> In a letter to employees made public in October, Ms. Townsend said Activision had “exited” 20 employees and another 20 had faced disciplinary action. “We know there’s a desire to know about the outcome when misconduct is reported,” Ms. Townsend wrote. “Sometimes, there are privacy reasons we can’t share. But where we can, we will be sharing more information with you. We will also be providing you regular, aggregate data about investigative outcomes.”
They fired 20 people, not the CEO, and haven’t disclosed who it what reason these people were fired for.
Oh no, he's trying to save face and trying to make it look like he fixed the issues - even though he was a participant and he allowed this culture to develop.
Setting culture is a large part of leadership. Most likely one of two things happened: a) the leadership was complicit in the culture, b) the leadership was too weak to prevent a toxic culture from festering.
In either case, the leadership is not fit for, ahem, leadership.
Guessing you are talking about the general case...? Bobby Kotick is hardly "new" to the Activision leadership position. He has been there for quite a while.
Apparently the leadership's conduct is just fine for MSFT, though.
Mr. Kotick, who has served as CEO for more than three decades, didn’t inform the board of sexual misconduct allegations that he was aware of, including rape, against managers across the company.
The Nov. 16 article, citing interviews and internal documents, also detailed misconduct allegations against Mr. Kotick, including when an assistant complained in 2006 that he had threatened in a voice mail to have her killed.
Or Microsoft is looking to get rid of him and others first chance, but it's difficult and awkward to get rid of the CEO of a company you haven't actually bought yet and you need to talk to when trying to buy it. Seems equally possible.
> Apparently the leadership's conduct is just fine for MSFT, though.
A very odd statement to make when at this point all we know is that MSFT is acquiring Acti-Blizzard and very little information about what will happen to the latter's existing leadership post-acquisition.
I suspect that they get around that by giving a total number, no personal details. If, for instance, they gave the rank of those employees, director or above former employees could argue that they were identifiable and couldn’t hide behind the usual churn.
My bet is on security engineers and QA. If I could bet on this - I would have my money on those people being fired. Always annoying at meetings, constantly being downers /s
This has the feel of the CEO rounding up as many patsies as he can find to scapegoat in order to placate the investors.
No doubt the culture there is rotten to the core, the rumors of the horrible work environment and harassment are widely known, however, I predict you won't see too many of the exec team having to leave. It'll be all low level expendable IC's that the CEO won't have to encounter at the country club after the sacking.
Definitely. For the _Wall Street Journal_ to write most of their article about how the CEO is guilty of the worst and didn’t face any consequence, because the board supported him —— and use the word “rape”, he really need to have made a bad attempt at looking contrite.
It's the game industry way. Diversity this, inclusiveness that, but when you want to go on holiday for Orthodox Easter instead of Catholic Easter, we have a problem. And you realize it's all pandering and saving face in front of the public.
I saw the changes to WoW being described as reeling back from 'the line' because their company culture is so warped they have no idea where 'the line' lies anymore.
Having just finished "Flying Blind" and filled with incandescent rage, reading about the rise and fall of Boeing (and GE) as an engineering company, this seems about right. The upward failures keep failing upward.
Surely the timing of this is coincidence, what with Microsoft announcing their purchase of Blizzard?
Nope, probably not. Kinda sad to see that’s what it took to motivate them to take action. I’m not a gamer and have no horse in this race, but what initially seemed like a change of pace turns out to be the entirely laughable status quo of management giving lip service to these issues.
Given the timing, there should be no question that this was done in direct response to the acquisition, and only expendable tokens have been remove from play. Meanwhile, the management that led this shit show will avoid any consequences and laugh themselves all the way to the bank.
Kotick has taken a dishonorable path. He should be first person out the door.
Situation in the industry feels kind of bleak to me now. One of these days I am going to be able to trick my investors into letting me start a game studio. I really don't understand why there isn't more intense competition at the AAA tier. I know for a fact I can do it cheaper and faster. Not sure about better, but I'm willing to fail a few times...
> I really don't understand why there isn't more intense competition at the AAA tier.
it's enormously difficult to make a game and not a repeatable business model.
> I know for a fact I can do it cheaper and faster.
To create the products they're making the big dogs are leveraging years and years and years of tech R&D development and tooling and enormous amounts of manpower.
To be able to create a hit AAA without any of this is relying on capturing lightning in a bottle.
If one stumbles upon some novel gameplay that propels your game to notoriety, the design will be copied by the big AAA devs next release cycle.
That's basically what AA games are, and are sometimes somewhat successful...but usually not as successful as AAA games. Then you have the indie and solo developers flooding Steam with mostly low-quality games with a few gems...making it extremely difficult to get noticed. So not only do you need a game idea that is attractive to gamers (AAA games are established franchise with decades of releases and marketing), it also has to be implemented well (see the failures of this years CoD and Battlefield) AND you need a huge marketing budget to get your game in front of eyes (maybe you could get lucky going "viral") to stand out from everyone else.
> indie and solo developers flooding Steam with mostly low-quality games with a few gems...making it extremely difficult to get noticed
An aside: I know this is a common opinion but it doesn't really mesh with my experience as a player. Quite the opposite in fact - it's not the low-quality Steam games that make it difficult to get noticed, but the overwhelming number of real gems. There have been so many truly excellent indie games in recent years (Slay the Spire, Into the Breach, FTL, Factorio, Hades, Rimworld, Devil Daggers...) that I haven't gotten round to playing all the obvious must-play indie games I want to, let alone going looking for more. Either way, though, from an indie dev's perspective, it must be pretty difficult to get noticed.
> And as a kid living on the water, saw plenty of dead fish — usually the head is the last identifiable part to go (middle goes first).
The metaphor isn't about "rotting away", it is about "rotting and stinking". The head definitely goes first. Many languages have this phrase as "the fish stinks from the head".
The recently completed summary also says Activision had collected about 700 reports of employee concern over misconduct and other issues—in some cases separate reports about the same incidents—since July, when a California state agency filed a lawsuit against the company over harassment claims.
The Nov. 16 article, citing interviews and internal documents, also detailed misconduct allegations against Mr. Kotick, including when an assistant complained in 2006 that he had threatened in a voice mail to have her killed
There are other examples of the culture in the article. I simply don't see how the CEO didn't know this was in the culture, especially considering the allegations against him. It isn't like this is the first time we - non blizzard employees - are hearing about the culture there, either. How, exactly, is expecting him to be held responsible vindictive?
Apart from his public disgraceful behaviour (who know how bad he is in private),
how come majority of other companies avoid this shit happening inside them?
Didn't he also write a letter on behalf of the HR/People manager around the sexual misconduct claims and then put her name on it ? It may have been Helaine Klasky - I'll find the article.
"They expect one of us in the wreckage brother" as one Reddit comment put it.
Bobby has to go, no matter if this is "his fault" or not. Shareholders lost a lot of money, Blizzard lost a lot of reputation. It happened on his watch and new blood is needed. To be honest I think the studio is lost, we can only hope that some of the spin off studios will turn out to be great.
A lot of the original Blizzard people have said the company's just dead - it's Activision now. Everything and everyone that made Blizzard good has gone. And it shows - they're botching games in ways completely uncharacteristic of the old company. Not even a vague sense of culture made it through to the new company.
And mark my words, this won't be the last instance of severe employee mistreatment and harassment.
My fear is that individual perpetrators have been fired but not the leaders who buried complaints or their own inaction dissuaded victims from complaining.
It's a widely used proverb with versions of it found all over Europe and Asia, alluding to the idea that organisations fail due to bad leadership. One early version I've found is "a fish rots from the head, not the tail", which avoids the issue you raised, so it's likely it has become abbreviated over time as it became more widely known.
i think the original proverb is actually the fish stinks from the head, which later became the fish rots from the head, but this is biologically incorrect.
But you can also see that maggots start in the ear, i don't know enough about Fish-gut bacteria, but you can check a Fish freshness when you smell the Gills the Colors of them and if the Eye is milky...well and sometimes the slime on the fish-skin....maybe that's the history of that proverb (freshness indicator mostly from the gills/eyes...head)
yea, visibly it looks like its starting from the head, and probably the smell comes from there as well, and of course thats where insects can start eating first (eyes, mouth etc)
it is funny though, i have used this proverb hundreds of times, until today i decided to think a bit about it, and look up how bodies decompose.
i wonder if in those big companies actually the leadership takes all the fault, maybe like in 1984, the real power is in the proles, they can change everything if they want.. they just dont seem to want change.
It's not about taking it literally... it's a proverb. It means organization or militaries or whatever else usually goes bad due to leadership, not due to the people at the bottom of the hierarchy. I thought this was obvious.
Activision Blizzard is dead to me forever. No amount of token firing will change that.
However, if all of their IP were to be given to a completely different company and Kotick were to be made penniless for the rest of his natural life, I could see myself playing a formerly-Blizzard game again.
I’ve worked in the gaming industry and I was surprised how some fairly standard questions about creativity, playing games, character development, etc. lead to detailed insights into the candidate’s personality.
We’ve had candidates answer “You have to organise a fun evening for the 80 employees of this office. Your budget is $10. What do you do?” (a question meant to leverage their understanding that 70 of those 80 are insanely creative people who barely need a pen and paper to have fun) by suggesting going to a strip-club.
“What’s your favourite game?” is a staple (no answer is disqualifying in most cases); “Which character do you play?” the obvious follow-up when it’s an option. Candidates have suggested with blunt words that their pick characters in certain video games because they are female, well-endowed and barely dressed. The word “jiggle” was used, with a nervous laughter that I had to describe in my feedback as ‘cringey’.
If one of those people understand that they did wrong, I’m hoping they’ll give considerate answers to what are standard, common questions. I’ve never heard a full contrition during an interview (not on that matter) but that could be an interesting conversation.
If they think that they did nothing wrong sexualising their colleagues, I would expect hiring manager to notice a nervous laughter, connect that to the previous employer and date of departure, and possibly prod discretely; “What do you think is missing in the game industry nowadays?” is a good follow-up. If they walked passed a female employee, I might ask her if she noticed any sideway look.
If you expect an honest answer from your candidate, and you don't expect a well-qualified candidate to choose a well-endowed female to be their character of choice, then you're living in a fantasy world. I understand that it's insane to talk about that during an interview, but I think it's fairly common for non-creepy people to choose a character they find pleasurable to look at.
> I understand that it's insane to talk about that during an interview
That’s the key part, though. Part of being a professional is knowing how and when to appropriately compartmentalize. Keep the video game heroine fetishes at home. If someone can’t keep that stuff to themselves for an interview, there’s no way they’ll be able to keep it to themselves on the job. Hire someone inept enough to discuss this on an interview and you’ve hired your next sexual harassment case.
If you ask me what kind of characters I play in an MMO (for example) then I'm going to honestly tell you that as a heterosexual man I find it pleasurable to look at a woman's behind while I'm playing.
That would be ONLY if you ask me "why do you pick females as playable characters?" however, I won't blurt it out of the blue.
I haven't harassed a woman in any capacity, in any setting, work or not, in my life. The mere idea to noticeably ogle a female co-worker or make sexual jokes towards them never even occurred to me. I learned that this is a thing for the first time in my life when I was 29 or so, when one colleague was fired for following two attractive coworkers around and not leaving them alone for a smoke break (WTF).
I think it's fair to give an honest answer if asked "why do you pick female heroines?". And yet it seems you'll flag me as a potential harasser?
Depends a lot on what the interviewer actually asked and how they directed the conversation, and also on how the candidate responds. If the interviewer is badgering the candidate to try to force a “damning” response, yeah, that interviewer sucks and is engaged in inappropriate behavior. But if the candidate jumps to tell you he likes to play half-naked characters, that’s also a red flag.
If an interviewer specifically asks if you only play female characters and why, that’s pretty weird. If your response is something like “because I like their jiggly titties” instead of something like “because I find them attractive”, well, that’s even weirder and frankly not work appropriate.
But yeah, if the interviewer is pushing you to discuss your favorite characters, you shouldn’t feel the need to hide the fact that you play female characters. That’s your preference so whatever. That’s different from making it overtly sexual.
Ah, I definitely wouldn't start discussing sexy female features with you on an interview, as if we're two drunk friends in a bar (I don't do that either but anyway).
I'll only answer in a potentially compromising way if pressured by the interviewer -- and even then I'm much more likely to retaliate with "why are you focusing on the fact that I enjoy looking at attractive video game characters so much?".
So my previous comment wasn't very accurate, sorry. But on the rare occasion I think I sense people stigmatizing sexuality itself. Happy to have been wrong.
I agree with everything but your last sentence. Can people not look at other people anymore? And I am concerned you are actually sexually harassing the female employee by asking her that question and singling her out for her sexual appeal and gender.
I agree with this. Asking a female employee “if she noticed any sideway look” seems very inappropriate. It puts her on the spot in what I would assume is a very uncomfortable way, and also prompts her to be thinking about a potential hire as a creep (because of what you said, not anything they actually did).
If you want an actual female opinion on the candidate, have your female employees active in interviews. Then ask them what they think about the candidate. Your female employees are just as capable of evaluating candidates effectively as your male employees.
> Candidates have suggested with blunt words that their pick characters in certain video games because they are female, well-endowed and barely dressed.
Are these characters ones made available to them by the game developers?
If so, what's the offence here?
The offense is that it’s not work-appropriate to discuss in those terms. The person who tells you in an interview that his favorite character is his favorite because she’s half naked and “jiggly” is one who’s going to discuss similar things on the job. Don’t be surprised when you hear this same candidate discussing Scarlett Johansson’s breasts at the office. Or worse, a co-worker’s breasts.
1) Anyone in the industry presumably knows about this news. If someone’s end date at Activision Blizzard is January 2022, they’re going to have a strong suspicion.
2) Backchannel reference checks (very warranted in this case) will likely confirm it. Activision Blizzard wouldn’t confirm anything other than start and end dates and any candidate-provided references are going to say good things, so it’s important to network and ask somebody who worked there at the time.
> 1) Anyone in the industry presumably knows about this news. If someone’s end date at Activision Blizzard is January 2022, they’re going to have a strong suspicion.
The first sentence of the article mentions:
> Activision Blizzard Inc. has fired or pushed out more than three dozen employees and disciplined about 40 others since July as part of efforts to address allegations of sexual harassment and other misconduct at the videogame giant, according to people familiar with the situation.
(Emphasis mine.)
For those who more closely follow Blizzard and/or WoW news (fansites such as MMO Champion and Wowhead), several people were known to be fired or left the past year. So the date January 2022 is entirely arbitrary by you, but also, important to note the following: some people left because of the scandal while they were not the culprit, or other reasons (many people were laid off because of, well, I can't say bad financial result but that was the reasoning. Also, state of games in decline). Just because someone left Blizz in 2021 does not mean much, but if you look into certain people who did leave in 2021 then, yes, you will find allegations. End date alone is meaningless though, and quite frankly falls under the definition of guilty by association.
You're probably overestimating the degree to which a hiring manager investigates a candidate, or even cares that a candidate was caught up in what appears to be a mostly political event (as far as we know from public information).
Do you keep track of the month and year of every corporate scandal, and compare it to the resume of all applicants? Or do you just say "oh, you worked at Blizzard huh, do you play WoW?"
A lot of companies will also say if the former employee is eligible to be employed there again. A negative on that plus a January separation date won't look good for those folks.
> A lot of companies will also say if the former employee is eligible to be employed there again. A negative on that plus a January separation date won't look good for those folks.
I suppose that may mean something if you're playing detective with a former Blizzard employee's resume, but I'd be cautious in reading too much into "if the former employee is eligible to be employed there again" generally. I know of a company where HR policy is that all involuntary separations are ineligible for rehire, including things like downsizing layoffs.
> Maybe because when downsizing you pick the lowest performers that for whatever reason you haven't already fired
"Lowest performers" doesn't imply bad performers (e.g. a strong team of A & B players).
Also downsizing can happen in different ways. For instance: "we're closing this whole site and laying off everyone who works there," or "this project failed [due to bad leadership], so we're laying off the whole team."
There was an interesting comment on HN a while ago to the effect that "I have personally seen one team laid off and another kept, while everyone agreed that the laid-off team was performing better, because the rent on the building they were in was more expensive".
What's the need of stigmatizing these people? If they did wrong, they have been fired for it. They don't need to be permanently punished for a mistake. That won't help anyone.
This is a tricky issue. I agree in principle because I like to think that people can change and learn. On the other hand if you hire someone with a known track record, if they then harass members of your staff, you've got some serious questions to answer about potentially knowingly putting them at risk.
Being fired for harassment/abuse doesn't magically mean that you'll never harass or abuse someone in the future. Hiring someone with a track record of these issues puts your other employees at risk.
Not at all (and I'm not really sure why you're leaping so precipitately to that).
But someone's previous conduct in a professional role is absolutely relevant information when considering hiring them; that's why we have the concept of a reference at all. It's not stigmatising someone or being unfair to them to consider their prior actions.
If someone has previously been fired for harassment, then that doesn't mean that they should never be employed again. Rehabilitation is totally possible, but it's not an automatic thing: someone with that history should expect it to be a concern for future employers, and should be able to outline (as you would with any other issue) the steps they've taken to mitigate it and ensure the same behaviour won't be repeated.
I'm sure they could figure it out based on when their employment with Activision-Blizzard ended. Do they want to risk being wrong with the guess and passing up a good employee because of it? Possibly not.
Even if you take a very nihilistic view of company morality... for simple liability reasons, most places don't want someone fired for sexual harassment.
But it's trivial for those fired to not get caught. For example, it's likely some (not a majority, but some) people are leaving Activision Blizzard over what's been uncovered, they could claim to be part of that group. Or they could just lie and say the left earlier.
Nihilistic? I was pointing out that there is some info one could use to inform their guess about whether someone is one of the harassers or not. And I'm saying I don't think it's a strong enough signal for most companies to use that information to filter applicants. If they did, they could be passing up people who happened to leave around the same time. How crappy would that be if people who left because they hated the awful state of things at ActiBlizz were getting caught up in that filter?
> Do they want to risk being wrong with the guess and passing up a good employee because of it?
Would it be illegal to ask if they were fired in connection with this push? If the candidate answers no, they’re clean or a liar. If they demur or confirm, you have your answer.
So I presume HR had a chat and offered them a pile of money to resign - or if they didn't accept, indicated there would be an investigation into their behaviour.
Presuming they didn't choose option 2 and lose - when asked, nobody's going to say they left for sexual misconduct.
In my country, you can verbally tender your resignation in the meeting to fire you, and the company will almost always accept.
It saves the company some paperwork, and weakens the employee's case for taking them to court for wrongful firing. In exchange, the employee can truthfully tell future employees they weren't fired.
> Would it be illegal to ask if they were fired in connection with this push?
I think so; since they weren't charged with a crime, I guess privacy comes into play.
That said, if someone was sacked for sexual misconduct, nobody would hire them if they end up working with women. (I'm aware I'm gender-stereotyping here, but unless I missed it, all allegations were from women aimed at men. As is often the case.)
It depends on whether they realize the error of their ways and have improved. If not, they shouldn't be around women.
I mean, I don't want to stigmatize people and I want to believe that people can change if confronted with the error of their ways, but I've seen too many instances where it just didn't work like that. If they are still behaving inappropriately in the workplace, they should not be in the workplace.
The games industry is not that big, it is not difficult to get backchannel references on almost anyone who has been in the industry for more than a few years.
Not sure if its the same in the USA, but in Europe there are massive legal liability issues to giving a negative reference - most places give no reference or a standard set of terms because of this
Many companies I consult for in the US won’t provide a negative reference but instead answer all reference questions with: “I can confirm that they were employed here from MM/YY to MM/YY”. If you hear that it means it didn’t end well.
Otherwise, many managers are happy to give a positive reference.
We had a strict HR policy of “name, rank, and serial number.”
We were only allowed to confirm dates of employment, and were required to direct all referrals to HR.
Our HR was run by lawyers, and was very tight about all kinds of policies.
In one case, I once had to lay off a couple of employees. HR policy demanded that I do a “perp walk” to HR, before telling them in an HR ambush. I felt that this was unnecessarily humiliating and dehumanizing (I was right. One teared up), and informed them in individual sessions in my office. HR wrote me up for that. They were technically correct, as this gave the employees the chance to cause havoc (except that I immediately walked them up, after informing them. HR was really concerned that I would say something legally liable -I did not). A big part of my job, as a manager, was to act as a buffer between my employees, and a rather coldhearted and dishonest HR department.
I will say that the company I worked at, had a very diverse workplace (below the Executive Suite), and harassment was not ever an endemic problem (of which I am aware). I know of a small number of instances (over 27 years), where people (men and women) were fired for inappropriate behavior.
There was definitely a “the rules only apply to the little people” thing going on, but not in any really significant way. HR tended to look the other way at the C-Suite doing things we mensch weren’t allowed to do, but they kept it quiet.
One of the things that I most enjoyed about leaving the company, was going to my former employees’ and coworkers’ LinkedIn pages, and giving them the glowing references they deserved.
The American culture of layoffs always surprised me. In Poland, for a typical work contract, the law mandates 1-2 months of layoff time. That is, the layoff decision is given two months in advance, but you keep working for those two months. Also, there are no surprise "security will escort you to the door where you can wait for your personal things" layoffs. I guess because people don't get taken by surprise with a layoff and are given enough time to find a new job, there is much less concern and acts of employee retalation
They confirm _salary_ ?! How on earth is this not private information? When negotiating salary for a new job, the employer will sometimes try to coerce you into giving this info in order to low-ball you and now all they have to do is call your former employer... wtf
And yet I'm sure they try to keep anyone still employed from revealing their current salary to their coworkers.
> California Assembly Bill 168 took effect in October, 2017. This legislation bars employers from asking job applicants about salary history when applying for a position.
I guess asking a reference isn’t quite the same as asking the applicant, but still it’s pretty inappropriate (if not illegal) and I’ve never heard of a past company revealing past compensation information.
In my experience these positive references are either a small quote taken from a LinkedIn reference, or a quick phone call.
If you help your manager succeed, they will almost always be happy to help you out with a good word. It’s only a few minutes so no one is worried about it being on or off the clock in my experience.
It has become standard (at least outside of tech) for companies to only confirm dates of employees, without further comment on a (former) employee's tenure.
The goal is generally to avoid litigation in the event that any such comments could be construed as libel or as interfering with the employee's future employment...and with good reason, since a lawsuit over a negative reference for anything other than a for-cause termination (such as sexual harassment) is generally very costly to defend against even if the former employer would win on the merits.
hardly anybody actually asks for references now because they most likely won't get anything interesting out of it. they just do employment verification and that's it
Specifically which parts of Europe? It's a big place, and I have given negative references with no fear of liability. And that includes across EU borders, including the UK.
But just like the UK press can't describe anyone as 'tired and emotional' anymore these days, because that particular euphemism for 'drunk' has become transparent, many of the traditional German euphemisms for sub-par work have been attacked by the courts.
I'm currently in the UK, and at least here I've been told by legal that a negative reference can lead to massive issues in front of an Employment Tribunal, and that it's effectively not worth it when we can just decline to give any reference at all.
On the flip side, a reference has an implicit duty of skill and care to both the former employee and the person asking for the reference, so an overly-positive reference can also lead to legal liability from the person asking for the reference.
That's not quite how it works. In practice, in the US, liability comes not so much from giving a positive or a negative review, but from giving an incomplete one. This is most apparent as a result of giving a positive review and leaving out the bad bits. In this case, you might be liable for the negative consequences of hiring someone based on your positive review.
For an extreme example, see Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School Dist [1]. In that case, the plaintiff sued several school districts for fraudulently or negligently providing positive recommendations for a teacher who ultimately sexually assaulted her. The California state Supreme Court held that the school districts were liable because there was a substantial, foreseeable risk of physical injury to a third-party resulting from the misrepresentations.
For this reason, it is common practice for businesses to decline to provide a review and instead simply confirm a prior employment relationship and the dates of the employment.
That’s a great point, but at least as far as negative references go, you have libel/slander law with robust free speech protections. It’s nothing like Europe.
Personal references are protected, to the extent that liable and slander laws would apply.
Any HR person / lawyer will tell you providing a negative review of an employee, let alone with amount of detail, opens you up to liabilities that aren't worth it.
As an employer, I've been told that, if called, I should only provide the date a person started with the company, the date a person left, their starting and ending salaries (murky now given salary history laws) and whether they'd be eligible to be re-hired.
I ask any employee we fire for cause not to list us as a reference.
"Bob isn't eligible for rehire. Wait, I think the line cut out a bit there, I said Bob isn't eligible for rehire. Just wanted to make sure you got that: Bob is not eligible for rehire, no way, no how, nosirree."
Will they give you a magnitude attached to those liabilities? Anybody can falsely sue for defamation, so you need an average cost value beyond the mere possibility of lawsuit to get a true representation of the problem.
definitely not. If they're smart they will only provide confirmation about whether or not the person worked there, what their title was, and maybe if they would hire them again. but that's it
Imagine that a previous employer said something bad about you during a reference check, and what they said wasn't true, and it caused you to lose a potential new job. You'd definitely have a good reason to sue them.
Now, imagine the same scenario, except what your previous employer said was true. But you sued them anyway.
In both cases, you have the ability to sue. In both cases, unless there is some very strong and obvious evidence against you, a judge and/or jury might take your side.
From the perspective of one of your former employers, it's just not worth the risk to give details about why someone was separated from a company.
I agree with both your points. To be honest if the same signal is sent by merely confirming employment dates but not literally disparaging the former employee, I fail to see how there’s any additional legal protection. The implication is tortious interferus in both cases.
That's why many companies don't give any details at all, whether positive or negative. This way your line of argument doesn't apply; not from a logical point of view and also not from a legal point of view: no signal is sent at all.
> What does it mean that there is too much liability? What liability do you have for saying true things?
Problem is, in many countries, it's not a fact until a court has made a judgement.
Bearing in mind that the accused employees are technically and legally innocent, you are introducing a few problems. First, the disadvantages of calling these people criminals:
1. They can (and probably will win) sue you for calling them a criminal.
2. The resulting news that a court found against you is a bigger problem. You called someone a criminal, they sued you for it and won. Now you have to deal with the fact that as far as the public goes, you just fired and shamed innocent people.
3. Finally, after the news gets out, all the employees who were laid off in the same round and with same accusations now have legal precedent to challenge your accusations of criminality. And due to precedent, they will almost surely win.
Now, the disadvantages of giving only their start/end dates and job title when called:
[uhh, I can't think of anything ...]
It all boils down to "there is some risk in badmouthing them" vs "there is literally no risk, 0% risk at all, is saying nothing about their behaviour".
The liability to Blizzard or the firing company is that the fired employee sues Blizzard, “I did not get these jobs because they tarnished my name to potential employers.”
Because no corporate investigation has to meet the same standard as a court of law. You can fire someone if you think they did something wrong. But when you make statements, it's possible the employee will claim it is libel and you will suddenly need to prove their misconduct at a higher standard in a court of law.
IANAL, but basically it's not worth it. The company already has what they want: Not working with that employee. Anything past that is unnecessary risk.
Today I only play Heroes of the Storm from Blizzard... It's a nice alternative to other MOBAs, simple and fast when compared to. But I don't waste a penny on their store nor give any helpful feedback. I just play with my friends, and when we're done, that's it, logout and forget.
It is a cultural problem but the game industry is not SV based. Blizzard Activision is SoCal, Ubisoft is French (with studios in many locations). I worked at a studio owned by Activision (in SoCal) in the early 2000s and the culture was certainly toxic.
I just find it funny how often commenters here assume all broism originates in SV.
I think "broism" originates from colleges, and is then carried over to businesses by new, young employees who never had the necessity to actually grow up and become decent people. Therefore it is not a geographically focused phenomenon.
Anecdotically, to this date and after 4 workplaces (FAANG included), I am yet to see what a bro culture is.
To my eyes and experience over 10 years interacting with people, I have seen nothing of the sort, for which I believe this kind of culture must be very conditioned to the right (or wrong?) mix of individuals that by far do not make justice to the average SV engineer.
I've seen it, and to be honest I've only seen it in the ranks to the exec team rather than the tech team in both FAANG and startups.
The tech teams and tech managers are usually trying to impress you about how they spent the weekend coding on a PDP-11, playing board games or mountain biking while drinking custom brand protein drinks. Generally harmless stuff like that.
The exec teams are where the sociopaths live and work, and I've seen all sorts of bro one-upmanship there. The worse types, by far, are the rugby bros. The tales these guys tell each other are always of the "here's a horrible thing I did, so don't mess with me".
I deleted my Blizzard account when they censored and banned a Taiwanese e-sports competitor for speaking out on Hong Kong. It's a shame because I had been planning to give WoW classic a try.
Edit: While the tournament was held in Taiwan, Blitzchung is actually a native of Hong Kong.
> a Taiwanese e-sports competitor for speaking out on Hong Kong
Not that it makes much of a difference, but:
It is my understanding that he's from Hong Kong, and is not Taiwanese. It is my understanding that Taiwan comes in to the picture only because the Blizzard event that he spoke out at was in Taiwan; that he has no connection to Taiwan.
while i do understand the plight of HK's fight, it does make sense that a non-affiliated individual should not be able to make political statements on someone else's platform, unless with prior consent.
The competitor should be free to make his case in his own platform(s), but not on a platform he doesn't own if the owners of that platform doesn't want to affiliate themselves with the political discourse.
I agree, but how do you boycott China? Every piece of hardware that I own has parts in them that was manufactured in China and where I live there aren’t alternatives.
I too deleted my Blizzard account in the wake of the HK nonsense, but it’s not like I had bought anything from them since Diablo 3 released considering I refunded my Warcraft 3 remade, so it felt a little like virtue signalling that nobody probably noticed.
Especially because we subscribe to Disney+ (I have young children), and I still buy a lot of things that were likely made by near (or possibly) slave labour. I know it’s still better to avoid what you can, but I can’t help but feel a little hypocritical about it.
At least with Blizard it turned out to have been a very good call when their toxic culture was revealed.
I kind of agree with you, but just because it creates a precedent. If Blizzard allows a political statement, then now they have to allow other political statements too. As a result, they will have to "regulate" which political statements is allowed or denied, which will force them in a position of having to judge about what is wrong and what is right. And what corporation wants to do that?
Not all political statements are "black" or "white", "right" or "wrong" (Manichaeism style), and there are a lot of gray areas sometimes, and everybody has something to complain about on Twitter. And if Blizzard decides "wrong" then they may suffer and repair the backslash.
So the reaction from Blizzard is like the sign you used to see in a lot of bars: "No politics, no religion".
Understand I'm not saying that the player is wrong about what he said, or justifying what happens in HK.
If they can do what they like with their platform, for whatever reason, I can do what I like with my money/time, for whatever reason (eg not spending money on a platform because I dont like political stance). And now we're back to were we are now.
I'm personally not sure where to stand on this. On one hand, you're right: you can probably come up with an excuse for every platform as to why "making a statement" shouldn't be permitted.
On the other hand, do we really want everyone able to make political statements in unrelated arenas? Literally everyone feels strongly about something. Letting all causes be elevated via unrelated venues would be untenable, which means you must draw a line somewhere.
I suppose it's not totally unreasonable to draw that line by saying, "all content must be related to the topic at hand" when it comes to, for example, a gaming competition.
> Letting all causes be elevated via unrelated venues would be untenable
I'm not sure it would be untenable. People generally intuit the social cost/risk that comes with making a statement in an unrelated venue. That is a natural force acting against people randomly bringing up strongly held opinions on unrelated platforms. Explicitly drawing and enforcing a line just doesn't seem necessary.
> I suppose it's not totally unreasonable to draw that line by saying, "all content must be related to the topic at hand"
I think this would have the effect of either completely sterilizing platform discussion or being impossible to enforce reasonably. For instance, what would happen if a competitor just mentioned something totally innocuous that would incense nobody but was off-topic? Should that be punished?
that's what the off topic subforum is for, every site should have one in some form as every true community wants to talk about unrelated (to the main site topic) stuff especially as people get to know one another
I do believe making a website is still cheap and easy. Not to mention some platforms like twitter do allow for political discourse on them (even if spotty).
The idea is that if the platform owners don't want it, a platform user should respect that choice.
Conversely, if someone makes their sandbox publicly available, they accept some risk that someone else in it may behave in a way that they don't like.
You can argue that Blizzard was well within their rights in punishing Blitzchung, but then Blizzard's audience is well within their rights to be upset with said punishment.
> Conversely, if someone makes their sandbox publicly available, they accept some risk that someone else in it may behave in a way that they don't like.
Actually, you don’t have to accept that. That’s what moderation is for.
>I do believe making a website is still cheap and easy
Is it now? Parler shows that if you rock the boat, your hosting will be pulled and your phone app removed. Google censors a certain page that was the successor to r/The_Donald on Reddit, along with another certain chan style site. Similarly Gab got payment processors and hosting pulled out.
Now I have never bothered to explore these sites, but if their public image is telling of the truth, then I deplore the political narrative within them. Yet they still paint a real clear example that companies can and will screw you over if they want to, with not a whole lot you can do about it.
Blizzard will bow to what the customers want; if more customers want people to be able to make pro-HK statements, then they are going to allow it. Otherwise they won't. Also, the platform has little to do with it. Disney dropped someone for statements made primarily on Twitter. They decided they didn't want their brand associated with it.
Exercising our rights to boycott their platform isn’t denying their right to lick commie boots. :p Seriously though, this whole “you criticized their speech, but they have a right to free speech” fallacy is really getting old.
That would violate freedom of speech. Which is the first amendment of the bill of rights of America. And blizzard being an American company this really irked a lot of us.
"The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. ... It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely."
Freedom of speech does not protect you from harming others directly (yelling "bomb" on an airplane is not protected). But the issue with HK and China is -entirely- what the first amendment is trying to protect (albeit usually this is usually to protect Americans to complain about America).
When Americans see an American company denying someone what we perceive as an unalienable right it becomes infuriating.
You're misunderstanding how the first amendment is applied. Freedom of speech means the government cannot limit what you can say. A private entity, such as Blizzard/Activision, has no such obligation.
> Freedom of speech means the government cannot limit what you can say. A private entity, such as Blizzard/Activision, has no such obligation.
This is absolutely incorrect. To Americans, Freedom of Speech is, as the person you're replying to said, an inalienable right of all human beings. It's a fundamental principal of our society. The first amendment is a legal constraint on the US government that keeps them from violating that right. It does not grant the right, the right belongs to all humans simply from the nature of being.
Think of it like this. People don't think murder is wrong because it's illegal. We have laws in place making it illegal to setup how government handles murder, and we want those laws because murdering a person is wrong at a deep and fundamental level. The laws follow from the underlying ethical beliefs. Freedom of Speech works exactly the same way.
So a company like Blizzard censoring an activist is not a violation of the First Amendment, but it is arguable a violation of Freedom of Speech.
Many Americans, myself included, would deeply disagree that "freedom of Speech" translates to "can say whatever you want wherever you want." Otherwise we'd all opt for 8-chan style message boards where anyone can say whatever they want. It's not at all unreasonable to want a particular event to remain on-topic to the event, and not allow literally everyone to use it as their own personal soapbox for their cause of the week.
But in reality you can't hide the fact, that limiting freedom of speech is very much in the interest of those who want full control on what we can say.
A good example is the Muhammad cartoons, which reminds us that there is a very long way to go before religions can exist peacefully.
Sure, I think that's fair, yet a restriction on freedom of speech, which doesn't have to be inherently bad.
Going with the same kind of example: society agrees that murder, thievery and lying are bad things, yet find it justifiable to kill in self-defense, to steal in order to eat, and to lie in certain situations.
I'll also say that it's very different to limit a certain type of speech than to limit speech you disagree with.
Sure, I don't disagree with any of that. I was just taking exception with the claim that the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech are the same thing. I'm also generally on board with Freedom of Association though. I wouldn't, for instance, put up with someone screaming obscenities in my front yard simply because stopping them would violate their Freedom of Speech.
Like individuals, businesses also have an inalienable right to free speech.
Whether you like it or not, censorship among private individuals and businesses is an exercise in free speech. It's within my right to free speech to set the terms of your speech in my home, in my businesses or anywhere else on my property.
Your right to free speech is not violated by private censorship. Although the concept of free speech can exist independently of the First Amendment, the "right" to free speech cannot.
Your statement doesn't align with reality, so I'll assume you're stating an opinion rather than a fact. Free speech is an inalienable right protected by the First Amendment and afforded to both individuals and businesses, that is a fact.
Free Speech is inalienable under the constitution, until it isn't. The First Amendment isn't a natural right. Humans have a natural right to free speech, businesses don't.
"Businesses" is not a useful distinction here, because an individual can be a business in their personal capacity. What matters are legal corporations, which would not exist at all if not for the government chartering them. The question is whether those fictitious legal entities have a right to free speech that is separate from such right of all the persons who constitute them.
Leadership starts and ends at the top. Sometimes it never starts.
I do wonder if the games industry is close to wide-scale reckoning on working conditions. It really does just sound brutal and even more exploitative than Hollywood. I've personally suffered mild enterprise ERP burnout, but the kind of stuff I read about in the game industry is just next level.
I brought this up when I spoke to one of their talent sourcing folks last week. They really need to coach them on better replies because the dishonesty is a terrible look.
most important sign to me of a broken or decadent leadership culture is always when people in charge do not take responsibility for what happens under them. One would think that comes with being in charge in the first place.
I'm baffled at how little shareholders have held Kotick's feet to the fire (and how little he's responded). I guess everyone who cared about company politics sold out when the accusations started flying...
He's close friends with many on the board, so they back him at every turn. The shareholders can't do anything when the board doesn't care what they have to say.
Well yeah, but I really expected more out of them. They basically wrote a letter saying "please resign", Bob said "no", and then they said "oh okay, we have no further questions or statements at this time". Again, it reads to me like the majority of people are covering it up for financial/social benefit, or just completely disinterested in resolving their issues.
If we ignore that Kotick probably has build himself a very comfortable nest there and is probably surrounded by supporters I believe that even if they wanted him gone there is probably a calculation lying around in the offices of a number of people that compares Koticks exit package vs. the immediate expected losses from the current damage to the brand (which probably ignores longtime effects, or expects things to just blow over).
Because he’s led some of the highest growth of any company of the last two decades and there’s extremely limited evidence that he knew what was going on at just one of his subsidiary companies (and the least profitable one at that).
Blizzard games don’t hold a candle to the money CoD, Madden, or Skylanders bring in. If Blizzard lets him go, someone else will snatch up his genius immediately.
What makes you say that? Every piece of info I encountered on the case suggests the opposite [1][2]
In addition to that Kotick himself has been involved in such cases before and is no stranger to getting rid of victims [3]
>In addition to that Kotick himself has been accused of sexual harassment in the past and lost a legal case over it [3]
I am not trying to defend Kotick, and am not saying his behavior then or now was alright. But the article you linked did not say he was accused of sexual harassment. And he did not lose a sexual harassment case either.
Instead the article says that a guy named Berg, with whom Kotick co-owned a private jet, was accused of sexual harassment by a former stewardess. Kotick was named in the suit because he co-owned the company that owned the jet and he was the one who eventually fired the stewardess, and that was alleged to have been wrongful termination out of retribution for reporting Berg's alleged misconduct. Kotick himself, unlike Berg, was not accused of sexual harassment in this case. (It seems the entire thing was settled out of court eventually).
The suit that was actually lost as per the article was a case brought by a former attorney for him and Berg, who sued them for non-payment of legal fees relating to the original sexual harassment case.
The craziest thing about this case is that a simple civil lawsuit apparently created legal fees of $1.4M dollars he then had to pay. It seems to me that the US legal itself is a giant extortion scheme.
> Blizzard games don’t hold a candle to the money CoD, Madden, or Skylanders bring in
You might be right that Blizzard game don't make as much pure profit. However, COD and Madden are prime examples of the bastardization of the video games industry, where companies are putting profits far ahead of making actual enjoyable games. Kotick is a pioneer in this respect, being the best in the biz at making games unfun reskinned garbage and making a mint while doing it.
IMO keeping someone like Kotick around for his money making prowess is extremely short sighted. One of these days people are going to pick up on the ruse. You can already see it with Blizzard's waning fanbase for games like Overwatch and WoW.
> IMO keeping someone like Kotick around for his money making prowess is extremely short sighted.
For a gaming company? Even the best-run gaming companies struggle to last a decade financially. If you’re a shareholder, you’re looking at these returns and realizing that this man is a unicorn.
Looks like returns are slightly below electronic arts (since 2009 anyway, around when Kotick started and after the crash), which seems like the best comp. EA has had two CEOs over that time frame. Maybe they were both geniuses too.
Blizzard was never a privately held company or not in the sense that founders had real autonomy. I believe Michael Morhaime had a lot to do with why Blizzard could do what it did. I remember reading in interviews that he defended the soon(tm) mindset and steered the owners away from chasing quarterly reports. I also believe that Chris Metzen was a key figure in upholding a geeky and fun culture. I was genuinely impressed by Blizzard in my youth and dreamed of working there one day.
But something happened after the success of WoW the company grew quickly and with that came some bad people and after the merger, Bobby Kotick could exert his influence.
Blizzard stopped being a geeky place for geeks and culture eroded slowly.
I also believe that the original core Blizzard people were struggling with leaving the company in the hands of the next generation. They wanted to believe that the people they had in the company would carry the torch and embody the same ideals. It didn't happen.
The saddest day was when Metzen announced his departure. It was felt by many as a shock. He was a beacon of hope and light but I also think the was struggling with some personal family matters. He now felt the work was no longer in his best interest and left. A lot of Blizzard veterans followed suit. I don't think a single one of the original people still work there, with the exception of Samwise Didier. Blizzard still has a very strong art department.
I believe Michael Morhaime did what he could but ultimately realized that he didn't have the autonomy to fix it. The problem had grown to big. Maybe they were naive? I mean, these people struck gold and built one of worlds most renown gaming brands and the worlds most successful MMO to date.
On the flip side. All the key people have moved on to found new gaming ventures and I believe this time they've had the capital to fund it themselves. Hoping they stay independent and build great experiences for us to enjoy.
Metzen Knew about the toxic “bro-culture” while he was in one of the management positions directly above some of what turned out to be the worst sexual offenders, and did nothing about it, for which he apologised on his own Twitter post scandal.
Michael Morhaime similarly was the head of Blizzard doing the worst of the sexual misconduct and people don’t things like “cube crawls”.
I’ve worked in big enterprise, I know how easy it is to turn the blind eye to things (maybe not drunk employees litterally crawling around to harass women) but still, but I fear that the toxic culture may be as old as Blizard west itself, and that it likely only grew into the sexual misconduct that it did following the growth of World of Warcraft and the huge influx of new hires (including a lot of in-office women which had been rare up till then).
If they knew and did nothing that's bad but somehow I don't believe these people didn't care or didn't try to tell these people to behave.
In a company with thousand's of employees how can you expect a few people to be responsible for everybody, that's just absurd.
You come to a point where you've said and done all you can and nobody is listing. At that point you will make yourself very unhappy staying. This is why I think these people, who are genuine geeks, ultimate just left Blizzard and hoped the people they left in charge could bring it into the next generation.
Company is doing well but the brand has take quite the blow.
If I had an employee that I repeated told not to get drunk and crawl around hitting on coworkers. I would fire that person if they didn’t stop. To be perfectly blunt, I would have fired them right away, but I’m Danish, we can do such things with little repercussions since it’s so blatantly insane that they would have no ground to defend their actions.
Morhaime and the leadership definitely had autonomy. Blizzard was the goose that laid the gold egg. Also multiple former employees have stated that there's no way Morhaime didn't know what was going on. So I think you've got it backwards.
Both Mike and Metzen state in the own response that they didn't realize how bad it was and they only respond this way because this lawsuit got huge press.
Why is it so hard to believe that when you're running a company from above you have virtually zero knowledge of what's going on in the trenches.
And the people around you act as layers to insulate you to some extent. The only way you change that is by building trust between your peers and even if you go out to dinner together the topic of discrimination and harassment probably won't come up. Most people won't just say out loud what they think needs improvement unless you ask them.
You can fault them for not being more proactive but they most probably believed that the people they did trust to be on top of these things actually did what they said they would do.
It's the hardest thing to build and maintain a delicate culture. It takes just a few rotten eggs to ruin everything.
I guess we agree on one thing then - that's the exact reason that I don't believe all the press about Kotick fostering a culture of harrassment. He can't possibly be across everything that's happening at a dozen or more studios with over 9,000 employees.
> But something happened after the success of WoW the company grew quickly and with that came some bad people and after the merger, Bobby Kotick could exert his influence.
I don't think this was the case, and that rather WoW's success forced the company to become more professional but the sexual harassment culture was so ingrained that the company couldn't shake it off. The name thrown around the most due to the lawsuit was Alex Afrasiabi, who was hired in early 2004 to work on WoW (which released November 23, 2004). You can also take a look at WoW's credits [1] and see the mention of "sexy HR girls" or their internal tenth anniversary video [2] from 2001 that covers why they hired their first female employee.
A couple of weeks back the youtube algorithm decided to show me the youtube channel of one of the Warcraft 3 level designers who worked for Blizzard from 1998 to 2003, and in one of his videos, made 4 years ago mind you, he's pretty clear on what the culture was like there [3], with the choice quote "if I wanted to bring a sexual harassment lawsuit against Blizzard ... I could have easily done that."
The guy also said that Rob Pardo (lead designer of Starcraft, Warcraft III, and WoW, and now founder of Bonfire Studios since his ejection from Blizzard in 2014) was particularly toxic. And it seems he's not the only one with the same sentiment [4]. The other Rob from that tweet I'm guessing was Robert Bridenbecker [5], who was with the company since 1995. These were people that had to have been working closely with Morhaime due to the nature of their positions, so keeping them around for so long despite the outstanding HR complaints doesn't bode well.
Is it worth following and supporting the new gaming ventures if this is the culture those veterans fostered and had grown accustomed to?
I've seen it. I have also seen a lot of disgruntled employees and it's not obvious to me that I should take anyone's word over senior management.
With the kind of success that WoW had it goes to your head. Some people get corrupted by it. It can bring the worst out of some people. That probably happened.
Lots of people want to work in the video game industry, so they'll put up with low pay, long hours, and apparently sexual harassment for a really long time.
Unfortunately, the situation is similar throughout most of the entertainment and sports industry. Employees want to work in the field so they put up with abuse and unprofessional behavior that wouldn't be tolerated in more staid industries.
Working a at FAANG is not as attractive to most when you don’t know about the issues in the video games industry. There is a reason why FAANG companies pay well and video games companies don’t have to.
I met zero people who told me they dreamed about working in a FAANG since childhood.
There is no mention in the article about these people being engineers. These people were fired "to address allegations of sexual harassment and other misconduct". These are the bad guys. And finally, there isn't that much overlap between "perf tuning in AAA game engines and improving cloud workloads".
Both your sentences are true. So, what do we conclude from them though? It doesn’t change the core fact that the cost of skilled labor is lower for games companies than it is for FAANG, right?
It's also possible that in a creative industry like that you can't be as controlling when it comes to employee behavior. The people coming up with crazy new ideas are probably more eccentric than average. It might not be as easy to walk the line of separating the good eccentric behavior from the bad. An incident here, an incident there can pile up over the years. My impression is that it's not a very uncommon problem in the entertainment industry.
I really wouldn't boycott anything over workplace culture. If their product is good I will buy it. In the case of Blizzard their products haven't been good for a long time. I'm ok with supporting a company that's evil. I am consuming petroleum, plastic, the news media, etc. all the time. Anyone who suggests otherwise comes across as somewhat delusional and a little self obsessed to me. Blizzard would be the least of my sins.
This is a pragmatic approach in some regards, but misses nuance. I can't really live my life as a part of society without some of these 'sins', and I don't think my opting in or out of plastic consumption on a choice-by-choice basis will move any needles. My choices will not effect the behaviors of these corps.
But I can live without buying the next loot box, and I can still be a productive member of society without the new Call of Duty game. And forgoing those might move a needle, as sales are a closely tracked metric, and being one of a few million is a much larger impact than being one of many billions.
> But I can live without buying the next loot box, and I can still be a productive member of society without the new Call of Duty game.
You could live on slurried nutrient paste instead of regular food. Yet we choose to pursue good food because it gives us happiness and satisfaction. To a lot of gamers, video games offer happiness and fulfillment.
What Blizzard folks did was terrible, and I reduced willingly spending on them. But when they released Diablo 2 remastered, I bought it immediately and relived my childhood experience. I don’t regret it.
So you did not read the article, and are not familiar with the topic, but believe it’s not worth boycotting the company. I’m not implying that you’re trying to be in bad faith or cover the company actions, but your comments sound uninformed and misleading.
There are both good and bad people at Blizzard. Like each of us, they are complex and complicated and nuanced. No one and no thing is pure evil or pure good.
> Anyone who suggests otherwise comes across as somewhat delusional and a little self obsessed to me.
I have responded to repeated opening from several oil companies, including one last week, by saying that I have seen their employee brag about sponsoring genocides and war crimes, and more of us were hoping they would be prosecuted at ICJ in The Hague for that, their action on climate change, and their relentless campaign to deny their role. It was explicit that several of those crimes incurred the death penalty.
That’s not just the right thing to do: those companies will face economic difficulty very fast as neighbourhoods are destroyed by hurricanes, heat waves, fires, famine, droughts, that scientist unambiguously tie to global warming.
I don’t understand why hoping that humanity will survive makes me self-obsessed, but you don’t seem to be the right person to explain collective responsibility so I probably shouldn’t ask.
