DoctorQuacks

Members
  • Content count

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

Community Reputation

27 Neutral

About DoctorQuacks

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile DoctorQuacks
  1. How'd they make things right? I don't feel foolish, because my entire point was that they acted appropriately when they kicked him off the program when he attacked their staff. Nothing's changed. He's still off the program. For his attacks on staff. They apologised and said they acted too quickly (I don't think they did, personally, but that's my opinion). If anything I feel vindicated, because all the bleating morons who were calling for heads to roll, are the ones who look foolish now, because either they were rabble-rabble-ing about the ship, which is going back into testing and being fixed (as I've said it probably would, here and elsewhere) refunds are being given, they're taking heed of the poor sales and backlash from every reviewer and CC (NOT just iChase) and protecting their business, as almost always happens in the history of business when products are broken and poorly received. And considering you're the one saying the outrage might be unfounded, and since that is the thing I tried to (without resorting to crayon picture drawings) explain--that the outrage was founded on false assumptions... Well don't YOU feel foolish? Why did you come here? What are you doing? You address a 'crowd' with you "For those that don't know" like anyone cares what you think? You're just some instigator who decided that after a back and forth between two people that didn't involve you whatsoever, you decided "No... No the boards need to hear my witty, sassy comments *cracks knuckles* and awaaaaaaay we go!" So, good job I guess? There ya go. No rant. (Ok, insert next super clever and biting witticism!... Or you could just go back to your hole. I mean, we could only BE so lucky, right folks?!...) ...I have two words for you too, but the forum censor won't let me say them ;) WINK!
  2. Look up the word "attack" you simple-minded plonk (you're right! That IS an insult! :). There's many meanings, one of which is "a fierce public opposition or criticism" or "An aggressive action against a person or place". Words can have many meanings! Isn't learning fun! But then I would expect that the very people who can't wrap their heads around what I've been trying to say, would be the same people who leap to the first concept in their minds of what an "attack" is. The physical one. Because durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Also, just gonna block you, matey boy. I've got better things to do with my life than argue with brick walls. Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
  3. Oh hey, you pompous, rude and insulting [edited] :) I read what you wrote, which is exactly why I wrote a reply! Let me break it down for you friend! It's not semantics, you of all people should know (what with your 30 years in PR) that when you write "just released for his open and honest rant that WG took offense too[sic]" (that's a direct quote by the way. If you're going to pull some bullcrap trying to chastise me for my poor reading comprehension, maybe you shouldn't have glaring spelling errors in your posts. It makes you look like an absolute [edited] that doesn't know what they're talking about...) you are DELIBERATELY misunderstanding and then regurgitating as if it's fact, the false idea that WG's reaction to his video was one of offense and therefore they responded by kicking him off the program. 1. You and I have no idea how they felt. They might care very little for what he thinks, but we can't possibly know that. You're assuming they were offended, because you imagine they are thin skinned and delicate. Don't know why. Maybe you're projecting? 2. They could not have stated in clearer terms in both their communications to iChase himself (as evidenced by the picture of the message in iChase's VERY OWN response video) and in their general policy on their own forums and in-game agreements, that personal attacks (yes, attacks) on their staff members, will not be tolerated. He broke a very clear rule that he agreed to when joining the CC program, ergo, he is kicked off it. 3. There can be no tolerance about this, because you can't just let a few jabs at the staff members go by, because where do you draw the line? Only once it reaches boycott levels? That the community will stop playing the game until a particular person is fired? That only once death threats are made against the staff that they'll step in and act against it? No, that's madness. This, however minor you think it is, is a direct attack on staff, and that's not acceptable from members of the general public, let alone someone WHO IS THEIR OWN COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTOR. I'm not twisting anything you said. I quoted you directly, and proceeded to explain to you (which it's clear you're unwilling to even bother thinking about or considering) why your little throwaway line about him being let go do to offense taken, is a dangerous thing, because (as you know, what with your 30 years experience in PR!) all it takes is one person to read what YOU wrote instead of what iChase wrote or WG wrote, and they think that what YOU wrote is the truth, instead of your (wrong) interpretation of what you THINK happened. Then that person goes on to make posts and assumptions based on what YOU wrote, and then people read that and take their cues from there, and so on. You need to know (which I'm sure you do, what with your 30 years of experience) that a lie told and retold, doesn't make it true. So either stop making the honest mistake about what you THINK is the reason he was fired. And, if you're going to run with the conspiracy nonsense, at least preface it with "It's my opinion that..."--you'll notice I haven't done that in my responses... You know why? Because I'm USING THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. That's called first-hand, or primary, evidence. But you know that already right? From your 30 years in PR?... Give me a break. I'm done with you. You're an exhausting person to try to understand. You're either willfully ignorant, or just dense. Either way I can't be bothered wasting any more time (and it IS a waste, as you are clearly opposed to any possible shred of doubt in your own leaps of assumption) with you or this topic.
  4. One more time for the people in the cheap seats. IT. WAS. NOT. A. THREAT. No one is saying it was a threat, it was an attack. Please remember these are two different words with two different meanings. Also: HE. WAS. NOT. CANNED. FOR. CRITICISM. He was canned because he made a personal attack on the developers themselves. EVERY other person who wrote a bad review and beat the hell out of the ship in their reviews, has been untouched! This was so OBVIOUSLY not about the criticism. It's clear as day, and I'm done trying to help people be less willfully ignorant. WORDS. MEAN. THINGS. I am done explaining this. People can claim all they want that it's being thin skinned. Stop it. No tolerance for making it personal against the staff of the company. Call the company as a whole what you want, call the stuff in the game what you want. Leave people's livelihoods out of this. People don't get to claim "I was just kidding!" "It's a common expression! People say it all the time!" People say terrible, hurtful things all the time in everyday speech, does this make it okay? Racial slurs? Homophobic slurs? Hurtful language towards women, demeaning comments about men and their perceived masculinity? None of that's okay, but it's very commonplace, is the frequency and ubiquity of something what makes it okay? Language is a delicate yet powerful tool. People need to be aware of how their words can be interpreted. Especially if THEY ARE A COMPANY SPOKESPERSON. I don't know where you got the impression it was because they felt "insulted"? No one is saying that? Forget it. I'm done with forums and reddit for a few weeks. The willful ignorance and stubborn refusal to even think about this for 10 seconds by most of the people here is beyond me. No point in engaging anymore. Enjoy your internet drama everyone!
  5. Please stop doing this. People keep saying this, and it's wrong--it's misinformation that fuels the online drama mills that people are so torch-and-pitchfork-y about. He was let go. He also did a video that was a rant. Maybe WG didn't like what he said about the ship. These are all facts that have NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. 1. He was let go because he attacked a staff member (or members) in stating that they should be "[edited]fired". It's extremely clear (from what Super Testers and other CCs have said) that in the contract you agree to when you join the CC program, that this is a no-no. 2. There is no requirement about CCs needing to give positive reviews.Many of them don't (look at Flamu and plenty of Notser's videos). I'm sure WG didn't LIKE that they said those things, but they have given those people the freedom to make their own criticisms. Criticise the ship. Criticise the decisions that led up to how things happens. You. Can. Not. Attack. Staff. Please don't join in with people saying that this was censorship, or that when you say bad things about WG, they kick you off their programs (they've kicked no one else off the program for crapping all over the Graf Zeppelin... and EVERYONE has crapped on the Graf Zeppelin).
  6. People STILL seem to be missing the point. A person (even an unpaid person) given access and privilege inside the company, as iChase was, cannot go around using the language he did, and attack the employees directly at the company he pseudo-works for. Court doesn't ever have to come into it whether you work for a company or not, gross insubordination is a fireable offence. Doing a bad job actually isn't. I don't know about the laws where you live, but when you do a bad job at work, unless it's a demonstrable pattern of a long history of it, you can't be fired for that. It's against fair labour laws. But that's a different issue. Only people who WANT to tinfoil hat this thing and make the connection that he was let go for speaking his mind, are going to make that connection. iChase even showed the email he was sent that let him go, and they don't mention the bad review, they don't say they don't like what he's saying about the ship. They say he attacked their staff and this isn't what they want their own community contributors to appear to be doing. Plain language, stated simply. They also can't wait on something like this. Attacking their staff has to have a no-tolerance policy, otherwise the longer they wait, the more okay it seems that someone can call for the heads of people perceived to have been responsible for the screw up. Attacking the people who work at the company is not okay, and can never BE okay. Attack the 'company' as some entity if you want, attack the ship that was broken and crappy, but you leave personal attacks out of what you do. iChase has learned a valuable lesson in business communication, because he is a business whether he likes it or not--he makes money from his YouTube reviews and videos, and with that power (the trust of the people who watch him) comes responsibility. He's learned what happens when he conducts himself this way. And, AGAIN, EVERY CC and reviewer crapped all over this ship. No one is "afraid" to speak their mind, CCs are given a LOT of leeway with what they can say, and iChase has crapped on decisions before, no problem. You. Can. Not. Attack. The. Staff. Directly. If people can't make the distinction between the bad review and what got him let go from the program, well then people need to have a better concept of understanding how this works (not saying YOU don't, but the general public seem to have this problem). And yes, this is a medium sized screw up. Calm down. Can this ship be fixed? Absolutely. Do you have to buy this ship? No. Are people being allowed to voice their opinions (on the SHIP), 100%, yes they are. No one needs to get fired over this. I guarantee you in a week or two, or once they fix the ship, this will all blow over and people will barely remember this.
  7. Why? No one has explained why it's fireable. Not with actual reasonable arguments. Good lord I never, ever want to work where you work and everyone must be on edge, walking on eggshells all the time because even a medium screw-up means being fired. Your bosses must have no faith in any of you to learn from mistakes or that any of you have the possibility of redemption. They must also think your skillsets and experience are immediately replaceable with a craigslist ad. But sure, because a crappy ship was released that's a premium, not a tech tree ship (that people playing that nation's class will HAVE to play eventually to go down the line) but one that is 100% optional, people should lose their jobs? Be straight up fired? That's just hilariously ridiculous. People want to make this out like WG snuck in and TOOK your money and then punched you in the face. Where is the outrage coming from? If anything, releasing a [edited] ship hurts THEM more than this outrage will... because no one will buy the friggin thing after reading or watching even TWO reviews on this. So let it fail. They'll fix it if it fails, otherwise no money... It's pretty simple. But no, we live on the drama and the excitement of ruining people who we've never met, won't see, and don't care about. Gosh what wonderful humans we all appear to be, on the internet.
  8. I wish I could give you more rep. I truly think the people calling for heads to roll have never been in the work force, or dealt with crisis in a workplace, because it's never as simple as "Steve screwed up, this is on Steve and he's been performing badly for months now. Fire Steve." Broken ship is broken. Broken ship might be fixed. Don't buy it until it's fixed. Or don't buy any ship. Or cut all your hair off and skip through a meadow, no one's making anyone do anything here. BUT you don't get to light the torches and hand out the pitchforks and still stay in the castle.
  9. But words mean things. And the audience is global. And how is someone to infer that he was just using a figure of speech? He pretty strongly worded it. Didn't seem to be a lot of wiggle room. Maybe it SHOULDN'T be such a common phrase, because having been on the end of that phrase, wielded with such a cavalier attitude towards me when I was a teenager working retail, it strikes a cold-sweat fear into a person who isn't sure whether their bosses think they're worth as much as the displeasure of a customer. It's this kind of attitude that makes people feel disposable and terrified when people start calling for firings. But the people doing the calling don't really think about that person, who might have a family, and might have rent due, or be overdue, or have medical bills to pay, or ANY of the human reasons people go to a job, they're upset about something and want to see something done, and someone get punished. iChase may not have meant his words to be taken a certain way, but that's still his fault. He is a communicator, a vocal public figure of sorts who HAS to be aware, after having done this a long time, that WHAT he says matters. People seem very ready to forgive iChase for saying people at a company who did a thing that made him mad should be "[edited]fired", but they're not at all ready to consider whether there was any genuine human mistakes made from the other side. The immediate thought is that it's them vs. us, and they must have pushed the launch button cackling about the trick they were about to pull (except for the fact that buying the ship is 100% voluntary and once reviews came out either way people were going to buy it or not based on a lot of that...). I'm not saying that you're wrong, but people need to consider different points of view and also consider just how little they can accept and tolerate people attacking their employees directly (if you think calling for people to be "[edited]fired" isn't an attack... well, it is.) let ALONE tolerate one of their OWN community contributors doing it? Come on. iChase wasn't broadcasting live, he wasn't on a stream, he wasn't pinned down for a question by a reporter... He recorded what he said, edited it, reviewed it and then released it. He knew what he was saying and the words he was using.
  10. No, criticism of a product a company makes is not a criticism of the company as a whole, the parts do not equal the sum. Other reviewers directly criticised the idea of the ship being released as it currently is. The difference between directly attacking staff members and calling for them to be stripped of jobs, and criticising a company for a broken product launch is massive, and you should understand the difference. And so death threats is what you consider attacks? That's the line, and everything before that is nothing? Only once it reaches death threats should it be taken seriously and before that it's just regular criticism and nothing more? That's sick. No one here said he made death threats, or even suggested he did, but you might want to look up what "attack" means, because there's more meanings besides full blown threats of violence. Maybe you don't think people calling for humans, individuals, possibly with families, to have their livelihoods taken away, is a big deal? But it's a big deal. And for that to be coming from a trusted community contributor? That's troubling and absolutely acceptable. Put away you bullcrap "snowflake" insult, you only show yourself to be the alt-right kind of bully who thinks that people having emotions, caring about dangerous and unacceptable behaviour and saying something about it is seen as weak or fragile. Think like a human being with empathy for a second. I don't expect you to. You and plenty of other people on here seem to be very happy to whip this into the end of the world, calling for figurative heads to roll in such go-to, knee-jerk reactions that it's meaningless to you, without thinking of exactly how callous that sounds, or considering how much that would change and damage someone's life... Why? Because a fake digital ship that you are in absolutely no way required to buy, and can, at any moment, read half a dozen reviews on telling you not to buy it, was released in a broken state, as if it could never be fixed or changed? But no, you want permanent reactions, you want people to lose their jobs over this. Just sad, really sad that people have nowhere to go but to the very worst thing they can think of.
  11. No. Not at all. Because no one is forcing people to buy the ship. No one else (Notser, Flamu, LittleWhiteMouse, not to mention basically every other CC or reviewer) is being punished by removal from their programs. It could very well be a colossal [edited]-up and broken ship that wasn't meant to be released. "Firing" iChase is no scare tactic, because they made it clear why he was let go (attacked staff of WG, calling for firings) and it had nothing to do with his negative review. Again, I've not seen a single positive review out there. They know it's bad. iChase's review didn't change people's minds, the consensus is it's bad. Removing him from the CC program doesn't get them anything? If anything it hurts them badly. And them removing him doesn't stop them potentially apologising OR issuing refunds or not. The reason they let him go was because they have to take a hard stance on their policy protecting direct attacks (yes I know they weren't threatened but calling for firings is still an attack) against their staff. Possibly they could have asked iChase to remove that part of his review, but they didn't. That's a different discussion. Regardless of people's emotional feelings about the broken state of the Graf Zeppelin, ALL the reviews say it's bad, which will hurt sales more than just iChase's video. What they can't tolerate is attacking their staff. And they didn't. It's two separate issues. This was not a tactic to silence anyone who said bad things about a broken premium ship (everyone else's reviews are still up, and they're all JUST as bad). It was a response to one of their CCs breaking the guidelines of the privilege of that position.
  12. It's a slippery slope. You can, as a company, take the criticism that you released a [edited] product, and that happens all the time, to every company. But people make mistakes, people do less than stellar work, it happens. We don't know exactly what came together to cause this crapfest, how many people, what level of miscommunication, decisions made by different departments that makes a bureaucratic mess of whole other departments involved, rippling out and causing issues everywhere... So when you start specifying who the blame falls on, and who needs to be fired, well like I said it's a slippery slope, what happens if word gets out that the lead designer on a certain ship or mechanic was so-and-so from such-and-such department... Do people start calling for their head? If all the CCs or forums or Reddit got together and started calling for their resignation... what then? Unless there is a no-tolerance policy for direct attacks on staff, then who decides the guidelines? What exactly becomes an attack, and what's just general displeasure with "whoever it was" that made a thing happen? Say this had been a video where it was actually a pretty positive review but then there was one thing that the reviewer specifically didn't like, and then said something to the effect that it was mostly good but whoever designed this particular thing needs to be fired... Well I'd like to think that CC would also get removed. It just so happens that the comments were made ON a video for what appears to be a total lemon. Context isn't important when it comes to WHY the CC was removed from the program, it's not because it was on a video that crapped on the abomination that is this ship, because none of the other people who DIDN'T attack the staff and call for firings, have been punished in this way. You can say that attacking the ship is attacking the company, but as you also say, it's, at best, indirect. Apple is not the iPhone, Google is not just the search engine or the android phone. You can bash something they do without bashing the company, like "I hate the way iOS does this" or "Android phones seem to fragile". But if you were to get real specific and say that whoever designed the volume buttons on the iphone needs to be fired... You're attacking Apple, you're attacking the person who was the designer, and saying they should be fired, and you're saying whoever hired them or works alongside them or is their supervisor is now in question, etc. etc. Attacking the state of the ship as it is, that's one thing. Attacking whoever is responsible for it being released this way... that's another, and one we don't have the answers for. We can attack the situation, or we can attack people. I'm mad at the situation, and we don't know who or what made it this way.
  13. But that quote you use isn't the reason given by WG as to why he was let go? It might be in their thinking, but they specifically had problems with him directly attacking the staff of the company (and before you say they weren't "attacked" there's other definitions for attack, it doesn't have to be threats... Just heading that one off before it happens as everyone seems to think you need to threaten to be attacking). And attacking the ship isn't attacking the company in the literal sense. You're attacking a product they made, a product that they could change, pull, fix, leave, etc. but it's the product, and criticism is criticism, same as attacking a bad movie isn't necessarily attacking the director or the stars or the writers. You can say that all things considered it made a bad product in the end. What you can't do (as a CC) is say that the staff should be fired, which is what he did. Then you're not attacking the product, you might be saying those things because OF the product, but that's not what you're attacking anymore. You're calling the staff out and saying they need to be fired. Different attack, and one that's not okay. There is no job where it's okay to take your grievances with other staff (I know he's not employed by them but he's an associate with privileges and access that 'regular' folks don't get, so he's connected to the company, but for simplicity I'll say "staff") and voice them to the public. If you worked in retail and you disliked what one of your coworkers was doing at work, and you started saying this to anyone who'd listen, like customers, or wrote something detailing it and put it out in front of the store? Your boss would fire you in a heartbeat. You take your issue with the co-worker to your boss and lay it all out. IF the boss does nothing about it and ignores you, well then you use your backbone and you quit that job. THEN you can feel free to tell anyone who'll listen about what really goes on at that place. If iChase had tested this thing and then given detailed and relevant feedback which was then completely ignored out of hand, he owes it to himself and his audience to leave the CC program on moral grounds and then release a video explaining why he left, and go into great detail about how he met opposition or indifference at every turn and had to leave. He didn't do that, and when they told him he had to leave, I can't believe he or anyone else was very shocked. Timing was bad, but then it couldn't be good. Since he said these things in response to the ship, so it was always going to happen at the same time.
  14. And you are entitled to your opinion, I'm not even saying I disagree! We don't know how many people or different groups of people went into this project, or how many miscommunications or mistakes were made or why. We don't know if it can be all boiled down to one person or 5 or 10 or 50. Calling for figurative heads to roll is a witch hunt and a slippery slope. Without knowing exactly HOW this came to pass, there's no solid solution to fixing it and avoiding it in the future, and just calling for mass firings is ridiculous--have you never worked at a place where a mistake was made? Maybe a large mistake? And maybe you were only partly involved, or not at all? Would you think it fair if someone was to start suggesting EVERYONE in your department got fired? Too reactionary, just calling for people to lose their livelihoods over things like this. WG is a business. If they really think a person, or persons on the team are doing such a bad job as to warrant firing, like maybe they're costing the company tons of money in refunds or mistakes, etc. then sure, they'll probably fire them! Companies rarely keep staff on like that. That's a quick way to go out of business. What I'm saying, and a lot of people are saying, is that there's a difference between us voicing our opinion on the forums or reddit or what have you, and a COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTOR calling for the firing of staff at the company he represents. You cannot be allowed to be given the privileges and access that he was given, while at the same time lighting the torches and handing out the pitchforks. You can't talk crappublicly about the other members of the club you're in, or the club itself, and expect them to let you still be a member. Talk crapabout the facilities in the club and that maybe the club needs new furniture or something, but you go after the club itself, you're gonna get kicked. His opinion and the consequences of it are different to ours. The minute he decides he wants to join the CC program, he has to abide by their rules. And I'm sure there are some dumb ones in there, but not saying anything negative about the ships isn't because CCs do it all the time! But what surely IS in there is that you cannot directly attack the people who work for WG.
  15. Oh no, saying "I want to give them a piece of my mind" is definitely not a threat. Notser hasn't made the mistake iChase did. And I'm sure it was a genuine mistake and emotion got the better of him, but it's still a mistake and WG aren't messing around when it comes to their staff. And attack has many definitions, you're not the first person to think it needs to be so specific and blatant as something like "I want Shelly Smith at WG to be FIRED! And I WILL FIND HER!"... An attack can be something as simple as a fierce public criticism or opposition to something, and oh yes, iChase's video contained that absolutely. He doesn't get to call for people to be fired (no matter how non-specific) and then have people claim "Ohhhh he's just saying that generally!". Attack the ship. Not the staff. You can muse about how something passed muster, sure, but you can't then imply or suggest people be fired as a result, because then it's not about the ship or a broken mechanic about the ship or whatever... You're making it about the people who work at the company that made the thing you're upset about. It's not a criticism about the ship, it's a criticism about the company. And any company in their right mind would not keep a contributing associate on board who did this.