Because as sad as it is, there is no upside to Blizzard keeping ties with him and possible infinite downside. 50ish angry forum dwellers looking for the next drama time to be outraged about is nothing.
What is going on with this company?
Maybe pre-wait for a court decision before reacting? Billions of false accusations are happening like every year? I just dont get their mindset, basic logic 0.
YES!
innocent until proven guilty!
Doesn’t matter if it’s a literal serial killer.
If you’re going to accuse someone of anything ever, BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE or shut up.
It takes zero effort to lie and anyone can do it.
innocent until proven guilty, always!
It’s about association, and what VA do and don’t do for their work isn’t an island. Read the tweet posted earlier. Said VA attended conventions and engaged with fans as a representative of the brand. It’s not as simple as “they do work in isolation”.
Also re Savile you have to take a nuanced view. The attitude of the employers informed the view of media at the time (and given his employer WAS a big form of media) it’s easy to see how their attitude informed things.
You can’t just dismiss it as a “cover up”, yes there was covering but there was also a blase attitude at work, and it’s that attitude that contributed to the whole thing.
As said before, the court of public opinion (and individuals determining their minds) is not the same as labelling someone guilty legally, so let’s not act like it is. The only way to curb the court of public opinion is either take an extremely lax attitude to these things which invites risk (this won’t stop Twitter firing off btw, it’ll just mean they remain employed while they do, so the public label of guilt still is there) or you curb individual freedoms in a drastic manner. No thanks.
Will you let me look after your house whilst you’re on holiday? Don’t let the fact I have several accusations of criminal damage and burglery hanging over me, the investigation will be concluded in a month…trust me, it’s all lies. And remember, if you decide not to let me do it and select someone else to do it, you’re labelling me as guilty and rah rah rah.
I’ve already explained in this thread several times, innocent until proving guilty is a) restricted to criminal charges, not opinions and b) innocence refers to a technical label as to the probability of you having done something which brings charges, it is not saying “you did not do this 100%”.
People lie, yes. So do criminals. Why do we doubt the accuser with lies but not accused? Two way street my friend.
The investigation has ended now, though, and he was found not guilty. Also, he has only one accusation by one person, that does not feel sufficient enough, if he had history of accusations that would be way different story.
You’re right.
The court of public opinion is often much more damaging and punishing than any legal court and should be held by even higher scrutiny.
Totally.
Why should I trust anyone saying someone is a bad guy over the “bad guy” claiming he’s a good guy.
I can’t trust either without actual factual evidence.
So until proven guilty I have to assume everyone is innocent.
Would accusations have literally no negative affect on a person then it would be totally fine to accuse people without evidence but since it literally often ruins people lives it is your moral and lawful obligation to make damn sure someone is actually guilty before you hang them for it.
My example was regarding whether people would trust me hypothetically to look after their house if i had accusations of burgley hanging over my head - because the argument many are making it that it “isn’t right” that people should be suspended during an investigation, so i’m seeing whether when being put in a situation where they’re being asked to weather risk, people would feel okay doing it.
If they wouldn’t, yet they maintain it was wrong for the VA to be suspended during investigation, then they’re hypocrits. If they would, then they have to accept it’s arguably partially their fault if I steal their stuff given they could have prevented it.
With the case dropped in the court there is literally no reason for mr Flynn to be fired. Because as it stands right now his name is unblemished and innocent.
But I would give Blizzard the benefit of doubt. Since they have a an obvious quota for the 9.1 to come out, they might have used another voice actor as sort of back up plan.
In case if mr Flynn would be proven guilty. I can understand that as a company they need to keep their buisness rolling and such inconviniences should not affect their own work.
Of course that new voice lines would be datamined and whole debacle would start.
I still deep down there in my heart belive that Blizzard will back down and keep mr Flynn’s voice and re-hire him to do 9.1.
Because you cannot fire a man that has proven his innocence before his fans, before the court and before the law. To excise him while there is still a chance and time for him to come back in the blaze of glory for successfully defending his name would be also a boon to Blizzard.
Yes they made pre-cautions but if they will belive him just as much as they belived cancel culture allegations, well this may save their reputation.
There is a difference between bringing criminal charges against someone before the fact and people making up their private opinions about the matter and bringing social sanctions against them. What seems to be the issue here is the social sanctions people bring. But realistically, what do you propose to do about this? Make it illegal for people to voice opinions about things and behave accordingly, where they may be wrong in the future?
What you’d essentially be asking for is that people not be allowed to have opinions on things (or at least share these opinions in any way, shape or form) so long as an individual may be embroiled in a criminal case. Further to that, you’d essentially be suggesting that people not be allowed to pursue freedoms they ordinarily would (such as firing someone for pretty much any reason so long as it isn’t unlawful) when in such a circumstance, which is pretty crazy.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the court of public opinion; however when I look at what you’ve have to do to essentially “shut it down” beyond telling people “please don’t”- it brings far, far worse in my opinion.
Like it or not, people should be free to jump to conclusions, even if they’re wrong, because that’s what freedom entails. If you start to suggest that people shouldn’t be allowed to disassociate from others on the basis of faulty reasoning, then you set an extremely dangerous precedent.
And also, as always, we must consider those cases where the accused is in fact guilty (not you personally, but it seems hypothetically here people always argue like this is an absolute impossibility) and in accepting that this may be the case, where you make recommendations to allow these individuals to “carry on” you must accept then the additional risk they continue to present in that situation and that they may well offend whilst under investigation.
Well i do agree a person should be suspended while the investigation is ongoing, but currently blizz is planning to completely remove this persons work from the game and iconic characters voice, if they dont follow this through and keep original voice over then it will be fine. Though it is still double standarts that Roux didnt get any consequences in any way for saying arguably worse things than what Flynn was accused off.
I don’t disagree with you at all there. I do find the retrospective removal stuff a bit odd and not needed at all.
Maybe it’s for consistency? I don’t know. Either way whilst I will support the suspension of someone during an investigation, I don’t see why it’s necessary for their past participation in stuff to be removed.
And as for the author, i’ll refrain from comment because last time I spoke a bit too freely about that, I think it may well have been why I took a short forum vacay although I can’t say for sure.
That’s why you always check if there is a justifiable conflict between the job function and nature of the crime. If so then unpaid suspension or putting them on inactive is the way to go till the verdict is in.
Yeah i think same, retrospective removal or censorship of old movies and other forms of art just doesnt make sense. We should learn from history, not delete it. Even if Flynn was guilty, i see no reason to remove his voice for character that is in no way related to him in real life. Can just change voice for future character appearances, i mean this happen often already.
Most businesses will always interpret it as a conflict because they will take the view of “if they’re guilty people will associate them with us, and remember we kept them on during it”. Even if it invites no risk to any other person, it will be interpreted as them “supporting a criminal”.
It shouldn’t be the case, but that is very much how it can be seen and that is precisely why businesses are so quick to act on this kind of thing. The public will cling to any manner of association as a way to sling mud, so at the earliest opportunity they sever ties.
At the end of the day the business cares about itself more than any person it employs, so if it’s a question of their potential livelihood versus your business potential reputation it’s not a difficult question for them to answer; they’ll pick themselves every single time because they lose next to nothing for doing so. Any boycotts they may incur as a result of it pale in comparison to potential boycotts or loses where their reputation takes a smack because of a criminal employee.