I’m really struggling with the idea that just because someone says “I feel X” I’m supposed to accept or validate those feelings as is. Maybe I’m opening myself up for criticism here but I don’t think all feelings are always valid and I think accepting or validating everything people say they feel is not necessarily healthy for you or for them. My own family was essentially torn apart because of one family member “feeling threatened” by another family member in the midst of an innocuous conversation I personally witnessed. They felt threatened and I felt they had no right to feel that way.
I mean, what if you’re dealing with a paranoid individual? Do you just accept it if they say they think everyone is staring at them and it prevents them from doing simple things like going to the store? Is validation in that context helpful or not? I mean I don’t know. I actually struggle with this question because I’ve had to deal with people struggling with paranoia. I’m not a psychologist. But if I have data suggesting that someone’s interpretation of an event is incorrect then I’m going to extrapolate from that and suggest that their resultant feelings may not be valid, at least personally in my mind and perhaps within the confines of an abstracted forum discussion topic.
I’m not saying that Ben is paranoid or delusional or even wrong, but the idea that it’s beyond the pale to want more details or to say that the current data given doesn’t add up in the midst of an abstract discussion that Ben isn’t even a part of is a bit much for me.
You can accept someone's feelings without accepting their judgement of the facts. Believing people is not about handing over your right to form your own opinion based on evidence, it's about not having a knee-jerk reaction to reject someone's claims about their experience simply because it contradicts your expectations.
You can accept someone's feelings without accepting their judgement of the facts. Believing people is not about handing over your right to form your own opinion based on evidence, it's about not having a knee-jerk reaction to reject someone's claims about their experience simply because it contradicts your expectations.
Okay, but what if their feelings are literally debilitating? Isn’t validating those feelings potentially damaging?
I really don’t know but it feels that way. Like, validating someone’s downward spiral based on false pretenses doesn’t feel very helpful to them.
You can accept someone's feelings without accepting their judgement of the facts. Believing people is not about handing over your right to form your own opinion based on evidence, it's about not having a knee-jerk reaction to reject someone's claims about their experience simply because it contradicts your expectations.
Okay, but what if their feelings are literally debilitating? Isn’t validating those feelings potentially damaging?
I really don’t know but it feels that way. Like, accepting someone’s downward spiral based on false pretenses doesn’t feel very helpful to them.
We simply don't have enough information. All we know is that Ben felt a certain way about something mysterious. It's a really irritating situation.
Using the language that we use for victims of sexual assault in this situation really rubs me the wrong way
Ben hasn't accused them of doing anything other than what almost every job (which is shitty) in the USA does and he got a massive severance and no NDA, but the language he use makes it sounds like they stopped him from revealing war crimes - it's just articles about video games my dude, and you're under no NDA so you can tell us what they squashed
I believe he feels wronged but I don't actually know what he's accusing G&T of
You can accept someone's feelings without accepting their judgement of the facts. Believing people is not about handing over your right to form your own opinion based on evidence, it's about not having a knee-jerk reaction to reject someone's claims about their experience simply because it contradicts your expectations.
Okay, but what if their feelings are literally debilitating? Isn’t validating those feelings potentially damaging?
I really don’t know but it feels that way. Like, validating someone’s downward spiral based on false pretenses doesn’t feel very helpful to them.
I think you can accept someone's feelings without actively validating them. How someone feels is a fact and can be accepted at face value (which I suppose does make the feelings valid, though I still think that's different from true validation), but if it's rooted in something problematic you can still work to address that.
You can accept someone's feelings without accepting their judgement of the facts. Believing people is not about handing over your right to form your own opinion based on evidence, it's about not having a knee-jerk reaction to reject someone's claims about their experience simply because it contradicts your expectations.
Okay, but what if their feelings are literally debilitating? Isn’t validating those feelings potentially damaging?
I really don’t know but it feels that way. Like, accepting someone’s downward spiral based on false pretenses doesn’t feel very helpful to them.
We simply don't have enough information. All we know is that Ben felt a certain way about something mysterious. It's a really irritating situation.
I’m speaking abstractly about a situation where you do have enough information, not necessarily about Ben.
There seems to be a general idea put forth by a few people that the only proper response to anyone communicating their feelings in any context should gather no other response except acceptance/validation and I am saying I find that problematic in general terms.
You can accept someone's feelings without accepting their judgement of the facts. Believing people is not about handing over your right to form your own opinion based on evidence, it's about not having a knee-jerk reaction to reject someone's claims about their experience simply because it contradicts your expectations.
Okay, but what if their feelings are literally debilitating? Isn’t validating those feelings potentially damaging?
I really don’t know but it feels that way. Like, validating someone’s downward spiral based on false pretenses doesn’t feel very helpful to them.
A few years ago Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff wrote a book, The Coddling of the American Mind that addresses this. I keep meaning to read it, but I found the articles based of it, and the podcasts interviews they did extremely convincing.
It came out in 2018 and in the intervening 3 years the culture has gone in the opposite direction of their suggestions at light speed. So I guess they lost that argument.
I've been in situations where someone had just an incredibly incorrect understanding about a situation and I helped them walk through it until they could sync back with reality and change their emotional response on their own. None of that involved telling them that their emotions were wrong.
You can accept someone's feelings without accepting their judgement of the facts. Believing people is not about handing over your right to form your own opinion based on evidence, it's about not having a knee-jerk reaction to reject someone's claims about their experience simply because it contradicts your expectations.
Okay, but what if their feelings are literally debilitating? Isn’t validating those feelings potentially damaging?
I really don’t know but it feels that way. Like, validating someone’s downward spiral based on false pretenses doesn’t feel very helpful to them.
I think you can accept someone's feelings without actively validating them. How someone feels is a fact and can be accepted at face value (which I suppose does make the feelings valid, though I still think that's different from true validation), but if it's rooted in something problematic you can still work to address that.
That’s fair but I think there are different contexts where the line between validation and acceptance is very blurry.
People keep bringing up the severance pay as though that's proof that there's no way PA could have been a toxic work environment. This is mystifying, to me.
You can accept someone's feelings without accepting their judgement of the facts. Believing people is not about handing over your right to form your own opinion based on evidence, it's about not having a knee-jerk reaction to reject someone's claims about their experience simply because it contradicts your expectations.
Okay, but what if their feelings are literally debilitating? Isn’t validating those feelings potentially damaging?
I really don’t know but it feels that way. Like, accepting someone’s downward spiral based on false pretenses doesn’t feel very helpful to them.
We simply don't have enough information. All we know is that Ben felt a certain way about something mysterious. It's a really irritating situation.
I’m speaking abstractly about a situation where you do have enough information, not necessarily about Ben.
There seems to be a general idea put forth by a few people that the only proper response to anyone communicating their feelings in any context should gather no other response except acceptance/validation and I am saying I find that problematic in general terms.
Some people over-correct, I agree. It's hardly universal, it just gets over-represented because once you're stuck waiting for more information to make a decision the folks who have already made a decision may be the only ones with anything to say except for meta-commentary like this.
You can accept someone's feelings without accepting their judgement of the facts. Believing people is not about handing over your right to form your own opinion based on evidence, it's about not having a knee-jerk reaction to reject someone's claims about their experience simply because it contradicts your expectations.
Okay, but what if their feelings are literally debilitating? Isn’t validating those feelings potentially damaging?
I really don’t know but it feels that way. Like, validating someone’s downward spiral based on false pretenses doesn’t feel very helpful to them.
I think you can accept someone's feelings without actively validating them. How someone feels is a fact and can be accepted at face value (which I suppose does make the feelings valid, though I still think that's different from true validation), but if it's rooted in something problematic you can still work to address that.
That’s fair but I think there are different contexts where the line between validation and acceptance is very blurry.
I definitely agree with that and these kinds of situations should always be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes people will see any kind of acceptance as validation that enforces their existing view of a situation, though I think in general that's more rare and can still be corrected with the right approach.
People keep bringing up the severance pay as though that's proof that there's no way PA could have been a toxic work environment. This is mystifying, to me.
Specifically combined with the lack of NDA, it's evidence of parting on good terms. If it was coupled with an NDA then it would instead be suspicious.
People keep bringing up the severance pay as though that's proof that there's no way PA could have been a toxic work environment. This is mystifying, to me.
Specifically combined with the lack of NDA, it's evidence of parting on good terms. If it was coupled with an NDA then it would instead be suspicious.
Plus for a lot of american jobs there is no severance when they reorganize or whatever horseshit term getting fired has at times. So its a bit of abused logic for some of us "well he got money when they let him go and I certainly won't, so how bad could the job have been?"
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
People keep bringing up the severance pay as though that's proof that there's no way PA could have been a toxic work environment. This is mystifying, to me.
Specifically combined with the lack of NDA, it's evidence of parting on good terms. If it was coupled with an NDA then it would instead be suspicious.
Severance pay is not something that's only doled out to keep people quiet or because of admission of wrong-doing.
Considering he was supposed to be a huge get for their PAR brand expansion, it seems perfectly plausible that severance pay would have been part of his contract negotiations at the start.
Also, unless Kuchera was about to unearth some sort of rampant abuse in the industry, I can't see how Ben's professional accusations are justified. He makes it sound like they drove him to cover up something truly vile and I doubt that's even possible.
That's not at all how I read it. It's not about a specific story being repressed. It's about an office culture where the concept of journalism meant "write about things that will make us and our advertisers happy" and how that was extraordinarily problematic for a venture that was supposed to be all about being "the good gaming journalists".
I read "having been told I had to protect their business over writing what I knew was right was horrific" as an insinuation that what he "knew was right" is heavy shit that's, I don't know...more than video games? But maybe I'm wrong. I said this on the first page, but his grievous tone is just so far out of whack for the industry that it's really hard to take him and his weak ass E3 story seriously.
Also literally every journalistic medium works this way past like the 1970s since we don't live in the world of comic books.
They let him write about the titty-esque controllers so I dunno if his censorship thing is holding water for me even. I want to say, if anything, khoo/PA corp probably asked him to tone down the editorialism in his writing. But the lack of information from him makes this nearly impossible to say one way or another.
Speaking as someone who spent a pretty good chunk of the post-1970s as a journalist, this is absolutely not true. Having the business side try to influence what you write is a huge ethical boundary. I can't think of any time anyone ever insinuated to me that I should write something to make our advertisers happy, and if anyone had, most of the editors I've ever worked for would have jumped right in and kicked some ass for me. We called it the "business side" because many of the places I worked for would literally partition the building so that the newsroom was physically separate and had our own side.
But, that being said, I worked in serious newsrooms full of other professional journalists. If I got hired by a webcomic company that wanted to branch out into a news blog about video games, I'd probably understand that it ain't the Washington Post and my bosses are not going to be up on the nuances of journalism ethics.
Fair but the allegation is that the suggestion was about driving traffic.
Did your editor ever come to you and tell you that you needed to write something by the end of the day because stuff needed to be in the paper for the paper to be sold? This doesn’t tell you what to write but it does tell you to “get the clicks up”, as it were.
And the business side telling the news side how much news should be in a paper, how much should be human interest, how much should be local information/advertising*, etc all seem like reasonable interactions. “Don’t write bad things about this restaurant” is a fundamentally different interaction than “don’t write about 20 restaurants per day, the readers can only handle so much and it’s not helping sell our serious paper aimed at business people” or “so the restaurant reviews you’re doing aren’t selling enough copies of ‘The Restaurant Review’, a different approach to reviews should be considered”. And the latter two seem like reasonable discussions to be having over the firewall. And also far more of what the allegation seemed to be.
*like restaurant reviews, which are news in the sense that the reviewer is independent but is functionally advertising. Which is pretty important to games journalism because this is the kind of thing that games journalism existed to do primarily. Tell you about new and upcoming games, tell you how new releases panned out.
You can accept someone's feelings without accepting their judgement of the facts. Believing people is not about handing over your right to form your own opinion based on evidence, it's about not having a knee-jerk reaction to reject someone's claims about their experience simply because it contradicts your expectations.
Okay, but what if their feelings are literally debilitating? Isn’t validating those feelings potentially damaging?
I really don’t know but it feels that way. Like, validating someone’s downward spiral based on false pretenses doesn’t feel very helpful to them.
This is off topic for Ben, but if you are put in a position where you are afraid of enabling someone's maladaptive thoughts, you can try reflective listening. You can interact with someone in a helpful manner without affirming harmful beliefs. Look it up if you're interested.
Back on topic, the emotional content of his statements suggests he had issues he needed to work out. Perhaps they stem from his time at PAR. Perhaps the problem is from other factors, and his experience at PAR is more of a lightning rod. Most charitably, I think he wanted to be heard and that's it. No system to change, no evil villain to be brought down, just catharsis.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
People keep bringing up the severance pay as though that's proof that there's no way PA could have been a toxic work environment. This is mystifying, to me.
Specifically combined with the lack of NDA, it's evidence of parting on good terms. If it was coupled with an NDA then it would instead be suspicious.
Severance pay is not something that's only doled out to keep people quiet or because of admission of wrong-doing.
Considering he was supposed to be a huge get for their PAR brand expansion, it seems perfectly plausible that severance pay would have been part of his contract negotiations at the start.
People keep bringing up the severance pay as though that's proof that there's no way PA could have been a toxic work environment. This is mystifying, to me.
Specifically combined with the lack of NDA, it's evidence of parting on good terms. If it was coupled with an NDA then it would instead be suspicious.
Severance pay is not something that's only doled out to keep people quiet or because of admission of wrong-doing.
Considering he was supposed to be a huge get for their PAR brand expansion, it seems perfectly plausible that severance pay would have been part of his contract negotiations at the start.
Sure, but now we're inventing facts.
Such as "he got severance pay without an NDA attached, this means it couldn't have been that bad there!"
It's not as though people don't leave jobs putting on the appearance of parting on good terms while actually getting the fuck out of Dodge because they hate it there all the damn time.
People keep bringing up the severance pay as though that's proof that there's no way PA could have been a toxic work environment. This is mystifying, to me.
Specifically combined with the lack of NDA, it's evidence of parting on good terms. If it was coupled with an NDA then it would instead be suspicious.
Severance pay is not something that's only doled out to keep people quiet or because of admission of wrong-doing.
Considering he was supposed to be a huge get for their PAR brand expansion, it seems perfectly plausible that severance pay would have been part of his contract negotiations at the start.
Sure, but now we're inventing facts.
I mean negotiating for a nice severance and the job accepting it at least shows good faith at the start of the endeavor, because again in america a lot of jobs and especially start ups will not give you anything like that.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
People keep bringing up the severance pay as though that's proof that there's no way PA could have been a toxic work environment. This is mystifying, to me.
Specifically combined with the lack of NDA, it's evidence of parting on good terms. If it was coupled with an NDA then it would instead be suspicious.
Severance pay is not something that's only doled out to keep people quiet or because of admission of wrong-doing.
Considering he was supposed to be a huge get for their PAR brand expansion, it seems perfectly plausible that severance pay would have been part of his contract negotiations at the start.
Sure, but now we're inventing facts.
Such as "he got severance pay without an NDA attached, this means it couldn't have been that bad there!"
Neither are good conclusions, but he's the one who brought it up, which implies that it means something to him. The lack of NDA is the main thing to me: It's not clear why he's disclosing his feelings without disclosing facts.
+4
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
People keep bringing up the severance pay as though that's proof that there's no way PA could have been a toxic work environment. This is mystifying, to me.
It's the dumbest thing, but it's also really persistent.
Now Playing:
Celeste [Switch] - She'll be wrestling with inner demons when she comes...
Super Mario Wonder - Wowie Zowie!
People keep bringing up the severance pay as though that's proof that there's no way PA could have been a toxic work environment. This is mystifying, to me.
Specifically combined with the lack of NDA, it's evidence of parting on good terms. If it was coupled with an NDA then it would instead be suspicious.
Severance pay is not something that's only doled out to keep people quiet or because of admission of wrong-doing.
Considering he was supposed to be a huge get for their PAR brand expansion, it seems perfectly plausible that severance pay would have been part of his contract negotiations at the start.
Sure, but now we're inventing facts.
Such as "he got severance pay without an NDA attached, this means it couldn't have been that bad there!"
It's not as though people don't leave jobs putting on the appearance of parting on good terms while actually getting the fuck out of Dodge because they hate it there all the damn time.
No, the facts are “he got severance pay” and “there was no NDA.” The rest is a drawn conclusion which is debatable.
Stating that there may have been an aspect of his contract outlining the severance is just speculation. It’s not the same as a drawn conclusion.
Aside: I tend to agree that the existence of a severance doesn’t necessarily prove much, though 6 months seems very long based on what I’ve seen in corporate America.
You can accept someone's feelings without accepting their judgement of the facts. Believing people is not about handing over your right to form your own opinion based on evidence, it's about not having a knee-jerk reaction to reject someone's claims about their experience simply because it contradicts your expectations.
Okay, but what if their feelings are literally debilitating? Isn’t validating those feelings potentially damaging?
I really don’t know but it feels that way. Like, validating someone’s downward spiral based on false pretenses doesn’t feel very helpful to them.
This is off topic for Ben, but if you are put in a position where you are afraid of enabling someone's maladaptive thoughts, you can try reflective listening. You can interact with someone in a helpful manner without affirming harmful beliefs. Look it up if you're interested.
Back on topic, the emotional content of his statements suggests he had issues he needed to work out. Perhaps they stem from his time at PAR. Perhaps the problem is from other factors, and his experience at PAR is more of a lightning rod. Most charitably, I think he wanted to be heard and that's it. No system to change, no evil villain to be brought down, just catharsis.
You can accept someone's feelings without accepting their judgement of the facts. Believing people is not about handing over your right to form your own opinion based on evidence, it's about not having a knee-jerk reaction to reject someone's claims about their experience simply because it contradicts your expectations.
Okay, but what if their feelings are literally debilitating? Isn’t validating those feelings potentially damaging?
I really don’t know but it feels that way. Like, accepting someone’s downward spiral based on false pretenses doesn’t feel very helpful to them.
We simply don't have enough information. All we know is that Ben felt a certain way about something mysterious. It's a really irritating situation.
I’m speaking abstractly about a situation where you do have enough information, not necessarily about Ben.
There seems to be a general idea put forth by a few people that the only proper response to anyone communicating their feelings in any context should gather no other response except acceptance/validation and I am saying I find that problematic in general terms.
I don’t think anyone is saying that.
But the converse: “Ben feels this way, therefore G+T are monsters” has been expressed by many.
When expressing skepticism at that somehow gets turned into not giving a shit about Ben by certain posters, that’s where these arguments arise.
You can accept someone's feelings without accepting their judgement of the facts. Believing people is not about handing over your right to form your own opinion based on evidence, it's about not having a knee-jerk reaction to reject someone's claims about their experience simply because it contradicts your expectations.
Okay, but what if their feelings are literally debilitating? Isn’t validating those feelings potentially damaging?
I really don’t know but it feels that way. Like, validating someone’s downward spiral based on false pretenses doesn’t feel very helpful to them.
Independent of Kuchera and PA, this is a topic that's close to my heart. What it distills down to for me is that for a stranger, a celebrity, or a Twitter personality, we're usually not in a good position to judge somebody's emotions. It's different if we're close family, a good friend, or a therapist - where we have more visibility into the situation, more knowledge of the person's history, more understanding of where they're coming from.
Also, usually even if emotions seem inappropriate to the matter at hand, there's usually some truth behind them. Sometimes emotions can be misdirected, sometimes they can be underregulated (or overregulated, too). Strong negative emotions are usually a good sign that something needs to change, even if the person involved is projecting those emotions towards the wrong target.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+8
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
Ben Kuchera's ethnicity certainly doesn't mean anything to me as I haven't the slightest idea what it is or what he looks like. Never seen the dude, never heard him speak and it's not like his last time is Smith.
As for the "joke", the situation as described does not come off as threatening to me so I don't understand why he says he felt the need to nervously laugh it off. He's either leaving something out or he wildly misjudged the situation. The lack of context and, for the umpteenth time, the his tone given the subject matter what what he reports on has me struggling to empathize.
The lack of context and subject matter may be frustrating to you, but Kuchera says the exchange terrified him. That should be enough to believe that it was a threatening situation to him.
Being able to put yourself in another's position and say "yeah I'd feel the same way in that situation" is not, and should not be, a requirement for empathy.
I think just about everyone commenting here are clearly sympathetic. They feel badly for him. They are saying 'wow, that sounds like it sucked for you'. Some might add, 'though I personally don't quite get why'. That's valid, if not tactful. People often feel sympathy for people without feeling any particular degree of empathy.
What you wrote, on the other hand, is quite literally the definition of empathy. You don't have to have the other party's actual lived experience to feel empathy, but you must absolutely be able to infer how they are feeling based on your own understanding of how people could feel in similar circumstances. Most commenters here are trying to be empathetic by placing themselves in his situation and trying to feel how he would, but they're struggling because he's talking about two different things together: His current reaction to (and perceived complicity in) hypocrisy in the media, and his emotional recounting of what he believes was a toxic past work environment that forced that hypocrisy upon him.
We can empathize with a high-stress work environment causing feelings of anxiety, and a need to discuss those feelings after years of keeping them private.
We can empathize with someone's belief that they can't inveigh against hypocrisy in the media without first coming clean about how they themselves have been hypocritical.
Individually, empathy is easy. The way they are conflated is the difficulty--looking at what happened through a rational lens, some of the incidents mentioned seem inappropriate and some do not. For my part, I recognize that by recognizing that feelings of anxiety and panic often aren't rational. I can definitely empathize with someone being sensitized to react anxiously to every situation that comes up in a work environment. The best way to show compassion for that situation is to express a desire for him to get support in working through those feelings. The work situation is something which is more or less defunct.
You can accept someone's feelings without accepting their judgement of the facts. Believing people is not about handing over your right to form your own opinion based on evidence, it's about not having a knee-jerk reaction to reject someone's claims about their experience simply because it contradicts your expectations.
Okay, but what if their feelings are literally debilitating? Isn’t validating those feelings potentially damaging?
I really don’t know but it feels that way. Like, validating someone’s downward spiral based on false pretenses doesn’t feel very helpful to them.
Independent of Kuchera and PA, this is a topic that's close to my heart. What it distills down to for me is that for a stranger, a celebrity, or a Twitter personality, we're usually not in a good position to judge somebody's emotions. It's different if we're close family, a good friend, or a therapist - where we have more visibility into the situation, more knowledge of the person's history, more understanding of where they're coming from.
Also, usually even if emotions seem inappropriate to the matter at hand, there's usually some truth behind them. Sometimes emotions can be misdirected, sometimes they can be underregulated (or overregulated, too). Strong negative emotions are usually a good sign that something needs to change, even if the person involved is projecting those emotions towards the wrong target.
While I wouldn't expect Ben himself to be sitting on the thread here (let alone participating), I assume that there people with questions for him on Twitter (yes, I suppose I could go looking for myself, but I avoid the platform as much as possible).
People have said that he has not elaborated, and I assume that hasn't changed, but has he given any indication why?
At least indicating it was too painful to go over in greater detail, or concerns that anything more than what he has vaguely shared might risk damaging relationships he wishes to retain, even to this day, something, anything that would back up the fears he apparently has of being 'cancelled' over this open airing of grievance?
As has been noted in this thread many times, this is basically a horror movie giving us a glimpse of a presumed threat and letting our imagination do the heavy lifting. At a time where people have been victimized by people (generally men) in power and corporations in general, it uses a lot of language akin to those who spoke out, but without the details that provide context.
While not required for me to believe that an actor or actress was horrifically mistreated, many of them provided at least enough detail to understand some aspect of what they went through. I'm not remotely inclined to think I'm the sole arbiter of what is or isn't abuse or neglect or a toxic workplace environment, but the sparse details as shared don't seem all that egregious (yes yes, as noted, this is an indictment of the modern workplace, but if he's coopting the language of survivors of sexual assault and other traumas, it takes a bit more than a public berating and shitty firewall between revenue and editorial efforts to understand the connection with that manner of expressing himself).
M&J don't need my sword and steed to charge forth and protect them, but sharing it in a public venue like he did seems like something one does when looking for an outcome (especially tied to the coopted MeToo style language).
If he legit just needed it off his chest, to admit wrongdoing on his own part and the in context of how he came about to make those calls so he can go forward in his life (this career or the next), cool... but it's not above asking some simple questions for clarification. If none of that is forthcoming, then we're at the same circle we've been in for the last two dozen pages. If this Needed to be public, and not just something he went over in private therapy, in order to clarify something to what readership he has or wishes to build from that.
That's why I want more details. It's not hard to imagine M&J as shitty bosses (edit: this isn't intended as a slight, more recognition that they were branching into a new venture and clearly weren't already masters of that particular aspect) who didn't have a remote clue as to what really needed exist to Properly Do The Journalism, but I'm also no stranger to people trying to rebrand themselves, and if he felt that was a tarnished element of his reputation that was holding him back, then I guess good on him for coming clean on his side, but it'd be a more relatable element if we had a hair more to go with (as noted repeatedly in this thread, it doesn't need to be exact word for word discussions with time stamps, but if there's no NDA and he's allegedly in the process of risking burning his life down, it sure seems to be happening with damp matches and a distinct lack of flammable material around).
As many have said, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that M&J are no more or less flawed than we know them to be from previous issues and controversies. They've fucked up, and I've appreciated when they've reminisced on how they fucked up and what they learned from it. If there's an untold story of just how profoundly they've fucked up in regards to the PAR, then tell it. I'm all ears. He's a writer. He lived it. If he's willing to break the story... then break the story.
And to hedge off obvious retorts, no, he doesn't owe me or anyone anything, but he's the one that started the conversation, and I'm inquiring openly for further details. If those aren't forthcoming, then it's not a slur to ask why the conversation was started in the first place, especially in the public manner and with the language used as it was. His very career should indicate an understanding that words have power, and unless he was just drunk venting on Twitter (which based on people talking here about him thanking others for support, doesn't seem to be the case), that ones venue and verbiage aren't beyond reproach or consideration by the audience.
If it's all serious enough to fear repercussions, then why not make it a proper article and provide the details in full? If we're not meant to take it super seriously, why use the loaded language?
MeToo and the documented abuses around it were a call to action, seeking others with similar experiences to call out powerful men who had raped and assaulted and harassed their way through untold victims. One should follow that path very carefully for anything but the most serious allegations, imo, and if that wasn't his intent in the first place, it comes back to 'you're a writer, why did you write it that way, then?'
Note: this is heavily rhetorical. If anyone wants to fisk this down and answer each point exasperatedly, you're welcome to it. This is a place of Debate and/or Discourse, I recognize that. But this post is more born of my own frustration watching the same circle happen for literally 1000'ish posts, and trying to sum up some thoughts/feelings on the matter as it continues to... not really play out in anything but our imaginations at this point.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
+5
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
Also, unless Kuchera was about to unearth some sort of rampant abuse in the industry, I can't see how Ben's professional accusations are justified. He makes it sound like they drove him to cover up something truly vile and I doubt that's even possible.
That's not at all how I read it. It's not about a specific story being repressed. It's about an office culture where the concept of journalism meant "write about things that will make us and our advertisers happy" and how that was extraordinarily problematic for a venture that was supposed to be all about being "the good gaming journalists".
I read "having been told I had to protect their business over writing what I knew was right was horrific" as an insinuation that what he "knew was right" is heavy shit that's, I don't know...more than video games? But maybe I'm wrong. I said this on the first page, but his grievous tone is just so far out of whack for the industry that it's really hard to take him and his weak ass E3 story seriously.
Also literally every journalistic medium works this way past like the 1970s since we don't live in the world of comic books.
They let him write about the titty-esque controllers so I dunno if his censorship thing is holding water for me even. I want to say, if anything, khoo/PA corp probably asked him to tone down the editorialism in his writing. But the lack of information from him makes this nearly impossible to say one way or another.
Speaking as someone who spent a pretty good chunk of the post-1970s as a journalist, this is absolutely not true. Having the business side try to influence what you write is a huge ethical boundary. I can't think of any time anyone ever insinuated to me that I should write something to make our advertisers happy, and if anyone had, most of the editors I've ever worked for would have jumped right in and kicked some ass for me. We called it the "business side" because many of the places I worked for would literally partition the building so that the newsroom was physically separate and had our own side.
But, that being said, I worked in serious newsrooms full of other professional journalists. If I got hired by a webcomic company that wanted to branch out into a news blog about video games, I'd probably understand that it ain't the Washington Post and my bosses are not going to be up on the nuances of journalism ethics.
I didn't want to @ you, but I appreciate your opinion on the situation, as it seemed like something with which you would have experience.
People keep bringing up the severance pay as though that's proof that there's no way PA could have been a toxic work environment. This is mystifying, to me.
Specifically combined with the lack of NDA, it's evidence of parting on good terms. If it was coupled with an NDA then it would instead be suspicious.
Severance pay is not something that's only doled out to keep people quiet or because of admission of wrong-doing.
Considering he was supposed to be a huge get for their PAR brand expansion, it seems perfectly plausible that severance pay would have been part of his contract negotiations at the start.
Sure, but now we're inventing facts.
Such as "he got severance pay without an NDA attached, this means it couldn't have been that bad there!"
It's not as though people don't leave jobs putting on the appearance of parting on good terms while actually getting the fuck out of Dodge because they hate it there all the damn time.
I've never heard of anyone getting a severance upon resigning that isn't like a CEO. Generally severance packages are for people getting laid off. We don't know the exact circumstances of his employment terms but we can make educated assumptions from the severance existing that at least he didn't resign and he wasn't fired with cause.
Everything beyond that is conjecture but so is most of the content of this thread.
I'm bowing out of the thread because I don't really see a way to transition into more concrete discussion since we're just going on wildly divergent interpretations and extrapolations based on the sparse information provided.
Personally, it's more Ben feels this way about his tenure at PAR, Mike and Jerry are known for their assholish tendencies (Gabe and Tycho are characters), and Khoo was Khoo. Put together, a scenario that Ben's time with PA Megacorp took a toll on Kuchera is plausible. Yes, Mike and Jerry have shown signs of personal growth in the decade since PAR was a thing. That does not excuse possible harm if nothing is done by Mike and Jerry to make amends if warranted.
GONG-00 on
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Law and Order ≠ Justice
I'm bowing out of the thread because I don't really see a way to transition into more concrete discussion since we're just going on wildly divergent interpretations and extrapolations based on the sparse information provided.
I mean, I pretty much only pop in to point out that Ben hasn't actually said anything other then him being unhappy about his time at PA 8 years ago, and the one thing that could have shone some light on this would have been a post/comic by PA about this and yet mike and jerry haven't said boo.
Frankly I'm kind of amazed this thing hasn't been locked yet.
Also, unless Kuchera was about to unearth some sort of rampant abuse in the industry, I can't see how Ben's professional accusations are justified. He makes it sound like they drove him to cover up something truly vile and I doubt that's even possible.
That's not at all how I read it. It's not about a specific story being repressed. It's about an office culture where the concept of journalism meant "write about things that will make us and our advertisers happy" and how that was extraordinarily problematic for a venture that was supposed to be all about being "the good gaming journalists".
I read "having been told I had to protect their business over writing what I knew was right was horrific" as an insinuation that what he "knew was right" is heavy shit that's, I don't know...more than video games? But maybe I'm wrong. I said this on the first page, but his grievous tone is just so far out of whack for the industry that it's really hard to take him and his weak ass E3 story seriously.
Also literally every journalistic medium works this way past like the 1970s since we don't live in the world of comic books.
They let him write about the titty-esque controllers so I dunno if his censorship thing is holding water for me even. I want to say, if anything, khoo/PA corp probably asked him to tone down the editorialism in his writing. But the lack of information from him makes this nearly impossible to say one way or another.
Speaking as someone who spent a pretty good chunk of the post-1970s as a journalist, this is absolutely not true. Having the business side try to influence what you write is a huge ethical boundary. I can't think of any time anyone ever insinuated to me that I should write something to make our advertisers happy, and if anyone had, most of the editors I've ever worked for would have jumped right in and kicked some ass for me. We called it the "business side" because many of the places I worked for would literally partition the building so that the newsroom was physically separate and had our own side.
But, that being said, I worked in serious newsrooms full of other professional journalists. If I got hired by a webcomic company that wanted to branch out into a news blog about video games, I'd probably understand that it ain't the Washington Post and my bosses are not going to be up on the nuances of journalism ethics.
In your opinion, should we the consumers (and patreon backers) of this business hold the Megacorp accountable for these purported ethical violations? Does the Megacorp owe us anything?
If so, what response do you think would be satisfactory?
I know how I would feel if this had happened at the aforementioned Washington Post, but I really don't know how to feel in this case.
Your point of view seems both broader and deeper than mine. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Also, unless Kuchera was about to unearth some sort of rampant abuse in the industry, I can't see how Ben's professional accusations are justified. He makes it sound like they drove him to cover up something truly vile and I doubt that's even possible.
That's not at all how I read it. It's not about a specific story being repressed. It's about an office culture where the concept of journalism meant "write about things that will make us and our advertisers happy" and how that was extraordinarily problematic for a venture that was supposed to be all about being "the good gaming journalists".
I read "having been told I had to protect their business over writing what I knew was right was horrific" as an insinuation that what he "knew was right" is heavy shit that's, I don't know...more than video games? But maybe I'm wrong. I said this on the first page, but his grievous tone is just so far out of whack for the industry that it's really hard to take him and his weak ass E3 story seriously.
Also literally every journalistic medium works this way past like the 1970s since we don't live in the world of comic books.
They let him write about the titty-esque controllers so I dunno if his censorship thing is holding water for me even. I want to say, if anything, khoo/PA corp probably asked him to tone down the editorialism in his writing. But the lack of information from him makes this nearly impossible to say one way or another.
Speaking as someone who spent a pretty good chunk of the post-1970s as a journalist, this is absolutely not true. Having the business side try to influence what you write is a huge ethical boundary. I can't think of any time anyone ever insinuated to me that I should write something to make our advertisers happy, and if anyone had, most of the editors I've ever worked for would have jumped right in and kicked some ass for me. We called it the "business side" because many of the places I worked for would literally partition the building so that the newsroom was physically separate and had our own side.
But, that being said, I worked in serious newsrooms full of other professional journalists. If I got hired by a webcomic company that wanted to branch out into a news blog about video games, I'd probably understand that it ain't the Washington Post and my bosses are not going to be up on the nuances of journalism ethics.
In your opinion, should we the consumers (and patreon backers) of this business hold the Megacorp accountable for these purported ethical violations? Does the Megacorp owe us anything?
If so, what response do you think would be satisfactory?
I know how I would feel if this had happened at the aforementioned Washington Post, but I really don't know how to feel in this case.
Your point of view seems both broader and deeper than mine. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Like many people, I'm not entirely clear on what the complaint exactly is. He seems to feel like he was pressured to change editorial decisions for marketing purposes. That would pretty severely undermine their credibility as objective journalists. How could you ever be sure what they were writing is true or what they were paid to write?
But as consumers and patreon backers, do you have a strong need for completely objective news in the world of vidya, and were you looking to the purveyors of Fruit Fuckers to fill that need? I don't think the answer to that is "yes" for a lot of people, so I don't think it changes much for them.
Honestly at this point, I've kind of come to the conclusion that the PAR wasn't going well from a business standpoint and it was stressing Kuchera out. And there were probably some uncomfortable conversations around trying to kick start things because at the end of the day, PAR wasn't a charity. And maybe those conversations weren't conducted very professionally. And he probably felt singled out. I know I would have. That seems to be what's going on through the vague stuff he points out in the tweets. The only real actionable item I've seen is the suppression of stories to protect advertisers. But unless he's going to elaborate on that, I have no idea if I should be mad about it or not.
Dark_Side on
+14
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
I'm bowing out of the thread because I don't really see a way to transition into more concrete discussion since we're just going on wildly divergent interpretations and extrapolations based on the sparse information provided.
I mean, I pretty much only pop in to point out that Ben hasn't actually said anything other then him being unhappy about his time at PA 8 years ago, and the one thing that could have shone some light on this would have been a post/comic by PA about this and yet mike and jerry haven't said boo.
Frankly I'm kind of amazed this thing hasn't been locked yet.
The mods are probably letting it play out further than they would another topic since shutting down discussion could so easily appear self-serving.
Honestly at this point, I've kind of come the conclusion that the PAR wasn't going well from a business standpoint and it was stressing Kuchera out. And there were probably some uncomfortable conversations around trying to kick start things because at the end of the day, PAR wasn't a charity. And maybe those conversations weren't conducted very professionally. And he probably felt singled out. I know I would have. That seems to be what's going on through the vague stuff he points out in the tweets. The only real actionable item I've seen is the suppression of stories to protect advertisers. But unless he's going to elaborate on that, I have no idea if I should be mad about it or not.
Given he was the EIC and featured name of the site, then it makes sense that he would be singled out.
The whole thing reads to me like he wasn't prepared to be EIC of a new online publication. He talks about how it wasn't a problem at Ars or Polygon, but they existed before he got there, so he didn't have to do the ground floor work of creating the journalistic firewall, or advocate for himself and his fellows against the business side's demands, or create any of the processes/standards that would've precluded a lot of the issues he apparently had with PAR. All of that was likely already in place for him at the other venues.
Keep in mind, I'm not blaming Ben or anything. It sounds/feels like there's plenty of miscommunication, not-understood expectations, and just general confusion and mismanagement to go around with all parties involved.
Posts
I mean, what if you’re dealing with a paranoid individual? Do you just accept it if they say they think everyone is staring at them and it prevents them from doing simple things like going to the store? Is validation in that context helpful or not? I mean I don’t know. I actually struggle with this question because I’ve had to deal with people struggling with paranoia. I’m not a psychologist. But if I have data suggesting that someone’s interpretation of an event is incorrect then I’m going to extrapolate from that and suggest that their resultant feelings may not be valid, at least personally in my mind and perhaps within the confines of an abstracted forum discussion topic.
I’m not saying that Ben is paranoid or delusional or even wrong, but the idea that it’s beyond the pale to want more details or to say that the current data given doesn’t add up in the midst of an abstract discussion that Ben isn’t even a part of is a bit much for me.
Okay, but what if their feelings are literally debilitating? Isn’t validating those feelings potentially damaging?
I really don’t know but it feels that way. Like, validating someone’s downward spiral based on false pretenses doesn’t feel very helpful to them.
We simply don't have enough information. All we know is that Ben felt a certain way about something mysterious. It's a really irritating situation.
Ben hasn't accused them of doing anything other than what almost every job (which is shitty) in the USA does and he got a massive severance and no NDA, but the language he use makes it sounds like they stopped him from revealing war crimes - it's just articles about video games my dude, and you're under no NDA so you can tell us what they squashed
I believe he feels wronged but I don't actually know what he's accusing G&T of
I think you can accept someone's feelings without actively validating them. How someone feels is a fact and can be accepted at face value (which I suppose does make the feelings valid, though I still think that's different from true validation), but if it's rooted in something problematic you can still work to address that.
I’m speaking abstractly about a situation where you do have enough information, not necessarily about Ben.
There seems to be a general idea put forth by a few people that the only proper response to anyone communicating their feelings in any context should gather no other response except acceptance/validation and I am saying I find that problematic in general terms.
A few years ago Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff wrote a book, The Coddling of the American Mind that addresses this. I keep meaning to read it, but I found the articles based of it, and the podcasts interviews they did extremely convincing.
It came out in 2018 and in the intervening 3 years the culture has gone in the opposite direction of their suggestions at light speed. So I guess they lost that argument.
That’s fair but I think there are different contexts where the line between validation and acceptance is very blurry.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Some people over-correct, I agree. It's hardly universal, it just gets over-represented because once you're stuck waiting for more information to make a decision the folks who have already made a decision may be the only ones with anything to say except for meta-commentary like this.
I definitely agree with that and these kinds of situations should always be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes people will see any kind of acceptance as validation that enforces their existing view of a situation, though I think in general that's more rare and can still be corrected with the right approach.
Specifically combined with the lack of NDA, it's evidence of parting on good terms. If it was coupled with an NDA then it would instead be suspicious.
Plus for a lot of american jobs there is no severance when they reorganize or whatever horseshit term getting fired has at times. So its a bit of abused logic for some of us "well he got money when they let him go and I certainly won't, so how bad could the job have been?"
pleasepaypreacher.net
Severance pay is not something that's only doled out to keep people quiet or because of admission of wrong-doing.
Considering he was supposed to be a huge get for their PAR brand expansion, it seems perfectly plausible that severance pay would have been part of his contract negotiations at the start.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Fair but the allegation is that the suggestion was about driving traffic.
Did your editor ever come to you and tell you that you needed to write something by the end of the day because stuff needed to be in the paper for the paper to be sold? This doesn’t tell you what to write but it does tell you to “get the clicks up”, as it were.
And the business side telling the news side how much news should be in a paper, how much should be human interest, how much should be local information/advertising*, etc all seem like reasonable interactions. “Don’t write bad things about this restaurant” is a fundamentally different interaction than “don’t write about 20 restaurants per day, the readers can only handle so much and it’s not helping sell our serious paper aimed at business people” or “so the restaurant reviews you’re doing aren’t selling enough copies of ‘The Restaurant Review’, a different approach to reviews should be considered”. And the latter two seem like reasonable discussions to be having over the firewall. And also far more of what the allegation seemed to be.
*like restaurant reviews, which are news in the sense that the reviewer is independent but is functionally advertising. Which is pretty important to games journalism because this is the kind of thing that games journalism existed to do primarily. Tell you about new and upcoming games, tell you how new releases panned out.
This is off topic for Ben, but if you are put in a position where you are afraid of enabling someone's maladaptive thoughts, you can try reflective listening. You can interact with someone in a helpful manner without affirming harmful beliefs. Look it up if you're interested.
Back on topic, the emotional content of his statements suggests he had issues he needed to work out. Perhaps they stem from his time at PAR. Perhaps the problem is from other factors, and his experience at PAR is more of a lightning rod. Most charitably, I think he wanted to be heard and that's it. No system to change, no evil villain to be brought down, just catharsis.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Sure, but now we're inventing facts.
Such as "he got severance pay without an NDA attached, this means it couldn't have been that bad there!"
It's not as though people don't leave jobs putting on the appearance of parting on good terms while actually getting the fuck out of Dodge because they hate it there all the damn time.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I mean negotiating for a nice severance and the job accepting it at least shows good faith at the start of the endeavor, because again in america a lot of jobs and especially start ups will not give you anything like that.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Neither are good conclusions, but he's the one who brought it up, which implies that it means something to him. The lack of NDA is the main thing to me: It's not clear why he's disclosing his feelings without disclosing facts.
It's the dumbest thing, but it's also really persistent.
Celeste [Switch] - She'll be wrestling with inner demons when she comes...
Super Mario Wonder - Wowie Zowie!
No, the facts are “he got severance pay” and “there was no NDA.” The rest is a drawn conclusion which is debatable.
Stating that there may have been an aspect of his contract outlining the severance is just speculation. It’s not the same as a drawn conclusion.
Aside: I tend to agree that the existence of a severance doesn’t necessarily prove much, though 6 months seems very long based on what I’ve seen in corporate America.
Thanks, I’ll take a look.
I don’t think anyone is saying that.
But the converse: “Ben feels this way, therefore G+T are monsters” has been expressed by many.
When expressing skepticism at that somehow gets turned into not giving a shit about Ben by certain posters, that’s where these arguments arise.
Steam: adamjnet
@Drez
Independent of Kuchera and PA, this is a topic that's close to my heart. What it distills down to for me is that for a stranger, a celebrity, or a Twitter personality, we're usually not in a good position to judge somebody's emotions. It's different if we're close family, a good friend, or a therapist - where we have more visibility into the situation, more knowledge of the person's history, more understanding of where they're coming from.
Also, usually even if emotions seem inappropriate to the matter at hand, there's usually some truth behind them. Sometimes emotions can be misdirected, sometimes they can be underregulated (or overregulated, too). Strong negative emotions are usually a good sign that something needs to change, even if the person involved is projecting those emotions towards the wrong target.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think just about everyone commenting here are clearly sympathetic. They feel badly for him. They are saying 'wow, that sounds like it sucked for you'. Some might add, 'though I personally don't quite get why'. That's valid, if not tactful. People often feel sympathy for people without feeling any particular degree of empathy.
What you wrote, on the other hand, is quite literally the definition of empathy. You don't have to have the other party's actual lived experience to feel empathy, but you must absolutely be able to infer how they are feeling based on your own understanding of how people could feel in similar circumstances. Most commenters here are trying to be empathetic by placing themselves in his situation and trying to feel how he would, but they're struggling because he's talking about two different things together: His current reaction to (and perceived complicity in) hypocrisy in the media, and his emotional recounting of what he believes was a toxic past work environment that forced that hypocrisy upon him.
We can empathize with a high-stress work environment causing feelings of anxiety, and a need to discuss those feelings after years of keeping them private.
We can empathize with someone's belief that they can't inveigh against hypocrisy in the media without first coming clean about how they themselves have been hypocritical.
Individually, empathy is easy. The way they are conflated is the difficulty--looking at what happened through a rational lens, some of the incidents mentioned seem inappropriate and some do not. For my part, I recognize that by recognizing that feelings of anxiety and panic often aren't rational. I can definitely empathize with someone being sensitized to react anxiously to every situation that comes up in a work environment. The best way to show compassion for that situation is to express a desire for him to get support in working through those feelings. The work situation is something which is more or less defunct.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
Thank you. Agreed.
People have said that he has not elaborated, and I assume that hasn't changed, but has he given any indication why?
At least indicating it was too painful to go over in greater detail, or concerns that anything more than what he has vaguely shared might risk damaging relationships he wishes to retain, even to this day, something, anything that would back up the fears he apparently has of being 'cancelled' over this open airing of grievance?
As has been noted in this thread many times, this is basically a horror movie giving us a glimpse of a presumed threat and letting our imagination do the heavy lifting. At a time where people have been victimized by people (generally men) in power and corporations in general, it uses a lot of language akin to those who spoke out, but without the details that provide context.
While not required for me to believe that an actor or actress was horrifically mistreated, many of them provided at least enough detail to understand some aspect of what they went through. I'm not remotely inclined to think I'm the sole arbiter of what is or isn't abuse or neglect or a toxic workplace environment, but the sparse details as shared don't seem all that egregious (yes yes, as noted, this is an indictment of the modern workplace, but if he's coopting the language of survivors of sexual assault and other traumas, it takes a bit more than a public berating and shitty firewall between revenue and editorial efforts to understand the connection with that manner of expressing himself).
M&J don't need my sword and steed to charge forth and protect them, but sharing it in a public venue like he did seems like something one does when looking for an outcome (especially tied to the coopted MeToo style language).
If he legit just needed it off his chest, to admit wrongdoing on his own part and the in context of how he came about to make those calls so he can go forward in his life (this career or the next), cool... but it's not above asking some simple questions for clarification. If none of that is forthcoming, then we're at the same circle we've been in for the last two dozen pages. If this Needed to be public, and not just something he went over in private therapy, in order to clarify something to what readership he has or wishes to build from that.
That's why I want more details. It's not hard to imagine M&J as shitty bosses (edit: this isn't intended as a slight, more recognition that they were branching into a new venture and clearly weren't already masters of that particular aspect) who didn't have a remote clue as to what really needed exist to Properly Do The Journalism, but I'm also no stranger to people trying to rebrand themselves, and if he felt that was a tarnished element of his reputation that was holding him back, then I guess good on him for coming clean on his side, but it'd be a more relatable element if we had a hair more to go with (as noted repeatedly in this thread, it doesn't need to be exact word for word discussions with time stamps, but if there's no NDA and he's allegedly in the process of risking burning his life down, it sure seems to be happening with damp matches and a distinct lack of flammable material around).
As many have said, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that M&J are no more or less flawed than we know them to be from previous issues and controversies. They've fucked up, and I've appreciated when they've reminisced on how they fucked up and what they learned from it. If there's an untold story of just how profoundly they've fucked up in regards to the PAR, then tell it. I'm all ears. He's a writer. He lived it. If he's willing to break the story... then break the story.
And to hedge off obvious retorts, no, he doesn't owe me or anyone anything, but he's the one that started the conversation, and I'm inquiring openly for further details. If those aren't forthcoming, then it's not a slur to ask why the conversation was started in the first place, especially in the public manner and with the language used as it was. His very career should indicate an understanding that words have power, and unless he was just drunk venting on Twitter (which based on people talking here about him thanking others for support, doesn't seem to be the case), that ones venue and verbiage aren't beyond reproach or consideration by the audience.
If it's all serious enough to fear repercussions, then why not make it a proper article and provide the details in full? If we're not meant to take it super seriously, why use the loaded language?
MeToo and the documented abuses around it were a call to action, seeking others with similar experiences to call out powerful men who had raped and assaulted and harassed their way through untold victims. One should follow that path very carefully for anything but the most serious allegations, imo, and if that wasn't his intent in the first place, it comes back to 'you're a writer, why did you write it that way, then?'
Note: this is heavily rhetorical. If anyone wants to fisk this down and answer each point exasperatedly, you're welcome to it. This is a place of Debate and/or Discourse, I recognize that. But this post is more born of my own frustration watching the same circle happen for literally 1000'ish posts, and trying to sum up some thoughts/feelings on the matter as it continues to... not really play out in anything but our imaginations at this point.
I didn't want to @ you, but I appreciate your opinion on the situation, as it seemed like something with which you would have experience.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
I've never heard of anyone getting a severance upon resigning that isn't like a CEO. Generally severance packages are for people getting laid off. We don't know the exact circumstances of his employment terms but we can make educated assumptions from the severance existing that at least he didn't resign and he wasn't fired with cause.
Everything beyond that is conjecture but so is most of the content of this thread.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Law and Order ≠ Justice
I mean, I pretty much only pop in to point out that Ben hasn't actually said anything other then him being unhappy about his time at PA 8 years ago, and the one thing that could have shone some light on this would have been a post/comic by PA about this and yet mike and jerry haven't said boo.
Frankly I'm kind of amazed this thing hasn't been locked yet.
In your opinion, should we the consumers (and patreon backers) of this business hold the Megacorp accountable for these purported ethical violations? Does the Megacorp owe us anything?
If so, what response do you think would be satisfactory?
I know how I would feel if this had happened at the aforementioned Washington Post, but I really don't know how to feel in this case.
Your point of view seems both broader and deeper than mine. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Like many people, I'm not entirely clear on what the complaint exactly is. He seems to feel like he was pressured to change editorial decisions for marketing purposes. That would pretty severely undermine their credibility as objective journalists. How could you ever be sure what they were writing is true or what they were paid to write?
But as consumers and patreon backers, do you have a strong need for completely objective news in the world of vidya, and were you looking to the purveyors of Fruit Fuckers to fill that need? I don't think the answer to that is "yes" for a lot of people, so I don't think it changes much for them.
The mods are probably letting it play out further than they would another topic since shutting down discussion could so easily appear self-serving.
Given he was the EIC and featured name of the site, then it makes sense that he would be singled out.
The whole thing reads to me like he wasn't prepared to be EIC of a new online publication. He talks about how it wasn't a problem at Ars or Polygon, but they existed before he got there, so he didn't have to do the ground floor work of creating the journalistic firewall, or advocate for himself and his fellows against the business side's demands, or create any of the processes/standards that would've precluded a lot of the issues he apparently had with PAR. All of that was likely already in place for him at the other venues.
Keep in mind, I'm not blaming Ben or anything. It sounds/feels like there's plenty of miscommunication, not-understood expectations, and just general confusion and mismanagement to go around with all parties involved.