[snip]
So, was Mike morally able to post the e-mail chain and direct viewers to this man? I think he was, but honestly, if we really get into detail, I'm not so sure. If a lunatic went and shot Paul's wife, would you still say Mike was completely in the clear? Or would you say that Mike had nothing to do with it, because after all, he (much like any of us) can't be responsible for the hurtful actions of other people? If I call the cops on a drug-dealing neighbor, am I morally responsible for the drug-dealing neighbor getting kicked out of his apartment? Am I morally responsible for the drug-dealing neighbor beating his wife because he was frustrated at having to find a new place to live? If I tell a friend that his wife is cheating on him, am I responsible for his acts of violence against her?
As an individual nobody, am I obligated to restrain myself out of fear of how other people might make bizarre and damaging or violent behavior? If I have a website as popular as PA, does the same standard apply?
Um, yes, because Mike only put Paul's business information up. And didn't even mention that he had a family.
0
Options
RhalloTonnyOf the BrownlandsRegistered Userregular
Lunatics are going to act like lunatics. Basing any potential action you have on what a crazy person might do is a path you probably don't want to go down as a society.
They had everything to do with PA when paul name-dropped PAX, nothing about those e-mails was private other than the fact that they had not yet been shared.
which means they were private.
You are categorically wrong about this. I work in a customer service center. Nothing I do here is private. My phone calls are recorded, my screen actions can be recorded. It is assumed with any company you work for, and per legal precedent, that your actions dealing with any customer have no expectation of privacy. The fac tthat this was some dude sitting at his computer in hi home office does not excuse him from that legal precedent.
What does that have to do with it? Dave isn't Paul's employer and as such isn't the one recording his phone calls and isn't in charge of his business email.
They had everything to do with PA when paul name-dropped PAX, nothing about those e-mails was private other than the fact that they had not yet been shared.
which means they were private.
You are categorically wrong about this. I work in a customer service center. Nothing I do here is private. My phone calls are recorded, my screen actions can be recorded. It is assumed with any company you work for, and per legal precedent, that your actions dealing with any customer have no expectation of privacy. The fac tthat this was some dude sitting at his computer in hi home office does not excuse him from that legal precedent.
What does that have to do with it? Dave isn't Paul's employer and as such isn't the one recording his phone calls and isn't in charge of his business email.
Oh geez dude, just stop. This is getting embarrassing.
So Paul currently has control of the avenger controller site? It's a parked domain currently.. I mean I'm not a lawyer obviously but if he was fired and that's company property isn't he technically doing something legally actionable, at least in a civil sense?
I believe that this situation has been defused in N-Control's favor.
I posted that this morning. From the new PR guy:
I've been trying to get him to give up the access to these things he's been holding hostage (email accounts, Twitter, etc) by asking nicely for a couple of days. The gloves are off now.
Paul told me on the phone two hours ago that "Eight months ago, I locked down all this stuff so they wouldn't be able to fuck with me. If they don't give me what I want, it's war." His demands include a contract written on his terms and substantial compensation, both immediate and for as long as the company continues to exist. He flaunted the PR debacle he created as proof that he "made the company a success", citing all the media and public attention as the "best thing that ever happened to Avenger".
He didn't count on the fact that I anticipated all of this and have been a computer hardware and web tech since I was 14.
The thing we did have is control over the AvengerController.com domain. It was transferred away from its original account, which Paul has complete control of. Because of how GoDaddy works, that old account retained all of the email addresses and their master control settings (forwarding and so on). He has continued to respond to customer emails from his personal GMail account and lied to me repeatedly about doing so.
I tried to play nice, and Paul played stupid, acting like he didn't have access to this master account, blaming his "Indian outsourced tech team" being on vacation. I gave him two days to give over N-Control's digital property.
He finally leveled with me tonight that he knew I wasn't that stupid and that he was lying about his access to all these accounts. That's when he issued the above-mentioned threat. He reiterated that he had the hosting, email, and everything on lockdown.
Unfortunately, since he doesn't control the domain, he couldn't be more wrong. "James", a GoDaddy support rep and avid redditor, who knew exactly who I was, confirmed that I could do exactly what I wanted to...
Around a hour ago, I parked the domain and killed all the CNAME settings. All that email and the website may be sitting on servers he has access to, but he can't log in to any of the mail or do anything to the website.
I'm getting on the phone with the hosting company to try to get help from them, now that we're past the point of diplomacy.
From the reddit AMA thread.
Rollers are red, chargers are blue....omae wa mou shindeiru
Emails between personal inboxes are not in any way shape or form similar to customer service responses. This wasn't a friendly conversation with friends, it was a business exchange.
This makes no sense.
I didn't say it wasn't a business exchange. That it wasn't a cosy chat between mates doesn't mean it wasn't private.
These straw man arguments are silly.
Paul, you are as bad at this as you are at customer service. I know your name is being dragged through the mud and you want it to stop, but it's not going to until you admit you are responsible for this.
It doesn't matter that you didn't say it was a business exchange. That's what it is. A customer purchased goods and reached out to you to figure out what all the delays were about. You responded by being unhelpful, rude, and condescending all while escalating the situation at every opportunity.
Business exchanges are not subject to the same privacy laws that personal exchanges are, which is why there is no invasion of privacy. At all.
I'm not Paul. What kind of lazy thinking is it to assume that I must be the person concerned simply because I don't agree with you? I don't even live in America.
Maybe this is where the disconnect is happening and why everyone is "boggling" that you think that it is morally wrong to expose bad business practices. Its how things happen in North America, its common it happens all the time.
Another straw man argument. I didn't say it was morally wrong to expose bad practise.
They had everything to do with PA when paul name-dropped PAX, nothing about those e-mails was private other than the fact that they had not yet been shared.
which means they were private.
You are categorically wrong about this. I work in a customer service center. Nothing I do here is private. My phone calls are recorded, my screen actions can be recorded. It is assumed with any company you work for, and per legal precedent, that your actions dealing with any customer have no expectation of privacy. The fac tthat this was some dude sitting at his computer in hi home office does not excuse him from that legal precedent.
What does that have to do with it? Dave isn't Paul's employer and as such isn't the one recording his phone calls and isn't in charge of his business email.
Right, I've been following this for pages, and I have no idea how your mind works.
If you, personally, ended up having an email exchange with a business that went in the same direction as Customer Dave and Paul's went, how precisely would you have dealt with it? I'm honestly curious, because you have not made a single argument that made sense to me so far.
You're definitely Paul Christoforo, ghost whistler. Again, not once have you acknowledged that shitty customer service was provided. All of your posts have been about how Dave was morally wrong to forward the emails.
If we're going to talk about personal responsibility and moral high ground, how come Paul's use of intimidation does not get scrutiny?
I'm not trying to discuss Paul's behaviour. That speaks for itself. I'm discussing the response. You seem to think that means I condone his behaviour. That would be your mistake.
If I shopped at wal-mart and the cashier made snide jokes about my choice of toothpaste I sure as hell would shit in their cheerios and get them fired and probably ruin their ability to hold down a job as a cashier pretty much for the next 10 years.
Then you're in for a very lonely life.
OH NOEZ CASHIER AT WAL-MART NO LIKE ME?! ENACT DEPRESSION!
Grow up, there are consequences in real life for being a dick.
Look at his posting history. Prior to this thread, his last posts were back in May. I think it's weird that he would suddenly feel the urge to return to a community to defend a guy he doesn't know.
Do you enjoy your paranoia? Perhaps turn the TV off once in a while.
Emails between personal inboxes are not in any way shape or form similar to customer service responses. This wasn't a friendly conversation with friends, it was a business exchange.
This makes no sense.
I didn't say it wasn't a business exchange. That it wasn't a cosy chat between mates doesn't mean it wasn't private.
These straw man arguments are silly.
"Straw man arguments?" All of this is germaine to what you are talking about. You're saying they were private, and we're all explaining how they weren't. Then you are attempting to discredit what we are saying by calling them "straw man arguments."
That's it. He's a troll.
Isn't it nice to have words to use against people you don't agree with.
0
Options
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
Guys obvious troll is obvious now. Put away the food and let him die off.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Look at his posting history. Prior to this thread, his last posts were back in May. I think it's weird that he would suddenly feel the urge to return to a community to defend a guy he doesn't know.
Do you enjoy your paranoia? Perhaps turn the TV off once in a while.
Look at his posting history. Prior to this thread, his last posts were back in May. I think it's weird that he would suddenly feel the urge to return to a community to defend a guy he doesn't know.
Do you enjoy your paranoia? Perhaps turn the TV off once in a while.
I work in retail, so you can trust me when I say that no conversation between an employee and a customer is ever private.
What is the relevance of your line of work?
The conversation was not conducted verball within an environment open to other people, such as a shop. it was conducted between two people vie email. It wasn't cc'd to the entire world, therefore it was private.
The relevance of my line of work is that I have seen firsthand how pissed-off customers should be handled, and what they do when they aren't handled properly, a concept which you cannot seem to grasp.
I'm glad they actually got someone who understands PR in there. This guy is doing what should be done by posting that AMA on Reddit; color me impressed.
I can trust you? Well that's good then.
I've already explained the difference between over the counter and email conversations. If you can't see that, well perhaps that trust is misplaced.
But you are either a troll, or simply full of shit and too ignorant to realize it. Seriously, are you even bothering to read what you write? Because you're trying to argue things, like the privacy of e-mails, that is literally not true.
I've also got to ask, how do you 'pretend' to be passive aggressive?
How? easily. Why? God knows, perhaps to enable the snide abuse that your post exemplifies.
Emails between personal inboxes are not in any way shape or form similar to customer service responses. This wasn't a friendly conversation with friends, it was a business exchange.
This makes no sense.
I didn't say it wasn't a business exchange. That it wasn't a cosy chat between mates doesn't mean it wasn't private.
These straw man arguments are silly.
"Straw man arguments?" All of this is germaine to what you are talking about. You're saying they were private, and we're all explaining how they weren't. Then you are attempting to discredit what we are saying by calling them "straw man arguments."
That's it. He's a troll.
Isn't it nice to have words to use against people you don't agree with.
Yes, it's called "having an argument", which you don't.
I know its Kotaku but I pretty much agree with all this.
I stopped reading when he claimed that bullies "look for a pretext that justifies" taking a swing. That's bullshit. It showed he has no understanding whatsoever of what bullies do, because for a bully the fact that you are smaller is all the pretext they need. At most they'll actively create the pretext if they think they need it, because they think it'll keep them out of trouble...for instance, pushing you repeatedly (which is still assault, mind you) until you swing.
Like, this Kotaku fuckjob obviously hasn't even read Paul's emails. The guy uses a guy picking a fight at a bar as an analogy for himself in his own defense. But yeah, he's not the bully. Nope.
Yeah, Paul is so concerned with his family that he's openly hijacked corporate email accounts. This is not at all because he was called out on his bullshit made the whole thing up and/or is proving the point that he's an imbecile fueling other potential threats to the family he oh so cares about.
Mike did everyone a favor by making the matter public. One, because it got the people waiting something for their troubles where, if this idiot was allowed to continue to represent company interests, would have got nothing other than Paul's self important diatribe. Two, because this will serve as a lesson to other companies who have adopted this broken headed practice of avoiding responsibility for their actions when people have already paid for something a month in advance.
"Proper" would have been Dave receiving an email void of belligerent tones with accurate and complete information before having to resort to the Krahulik signal. It wasn't wrong of Mike to stick up for people because of what I just said.
gw, I don't understand your issue with this, if you even genuinely have an issue. If somebody is providing you with a shitty service, and you think other people should know about this shitty service and you don't think people should use this service and should find a better service, so you tell people publicly about the shitty service you received, that's not morally wrong, or legally wrong, or even a moral grey area. That's exactly how the world is supposed to work.
I've already explained the difference between over the counter and email conversations. If you can't see that, well perhaps that trust is misplaced.
There is no difference. Keeping them private would only be a matter of courtesy, not legality or morality. It's not like Dave signed a confidentiality agreement.
I know its Kotaku but I pretty much agree with all this.
I stopped reading when he claimed that bullies "look for a pretext that justifies" taking a swing. That's bullshit. It showed he has no understanding whatsoever of what bullies do, because for a bully the fact that you are smaller is all the pretext they need. At most they'll actively create the pretext if they think they need it, because they think it'll keep them out of trouble...for instance, pushing you repeatedly (which is still assault, mind you) until you swing.
Like, this Kotaku fuckjob obviously hasn't even read Paul's emails. The guy uses a guy picking a fight at a bar as an analogy for himself in his own defense. But yeah, he's not the bully. Nope.
I wouldn't throw Kotaku into the fire. It's Owen Good that just has no concept of causality or anything rational.
It's so rare to see people's ineptness actually come back to bite them in the ass in the business world with regards to marketing. You usually have to go so far, be so stupid to not be able to explain away your own foolish decisions in something that is supposed to appeal to people in a subjective manner. Personally, I'm just glad that somebody is actually being held responsible for their clearly terrible approach to doing business. That soapbox Mike has is substantial, and it's always great to see when he uses it for good (on top of child's play of course.)
Well, to be honest, most non-sociopaths will actually apologize because they realize they wronged someone.
Well, when a sociopath does it it's different because they do no wrong, and fuck you I'm not apologizing. He'll apologize eventually, but he won't mean it.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
The only reason Dave forwarded Mike the email in the first place was Paul's claim that they would be at PAX. And knowing Penny Arcade's history of being extremely straight with its fanbase, Dave knew this wasn't the kind of person Mike would want to have at PAX.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited December 2011
Trying to reason with ghost whistler is like trying to reason with Paul Christoforo.
Because he is Paul Christoforo Penny Arcade.
Vanguard on
0
Options
GonmunHe keeps kickin' me inthe dickRegistered Userregular
I've already explained the difference between over the counter and email conversations. If you can't see that, well perhaps that trust is misplaced.
There is no difference. Keeping them private would only be a matter of courtesy, not legality or morality. It's not like Dave signed a confidentiality agreement.
I'd also be willing to bet that there was no confidentiality disclaimer at the bottom of any of those emails, hence this would have had lawyers telling all parties involved to not say anything.
Dave clearly had a bad customer experience. Is he or is he not allowed to tell anyone about it?
Is it OK if he just tells his friends? What if one of his friends ran a gaming blog? Is he then not allowed to tell that person?
I didn't say that Dave didn't have a bad customer experience nor intimate any such thing. He can quite happily tell people about whatever he likes, but that doesn't excuse choosing to pass on what was sent to him and him alone to whomever he likes. That he can physically do so, because a computer lets him cc it to Mr Penny Arcade, doesn't actually make it morally acceptable.
I woukld also suggest that pretending you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't make you look smart; it's pretty facile.
Wow .. just wow .. "He can tell anyone he wants about this abusive service he got .. he just can't send out concrete proof of it happening, that's over the line".
Without a paper trail and a way to prove that this outlandishly ridiculous event occurred it could all be hearsay and slander ... hell yeah I'm going to include the original documents if I'm going to call someone's douchebaggery out. How does that not make sense to you?
YOu seem intent on missing the point: we aren't talking about providing proof that Paul is a poor businessman. We are talking about Krahulik tacitly, if nothing else, encouraging the internet, through his influence, to behave in a vindictive nasty fashion. Deciding to post that information publicly and thus cause that to happen is poor form.
There was no need to share this information; dressing this up as some kind of consumer rights public service is really rather shallow and disingenuous.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
There was no need to share this information; dressing this up as some kind of consumer rights public service is really rather shallow and disingenuous.
Except it isn't. He provided his business contact information so consumers could tell him what a bad job he is doing.
YOu seem intent on missing the point: we aren't talking about providing proof that Paul is a poor businessman. We are talking about Krahulik tacitly, if nothing else, encouraging the internet, through his influence, to behave in a vindictive nasty fashion. Deciding to post that information publicly and thus cause that to happen is poor form.
There was no need to share this information; dressing this up as some kind of consumer rights public service is really rather shallow and disingenuous.
*yawn*
You done yet, buddy?
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I work telephone and email customer service. Whenever I correspond with customers or with other departments, I always write as if anyone, ANYONE could be reading. The only exception is when I'm using the company's IM system to chat with people I am actually friends with.
Certainly I would never send an email that was anything other than professional to a customer. First of all, if you're anything other than a complete idiot, you realize that email is automatically "on record."
All this stuff is pretty basic customer service stuff. It's not like rocket science or anything. Saying that somehow this was anyone's fault other than the guy who dug himself a whole and lit himself on fire is a bit foolish. I can only assume that anyone making that argument has never been in customer service for even five minutes.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
YOu seem intent on missing the point: we aren't talking about providing proof that Paul is a poor businessman. We are talking about Krahulik tacitly, if nothing else, encouraging the internet, through his influence, to behave in a vindictive nasty fashion. Deciding to post that information publicly and thus cause that to happen is poor form.
There was no need to share this information; dressing this up as some kind of consumer rights public service is really rather shallow and disingenuous.
What Mike did is no different than someone posting the email and phone number of their senator, representative, city council member, or a company that you are not happy with, and asking people to call in and ask for change.
Posts
Um, yes, because Mike only put Paul's business information up. And didn't even mention that he had a family.
So what is your main objection as to how Mike or Dave handled things? What is it that they did that was "wrong."
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
It's self evident from the word 'proper'.
It's either legal or it's not. It's legal. Proper doesn't mean a thing.
Oh geez dude, just stop. This is getting embarrassing.
From the reddit AMA thread.
Because you keep bringing it up.
Right, I've been following this for pages, and I have no idea how your mind works.
If you, personally, ended up having an email exchange with a business that went in the same direction as Customer Dave and Paul's went, how precisely would you have dealt with it? I'm honestly curious, because you have not made a single argument that made sense to me so far.
Grow up, there are consequences in real life for being a dick.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
And that's putting words in my mouth, something you need to stop doing.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yea, this ^
You are saying the way it went down is wrong, we want to hear the correct way to do it then.
I don't have a TV, so how can I be paranoid?
The hell is a TV
I can trust you? Well that's good then.
I've already explained the difference between over the counter and email conversations. If you can't see that, well perhaps that trust is misplaced.
Yes, it's called "having an argument", which you don't.
I stopped reading when he claimed that bullies "look for a pretext that justifies" taking a swing. That's bullshit. It showed he has no understanding whatsoever of what bullies do, because for a bully the fact that you are smaller is all the pretext they need. At most they'll actively create the pretext if they think they need it, because they think it'll keep them out of trouble...for instance, pushing you repeatedly (which is still assault, mind you) until you swing.
Like, this Kotaku fuckjob obviously hasn't even read Paul's emails. The guy uses a guy picking a fight at a bar as an analogy for himself in his own defense. But yeah, he's not the bully. Nope.
Mike did everyone a favor by making the matter public. One, because it got the people waiting something for their troubles where, if this idiot was allowed to continue to represent company interests, would have got nothing other than Paul's self important diatribe. Two, because this will serve as a lesson to other companies who have adopted this broken headed practice of avoiding responsibility for their actions when people have already paid for something a month in advance.
"Proper" would have been Dave receiving an email void of belligerent tones with accurate and complete information before having to resort to the Krahulik signal. It wasn't wrong of Mike to stick up for people because of what I just said.
I wouldn't throw Kotaku into the fire. It's Owen Good that just has no concept of causality or anything rational.
Well, to be honest, most non-sociopaths will actually apologize because they realize they wronged someone.
Well, when a sociopath does it it's different because they do no wrong, and fuck you I'm not apologizing. He'll apologize eventually, but he won't mean it.
I'd also be willing to bet that there was no confidentiality disclaimer at the bottom of any of those emails, hence this would have had lawyers telling all parties involved to not say anything.
There was no need to share this information; dressing this up as some kind of consumer rights public service is really rather shallow and disingenuous.
Except it isn't. He provided his business contact information so consumers could tell him what a bad job he is doing.
*yawn*
You done yet, buddy?
Certainly I would never send an email that was anything other than professional to a customer. First of all, if you're anything other than a complete idiot, you realize that email is automatically "on record."
All this stuff is pretty basic customer service stuff. It's not like rocket science or anything. Saying that somehow this was anyone's fault other than the guy who dug himself a whole and lit himself on fire is a bit foolish. I can only assume that anyone making that argument has never been in customer service for even five minutes.
What Mike did is no different than someone posting the email and phone number of their senator, representative, city council member, or a company that you are not happy with, and asking people to call in and ask for change.