Without outrage, nothing changes and injustices continue.
Yes. Still not part of their official staff however.
Already gave my take on that. Blizzard cant win here. Damned if you do, damned if you dont. I would invest more time in pointing out their double standards. Especially here and now with shadowlands given that one NPC that is in the game that should have been removed before launch.
Still not part of the official staff. You can see them as such but they are not part of your staff (unless your regularly contracted guys are only working for you and do it on a “need or not needed” basis). Otherwise this guy in particular would be part of the official staff of a lot of companies. Including Square Enix, Sega, Funimation, Konami etc etc etc. (edit: You can also add Disney to the list because of Kingdom Hearts)
Blizzard don’t even treat their official staff well by many accounts.
I remember when they let go of their last batch of staff. They had a massive profit income at the time and gave their CEO etc a big bonus. Yet they still yeeted a ton of their official staff out the door while mega profits were rolling in.
Not denying that. Different topic however.
That is how it works. Metzen almost certainly gets paid for it, unless he is doing it gratis, to get his name out there, and build up a resume. Sometimes you do, because you need a back catalogue of material you can present to people. Thing is, he doesn’t need to do that, he already has his name out there, so he is almost certainly getting paid.
That ain’t how it works though. You get a contract to do the lines they need. They won’t put you on a retainer, and even if they did, that isn’t going to pay the bills. They needed him for WCIII and TBC, that’s it. They’re not going to have paid him from WotlK to Shadowlands for basically sitting on his sofa, because he was doing -nothing- for them. You get Contracted, you fulfil your Contract, Job Done. If they want you back to reprise the thing, they reach out to you and go “Hey we need you to do some VA work again for us” and you either say “Sure, I’m free at the moment” or “No can do man, I’ve got something else I have to work on”
It really is the same as Actors. In fact it is exactly the same as actors. They’re not ‘employees’ of a film company. The Film company reaches out to them and go “We have this role, and we’d really like you to do it”. If a company phoned up Bruce Willis whilst he was filming something else and went “We want you to star in our film” He’d have to turn them down."
The original Voice Actor for Kael’thas would not have had an active contract with Blizzard. That isn’t how VA works. You don’t pay a person who you have not had do anything for a company for more than ten years.
Yes, but stirring up false outrage simply for the sake of generating more sales of your newspapers is not the same as people genuinely getting outraged about something. People should be outraged about the things that -happen-, not the things that people with a vested financial interest in stirring up your outrage benefit from.
3 Likes
This is what the “culture war” is about. Look at UK politics - right-wingers in the press and at home froth over Brexit, Lockdown authoritarianism and “cancel culture” whilst the government politicians are robbing us blind through widespread corruption.
2 Likes
I swear the phrase “Cancel Culture” is the most annoying and pernicious term to have come out of modern times, because it simply means -nothing-! It is a meaningless phrase that people keep parroting. And keep parroting…and keep parroting.
It means absolutely nothing. It has existed since the dawn of recorded history, or do people think Socrates was forced to drink Hemlock simply because they didn’t like the colour of his eyes or something?
It isn’t a new thing! So for Right Wing Media and Angry Teens to jump on the term is frankly an insult to Western Democracy. It is absolute demagogic populism, and should have no place in sensible discussion. It doesn’t even make linguistic sense!
Ironically the people who use it the most, are the ones that would actually see those basic rights stripped from us, or those so blind as to not realise whose agenda it is they are being the foot soldiers of.
Be interesting to see the legal fallout of this. Reckon the minister who gave a contract to a ferry company without any ferries will see any comeback? Naah. What about Dominic Cummings, who -admitted- to committing a criminal offence, and actually doing so, yet still has a job, wha-actually do you know what, I won’t derail this into UK Politics, but the whole lot of them need to get in the sea.
1 Like
I don’t dislike the new voice actor, he is fine, doesn’t radiate the same smugness Flynn had for Kael’thas, but he is not untalented either.
Now the allegations are worrying, yet where is the proof in all of this. It’s pretty vague.
Theres very little downside from severing ties with somebody who has credible allegations against them.
I don’t think an overabundance of caution is a bad thing, theres enough of these creeps that have lived among us because people chose not to “make a fuss”.
2 Likes
Exactly, I agree, it’s a simple cost-benefits analysis. People need to be mindful at time of accusation seldom facts are known so everyone is working on probability of.
Two outcomes for a company
A) keep accused employee on and take no action.
Possible pros
- supports accused employee
- “let the courts decide” feels objectively fair.
- assuming they are innocent, you do right thing
Possible cons - your company reputation may take a hit
- you may be seen to be “shielding” an individual from scrutiny
- assuming they’re guilty, you expose others to risk of similar
- assuming they’re guilty, you would be undermining the experience of the victim
- assuming they’re guilty, you will be known as the company that protected an offender and possibly gave them room to commit more crimes.
B) temporarily suspend them pending an investigation.
Potential pros
- if guilty, you protect further individuals at your workplace.
- show victim support
- maintain integrity of reputation in a manner
- easier to explain why suspended someone for investigation than it is to explain why you didn’t if they are found guilty, the mud sticks in this case. Reasonable or not people will remember the failure of your decision not the merits of your reasoning .
Potential cons
- you besmirch the individuals reputation
- possibly imply guilt
- unless supported upon vindication of innocent, damage done sticks.
On balance, objectively, it simply makes far more sense for a business to go with suspension. The downsides IF they’re guilty are too punishing and the benefits of they’re innocent are too small when looking at a company angle.
People don’t tend to wax lyrical about “the company that kept the guy on when being investigated” when they were proven innocent. They do however go on and on about the company that did nothing in the meantime when it looks like they’re guilty. And that reputation hit cannot be recovered by many cases.
Businesses look after themselves first and individuals they interact with second. This is not surprising.
1 Like
Agreed…however, the two are not mutually exclusive…the fact that vested interests will sell advertising, by reporting that peeps are mightily outraged about things that actually happen, is unavoidable.
So nobody is going to address the fact the the new VA’s “For Quel’…Thalassss” Sounds like he is having a rough time getting 
out?
1 Like
Can’t reply what I want to, since then post gets removed with some ridiculous reference to rules (or can’t post for a few days). But we live in cancel culture, no “guilty until proven innocent” (well, for part of the population anyways, but can’t address that here). Nothing else to say but “Go woke, go broke”.
I doubt anyone thinks what Blizzard did is morally just.
However, it isn’t really against any law.
Sometimes that’s how the world works. If this bothers your conscience too much to let you keep playing Blizzard games you’re more than welcome to stop, I don’t see Blizzard going back on their decision.
That’s very true - look at the on-line kicking Method received.
Also, it’s important to note that what is “illegal” and what counts as a sackable offence are not the same thing.
We do not have full access to all the information. It may be that Flynn hasn’t broken any laws, but still engaged in activity that many companies would rightfully sack an employee for. We just don’t know - and thanks to the modern corporate culture of using NDAs to hide everything away, we will almost certainly never know the true facts.
1 Like
Also another difference matters to the person involved, see Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard. JD fired on allegations, AH stayed untouched for quite some time even though the internet was full of proof about what happened.
And lastly, if allegations are false, what are the consequences for the people making the accusations?
Anyways, just my opinions, I just hate double standards.
Waiting for my post to be flagged 
4 Likes
Did you even read what you wrote? Think about it, with such moves you can instantly DESTROY ANYONE’S LIFE just by false accusing. It is NOT fine approach. Let the dogs bark and ignore until proven. This is so obvious I won’t even discuss it further.
9 Likes
Yes I did.
Well boys, turns out he was actually innocent. A surprise to nobody, I hope.
4 Likes
Can’t help it then, still an extremely short-sighted and dumb argument to justify stupid actions supporting cancel culture.
Especially now with the judge who decided upon evidences shown that the woman was an obsessed fangirl. So now the « bad press » Blizzard feared is going straight at their faces for being trigger-happy idiots. Adding to the pile of reasons why Acti-Blizz is an awful company.
If western companies had an actual spine, like the japanese ones, we wouldn’t have this cancel culture bullcrap
1 Like