Board 8 > Polygon parting ways with Nick Robinson

(+) Yeah! (+)

LapisLazuli posted...

I said I didn't want my topic about this to go a certain way and Tony said f*** off.

That's called karma!

No, you said you didn't want people to post anymore.

And I said "close the fucking topic then".
---

Wanglicious posted...

Eron never said Grayson gave her a positive review, ever. he didn't "later retract it" like Jakyl says, he just literally never said it.

Jakyl - did you not read the page that's from? it's from the "About" page, which didn't exist until... i want to say mid September? didn't happen in August though. and if you had checked, you'd have noticed that he links to a tumblr post when he says "give good reviews to their friends." and it's literally about Zoe's friend, not her, with presumably a different journo.

you're just factually wrong on this one. he never said it and you're pointing to something you didn't bother checking.

Okay then why did anybody care about the zoe post whatsoever
---

google and people working at google did not get doxed yesterday, no. that didn't happen. some things got leaked but nobody got doxed.
---

How do you doxx a company? Or do you mean people have now doxxed the HRD and stuff?

I still don't get why people who are professing to fight for peoples rights, and privacy are so happy to go about doxxing.
---

Cly - c'mon man, with this i've now said THREE TIMES that i'd rather respect Tony's wishes here.
---

No, I said I didn't want people begging for some hot rumor scoops like paparazzi.

I'll admit you didn't specifically say fuck off. This was was the topic where you told me to fuck off.
---

Kenri posted...

I don't think he's being accused of a crime. The Constitution is somewhat shakier on the subject of people accusing you of being a bad person.

well, but there are stages of bad person

- a douchebag: yeah this seems pretty clear

- a violator of professional ethics: did he try to bribe/threaten people into sending him nudes (or more) for reviews? it's been kinda hinted, but who knows. this is pretty significant from a career standpoint though. companies can decide whether or not they want to work with a dude who is sleazy in his personal life, but if it crosses the line into professional misconduct it makes sense to entirely blacklist him

- a criminal: that flowchart accuses him of attempted rape and soliciting nudes from minors (which I think is technically child porn?). again, who knows
---

It's alright, if that's where the convo is going I guess it can't be stopped.
---

Sorry, I was just surprised that you just tried to rewrite the entire reason gamergate happened out of history
---

eh, i don't see why it has to go that way really. it's not like people are going to let Robinson go either here, though most attention is on Google right now. he's kinda lucky in that something greatly overshadowed him so he'll mostly get away with the apology i think. though like Drak pointed out there, the flowchart's got some heavy accusations. i mean if they were true sure, that'd be a big deal. but if you're gonna accuse somebody of purposefully trying to get nudes from a minor you'd better have hard evidence.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

No, I said I didn't want people begging for some hot rumor scoops like paparazzi.

I'll admit you didn't specifically say fuck off. This was was the topic where you told me to fuck off.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

And @LapisLazuli like if you don't want to read this s***, please just leave?

Yeah ok
---

i wasn't. but this isn't the topic for that.


on Google:
basically they were supposed to have an all hands on deck meeting yesterday that included people's questions but among them, people were worried about their identities being revealed. this makes a lot of sense considering James wrote an internal memo that didn't only get leaked but his name got attached to it. bear in mind, this memo had been up for a month and was in response to other people, with active discussion held.

so if this internal document was able to leak, get his name out there, and get him fired, why should anyone trust Google's higher ups when they say things will be kept private?


so it got canned and James, once again, got proven right that there's massive issues with differing viewpoints over at Google.
---

Gatarix posted...

Kenri posted...

I don't think he's being accused of a crime. The Constitution is somewhat shakier on the subject of people accusing you of being a bad person.

well, but there are stages of bad person

- a douchebag: yeah this seems pretty clear

- a violator of professional ethics: did he try to bribe/threaten people into sending him nudes (or more) for reviews? it's been kinda hinted, but who knows. this is pretty significant from a career standpoint though. companies can decide whether or not they want to work with a dude who is sleazy in his personal life, but if it crosses the line into professional misconduct it makes sense to entirely blacklist him

- a criminal: that flowchart accuses him of attempted rape and soliciting nudes from minors (which I think is technically child porn?). again, who knows

Yeah I guess if he's being accused of rape that's different but I hadn't heard that before. Even then though I think there's a difference between, like, an official accusation and just saying someone did a thing, but I'm not a lawyer so *shrug*
---

Having your career destroyed is probably a significantly harsher punishment than you'd get for say, a class B misdemeanor.

Can someone give me a logical reason why the standards of evidence and procedures should be reduced for something with a harsher punishment?
---

well no, the "listen and believe" mantra is very, very faulty and terrible for people looking for logical or fair arguments. there aren't any in that structure, it's belief vs. the lack of it, as opposed to evidence and facts. great for sophistry though!

the general idea comes from "we need to trust the victim more" but it's omitted that by doing so you've set up a situation where people rapidly assume guilt. sentiment there are that if you don't believe the victim you're essentially calling them a liar, making their victimhood worse. not understood is that the don't have to be lying, they could be simply mistaken, have the wrong person, not remember the details correctly, be exaggerating, having their own inferences become more than that, or anything else that has them not properly assess the situation. they don't have to be a liar for this to happen, they could just plain be wrong or misunderstand it. as for the person accused, the argument's that he'll get over it if he's innocent, not that he shouldn't have to deal with the accusation in the first place.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Having your career destroyed is probably a significantly harsher punishment than you'd get for say, a class B misdemeanor.

Can someone give me a logical reason why the standards of evidence and procedures should be reduced for something with a harsher punishment?

Whose career ever got destroyed for something like this?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Whose career ever got destroyed for something like this?

Donald Trump
---