Support NeoGAF

[Opinionatedfish]

Because that's just plain wrong.

Iwata is totally Toss4lyfe

And I just whipped this up a couple of seconds ago with nothing to use it on now. Ah, well.

Anyone who spends time trying to help anything but the ultimate cause, the heat death of the universe, is a bleeding heart just wasting time and money.

About that Heat Death of the Universe.

Would you like to make a contract to become a MAGICAL GIRL?

 

[Opinionatedfish]

oops. double post.

 

[tehrik-e-insaaf]

Based on the suppliers Nintendo uses (the vast majority is public information), they are already likely pretty high up in the list (it's pretty easy to figure out). The difference is that they'd rather not engage the NGO in question, likely because it opens the door to 1000 other NGOs trying to demand Nintendo comply with their own ranking systems or face a boycott of some sort. Hence the NGO is giving them a zero for not directly engaging them - it's an exertion of power - not because they can't easily figure out where Nintendo ranks in the spectrum. From Nintendo's perspective - complying with all these NGOs is fine for companies that have 50,000 employees - but Nintendo would have to dedicate a giant chunk of its workforce if the flood gates opened - for something they feel they already do an adequate job of since they work with certified suppliers.

Aside from that, one need not like the NGO in question to actually care about conflict minerals. Please don't conflate the two. There are lots of terrible, self-serving, and ethnocentric/Eurocentric NGOs out there with highly flawed ranking systems - I witness as much in my parents' country of origin which I visit on a yearly basis. That doesn't mean we as society should not value the implications of our actions, and understand there are consequences of our consumption - including our ability to influence it. Just look at Apartheid and how boycotting companies doing business there raised awareness of the issue and helped as a catalyst to end that racist regime. Look at all the talk about BDS right now - with the New York Senate stepping in to punish participants in that boycott because they realize the implications if a full boycott were to materialize. Even if you choose not to do anything - don't actively dismiss these issues as pointless or unworthy of attention - there are actual human lives at stake!

That said - for those of you who are interested in applying technology to supply chains - check out this project started at MIT - http://www.sourcemap.com - really cool and has the potential to really help small companies comply without hiring hundreds of people and spending millions on audits which certain NGOs demand (sometimes the NGOs themselves are the only ones that can be hired to do the independent audits to get the highest scores - so some of these ranking systems have corruption and self-enrichment built into them).

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Kiote]

And yet, we all here keep giving them (not just Nintendo) money to them to keep their business going even when we know that ! Isn't it funny?
Or just as hypocritical as this stupid thread title?
I wonder if Nintendo answered to the survey, then I can feel good with myself, right?

Look, I think Nintendo sucks ass for not answering the damn survey. It doesn't cost them anything, and there are good reason to think that if they did they would probably have a poor score. That's a sad thought and they deserve to be smacked publicy. So I welcome the news spreading.
I don't welcome accusing other people for being skeptical when there is no evidence so far, though.

Did you read the "Survey"? It has almost nothing to do with Nintendo's actual policies toward Blood Minerals. The vast majority of the questions on the Survey are asking if Nintendo Supports this specific NGO and their Friends Financially and through Lobbying Efforts. There is absolutely no information anywhere that remotely suggests Nintendo uses Blood Minerals.

 

[enanogrande]

PM me if you ever need Dutch lessons.

Fine by me, I always wanted to learn Dutch. I'll give you Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, good trade?

Spoiler

in other words, English not being your fist language - just like it isn't mine - doesn't excuse you from getting ribbed for jumping to conclusions.


Sorry for the dick waving everybody.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Wait, doesn't case 1 mean that they support child labour as long as the kids wear armbands or something? Is this what Iwata meant about targeting children?

 

[Fularu]

So...



I take it that you agree with the criticisms of Nintendo then.

No, they are criticised for not filling a survey asking them questions about how they operate

They aren't beeing opaque with a government agency or a mandated body of regulation, they're beeing unooperative with some random NGO.

Refusing to answer isn't a proof of guilt, it's just them not accepting to answer them because they don't have to. Giving them 0 IS misleading and shady

Wait, doesn't case 1 mean that they support child labour as long as the kids wear armbands or something? Is this what Iwata meant about targeting children?

Minors can work in most countries. Beeing 16 years old doesn'T prevent you from working, and that's not considered child labor.

If said organisation wants to legitimise itself, it needs to be honest about what it does, and not hand out 0 to the companies that don't comply with them. As I said, make a different colum with the names of the companies who refused to answer, don't hand out 0 because you don't have a clue as to what they do in the first place.

 

[jeffers]

As I said, I do not know enough about the specific NGOs to say whether or not their practices are in and of themselves ethical. I'm commenting on the numerous people in this thread who have said that Nintendo shouldn't need to answer to any party because they have internal policies, not responding to the people who are arguing that Nintendo should not have to answer to this specific party because of practices they may or may not be guilty of.

If this specific organization is engaged in unethical practices then obviously that is a very serious problem in and of itself. The idea that Nintendo - or any corporation - shouldn't have to answer to anyone because they have corporate guidelines against misconduct, however, is patently absurd.

they have to abide by laws. so yes they are answering to the relevant people.

 

[And_Gignac]

So the zero is based on Nintendo not willing to operate with this specific NGO and not about Nintendo being shady about if they are using or not minerals in conflict?

 

[Sneds]

No, they are criticised for not filling a survey asking them questions about how they operate

They aren't beeing opaque with a government agency or a mandated body of regulation, they're beeing unooperative with some random NGO.

Refusing to answer isn't a proof of guilt, it's just them not accepting to answer them because they don't have to. Giving them 0 IS misleading and shady

If said organisation wants to legitimise itself, it needs to be honest about what it does, and not hand out 0 to the companies that don't comply with them. As I said, make a different colum with the names of the companies who refused to answer, don't hand out 0 because you don't have a clue as to what they do in the first place.

Okay, to make this clear - I'M criticising them for being opaque - ME. Forget the NGOs. I don't think Nintendo's own published guidelines are detailed enough. I explained why in a previous post. They're far too vague. Do you agree with me, a poster on neogaf?

 

[Fularu]

So the zero is based on Nintendo not willing to operate with this specific NGO and not about Nintendo being shady about if they are using or not minerals in conflict?

Yes

Okay, to make this clear - I'M criticising them for being opaque - ME. Forget the NGOs. I don't think Nintendo's own published guidelines are detailed enough. I explained why in a previous post. They're far too vague. Do you agree with me, a poster on neogaf?

It is your right to find them too opaque, but their website clearly indicates their policies. It's up to you to trust them or not. If they're found guilty of breaking the laws and regulations by a mandated governing body, then by all means, I'll join you in your critical view of them. Until then, though luck trying to lay the blame on them through some random NGO which clearly misleads people as to what Nintendo (or any company that doesn't care dealing with said NGO) really does.

 

[fernoca]

Did you read the "Survey"? It has almost nothing to do with Nintendo's actual policies toward Blood Minerals. The vast majority of the questions on the Survey are asking if Nintendo Supports this specific NGO and their Friends Financially and through Lobbying Efforts. There is absolutely no information anywhere that remotely suggests Nintendo uses Blood Minerals.

That too.
On the questions alone, Nintendo could've failed every question, yet spend like $300k in donations and already be in the top of the "red-listed".

 

[DeaviL]

Fine by me, I always wanted to learn Dutch. I'll give you Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, good trade?

Spoiler

in other words, English not being your fist language - just like it isn't mine - doesn't excuse you from getting ribbed for jumping to conclusions.


Sorry for the dick waving everybody.

I wasn't really the one who prompted his reply though.
I just had to respond to the good old "are you twelve?" insult.

Also, i now feel dumb for only knowing two languages

 

[Seeds]

they said straight up exactly why nintendo got a score of zero

at no point was the fact that it came entirely from their refusal to fill out the survey hidden or obscured in any way

if you think that nintendo shouldn't answer to NGOs at all then argue that point, you can't claim the score is slander because their reasoning for giving it is 100% transparent and correct

I've already stated why I have a problem with NGO.

That is, instead of going after companies that score low on their test, they're going after a company who doesn't answer their questions, despite the fact that the info available on their site alone would give them a higher score than low scoring companies.

Basically, NGO doesn't give a shit about what Nintendo is doing, they just want Nintendo to play by their rules.

As I said, I do not know enough about the specific NGOs to say whether or not their practices are in and of themselves ethical. I'm commenting on the numerous people in this thread who have said that Nintendo shouldn't need to answer to any party because they have internal policies, not responding to the people who are arguing that Nintendo should not have to answer to this specific party because of practices they may or may not be guilty of.

If this specific organization is engaged in unethical practices then obviously that is a very serious problem in and of itself. The idea that Nintendo - or any corporation - shouldn't have to answer to anyone because they have corporate guidelines against misconduct, however, is patently absurd.

No one is arguing that Nintendo shouldn't answer to anyone, but that Nintendo shouldn't have to comply with organization Xs ranking system.

 

[flatearthpandas]

No, it's an actual question. I suppose I will treat you like you need the juvenile explanation, if you're going to act like it:

Do you think our method of murder investigation should be asking people, "Are you a murderer?" and then leaving it at that if they answer "No"? Do you understand why that is not our method of criminal investigation? Do you understand that people who are guilty of misconduct are sometimes dishonest about having been involved in misconduct and may attempt to conceal their involvement in such misconduct? These are things that, psychologically speaking, anyone over the age of twelve who does not suffer from arrested social development should have the moral and analytical capacity to understand.

I deeply, genuinely hope the people in this thread asking those sorts of questions are being intentionally obtuse because of their affection for Nintendo.

Why would you bring up the legal system?
In the legal system, you are not presumed guilty because you refuse to answer questions. Especially when the person asking you questions is not a legally recognized body.

This is like if our method of murder investigation was the neighborhood watch sending you a survey that said, "Prove you didn't commit this murder." You throw the survey away and are put in prison while half of Neogaf cheers.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Minors can work in most countries. Beeing 16 years old doesn'T prevent you from working, and that's not considered child labor.

If said organisation wants to legitimise itself, it needs to be honest about what it does, and not hand out 0 to the companies that don't comply with them. As I said, make a different colum with the names of the companies who refused to answer, don't hand out 0 because you don't have a clue as to what they do in the first place.

You do realise that the same argument goes the other way, though? A whole lot of other companies respond to this research, so if Nintendo wants to legitimise their efforts to minimise conflict mineral usage they need to be honest about what they do.

 

[And_Gignac]

Yes.

Oh, how anticlimactic

 

[DeaviL]

You do realise that the same argument goes the other way, though? A whole lot of other companies respond to this research, so if Nintendo wants to legitimise their efforts to minimise conflict mineral usage they need to be honest about what they do.

They can do that without answering to the NGO, and they've recently done exactly that.
The slides are in this thread.

 

[Fularu]

You do realise that the same argument goes the other way, though? A whole lot of other companies respond to this research, so if Nintendo wants to legitimise their efforts to minimise conflict mineral usage they need to be honest about what they do.

Nintendo has been more or less open bout those subjects, they just choose to not participate in this dubious survey.

Please note that this has nothing to do with "fanboyism" or anything of the sort. It's just logical. If you want to know what Nintendo does, you can check on their website, it'S clearly stated (and has been posted here already).

Nintendo's 0 is an easy PR stunt, they're regularly targeted by random american NGOs to promote themselves (PETA, this one and others in the past).

 

[Sneds]

Yes


It is your right to find them too opaque, but their website clearly indicates their policies. It's up to you to trust them or not. If they're found guilty of breaking the laws and regulations by a mandated governing body, then by all means, I'll join you in your critical view of them. Until then, though luck trying to lay the blame on them through some random NGO which clearly misleads people as to what Nintendo (or any company that doesn't care dealing with said NGO) really does.

So do you think Nintendo should preferably go into more detail about the standards it sets for avoiding conflict minerals? You seem to be avoiding the actual question.

The website does not "clearly" state their policies. As I said, they're incredibly vague.

And again you bring up the NGO of which I'm not a representative or a member.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Isn't this comparable to how most "organic" brands use their brand seal, to basically create competitive advantages for certain companies by providing an additional "quality assurance" they can slap on their advertisement.

I know lots of coffee producers who actually refuse to have themselves certified as "bio" or "fair-trade" because they would have to pay a certification fee, but treat their workers and product with enough care to easily qualify for both certifications.

Nintendo has a history of ignoring 3rd party certification groups (I seem to recall greenpeace continuosly rating them last because they don't validate them by not sending them any information about their production methods)

This is not exactly the same as coffee.

 

[DecoyOctopus]

Everyday I see police give people tickets because their car isnt registered properly....yet drug use, drug dealing is allowed to go on unchecked.

Many killings, robberies in and around my area....and yet the most times I see police is for tickets.

Crackheads are given so much help, assistance, and yet folks trying to work and make it out are given so many obstacles.

Is it being hardened...maybe. But what I personally have to deal with is more important to me than way a device, product is manufactured. If I was living there and/or had family involved...I would think different. I am like a continent away. Doesnt bother me in the slightest.

That's just...sad.

 

[enanogrande]

I wasn't really the one who prompted his reply though.

.....wait what?



Fuck.

Mah bad xD I actually thought he was replying to you, in which case you would be misunderstanding him... But if you had nothing to do with the conversation, wtf was I even getting at!?

Son of a bitch, now I look like an (deserved) idiot Sorry man, carry on.

(Also, Portuguese Spanish and Italian are so close to each other that counting them as 3 languages is almost cheating I my mind xD)

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I am not sure what that last sentence is trying to say. It is practically unreadable as a question.

From personal experience with companies like this, I find them to be "pay us and we'll not harass you." Some of these companies will call a business multiple times a day trying to get you to sign up for their service. "You'll get a AAA rating on the BBB and a good report from Duns & Bradstreet if you pay $800!" I had a call a few times a week from a company that was trying to sell a sticker that said my company was "LGBTQ" compliant a while back. I said I wasn't interested in paying $15 a month for a sticker. They said that I would be seen as not supportive of the LGBTQ community. I run a store with a no discrimination policy that also sells Yaoi/Yuri manga, anime, and other products. I just stopped answering their call when I saw it on my caller ID. I think they were just full of crap since it didn't have any noticeable effect on our clients. A lot of these NGOs are exactly the kind of company that harasses you for donations once they know you're paying attention to them. We all love our fire department and want to be protected by our police departments.. but we don't have to attend their stupid galla balls. Kind of like: "I understand and appreciate what you're doing. But I don't want to buy any damn popcorn from you or attend your charity auction."

When press outlets pick up the latest fax from companies like this and go with it, we become free advertisements for them. In short, we build their power to demand without any physical proof that they actually do what they say they do. Are the people from this NGO going to the sites and inspecting? From their documents, they are just talking with companies and taking their word on it... for a price. Although they can send EICC-GeS approved auditors -on contract- to those sites. But that requires more money because the EICC-GeS approved auditors are private businesses. It's a way of making money. Yes, many of these places have non-profit status. So does the National Football League. (For now. People are trying to fix that...)

Nintendo is already in compliance with OSHA and already does on-site inspections. It's fine to join an organization like this if you feel it can benefit your company. If Nintendo feels that joining this organization would be a waste of money, it's their choice. Why would you be anti-choice?

But eh. The story here is this: "Company A says Company B does not meet the standards that Company A set. Company B says they meet the standards set by Government A, Government B, and Governments C through Z. Company A says that is not enough. Company B doesn't want to work with Company A because it costs money, time, and has no visible effect on the business. Company A sends out press releases all over the internet saying that Company B is killing children in the Congo."

The email didn't claim that...

 

[jim-jam bongs]

They can do that without answering to the NGO, and they've recently done exactly that.
The slides are in this thread.

Nintendo has been more or less open bout those subjects, they just choose to not participate in this dubious survey.

Please note that this has nothing to do with "fanboyism" or anything of the sort. It's just logical. If you want to know what Nintendo does, you can check on their website, it'S clearly stated (and has been posted here already).

Nintendo's 0 is an easy PR stunt, they're regularly targeted by random american NGOs to promote themselves (PETA, this one and others in the past).

I did read their policy, the NGO in question cited their refusal to audit the supply chain themselves and nowhere in their policy does it indicate that they do more than request compliance from their suppliers, visit their factories and have them respond to a questionnaire. I see why you're saying it's nothing more than a PR stunt given that it's based on their silence rather than hard facts, but I think that it's reasonable to highlight the inadequacy of their policy relative to other companies.

 

[Fularu]

So do you think Nintendo should preferably go into more detail about the standards it sets for avoiding conflict minerals? You seem to be avoiding the actual question.

The website does not "clearly" state their policies. As I said, they're incredibly vague.

And again you bring up the NGO of which I'm not a representative or a member.

No, I think that what they provide is enough for me.

You may not be a representative of said NGO, but you'Re using their narative to fuel your thread so... I have to wonder, do you agree with the NGO's point or not? If you don't why did you post it? Do you agree with the 0 score? If so, why? Do you agree that a refusal to answer is the same as pleading guilty? Because, again, that's what this thread is all about.

 

[Taker666]

Originally Posted by Sneds
That's where your metaphor falls apart. No-one is claiming that Nintendo definitely are using conflict materials, they're being criticised for being opaque and for not putting in place sufficient policies.

If you disagree with those criticisms then I'd be interested to hear why but I'm done talking about this zero rating.
I take it that you agree with the criticisms of Nintendo then.

It's a chicken and egg scenario.

They criticise Nintendo for being opaque and for not putting in place sufficient policies....that's their opinion...

...but should I trust the opinion of an organisation using questionable tactics?

..likewise should Nintendo give information to an organisation who misleads people and gives a 0/100 score as opposed to an N/A ... who essentially tries to blackmail companies into giving them information they want?

If they gave Nintendo an N/A rating and simply said Nintendo refuses to give them information, then I'd say Nintendo should be more willing to give information.....but as they give them a disingenous 0 rating , I'd be far less likely to give them the information they want in Nintendo's position.....as I wouldn't bow to blackmail.

If they give Nintendo an N/A rating next year as opposed to 0 ....then I'd find them far more deserving of the information they request.

 

[DeaviL]

I did read their policy, the NGO in question cited their refusal to audit the supply chain themselves and nowhere in their policy does it indicate that they do more than request compliance from their suppliers, visit their factories and have them respond to a questionnaire. I see why you're saying it's nothing more than a PR stunt given that it's based on their silence rather than hard facts, but I think that it's reasonable to highlight the inadequacy of their policy relative to other companies.

You do realize that the NGO's confirmation method is also just a questionnaire right?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Based on the suppliers Nintendo uses (the vast majority is public information), they are already likely pretty high up in the list (it's pretty easy to figure out). The difference is that they'd rather not engage the NGO in question, likely because it opens the door to 1000 other NGOs trying to demand Nintendo comply with their own ranking systems or face a boycott of some sort. Hence the NGO is giving them a zero for not directly engaging them - it's an exertion of power - not because they can't easily figure out where Nintendo ranks in the spectrum. From Nintendo's perspective - complying with all these NGOs is fine for companies that have 50,000 employees - but Nintendo would have to dedicate a giant chunk of its workforce if the flood gates opened - for something they feel they already do an adequate job of since they work with certified suppliers.

Aside from that, one need not like the NGO in question to actually care about conflict minerals. Please don't conflate the two. There are lots of terrible, self-serving, and ethnocentric/Eurocentric NGOs out there with highly flawed ranking systems - I witness as much in my parents' country of origin which I visit on a yearly basis. That doesn't mean we as society should not value the implications of our actions, and understand there are consequences of our consumption - including our ability to influence it. Just look at Apartheid and how boycotting companies doing business there raised awareness of the issue and helped as a catalyst to end that racist regime. Look at all the talk about BDS right now - with the New York Senate stepping in to punish participants in that boycott because they realize the implications if a full boycott were to materialize. Even if you choose not to do anything - don't actively dismiss these issues as pointless or unworthy of attention - there are actual human lives at stake!

That said - for those of you who are interested in applying technology to supply chains - check out this project started at MIT - http://www.sourcemap.com - really cool and has the potential to really help small companies comply without hiring hundreds of people and spending millions on audits which certain NGOs demand (sometimes the NGOs themselves are the only ones that can be hired to do the independent audits to get the highest scores - so some of these ranking systems have corruption and self-enrichment built into them).

Just my 2 cents.

This, pretty much. It's a shame that most of the Internet is willing to throw all common sense out the window when it comes to random NGOs.

I did read their policy, the NGO in question cited their refusal to audit the supply chain themselves and nowhere in their policy does it indicate that they do more than request compliance from their suppliers, visit their factories and have them respond to a questionnaire. I see why you're saying it's nothing more than a PR stunt given that it's based on their silence rather than hard facts, but I think that it's reasonable to highlight the inadequacy of their policy relative to other companies.

Haha, what? What makes Nintendo's questionnaires so much less reliable than this NGO's?

 

[tarheel91]

Jesus Christ, talk about poisoning the well with that thread title. The ability for GAF to reduce something into a very black and white us vs. them, X is the source of all evil is impressive.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Law in Japan does not require them to name the smelters. So, Nintendo is just complying with the minimum laws. In short, they are complying but not over-complying with what another company wants them to do.

Not shady at all.

 

[Imperfected]

Why would you bring up the legal system?
In the legal system, you are not presumed guilty because you refuse to answer questions. Especially when the person asking you questions is not a legally recognized body.

I bring up the legal system because I'm trying to navigate a hypothetical person to the point where they can understand that allowing an entity to police themselves is not a reasonable solution. The existence of internal Nintendo guidelines with regards to the use of conflict minerals does not remove the need for third-party verification that they are not using conflict minerals.

You cannot blindly trust any corporation, under any circumstances, to follow internal guidelines preventing misconduct without external verification. In the case of misconduct which is actively illegal, this is obvious and I honestly don't think any rational person would argue the point, correct?

In this instance, the behavior is not technically illegal in most of the jurisdictions where Nintendo acquires materials and manufactures goods, so government oversight on the matter is effectively useless. This is why NGO oversight has come into the equation; if the NGO at the forefront of this is behaving unethically or irresponsibly then that is unfortunate and should most certainly be dealt with, but it does not remove the need for such an organization to be acting in such a capacity.

Yes, it would be nice if every nation on Earth was on the same page legally and had the same uniform level of enforcement with regards to matters like this. In an ideal world, the bloody situation in the Congo wouldn't be allowed to have deteriorate to this degree to begin with. That is not how the situation works in reality, however, so responsible consumers who care about this issue require a non-national body to attend to the issue - again, possibly a better one that what we've got, but the concept of the NGO itself is not somehow made unsound by the existence of international law.

 

[Skyzard]

Lovely title, lol.

 

[Opinionatedfish]

The email didn't claim that...

Added hyperbole for effect.

 

[prag16]

Jesus Christ, talk about poisoning the well with that thread title. The ability for GAF to reduce something into a very black and white us vs. them, X is the source of all evil is impressive.

Lovely title, lol.

That wasn't even the original title. The "ITT" bit got edited in after the fact.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

You do realize that the NGO's confirmation method is also just a questionnaire right?

Yes, I am aware of that. The point is that putting the onus on their production partners is different from taking responsibility themselves for ensuring conflict minerals aren't in use, because if someone provided evidence Nintendo were using conflict minerals they can just blame a supplier acting irresponsibly and misleading them.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Haha, what? What makes Nintendo's questionnaires so much less reliable than this NGO's?

"I score 10 in my own test. No need for others. "

Added hyperbole for effect.

So I suppose that 'blackmail' is also a hyperbole. Or you anecdotal evidence doesn't tell me much of this particular NGO.

 

[Sneds]

No, I think that what they provide is enough for me.

You may not be a representative of said NGO, but you'Re using their narative to fuel your thread so... I have to wonder, do you agree with the NGO's point or not? If you don't why did you post it? Do you agree with the 0 score? If so, why? Do you agree that a refusal to answer is the same as pleading guilty? Because, again, that's what this thread is all about.

There are two NGOs. Are you even aware of that? The one which sent me an email did not create the survey or mention it in their email. That is the NGO I mention in the OP. There is another NGO which set a survey and proceeded to give Nintendo a zero when the company failed to respond. Which NGO are you talking about?

Regardless, I agree with the first NGO entirely. That's the campaign this thread was about btw.

I don't mind that the second NGO gave Nintendo a zero. I don't find it an interesting topic of conversation to be honest. I hope that the zero leads Nintendo to be more transparent on its website and elsewhere. I am aware that Nintendo's failure to take part in the survey is not and admission of guilt. If I ran that NGO I would have given Nintendo a zero too for tactical reasons. It wouldn't have kept me awake at night.

 

[DeaviL]

That wasn't even the original title. The "ITT" bit got edited in after the fact.

I suppose that's what happens when the first few replies are "I don't care about human suffering.".
Title's still lame though.

 

[Oersted]

Can we please stop using this slide as a talking point? I worked at 2 different NGOs and giving 0 score based on no cooperation is just plain shady.

 

[flatearthpandas]

I bring up the legal system because I'm trying to navigate a hypothetical person to the point where they can understand that allowing an entity to police themselves is not a reasonable solution. The existence of internal Nintendo guidelines with regards to the use of conflict minerals does not remove the need for third-party verification that they are not using conflict minerals.

You cannot blindly trust any corporation, under any circumstances, to follow internal guidelines preventing misconduct without external verification. In the case of misconduct which is actively illegal, this is obvious and I honestly don't think any rational person would argue the point, correct?

In this instance, the behavior is not technically illegal in most of the jurisdictions where Nintendo acquires materials and manufactures goods, so government oversight on the matter is effectively useless. This is why NGO oversight has come into the equation; if the NGO at the forefront of this is behaving unethically or irresponsibly then that is unfortunate and should most certainly be dealt with, but it does not remove the need for such an organization to be acting in such a capacity.

Yes, it would be nice if every nation on Earth was on the same page legally and had the same uniform level of enforcement with regards to matters like this. In an ideal world, the bloody situation in the Congo wouldn't be allowed to have deteriorate to this degree to begin with. That is not how the situation works in reality, however, so responsible consumers who care about this issue require a non-national body to attend to the issue - again, possibly a better one that what we've got, but the concept of the NGO itself is not somehow made unsound by the existence of international law.

Hey, I get what you're saying.
I just think legal analogies are silly in a thread where the majority opinion is leaning so far in a direction that would appall people given a proper legal analogy.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

"I score 10 in my own test. No need for others. "

Nintendo's questionnaires survey their suppliers, not themselves. So again, what makes this NGO's survey so much more reliable?

 

[Fularu]

There are two NGOs. Are you even aware of that? The one which sent me an email did not create the survey or mention it in their email. That is the NGO I mention in the OP. There is another NGO which set a survey and proceeded to give Nintendo a zero when the company failed to respond. Which NGO are you talking about?

Regardless, I agree with the first NGO entirely. That's the campaign this thread was about btw.

I don't mind that the second NGO gave Nintendo a zero. I don't find it an interesting topic of conversation to be honest. I hope that the zero leads Nintendo to be more transparent on its website and elsewhere. I am aware that Nintendo's failure to take part in the survey is not and admission of guilt. If I ran that NGO I would have given Nintendo a zero too for tactical reasons. It wouldn't have kept me awake at night.

So I guess you're fine with PR stunts and beeing dishonest

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Nintendo's questionnaires survey their suppliers, not themselves.

That doesn't rebutt that at all.

So I guess you're fine with PR stunts and beeing dishonest

That Nintendo investors meeting.

Joking aside, neither the mail or the actual survey is that sensasionalistic.

 

[DeaviL]

"I score 10 in my own test. No need for others. "

"I scored 200 in an iq test provided to me by a random third party, i'm so smart!".

 

[usernamechange]

So I guess you're fine with PR stunts and beeing dishonest

i mean youre fine with opaque pr stunts hence your defence of nintendo right?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

That doesn't rebutt that at all.

Did you not read what you typed or something? Here, I'll re-quote you so we're on the same page:

"I score 10 in my own test. No need for others. "

Nintendo does not score 10 in their own test, as they aren't testing themselves. Their suppliers did not write the tests. Therefore, your statement is untrue.

 

[Calamari41]

"Calling on them to ensure their products are slavery free"

"Calling on them to cease the use of slavery in the production of their goods"

An inability to differentiate is due to you not being able to navigate the English language - hopefully because of it not being your primary one - not an attempt at libel on the part of the party in question. The statement is clear in both meaning and intent.

I personally don't know enough about the NGOs involved in this to say anything regarding their practices or professional ethics, but I will say this thread in general is hugely depressing as much for the number of completely irrational statements made as the lack of empathy displayed by a minority of posters.

I really, really hope that some of the stuff here is the result of devil's advocacy on the part of hardcore Nintendo fans and not actual attempts at using logic. Particularly all the people who are saying things like, "They have internal policies regarding this issue so I don't see why they would need to communicate or participate in third-party efforts."

In what world does something like that even have to be explained to someone over the age of twelve?

Damn, there's no need for such ad hominem attacks. I definitely understand the letter perfectly and can differentiate the two phrases quite well. The problem is that not everybody can or will, as evidenced by the plethora of replies in this thread from people who are misunderstanding what that chart and what the letter are saying. People have even posted slides from Nintendo's actual investor meetings that detail their compliance, and yet many people posting in this thread still think that they're hiding something because they didn't fill out some advocacy group's questionnaire. My contention is that the author knew that it would be misconstrued in this way, and that they constructed that letter in order to accomplish exactly that while being able to say "well everything is technically true."

I never said anybody was committing libel, that was someone else. I was just replying to point out where somebody implied that wrongdoing was occurring.

 

[Sneds]

So I guess you're fine with PR stunts and beeing dishonest

Why would I have a problem with PR stunts as a whole? They can create publicity for worthwhile causes. Obviously not all PR stunts are good.

I've said time and again that I don't consider the zero to be dishonest/libel. You're obviously free to disagree. I can't make myself any clearer so presumably we can move on from this line of questioning.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Damn, there's no need for such ad hominem attacks. I definitely understand the letter perfectly and can differentiate the two phrases quite well. The problem is that not everybody can or will, as evidenced by the plethora of replies in this thread from people who are misunderstanding what that chart and what the letter are saying. People have even posted slides from Nintendo's actual investor meetings that detail their compliance, and yet many people posting in this thread still think that they're hiding something because they didn't fill out some advocacy group's questionnaire. My contention is that the author knew that it would be misconstrued in this way, and that they constructed that letter in order to accomplish exactly that while being able to say "well everything is technically true."

I never said anybody was committing libel, that was someone else. I was just replying to point out where somebody implied that wrongdoing was occurring.

Iwata would not lie to investors...