Well I’m totally not sure what this is about - because that link 404’s for me…
Also, I’m on that mailing list too - and didn’t get any mail.
?
Edit: [quote]Something is wrong here.[/quote] I assume it’s gone on your end also then?
edited by Reshemin on 9/9/2019
[quote=Reshemin]I assume it’s gone on your end also then?[/quote]That link’s a 404 for me, too, yes. For everyone, I think. What I’d like to know is: was something ever there?
Either they posted something and retracted it shortly afterwards. Or somebody hit a button too soon and briefly uploaded something that wasn’t (yet) meant to be up.
Either way, the title of the post points pretty clearly in the direction it was supposed to take…
I do wonder how the whole password thing was supposed to work though. In case you wondered, I don’t have a password for Weather Factory. At least not that I know of.
edited by phryne on 9/9/2019
First and simplest explanation coming to my mind: someone got emotional, vented/ranted/fill-in-the-blank’d about the situation and then, more-or-less shortly afterwards, thought better of it (or the wording, or… whatever). No biggie, been there, done that. Although not exactly under ‘professional’ circumstances (unless drunk. Luckily I got that message edited the next, sober morning before the recipient had a chance to read it. Phew.)
So somebody hit a button too soon. It happens.
The funny thing about it is that my (tired) brain insisted this might be some kind of Ambition:Enigma-like shenanigans and that if I could just find the clue hidden somewhere in that email I’d be able to read the post… xD
[quote=phryne]The funny thing about it is that my (tired) brain insisted this might be some kind of Ambition:Enigma-like shenanigans and that if I could just find the clue hidden somewhere in that email I’d be able to read the post… xD[/quote]You’re not alone - that idea also came to me. Briefly. Because I immediately thought ‘Nah, that’s just too meta even for them, regarding the context and such…’
But for a moment I was inclined to not dismiss the possibility. :)
The thought that post could tie back into FL somehow is honestly more irritating than the real BS content of the post, because if he DID try to insinuate that he’s still tied to FB, then that might be an attempt to shut them down with more people leaving ship to try and ‘‘punish’’ them for giving him away, even after losing his ties, and deny FB the profits they deserve for maintaining his progressive works without his real world noxious influence harassing the team.
I’d probably just wait for the so far non-existant post to be up, before jumping at the content. Or any presumptions thereof. Just sayin’.
Everyone in this forum liked Alexis or at least his work enough to be here. We were obviously touched by something he co-created. So nobody enjoyed hearing the allegations, not least because even if you are completely indifferent towards what happened, we don’t want them to impact FBG and their other projects.
So no, nobody is gleefully waving a torch, happy for the entertainment a lynching provides. People are upset and they are expressing that. Should we wait for a courtroom or a work tribunal to opine on the cases, just to express the fact we find the situtation both believable and incredibly sad?
Earlier I stated ‘‘If he DID try to insinuate that he’s still tied with FB,’’ I never claimed with certainty that he’s 100% guilty, or that he ever actually DID try to work in a tie to FB, because I state ‘‘if’’ that modifies by statement to speak of an alternate possibility, as opposed to what I believe to be the way the world is, and what I think the truth is. That, usually, this kind of claim isn’t a false flag, never heard about a case where it did. But I can’t state that he’s 100% guilty now, I need proof, because it isn’t self-evident, and I can’t assume that a thing exists without that kind of evidence. In addition, I stated, ‘‘The thought’’ not ‘‘the fact’’, which is another phrase that tells you that this is in reference to an imaginary possibility without a proper claim about Alexis’ intentions or possible guilt. As opposed, to what we can assume such a post is really about, trying to either prove innocence, or deflect blame, depending on the truth of what he did or didn’t do. As I have put this, ‘‘if’’ in contrast to the real, more grounded possibility that he’s trying to convince us the case against him is flawed. It was hasty, perhaps, to say that his attempt to prove innocence is ‘‘BS’’ as there is a possibility of being guiltless, but in previous incidents of this kind of behavior, the person claiming that they have been victimized is usually not found to be trying to cause a false conviction when the case goes to court. So inference tells be that it is more likely that Alexis is guilty than the co-workers are conspiring against him.
edited by Lord Alexander Alderman on 9/10/2019
Phryne’s screenshot is from a "subscription" to the Weather Factory blog (which is built on Wordpress): Wordpress sends an automatic email notification to subscribers when a new post appears on the blog. Presumably someone hit PUBLISH prematurely (and still had a password lock on the post) and then retracted, but Wordpress had sent the automated notification already. This is completely separate from the official mailing list from which Lottie/AK send their updates.
I guess it's been a couple weeks since the allegations appeared, so here are some thoughts.
I believe Meg Jayanth, Olivia Wood et al. There's a pattern of corroborating evidence.
I'm reserving judgment and my future responses to AK for now. AK's original Tweet of siccing lawyers on Meg et al, seemed like a knee-jerk reaction of someone who is nevertheless deeply fearful and flailing to protect himself. Heck, if someone sprang accusations on me like that, my own immediate reaction would be to get defensive and protect myself! His response is understandable, if petulant, so I'm willing to overlook that Twitter behaviour for now. But now that AK's camp has had some radio silence and processing time, his next responses will be very telling. How he is going to respond to Meg et al, and what kinds of outcomes he wants, is going to influence how I will view his future speech and actions, and how much I'll support his future games or recommend his game-development advice. I won't be so lenient then.
I've read Meg's Tweets several times, and the question that keeps springing to mind is: OK, we know about this issue now... to what end? By disclosing these issues, what do Meg, Olivia, et al, want from AK/Weather Factory and from the wider community; what concrete response do they want from us? Stop buying AK's games? Ostracize him? Ban him from gamedev conventions? Support them in (future?) legal action? As tough as it may be, [i]reconciliation[/i] with AK if he's repentant?
Ultimately, I'm a third party. I haven't been directly impacted by AK's behaviour as Meg and Olivia were. To be honest, knowing my own personality and character, it'd be easy for me to shrug and turn a blind eye because "It's not directly affecting my life" apart from putting a new spin on my experiences in FL and Cultist Simulator. But that would dishonour the courage and effort taken by Meg et al, to disclose these matters.
On the other hand, they were the agents (by that I mean "character agency") disclosing these matters. To put it bluntly, they opened the bottle, and now there's an aroma in the air now that wasn't here previously (or if it was, it was very stifled), and it's affecting everyone. So what are we going to do about the smell now? The people who opened the bottle clearly know there will be consequences to releasing this aroma on the rest of us; a disclosure made to the collective demands a response from the same collective. So what kind of outcomes do they want from us? I'm talking about practical outcomes, not mere attitudes. AK's responses to the allegations will influence how I treat Weather Factory specifically, but beyond this, something has to be done to help both current and future victims and stop this kind of systemic problem. For example, if Meg et al, want me to boycott Weather Factory games as a way of addressing systemic exploitation in the gamedev world, I will take that seriously into account in my future consumption of video games.
So far, I haven't seen an indication of what kinds of resolution Meg et al, want, and this also affects my response to the situation. If the victims don't specify a concrete outcome for their cause, it's easy for me to shrug, pay lip service to the tragedy, and move on with my life remaining unchanged. I'd rather not shrug.
--
[i]edited by Vega on 9/11/2019[/i]Well, I can’t speak for the victims, but from what I’ve read, I imagine some of the practical effect will be less about what consumers do than what developers do. As in “if you’re a young woman trying to get started in game development, or working in a studio trying to offer such opportunities, please keep this information in mind when choosing mentors”.
[quote=Vega]Phryne’s screenshot is from a "subscription" to the Weather Factory blog (which is built on Wordpress): Wordpress sends an automatic email notification to subscribers when a new post appears on the blog. Presumably someone hit PUBLISH prematurely (and still had a password lock on the post) and then retracted, but Wordpress had sent the automated notification already. This is completely separate from the official mailing list from which Lottie/AK send their updates.[/quote]Thanks! I had no idea there were different mailing lists/modes of notification.
edited by phryne on 9/11/2019
Nobody know what the victims wanted when they chose to disclose what happened. It is also possible that they didn’t have any particular aim in mind.
Personally, I believe what they wanted was a) to not be silenced anymore regarding what happened to them, since this is a terrible burden to carry. If you had your purse stolen, if you crashed your car etc you would speak about your experience, share it and be comforted. Abuse tends to be hidden and turn into personal shame. Getting it out in the open, like any misfortune, is in itself an unburdening.
b) I am guessing they want to protect others. They might well be worrying that as long as the story remains hidden, those who kept silent are in a way responsible for the next person who gets used and threatened. Given that mentorship and help to new designers was such a big part of AK’s public face, it must have made it even harder to keep silent.
I don’t think they necessarily require a specific response from us as consumers. They added a fact to our pool of knowledge; we can decide whether we want to support any new games AK makes or not, given these new facts. After all, every person has different criteria regarding how they spend their money or what they do with art made by less than ideal people. But at least, new game designers are now more prepared to avoid coercive situations, and similar behaviors are at least stigmatized as unwanted.
edited by Jolanda Swan on 9/11/2019
I honestly suggest that everyone, who felt hurt either way (whether they believe the accusations or believes them to be false) give this a read.
I’ve noticed in the past that, when criticised, Alexis will portray himself as a lovable duffer who could never knowingly do wrong, while exaggerating the criticisms until they’re made ridiculous and churlish, and he seems beneficent for even hearing them out.
I find Lottie’s post very interesting.
My position remains the same: the responsibility for all the damage caused (to survivors, to Weather Factory, to Lottie and to AK) lies with Alexis Kennedy and no one else.
But on the other hand, Alexis has not been accused by anyone of rape. The allegations of his misbehavior are of an entirely different kind. And Lottie makes a point toward the end of her post that I think needs to be discussed, not just here, but in general by anyone who wants "me too" to make lasting and useful changes in our culture:
"[color=rgb(135, 135, 135)]Does it want abusive men to just [/color]disappear[color=rgb(135, 135, 135)]? If so, where do they go once they’re outed? It doesn’t feel terribly feminist to say we’re cool with abusive people leaving games and going to work in other industries, preying on the women there. So does call-out culture want men to never work again? In which case, are we cool with that economic shock affecting their spouses and children? Do we want them to starve? Do we want them to live on the street? Do we want them to actually die? For all the noise it makes at the start, call-out culture is strangely silent at the end."[/color]
(Really just ordering my thoughts here while writing this down…)
Of course whisper networks aren’t a very viable way of protection for everyone. They do work for some people, but their usefulness is always limited. I don’t think that’s a very important point. There are many others, in both posts.
And of course this was never about rape. Cathyr19355 pointed out on the first page of this thread that the term "predator" was at least a tad too strong. All the accusations leveled at AK basically came down to this: A) that he is a "creep" who regularly makes women around him feel extremely uncomfortable. The most serious accusation B) was that he was not only fully aware of this, but actively working to silence people about this issue.
It would certainly be interesting to learn who ran the original "IndustryAbuse" twitter account who started spreading the accusations about AK and others, but I guess there’s not much hope here. In any way, it was these tweets that sparked Meg Jayanth’s tweets, which in turn were, almost immediately, backed up by a number of people, culminating even in an official FB statement that these accusations were quite credible.
I still find these accusations A) very credible. Do not forget that it was a games journalist, Leigh Alexander, who was among the first to make the "open secret everyone knew about for years" statement. As a journalist, she has to be really, really careful with statements like that. If her claim was proven to be false, it could be her career in tatters. And FB, too, are putting their company’s name on the line by making such a clear statement. They could’ve been a lot foggier in their wording. When I look at the motivations of all these people who made these very clear statements, I can’t see them backing up unfounded claims simply out of revenge, the heat of the moment, or whatever. All of them have too much to lose themselves.
I was never sure about part B) and must say that AK’s defense about that part sounds credible, too. Otherwise, we would have to imagine him as a James-Bond-villain-like devilish mastermind - rather unlikely.
In the end, it boils (and always boiled) down to this: AK acted "creepy" towards an undefined number of women. Whether he did this "habitually" we do not know. He himself is probably in complete denial about it. (I don’t think I need to point out how totally, depressingly common this sort of thing is.)
Is that a problem? Sure.
Should that ruin his career? Probably not. His life? Definitely not.
Is it understandable that the emotions of the accusers boiled over when it seemed that something which they had suppressed for so long was finally being talked about? Absolutely.
Does that mean that online call-outs are generally great and totally unproblematic? Absolutely not.
Do you have a better idea? Tell me about it.
The baseline is that both Lottie’s and AK’s statements contain a lot of important truths, without actually refuting the accusations A) (even though they probably believe they do). As is not unusual, everyone is speaking the truth on some level. Undoubtedly, this whole thing is incredibly hurtful to everyone involved. Undoubtedly, we - bystanders and third parties - should all back up a step. Unless more, especially more dreadful, things come to light, I consider this file closed.