decisions.

Once your position is known, even if initial info was bad at least your superiors can properly account what you are doing any why you are doing it. Souse it up with good relationship and voila you have a chance. Now the hard part to understand for many people is that not everybody can get promotion. You don't need to be rocket scientist to understand that if everybody got promotion no one would work at bottom level. So just because you find your work amazing it doesn't also mean you will get promotion.

Because Boss could choose stability over your amazing performance or just don't bother alltogether because he has different ideas you don't know.

And if your superiors laugh at you due to your proposition then you should switch jobs because they will not even consider you regardless of what you do.
 
Last edited:
#43
Another former employee provided her thoughts on the toxic environment at Riot.

At Riot, employees are encouraged to play League before/after work, or during lunch. My very first week at the Dublin office, I heard shouting from individuals playing together, calling each other “f*ggots” repeatedly. I was unnerved, but it was my first week and I didn’t know if this was a common occurrence. I didn’t say anything at that time. Eventually, the language would escalate to “n*gger”. No one flinched, and I realized it was considered the norm. Nearly the same thing happened my first day of meetings at the Riot LA office, where two men were loudly calling each other “c*cksuckers” right outside the office of the CEOs.
During one event, a first-time cosplayer came to our booth crying because someone had commented negatively on her weight in relation to the character. Another coworker and I consoled her for nearly 30 minutes, and she left, feeling much better. After she left, a fellow Rioter called her a “fatass” and asked why she would try to cosplay the character she chose. I was in shock but told him how inappropriate that was to say about our fans, especially those passionate enough to make and wear costumes. Cosplayers have also been called “tr*nnies” and “attention whores” by Riot employees at events.
http://meagan-marie.tumblr.com/post/176788011970/six-months-at-riot-games
 
Last edited:
#44
Another former employee provided her thoughts on the toxic environment at Riot.

After she left, a fellow Rioter called her a “fatass” and asked why she would try to cosplay the character she chose.
For argument sake (& without choosing sides here), I'd be curious to see & read reactions if I (i.e. a less-than-muscular white dude) cosplayed as Duke Nukem. I bet the laughter & "what the fuck are you doing, mate?" comments would go without anyone screaming "toxic! toxic!" in response.

Truth be told such stories as this one veer into the all too familiar (& definitely toxic) realm of thought policing & making sure women in particular become a protected class beyond criticism or reproach - no matter how ridiculous their behavior is (in reference to the quoted cosplay 'fail' on the grounds of her weight excess).
 
#45
Hoo boy, I know I'm stepping on several land mines here. But I'm gonna trust you guys to be civil and reasonable. I believe in you!

Cecilia D'Anastasio of Kotaku has spent months investigating reports from current and former Riot Games employees -- male and female, on the record and off -- about a culture of sexim at Riot Games and the ramifications for its female employees.

Inside The Culture Of Sexism At Riot Games

This report is, in my humble opinion, really good reporting, which is why I'm braving this thread at all. Please read the whole article with an open mind.

Some of the accounts are fairly heartbreaking.







BTW I really appreciate getting anyone to speak on the record about these things, it adds a lot of credibility in my eyes (and I realize the potential for blowback makes it difficult). So, props to Jes Negrón.

I have minor quibbles with the article. D'Anastasio points out that insisting on gamer creds for hires in the areas of "office managers [and] finance specialists" is unnecessary; but it's pretty clear the author's real concern is with female game devs. For those, it seems reasonable to me to expect some gaming experience. You could argue, as the author does, that Riot takes even this too far and defines "gaming experience" along very narrow lines, and I can see that argument.

I know a woman who used to work at Riot Games -- she loved her time there, but doesn't find these stories hard to believe -- so my interest in the article is not 100% objective.

Anyway, if you'd like to discuss any of this, I humbly suggest you read the whole article first. Again, it seems like solid journalism.

Thanks...
I'd say that in the last example (Jes Negrón) is fairly typical in certain jobs whether you're male or female. If you ask for a pay rise a year after you fill in someone's shoes. Ie: You're waiting to be rewarded, rather than insisting, then you lose out.

Time after time I have seen women (and men, but mostly women) adopt this behaviour -- And whilst it may seem morally right, in my experience this is not the way promotion works.

Promotion is almost always given to the person who is the most persistent and is liked the most. Most of the time the people at the top have very little idea of who is doing what work anyway, so any hard work she put in during that year probably wasn't noticed. That she waited a year before asking for a pay rise would definitely have been taken into account -- and most likely a big reason as to not offering the job to her. It would be very easy from a top down perspective to see not waiting as complacency (or that she just didn't want the job). The fact that she didn't demand to be interviewed and only complained about the problem afterwards would have been seen in the same way. I've been in this position twice myself and I learned the lesson the hard way.
 
#47
Gotta admit, I stopped reading after the first account.



I can't imagine that being real at all, like really, nobody caught on? Nobody at all?
This happens all the time. The only difference is the time interval between instances. A proposed idea this year might be shot down, but two years later, it becomes the best idea ever.
 
#48
This happens all the time. The only difference is the time interval between instances. A proposed idea this year might be shot down, but two years later, it becomes the best idea ever.
Hell, I'm a university faculty member and we're all pretty liberal and I've still seen it happen in the same meeting where a female colleague suggest something and gets talked over by some of my male colleagues, eventually one of them will put forward the same (or very similar idea) and it gets traction. I've taken to paying attention to this and speaking up when such things start to happen and saying "hey, she has a good point we should listen to her and stop talking over her." A couple others colleagues have started doing the same.

It's not solely gender as the female colleagues are also (with one exception) younger and un-tenured--but I was very much listened to and had a lot of input on major decisions when I was still un-tenured as have other male Assistant Professors. Not as much as the older, Associate Professors and Professors, but way more than the female Assitant Professors were getting before some of us started standing up for them more in meetings. I wish others would have done that sooner (or myself before tenure when I was worried about being too vocal and pissing off male coleagues who'd have to vote on my case) as we lost several female faculty members in recent years and I'm sure that played some role in it as they got no traction for leadership positions here and left for places that hired them into leadership positions.
 
Last edited: