Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

I haven't taken to discussing this on Twitter because EVERYONE is talking about this but it's so fucking complicated for me. Here's my string of interconnected thoughts:

 

1.) Alison's stance on things like child pornography laws, imperialism, loli/shotacon are fucking weird. I read the thesis too and her tweets and felt uncomfortable enough to unfollow her on twitter.

2.) I'm mad that the only reason these harassers care about this shit is because it would be good firing fodder given Nintendo's stance on family friendliness. It's not like GG cares about child porn when many of their major proponents turn a blind eye to it, ignore it, or have admitted to liking underage stuff from Japan regularly.

3.) I reject this idea that having a problem with Alison's personality means you're siding with harassers.

4.) None of this means she should have been fired and yeah, I wish we had unions because honestly this sounds more like Nintendo having a problem with her moonlighting, which I suspect was of a more adult nature (but that's speculation.) 

5.) People's reactions to this are actually  more weird to me than Alison herself because apparently if you don't unilaterally pretend you are comfortable with her as a person, it means you believe everything her harassers were up to. 

6.) I still think she was fired for really bad reasons and it sucks. She should get her job back. 

7.) I still don't really agree with a lot of her opinions and that's actually quite a few feminists online that have been harassed too. 

8.) GG has made it impossible to have actual conflict with other women online. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the discomfort, but I think it's resolvable to feel 'i disagree with this person' and 'the conversation about whether this person is agreeable or not is not appropriate to this discussion of whether the way nintendo treated her is okay.' at the same time.

 

It's a weird situation though. I think the upshot here is that, while her views are debatable and maybe questionable (I don't really know), the discussion on those views has to be taken outside of the venue her harassers have defined -- of course, once you do that, and the stakes no longer include nintendo or her job, it quickly becomes apparent that there's no real reason to talk about what some random lady thinks about the sexualization of minors with no outside context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it needs to be argued that the harassment she faced was shitty, and it seems to have at the very least had a hand in her firing. Her decision to moonlight under a fake name without telling her bosses is a pretty stupid thing to do (something I would certainly be in hot water for), and while it is technically a firable offense, here seems a bit much. Usually what happens is the studio tells you to stop, and then if you continue to do so a firing can occur, however I have heard stories of first party studios and IP owners being far less lenient on that count. In addition to the harassment issue, this is a pretty stark example of just how much control publishers have over the development process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems extremely unlikely they would have ever found out about it though if she wasn't being extensively scrutinized by outside parties. It's something most employees would have gotten away with, even if it was against the rules, just because no one was out there gunning for them.

 

This is analogous to the problem of law enforcement: Hypothetically the laws are equal, but in practical application if the cops want to get you for something they pretty much always can, so in reality the law punishes those who are scrutinized the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the discomfort, but I think it's resolvable to feel 'i disagree with this person' and 'the conversation about whether this person is agreeable or not is not appropriate to this discussion of whether the way nintendo treated her is okay.' at the same time.

 

It's a weird situation though. I think the upshot here is that, while her views are debatable and maybe questionable (I don't really know), the discussion on those views has to be taken outside of the venue her harassers have defined -- of course, once you do that, and the stakes no longer include nintendo or her job, it quickly becomes apparent that there's no real reason to talk about what some random lady thinks about the sexualization of minors with no outside context.

 

Well, I mean, I'm an adult and I know how to conduct myself politely, I was just explaining my thoughts on it. 

 

But this is an interesting point about social justice and how it plays out online: a lot of people are quite alright turning a blind eye to someone's sketchier politics if their overall points seem sound. Alison is known around the "circle" for being a pretty outspoken feminist in games, that's how I came across her vs. being a Nintendo person. A lot of men, in particular, like pedastalling women as feminists and getting angry when feminists disagree with eachother because there's always the good/bad woman narrative. It makes no one "random" in that way. A lot of the major targets of harassment have become so galvanized because of the harassment campaigns that it becomes nigh impossible for anyone to tackle what they say genuinely about any topic. So in this way, this is doubly why I hate GG: not only are they putting people through hell, they have effectively shut down needed discourse about publicly-held views on things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3.) I reject this idea that having a problem with Alison's personality means you're siding with harassers.

...

5.) People's reactions to this are actually  more weird to me than Alison herself because apparently if you don't unilaterally pretend you are comfortable with her as a person, it means you believe everything her harassers were up to. 

...

7.) I still don't really agree with a lot of her opinions and that's actually quite a few feminists online that have been harassed too. 

8.) GG has made it impossible to have actual conflict with other women online. 

 

I think that, at this juncture, there's an important distinction to be made between "having a problem" and "voicing a problem," though. Like, I'm not sure how I feel about Rapp's thesis and tweets, but now's not the time to express that uncertainty, not when it's just been used as a lever to dump all of this shit on her. I know you know this, probably better than anyone else posting in this thread, but it's so frustrating that harassment campaigns against women are an open invitation for everyone to share their opinion about how they lived their lives. People who didn't even know that she existed now get to have considered opinions on her fucking honors thesis (at which I personally cringe to see her trumpeting in her tweets, it feels like I'm seeing a trainwreck happening).

 

It seems extremely unlikely they would have ever found out about it though if she wasn't being extensively scrutinized by outside parties. It's something most employees would have gotten away with, even if it was against the rules, just because no one was out there gunning for them.

 

I can't find the links, but Rapp claimed that her bosses at Nintendo were looking for reasons to terminate her since early in the harassment campaign and that moonlighting was just "frowned upon" and not strictly forbidden in all cases. I've been in work situations where my employer wanted me gone and, even if Rapp didn't have any dirt, the next step is invariably just to pressurize her until she's miserable enough to quit on her own. They'd already started that before the firing, taking her off the front lines. Really, it was a no-win situation from the moment that #GamerGate decided that they wanted her gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not an open invitation. But that varnish gets carried out indefinitely, mostly by male allies. It's an intracommunity thing that just never gets talked about really, but unlike a lot of random dudes online, a lot of feminists I know have way more decorum. What harassment campaigns have effectively done is flattened the ability to have a normal amount of public disagreement down to nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not an open invitation. But that varnish gets carried out indefinitely, mostly by male allies. It's an intracommunity thing that just never gets talked about really, but unlike a lot of random dudes online, a lot of feminists I know have way more decorum. What harassment campaigns have effectively done is flattened the ability to have a normal amount of public disagreement down to nothing. 

 

I feel you, I wish I could really dig into what I agree with, disagree with, and understand but am personally grossed by among Rapp's views, but there's no space for that because she's a victim of this hate. Still, that's like... one of so many things that harassment campaigns have taken from us, not even the worst thing either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in this way, this is doubly why I hate GG: not only are they putting people through hell, they have effectively shut down needed discourse about publicly-held views on things. 

Yesss. I find this so frustrating. Double respect to people out there who are still trying to have nuanced discussions about things online in the face of the worst and least reasonable interpretations of their words being used as ammunition in some stupid piss war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't making a point about what the worst thing was, only talking about that in relation to how I have complicated feelings about all this. I am not even sure why I feel upset about it because this post literally went up on Gamasutra an hour and fifteen ago and I'm sure it will be applauded for being fair despite being a larger summation of precisely the same things I said: 

 

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/BrandonSheffield/20160331/269430/Why_I_canceled_my_Wii_U_game.php

 

See? That's how you do it, I guess! Weird. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AC, you seem to have some more first hand experience with her comments over the years than at least some of us do (I think you mentioned that you followed her for awhile).  All I've seen are a handful of out of context tweets and I know this undergrad essay exists, but that's all I know.  That such a terribly limited body of work, it's the primary reason I feel far more comfortable focusing on other elements.  I, personally, would have to try and fill in blanks to make any kind of coherent comment on it, and I don't see any value in that.

 

 

I cannot fathom what it must be like to have any significant part of your college undergrad work exist forever in easily accessible formats.  People wring their hands about kids these days having sexted and whatnot and half the college kids having nude pictures of themselves and how they'll never get elected president because boobs and dicks.  But the idea of my undergrad work being dug up to use against me for years to come is far more horrifying than the idea that someone might see me naked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen a number of responses to Rapp's situation suggest that Nintendo should have done something sooner to address the harassment Rapp was experiencing, but I'm curious as to what this would be.  Brandon's article pointed to Intel's initiative, which is great but something only a company worth a significant amount of money could do, and aside from this I'm having a hard time finding anything that would be more than just a moral or symbolic victory in the tech world.  In particular the question of addressing harassment, Nintendo could have put out some stern statements condemning the harassment, but beyond that I personally don't have any idea what could have been done that wouldn't involve pursuing legal action against the harassers on behalf of Rapp.  I very much doubt Nintendo, or any company for that matter, would willingly entangle itself in these kinds of lawsuits unless it's hand was forced, and beyond that anything I can come up with would at best be symbolic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3.) I reject this idea that having a problem with Alison's personality means you're siding with harassers.

 

Thank you, it's all I wanted to express...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen a number of responses to Rapp's situation suggest that Nintendo should have done something sooner to address the harassment Rapp was experiencing, but I'm curious as to what this would be.  Brandon's article pointed to Intel's initiative, which is great but something only a company worth a significant amount of money could do, and aside from this I'm having a hard time finding anything that would be more than just a moral or symbolic victory in the tech world.  In particular the question of addressing harassment, Nintendo could have put out some stern statements condemning the harassment, but beyond that I personally don't have any idea what could have been done that wouldn't involve pursuing legal action against the harassers on behalf of Rapp.  I very much doubt Nintendo, or any company for that matter, would willingly entangle itself in these kinds of lawsuits unless it's hand was forced, and beyond that anything I can come up with would at best be symbolic.

 

Nintendo may not have Intel money, but they aren't exactly poor either.  There's still things they could do at some scale.

 

But even at the individual employee level, here are things they could have done (this is what I would have done if she were my employee and my business was several times larger than it is, but still a tiny order of magnitude smaller than Nintendo):

 

1) Issued a statement of support and condemnation of her harassers while she was still an employee, publicly taking her back

2) Someone higher up the food chain from her could have attempted to take some of the heat.  Someone at the executive level, who would actually have final approval over greenlighting a translation, could have said, "Hey y'all, I made the call, you got a problem, bring it to me."  This is a thing a good manager does.  Good managers take the heat directed at their employees.  Good managers sometimes do it even when it isn't actually their fault or responsibility. 

3) This may have happened, but I have seen no evidence of it.  They could have offered identify theft protection and credit monitoring services to her for the next year or two, since we've previously seen harassment victims have their accounts targeted.  Her harassment was work related, this to me is as necessary as something like workers comp medical insurance in this day and age for certain companies. 

4) This may have happened, but I have seen no evidence of it.  They could have offered to provide assistance in managing the campaign against her.  There are now companies that specialize in this.  And it's not like they don't have other PR specialists who work for them.  Any company of the size and visibility of Nintendo should probably already have a relationship with a firm like this, or something like this is an excellent opportunity to find one.  This is not the last time that a Nintendo employee will be subject to harassment due to their employment.  It would have been up to Rapp at that point if she was open to their guidance (I have a feeling she wouldn't have been as part of that guidance almost certainly would have been to go radio silent for awhile, but at least the option would have been there).   -  As a side note, these services aren't cheap, but even in lieu of that, I would still ask an employee for guidance from them on what I could do to help until the storm passed. 

5) This may have happened, but I have seen no evidence of it.  Nintendo could have offered her a severance package that would have made sure she was financially secure for awhile while she looked for a new job and wouldn't lose her health insurance.  There's easily precedence for this kind of package under certain circumstance with plenty of jobs.  This actually solves multiple problems.  Nintendo wouldn't be facing the criticism they are now if they just would have offered her a 2-4 month severance package.  Instead of trying to blame her second job, they simply could have issued a statement saying, "It's become increasingly clear that due to circumstances out of both our and Ms. Rapp's control that she is no longer capable of effectively doing the job she was hired to do.  We have ended the relationship, but provided a generous severance package as neither party expected her employment to end in the position it has.  We wish her the best."  It would have been a pittance in order to avoid the negative attention they are getting now.

 

 

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.  1 and 2 are cheap/free.  3 is pretty cheap nowadays.  4 is actually pretty expensive, but there are more affordable options to still provide support.  5 is just a cost of doing business, and something all businesses in the US already face when considering to fire or layoff an employee given how unemployment works.  Rapp may still have an unemployment claim if she can show that her moonlighting didn't violate company policy and that other moonlighters were known, but not fired.  Unemployment claims drive up future unemployment tax rates.  This is a big reason severance packages are offered in the first place.  A few months of severance can ultimately be cheaper than the future years worth of unemployment tax increases due to unemployment claims.  It still may have made more financial sense to give her a severance package than to outright fire her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, at the bare minimum, Nintendo could have issued a statement about their localization processes clarifying that someone who works in marketing isn't making decisions about localization.

 

She's been getting harassment for months, but that harassment intensified when you got people who were upset about the Xenoblade and Fire Emblem localizations.  When that anger flared up, the usual shitheads made it a point to blame her for decisions she had no part of, and that ramped up the harassment.  Nintendo saying "She had fucking nothing to do with this, stop it" isn't going to stop all the harassment, but it at least disarms the lies that the usual parties were spreading to paint a target on her back over localization criticisms and would shut down some portion of the harassment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta admit that it was a little disheartening to see a bunch of people posting their Mii photos a day after seeing a lot of (justified) anger against Nintendo. You would hope that more people would think twice about performing free labor through advertisement for a company that just demonstrated some shitty employee practices.

For those that don't feel boycotting is productive, I'm curious to hear what other avenues you'd explore to improve employees protections at Nintendo. I don't buy their products, so boycotts are actually useless for me. If there's a better solution (besides just tweeting my displeasure) I'd love to hear them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short term I see like zero thing to do about this other than express displeasure unless someone can offer her new job.

 

In long term I guess push for unionization in this industry (and well anywhere you can really (I think it's worth mentioning that this will most likely also warrant significant protection to some of the nastiest abusers (probably better than leaving everyone out to fare mob justice online but just saying it will be a thing))).

 

But I'm sure we are focused on short term and it's a shame that I'm sure none of us individually have any resources to do much beyond frowning publicly...  Pretty freaking weird though that launch of Miimoto pretty much just wiped this event off instantly off my twitter feed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thing is a big gross mess with a lot of nuance. I do think it's shitty to get people fired for stuff they post on-line, even though that has sort of been a tactic used by progressive to attack people who post racist things. It feels like the next logical step for these reactionaries to do the same, similar to how they've been corrupting social justice language for a while. "Triggered" is a meme now, for example.

I'm not happy with Nintendo, but they were in a lose-lose situation here. They should have absolutely done something publically about her harassment though. Not sure if they did anything internally to help but god what a terrible thing for a person to go through.

:( :( :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta admit that it was a little disheartening to see a bunch of people posting their Mii photos a day after seeing a lot of (justified) anger against Nintendo. You would hope that more people would think twice about performing free labor through advertisement for a company that just demonstrated some shitty employee practices.

For those that don't feel boycotting is productive, I'm curious to hear what other avenues you'd explore to improve employees protections at Nintendo. I don't buy their products, so boycotts are actually useless for me. If there's a better solution (besides just tweeting my displeasure) I'd love to hear them.

 

 

Yeah, it's been bewildering to say the least.

 

This article is so good:

http://www.pointandclickbait.com/2016/04/but-shes-got-a-new-hat/

 

Also I think JP's take is good:

https://twitter.com/vectorpoem/status/715948891292585984

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.

 

JP LeBreton had a bunch of good tweets about this: https://twitter.com/vectorpoem/status/715948891292585984

 

He's right that I or anyone else should not shame others for their choices, but he's also right that the complete 180 shift in tone around Nintendo all but guarantees that the company will not learn its lesson.

 

There are plenty of companies that I directly or indirectly boycott (Chick-fil-A is a good example), but I know for every one of those there are probably hundreds of other companies that I patronize that are doing equally horrible things. Conscientious consumerism is an impossible standard that no one could live up to, so I shouldn't care if people boycott Nintendo or not. But if that's what people want to do, who am I to tell them it's a bad idea? What active action are the anti-boycott crowd going to take? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally push for talking about and sharing/raising consciousness about unionization and labor practises. Because this was a shitty thing for an employer to do to anyone, let alone Nintendo. The game industry has a horrific history and legacy of treating employees like shit. 

 

Generally I don't observe or promote boycotts just for that reason - it often hurts people at the bottom line rather than the top and there's very little ethical consumption under capitalism. So I opt to try and put more of my money, voice and time into positive actions like labor reform (I went to big union rallies in Wisconsin when Walker was trying to bust those up in our state.) It's something very needed for gaming. 

 

Alison's story was up on CNN tonight, actually, which is kinda mindblowing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Issued a statement of support and condemnation of her harassers while she was still an employee, publicly taking her back

2) Someone higher up the food chain from her could have attempted to take some of the heat.  Someone at the executive level, who would actually have final approval over greenlighting a translation, could have said, "Hey y'all, I made the call, you got a problem, bring it to me."  This is a thing a good manager does.  Good managers take the heat directed at their employees.  Good managers sometimes do it even when it isn't actually their fault or responsibility. 

3) This may have happened, but I have seen no evidence of it.  They could have offered identify theft protection and credit monitoring services to her for the next year or two, since we've previously seen harassment victims have their accounts targeted.  Her harassment was work related, this to me is as necessary as something like workers comp medical insurance in this day and age for certain companies. 

4) This may have happened, but I have seen no evidence of it.  They could have offered to provide assistance in managing the campaign against her.  There are now companies that specialize in this.  And it's not like they don't have other PR specialists who work for them.  Any company of the size and visibility of Nintendo should probably already have a relationship with a firm like this, or something like this is an excellent opportunity to find one.  This is not the last time that a Nintendo employee will be subject to harassment due to their employment.  It would have been up to Rapp at that point if she was open to their guidance (I have a feeling she wouldn't have been as part of that guidance almost certainly would have been to go radio silent for awhile, but at least the option would have been there).   -  As a side note, these services aren't cheap, but even in lieu of that, I would still ask an employee for guidance from them on what I could do to help until the storm passed. 

5) This may have happened, but I have seen no evidence of it.  Nintendo could have offered her a severance package that would have made sure she was financially secure for awhile while she looked for a new job and wouldn't lose her health insurance.  There's easily precedence for this kind of package under certain circumstance with plenty of jobs.  This actually solves multiple problems.  Nintendo wouldn't be facing the criticism they are now if they just would have offered her a 2-4 month severance package.  Instead of trying to blame her second job, they simply could have issued a statement saying, "It's become increasingly clear that due to circumstances out of both our and Ms. Rapp's control that she is no longer capable of effectively doing the job she was hired to do.  We have ended the relationship, but provided a generous severance package as neither party expected her employment to end in the position it has.  We wish her the best."  It would have been a pittance in order to avoid the negative attention they are getting now.

 

These all seem like reasonable steps to take as an employee, but I just don't see a game company, or really any company doing most of them.  The public statement against harrassment is easy sure, and probably should have been done, but the others seem dangerous for the company to mandate.  It would have been nice if one of her managers stepped in and tried to take the heat off her (which is basically half a lead's job anyways), but I just don't see a company mandating that be done by one of her superiors.  That seems like a recipe for legal trouble for Nintendo, but also the mark of a fantastic lead would it have happened.  As far as the other three go, I don't see how Nintendo could just give these perks to Rapp, and instead would have to offer them to all of their employees.  Sure there was a greater need in Rapp's case, but I just don't see a company willing to take on that kind of liability.  The cost for that kind of thing is huge, not to mention if the package included some kind of counselling, that affects Nintendo's insurance rates.  While all the solutions sound reasonable to me, they do represent a massive cost to the company, both financially and otherwise.

 

I'm certain these concerns won't find friendly ears here, but I just can't see a publicly traded company willing to undertake these kinds of endeavors.  This is probably a bigger discussion, but a lot of what should have been done here seems like something law enforcement should be handling, but is at present not really equipped to.  Alternatively, I wonder if this kind of thing should be handled by workman's comp or a similar insurance that could be purchased by companies like Nintendo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These all seem like reasonable steps to take as an employee, but I just don't see a game company, or really any company doing most of them.  The public statement against harrassment is easy sure, and probably should have been done, but the others seem dangerous for the company to mandate.  It would have been nice if one of her managers stepped in and tried to take the heat off her (which is basically half a lead's job anyways), but I just don't see a company mandating that be done by one of her superiors.  That seems like a recipe for legal trouble for Nintendo, but also the mark of a fantastic lead would it have happened.  As far as the other three go, I don't see how Nintendo could just give these perks to Rapp, and instead would have to offer them to all of their employees.  Sure there was a greater need in Rapp's case, but I just don't see a company willing to take on that kind of liability.  The cost for that kind of thing is huge, not to mention if the package included some kind of counselling, that affects Nintendo's insurance rates.  While all the solutions sound reasonable to me, they do represent a massive cost to the company, both financially and otherwise.

 

I'm certain these concerns won't find friendly ears here, but I just can't see a publicly traded company willing to undertake these kinds of endeavors.  This is probably a bigger discussion, but a lot of what should have been done here seems like something law enforcement should be handling, but is at present not really equipped to.  Alternatively, I wonder if this kind of thing should be handled by workman's comp or a similar insurance that could be purchased by companies like Nintendo.

 

The big differentiating thing here that you seem to be not addressing is that the harassment directly stemmed from her employment (as far as I know, if I'm wrong on that, then it is a different story), hence her employers responsibility to help with it.  This isn't different to me from workers comp medical coverage for on the job injuries.  There are all sorts of business that have to pay costs related to risks that their employees take.  The two newspapers I worked at had lawyers who were paid to defend us against certain possible claims (assuming that we had followed ethics guidelines and paper policy in our reporting).  I know of several people who work jobs where mental health services and counseling are offered because of on the job shit that can happen.  There are all sorts of specialized insurances for the variety of unique circumstances that companies and their employees may face across a huge variety of fields.  I guess I don't really see how your argument that it's the employee's responsibility applies to employment caused harassment, when there are all these other examples of employers being responsible for the risks or harm that comes to their employees due to their employment. 

 

I mean, if the harassment was completely unrelated to her employment, I agree with you.  Her problem.  If someone breaks their leg waterskiiing on vacation, their problem.  If they break their leg on the job because a piece of equipment was faulty, employer's responsibility.  If I'm sued because I punched someone on my own time, my problem.  If I'm sued for defamation because of a story I wrote for a newspaper that followed newspaper guidelines, it's the newspaper's responsibility.  The harm stemming from employment is what matters. 

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but why does this harm not equate to the other myriad harms that employers are responsible for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, something I should clarify, I have no problems with Nintendo letting her go, I think there are multiple good arguments for it being the right choice, even for both parties. I just disagree with their handling of it and with the notion that employment caused harassment is a problem that is solely an employee's responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, if the harassment was completely unrelated to her employment, I agree with you.  Her problem.  If someone breaks their leg waterskiiing on vacation, their problem.  If they break their leg on the job because a piece of equipment was faulty, employer's responsibility.  If I'm sued because I punched someone on my own time, my problem.  If I'm sued for defamation because of a story I wrote for a newspaper that followed newspaper guidelines, it's the newspaper's responsibility.  The harm stemming from employment is what matters. 

 

Well in those cases the injury would have occurred under the supervision of the employer, or at least within their purview.  This is more akin to say a nurse at an abortion clinic being threatened while shopping for groceries, which is something that would be handled by law enforcement, though in this case the law enforcement apparatus isn't really equipped to handle this kind of situaiton.  If the harassment was aimed at a Nintendo run twitter account, or something directly under the purview of Nintendo I could see their interest in covering that liability.  I'm not suggesting it's her responsibility to deal with the harassment alone, it was more in reading a lot of the responses to this situation people have been casting the blame on Nintendo for doing something shitty, but from my understanding they were caught between a hate mob and the potential of exposing themselves to potentially serious consequences by taking a more active role in the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×