That is interesting. I have no clue why they would take that out. Makes me wonder if they want to replace it with something better later. But it's odd to me at first glance.
That is interesting. I have no clue why they would take that out. Makes me wonder if they want to replace it with something better later. But it's odd to me at first glance.
Do you understand the notion of chief criterion? I don't think you do. If merit is the chief criterion you sort out group A of candidates. Alternatively, If diversity is the chief criterion you sort out group B of candidates.
You seem to be claiming group A and group B will coincide.
I predict your comeback will still miss the point.
I never claimed group A and B will coincide. I claimed talent and diversity are not zero sum. You can have both. There has been no evidence that the issues with this game came because of 'diversity'. There is clear evidence that poor time management and resource management are to blame. Poor time and resource management can come from people of all genders and ethnicities. Conservatives and liberals can both waste time and resources. Maybe Bonnie Ross needs to go but not because she is a woman but because she failed to lead the project properly.
Yep, the priority to hire sould be talent, technical skill and knowledge or related working experience, in addition to team work skills without considering stuff like what do you have between the legs, skin color, sexual preferences and so on.
That is interesting. I have no clue why they would take that out. Makes me wonder if they want to replace it with something better later. But it's odd to me at first glance.
That is precisely why claims that diversity and meritocracy are perfectly compatible must overcome this fairly simple logical obstacle.
Yet, I could quote post after post after post where certain people claim that's a trivial matter, that the two are absolutely compatible , "oh, don't be silly" posts, as though it were a self-evident truth that didn't require substantiation.
Sure, in the sense that it's perfectly possible to hire some people based on merit and hire some other people based on diversity. But, except for some miraculous coincidence, you cannot have absolute merit coexist with absolute diversity.
At the end of the day, the question is this:
Why should you even consider not hiring based on merit alone?
Because I can tell the benefits of hiring based on merit.
Tell me, when you check in at the local hospital, do you hope to be treated by a competent team, or a diverse team? What springs to mind?
Why should gamers accept that which you're not willing to accept when it comes to your health?
There has been no evidence that the issues with this game came because of 'diversity'.
I would mostly agree, except, maybe, in the case of ME Andromeda, where if one were to believe the allegations in this thread, they'd make for a compelling case against diversity hires.
But generally speaking, I would agree with you.
And that's precisely why I have kept my objections in the realm of principles. I have not claimed the recent debacles have been the direct result of diversity hires.
There is clear evidence that poor time management and resource management are to blame. Poor time and resource management can come from people of all genders and ethnicities. Conservatives and liberals can both waste time and resources.
That article says a little more than you led on to believe. You should read the full thing. The issue isn't just the "gender" checkbox. It's a complex issue, that needs complex conversation and understanding. Not hand waving a people wanting to play small violins for anyone that speaks about the matter.
It's not totally emotional for me. I'd like to have a higher discourse of conversation about topics like this (you I believe would like the same). But sadly there's 5 people for every 1 person that just want to say things like "Oh poor baby" or "you want some cheese with that wine" type comments.
I see those types of comments so much, that sometimes it makes people like yourself "SEEM" like you are the same. It's hard to decipher who's here to have a real conversation and who just wants to troll.
So why are you wasting precious screen real estate, instead of saying what exactly you think the article says, by, I don't know, quoting it?
The issue isn't just the "gender" checkbox. It's a complex issue, that needs complex conversation and understanding. Not hand waving a people wanting to play small violins for anyone that speaks about the matter.
Your many times proclaimed take that you're a victim is entirely objective.
I myself can vouch for the fact that you've defined the term "privilege" precisely and objectively.
It's not emotional at all.
I'd like to have a higher discourse of conversation about topics like this
(you I believe would like the same). But sadly there's 5 people for every 1 person that just want to say things like "Oh poor baby" or "you want some cheese with that wine" type comments.
Any claims that you're victim, like the one you've made in this very thread, will have to come with a receipt or two.
None provided so far.
If the request to present evidence hurts your feelings, that's just further proof that it's not an emotional issue for you, at all. You're declining to rpesent evidence, to quote studies and substantiate your position for entirely objective reasons.
But please, don't let me stop you from building that career in professional victimhood whereby you attempt to villainize people who disagree with you, also known as trolls.
I see those types of comments so much, that sometimes it makes people like yourself "SEEM" like you are the same. It's hard to decipher who's here to have a real conversation and who just wants to troll.
Yes, people who disagree with you must be trolls, they must distrust studies not because the methodology is flawed, possibly, goodness no, we can't even contemplate that possibility, no.
You've decided you're a victim and therefore disagreeing with you elevates others to the rank of master Troll.
This is DUMB. It is FUCKING dumb. "diversity" doesn't preclude skill. You have no fucking idea why people are being hired in the industry. You just chose a narrative that supports your bitchy little tweedledick (body-shaming to prove I'm not a SJW ) argument. It's like looking back bad games of the past and claiming that their problem was that they were developed by white men.
Furthermore, faces have been ugly in gaming since the beginning. The original Lar Croft was ugly as sin. Our horny little prepubescent brains just made sure we didn't focus on all of that and we saw what we wanted to see.
I don't think it's just the victim status but also the social currency that can be "earned" from it. It does become some sort of popularity contest in that way for some.
A while ago I watched a tense round table - I can't locate the video at this point - between a former member of, if I recall correctly, some sort of fringe revolutionary communist party and now a conservative/libertarian and a number of girls who identified as feminists. It was four or five against one.
At one point, one the girls said the thing she was most proud of was being a victim. Can you imagine? A girl living in 21st century UK, part of middle class, claiming the defining factor of her entire existence was victimhood? And, since her alleged victimhood came at no fault of her own, then suggesting that it was some sort of noble personal triumph?
No, sorry.
Any claims of victimhood, in an explicit attempt to win the debate, will be met with a polite request to present evidence, lest certain people here mistakenly believe that having a Malcolm X avatar is somehow enough.
Edit: To be clear, as far as I recall, the girls in the round table were all white.
Yep, the priority to hire sould be talent, technical skill and knowledge or related working experience, in addition to team work skills without considering stuff like what do you have between the legs, skin color, sexual preferences and so on.
Sadly that's NEVER been the case. At least not in America. I can't speak for any other countries though. Politics has always played a role in the hiring process. It's been more about who you know, rather than what you know. Plus, sadly at times there's been agendas that have been put into place to make sure only "certain" people get hired at certain companies.
A while ago I watched a tense round table - I can't locate the video at this point - between a former member of, if I recall correctly, some sort of fringe revolutionary communist party and now a conservative/libertarian and a number of girls who identified as feminists. It was four or five against one.
At one point, one the girls said the thing she was most proud of was being a victim. Can you imagine? A girl living in 21st century UK, part of middle class, claiming the defining factor of her entire existence was victimhood? And, since her alleged victimhood came at no fault of her own, then suggesting that it was some sort of noble personal triumph?
No, sorry.
Any claims of victimhood, in an explicit attempt to win the debate, will be met with a polite request to present evidence, lest certain people here mistakenly believe that having a Malcolm X avatar is somehow enough.
one of my wife's employees at a major corporation was going to get fired because he's been late to work over 25 times or so in the past year, but upper management above her told her they had to keep him on because he was black and since the riots were going on it was bad timing, i've met the guy and like him, i hope he figures out a way to work out his issues and remains employed, but there is only one race that gets that type of treatment so spare me the victim bullshiet in this day and age
Sadly that's NEVER been the case. At least not in America. I can't speak for any other countries though. Politics has always played a role in the hiring process. It's been more about who you know, rather than what you know. Plus, sadly at times there's been agendas that have been put into place to make sure only "certain" people get hired at certain companies.
.
one of my wife's employees at a major corporation was going to get fired because he's been late to work over 25 times or so in the past year, but upper management above her told her they had to keep him on because he was black and since the riots were going on it was bad timing, i've met the guy and like him, i hope he figures out a way to work out his issues and remains employed, but there is only one race that gets that type of treatment so spare me the victim bullshiet in this day and age
But generally speaking, I would agree with you.
And that's precisely why I have kept my objections in the realm of principles. I have not claimed the recent debacles have been the direct result of diversity hires.
If there is no proof that the games issues are the result of diversity what more is there to discuss? Diversity and talent aren't opposites of each other and you have acknowledged they aren't zero sum. You can be a talented diverse hire. We also have no evidence a long list of highly talented non-diverse people were denied work for diverse hires who were talentless.
On top of that I would posite that bringing diversity of thought could provide a value to a team that talent alone would not. Good human resource managers can distinguish between technical mastery and one's who can think outside of the box.
Still with regards to Halo Infinite better resource and time management would have gone a lot further than talent or diversity. At least you'd have a finished game even if it was uninspired or too kooky.
So "ALL OF A SUDDEN" black folks can just act a fool and not face disciplinary action due to the "riots"? And idrago01
don't think I missed the word "riots" being tossed around by you either. Pretty telling.
So "ALL OF A SUDDEN" black folks can just act a fool and not face disciplinary action due to the "riots"? And idrago01
don't think I missed the word "riots" being tossed around by you either. Pretty telling.
at least in this case yes and like i said i have nothing against the guy he hates self victimization as much as i do when we’ve talked and thinks these riots are also stupid, i don’t know why he’s always late to work i think he has some OCD issue
Note how it is openly not about equal opportunities, but about equal outcome (check the actual image with the entire comment, fuck twitter CEO, this isn't about him) clearly and openly:
On equal outcome: remember what is going on in colleges, where boys are outnumbered 60 to 40: more affirmative actions for girls.
Seems like all the time we are having a whole slew of problems.
People should be hired for their talent and not because they are the minority gender or whatever.
Talent > Diversity
Diversity = a whole diversity of problems bound to happen if they aren't competent in their jobs.
When you compare games of the old when it was made out of passion and creativity, things worked.
Now people are exploiting games to push their political agenda and microtransactions.
People are being hired because they satisfy a checklist system and not because they adequately equipped for the job leading to mismanagement, bad reception, delays and overall quality.
Games are being outsourced cheaply and not making the quality as excellent.
SJW are modelling woman ugly and unattractive on purpose so they can ruin the image of the game eg) Ryder in Mass Effect Andromeda and Black Widow for Avengers until the backlash came from fan feedback.
If there is no proof that the games issues are the result of diversity what more is there to discuss? Diversity and talent aren't opposites of each other and you have acknowledged they aren't zero sum. You can be a talented diverse hire. We also have no evidence a long list of highly talented non-diverse people were denied work for diverse hires who were talentless.
On top of that I would posite that bringing diversity of thought could provide a value to a team that talent alone would not. Good human resource managers can distinguish between technical mastery and one's who can think outside of the box.
Still with regards to Halo Infinite better resource and time management would have gone a lot further than talent or diversity. At least you'd have a finished game even if it was uninspired or too kooky.
You will agree people that hire the good looking secretary over the competent secretary are just as bad as hiring an incompetent white man over a competent black man. People that do that themselves are incompetent. This stuff has a way of sorting itself out by the merit of competition based on outcome.
This doesn't always happen though does it?
Nepotism is a thing that exists, that countermands your conjecture that incompetent hiring finds a way to sort itself out.
It does not.
The hiring diversity situation wouldn't have ever started if black people and women were allowed to hold the same jobs as their white counterparts in the 20th Century.
I agree that Affirmative Action is ridiculous and needs to stop, but I really don't think its as big of a problem as you're making it out to be.
This doesn't always happen though does it?
Nepotism is a thing that exists, that countermands your conjecture that incompetent hiring finds a way to sort itself out.
It does not.
The hiring diversity situation wouldn't have ever started if black people and women were allowed to hold the same jobs as their white counterparts in the 20th Century.
I agree that Affirmative Action is ridiculous and needs to stop, but I really don't think its as big of a problem as you're making it out to be.
What an oddly racist/sexist thread. Diversity isn't a weakness, nor does it imply lack of talent. Companies have pushed for more diversity in the workplace when designing products to appeal to a broader range of people. Plus the US has had a long history of opportunity being denied strictly due to race or gender.. hence our equality laws that have come into place. The fact that some people on here equate diversity and talent is more of a statement of their morality, than the industry. Also, diversity isn't what is holding back gaming... lack of vision and risk are. Games have the equivalent budgets of blockbuster movies now. Most companies can't afford a $200 million dollar flop, so they play it safe and formulaic.
As long as both parties agree to it, studios can hire whoever they want, all whites, all blacks, all trans, all gays, all atheists, all Shintoists, all under 20, all above 64, all women, etc., or any combination of the above.
This is fundamentally not meritocratic though, so I'm not entirely sure what point it is you're trying to make here.
If you decide to limit your options to exclusively one group of people, you could be ignoring better candidates in other groups.
You could of course, believe that the group you're exclusively selecting from are the best, but that is automatically an invalid opinion.
Its no different to some old-timey business that would exclusively hire Harvard or Cambridge graduates, despite it being pretty obvious that just because you graduated from a particular university, doesn't mean you're well suited to the position.
Sure you could argue that it should be the right of the business owner to decide who and from what group they should hire from.
This point gets a little bit complicated when you have multinational corporations whose ownership is comprised of shareholders from across the globe, but lets ignore that complexity for now.
If you go along that line of thinking, you basically have to give up all pretext of hiring on a meritocratic basis, because you are not. You're hiring based on your preferences.
If you believe that people should be allowed to hire based on their preferences, then you should automatically have no problem with "forced diversity" or "Diversity Quotas". After all, the company should hire whoever the fuck they want, right? Will that be good for the business? Who knows.
Meritocracy is the ideal. In a perfect world that means you're opening up the pool of candidates you select from to consider people of all races, sexualities, backgrounds and genders (however many there are this week). The best way to do this is to set up grassroots programs to get a diverse set of peoples engaged in pursuing an education and subsequently a career in....GameDev, STEM, Law or whatever. This is difficult - some would argue having role models of people from a wide range of backgrounds in place can make it easier to drive engagement at a grass-roots level from a diverse group of people.
A truly meritocratic hiring system pretty much requires diversity. If you're not considering every possible candidate, you're leaving out a potential genius.
My stance is simply that this "Affirmative Action/Diversity Quota" boogeyman that is being continually referenced, seems to be somewhat overblown. I haven't really seen sufficient evidence to believe that its some form of an epidemic in video game companies these days. 343i have shown off that they have a lot of women on their team, but looking at the picture of the dev team as a whole it seems to be that its still largely dominated by men. I don't see how the introduction of some women are the sole cause for Halo Infinite's poor showing. I mean aside from the graphics being genuinely appalling for a next-gen game, the gameplay looked perfectly fine for a Halo title. And the problem with the graphics might not have even been the fault of the actual dev team, and rather the stupid fuck executive who decided they needed to have it be cross-generational.
Quote and address the posts that express the view one sex is inherently inferior/superior to the other and/or that one race is inherently inferior/superior to others.
Deeming an entire thread "racist/sexist" is extremely lazy. Additionally, your points have been dealt with countless times before already.
Collective guilt doesn't exist.
Diversity isn't a weakness, nor does it imply lack of talent. Companies have pushed for more diversity in the workplace when designing products to appeal to a broader range of people. Plus the US has had a long history of opportunity being denied strictly due to race or gender.. hence our equality laws that have come into place. The fact that some people on here equate diversity and talent is more of a statement of their morality,
than the industry. Also, diversity isn't what is holding back gaming... lack of vision and risk are. Games have the equivalent budgets of blockbuster movies now. Most companies can't afford a $200 million dollar flop, so they play it safe and formulaic.
Certain principles simply take precedence over others. It's a basic hierarchy. Nothing earth shattering. That does not mean they necessarily contradict each other.
The first, most important principle, derived from property rights is this: Shareholders, management, owners in general ought to have the right to hire whoever they want. In no way is the company truly theirs if others get to make that kind of decision for them.
The second principle is that in a free market economy decisions ought to be rational and serve the best interests of the business over time. Absent of intrusive discretionary legal concerns, the system that best serves the interests of the company is compote, blind and unguided meritocracy.
So while companies are free to hire whoever they want - 1st principle - it is in their best interest to hire the best possible candidates - 2nd principle.
If you decide to limit your options to exclusively one group of people, you could be ignoring better candidates in other groups.
Exactly.
Freedom entails the possibility of some pretty dumb decisions. That's true for your private life, your social life and your professional life as well.
Ultimately, freedom combined with rationality leads to meritocracy.
You could of course, believe that the group you're exclusively selecting from are the best, but that is automatically an invalid opinion.
Its no different to some old-timey business that would exclusively hire Harvard or Cambridge graduates, despite it being pretty obvious that just because you graduated from a particular university, doesn't mean you're well suited to the position.
Sure you could argue that it should be the right of the business owner to decide who and from what group they should hire from.
This point gets a little bit complicated when you have multinational corporations whose ownership is comprised of shareholders from across the globe, but lets ignore that complexity for now.
If you go along that line of thinking, you basically have to give up all pretext of hiring on a meritocratic basis, because you are not. You're hiring based on your preferences.
If you believe that people should be allowed to hire based on their preferences, then you should automatically have no problem with "forced diversity" or "Diversity Quotas".
And , having framed the matter as a sovereignty issue, I do not have a problem with diversity hires. It's their company. They get to decide, not me. If Bioware wants to hire based on genitalia, knock yourself out, Bioware.
Though the first principle takes precedence, the second principle still applies. I am still making the case that it's in fact better to enact meritocracy.
After all, the company should hire whoever the fuck they want, right? Will that be good for the business? Who knows.
Meritocracy is the ideal. In a perfect world that means you're opening up the pool of candidates you select from to consider people of all races, sexualities, backgrounds and genders (however many there are this week). The best way to do this is to set up grassroots programs to get a diverse set of peoples engaged in pursuing an education and subsequently a career in....GameDev, STEM, Law or whatever.
No. The best way is to allow individuals to live their lives as they see fit and, provided they do not encroach upon the freedom of others, accept the consequences. Let individuals enjoy their freedom as widely and as extensively as possible.
This is difficult - some would argue having role models of people from a wide range of backgrounds in place can make it easier to drive engagement at a grass-roots level from a diverse group of people.
I don't care what some people might argue. They're free to live their lives according to those principles. No one is stopping them. They, on the other hand, they don't get to usurp the freedom they cherish and claim for themselves and start dictating how other people live and run their businesses, when they are not trespassing on other people's rights.
I don't disagree with this notion at all. My stance is simply that this "Affirmative Action/Diversity Quota" boogeyman that is being continually referenced, seems to be somewhat overblown.
This is a matter of principle. I make no claims as to the impact of diversity hires in the overall quality of recent AAA titles. But people who do make such claims, in both directions, are under the obligation to present evidence.
I have been removed from the thread because like others of my ilk, I like to drop hot takes then refuse to elaborate or substantiate my claims proving I'm not here genuinely.
Quote and address the posts that express the view one sex is inherently inferior/superior to the other and/or that one race is inherently inferior/superior to others.
Deeming an entire thread "racist/sexist" is extremely lazy. Additionally, your points have been dealt with countless times before already.
Justify it however you will. But you don't have to read very far into this thread to see the belief by some that talent and diversity are not independent.
Justify it however you will. But you don't have to read very far into this thread to see the belief by some that talent and diversity are not independent.
) argument. It's like looking back bad games of the past and claiming that their problem was that they were developed by white men.
idrago01
don't think I missed the word "riots" being tossed around by you either. Pretty telling.
