Werewolfgrandma
Banned
I only quoted you 2 but it's really half the posts. None of what you are saying is what this is saying.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Activision Blizzard says Woke policies for hiring are unworkable
- Status
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
If this really got implemented for real, then white dudes will just start claiming gay/trans when they apply put some goofy pronouns on the application and most companies will happily play along.
Last edited by a moderator:
buizel
Banned
Yeah but it sounded good and I got 70 likes so who tf cares what it says really
im basically jesus
Werewolfgrandma
Banned
You and 70 people have poor reading comprehension and are just bad people.
SupremeHoodie
Member
The Rooney rule is from football. It’s the requirement to simply have a black coach be in the interview process. You don’t even have to hire them. It’s just so teams included at least one in the coach hiring process. I didn’t know it’s thing being tried in other industries.
It didn’t work though. League is still predominantly white coaches.
It didn’t work though. League is still predominantly white coaches.
Last edited:
Werewolfgrandma
Banned
That was literally almost word for word in the op.
Forums should have a little test to make sure you read and comprehend the op before posting.
DunDunDunpachi
Patient MembeR
What's depressing is people have called out these quotas and policies for decades, then getting called "racist" for their efforts.
But now that businesses say it's affecting their bottom line, people will start getting a clue. It'll be funny to watch, at least, as they scramble to say they never really believed in it.
But now that businesses say it's affecting their bottom line, people will start getting a clue. It'll be funny to watch, at least, as they scramble to say they never really believed in it.
KungFucius
King Snowflake
From Game Industry: Activision Blizzard says interviewing diverse candidates for every opening "unworkable"
Activision Blizzard says interviewing diverse candidates for every opening "unworkable"
Publisher asks SEC to exempt it from putting "Rooney Rule" proposal before shareholders; EA says it will consider itwww.gamesindustry.biz
So what everybody with a working brain already knew. Hiring and interviewing based on diversity, color, sex, being LGBQWERTY instead of pure CV content, past carreer, expertise and own professional archievements is impossible to apply on the real world where stuff as competition or deadlines exists.
My theory is that if you hire based ONLY on CV and the profile you can get after an interview you will automatically hire this "diverse cast". If you hire because a SJW agenda you are not hiring people, you are hiring TOKENS.
I call bullshit. I used to work in the Bay Area and there was no diversity requirements at all. My company went from having a lot of white American males a few African American males and a healthy mix of various Asian Males with maybe 20% females. By the time I left It was 80% Chinese. You can bitch and moan about wokeness or whatnot, but when it is not easy to find highly educated talent, your staff is going to be all speaking Mandarin in the halls and the remaining Americans will be talked over, ignored for promotions and left dealing with the shitty customers like Intel.
Barakov
Gold Member
From Game Industry: Activision Blizzard says interviewing diverse candidates for every opening "unworkable"
Activision Blizzard says interviewing diverse candidates for every opening "unworkable"
Publisher asks SEC to exempt it from putting "Rooney Rule" proposal before shareholders; EA says it will consider it
So what everybody with a working brain already knew. Hiring and interviewing based on diversity, color, sex, being LGBQWERTY instead of pure CV content, past carreer, expertise and own professional archievements is impossible to apply on the real world where stuff as competition or deadlines exists.
My theory is that if you hire based ONLY on CV and the profile you can get after an interview you will automatically hire this "diverse cast". If you hire because a SJW agenda you are not hiring people, you are hiring TOKENS.
Komatsu
Member
Taking diversity into consideration makes perfect sense and is just one factor among many, nothing more. No corporation will hire a *insert minority/protected class here* illiterate to be CFO because of who they are. This simply does not happen in corporate America.
However, a lot of companies tend to select people for leadership roles based on factors *beyond* competence - cultural affinity, social ties, etc. - which is why you can see global manufacturing companies based in the Midwest, with a third of their production coming out of China, with boards where everybody went to the same high school in Nowhere, Minnesota.
This is not strictly a white people thing either. I have worked for both Chinese and Japanese companies and knew from the beginning that I would not go past a certain level as they always preferred to place their own people in management positions. They were not incompetent by any means and did their job well, but perhaps one of their dozens of thousands of Western employees could do some of these jobs better. Diversity goals in hiring seek to minimize this issue.
Also, don't quite understand why people feel this need to shit on LGBTQ people every time a thread like this comes up. They have nothing to do with this, which predates "wokeness" by decades. As a matter of fact, diversity-oriented hiring dates back to the 60s and the Civil Rights Act and mostly sought to assist discriminated African Americans in seeking corporate jobs.
However, a lot of companies tend to select people for leadership roles based on factors *beyond* competence - cultural affinity, social ties, etc. - which is why you can see global manufacturing companies based in the Midwest, with a third of their production coming out of China, with boards where everybody went to the same high school in Nowhere, Minnesota.
This is not strictly a white people thing either. I have worked for both Chinese and Japanese companies and knew from the beginning that I would not go past a certain level as they always preferred to place their own people in management positions. They were not incompetent by any means and did their job well, but perhaps one of their dozens of thousands of Western employees could do some of these jobs better. Diversity goals in hiring seek to minimize this issue.
Also, don't quite understand why people feel this need to shit on LGBTQ people every time a thread like this comes up. They have nothing to do with this, which predates "wokeness" by decades. As a matter of fact, diversity-oriented hiring dates back to the 60s and the Civil Rights Act and mostly sought to assist discriminated African Americans in seeking corporate jobs.
Hmm...the quick fragile responses is on brand here without reading exactly what this is saying. I wonder why this industry (and most) is still full of white males? The lot of you seriously believe the diverse option is less skilled (or they just hiring off the streets), holy shit!
Last edited:
devilNprada
Member
Fuck yeah I'll start showing up for interviews in a dress...
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I love how you casually used "diverse" to simply mean non-white. I mean, we all know that's what people mean when they say it, but nice to have it laid out.
What data are you using for what industry to make a determination that it's "still full of white males?" If it's computer engineering, you'll actually find that it's Asian males (are they white, too, now?) that are typically way overrepresented (as proportion of population). If you're looking at PR, you'll probably find that it's actually mostly white and Asian women.
Seriously, though, if you want to have a discussion instead of just crying about perceived injustices, at least be specific about what you're talking about.
Velius
Banned
It's inherently less skilled, by sheer virtue of its emphasis. If you're hiring based on worker's skill/resourcefulness/discipline you're going to have the most skilled, resourceful and disciplined workforce in your company. If you base it on people's skin color, or have a mandate to hire minorities it follows that you won't have the best combination. It's the exact same as saying "Well I'm only going to hire white people". You're cutting yourself off from talent.
nikolino840
Member
But a designer is a designer not matter what...i don't think they hire trans on the streets
TheMay30thMan
Member
Makes sense to me. Out of curiosity, I’d like to know the reasoning behind dropping it completely.
-Were they not getting enough diversity interviews?
-Were they getting too many interviews with diverse candidates that didn’t have any of the required work experience?
-Were they getting plenty of diversity hires with no talent in the field, but hiring them anyway to see bad results?
-Were no diversity hires applying, causing an empty spot that couldn’t be filled until at least one diversity interview was made?
I’d like to see that data to satiate my curiosities.
-Were they not getting enough diversity interviews?
-Were they getting too many interviews with diverse candidates that didn’t have any of the required work experience?
-Were they getting plenty of diversity hires with no talent in the field, but hiring them anyway to see bad results?
-Were no diversity hires applying, causing an empty spot that couldn’t be filled until at least one diversity interview was made?
I’d like to see that data to satiate my curiosities.
BlitzerRadic
Member
Aren't asians generally excluded from these diversity quotas? Like wasn't there a thing a while back where asians were suing because their standards for admission to University of California higher than everyone else?
karasu
Member
Only If you limit Basketball to the NBA.This is why it is likelywill overtake
as leading economy and superpower in the world in not too distant future. They don’t hamper themselves with stupid woke shit like this, they just march on in most efficient way.
Let’s say I really like basketball (I do). Should it bother me seeing so little diversity in there? Few whites are mostly European and relegated to supporting roles, Asians don’t even mention. Meritocracy, right? So why would you put ball and chain around legs of these companies when it is in there interest to hire most skilled people regardless of race, ethnicity etc?
Lanrutcon
Member
Even if quotas are forced on a company, they'll simply create new positions and adapt to keep the skilled in the important roles while having the forced hires put on a show. Here in South Africa we've had that for years now. Gotta hire a certain amount of black folks in specific positions to do business, so business subtly changes their organisation structure to accommodate some benchwarmers.
S
Shodan09
Unconfirmed Member
The harsh reality of the outside world.
nemiroff
Gold Member
Are there studies out there supporting the effectiveness in the logic that the best way of fighting actual racism is via actual racism (instead of the obvious of just simply treat everyone equal, period..)..? I mean, is this supposed to create a sense of unjust among people who are racists making them think and thus turn them into anti-racists? Is this practice something that people like f.ex. Daryl Davis support? I have doubts since it might as well indefinitely oscillate back and forth creating more frustrations and thereby fortifying the bad stuff instead of dissolving it. I just genuinely would like to know the facts.
cormack12
Gold Member
That's a really well constructed sentence, moron.
Meanwhile leave the actual conversation to those who have read and understand the article. Try and finish that meccano you took a break from.
Twinguistics
Member
How do you go about enforcing "simply treat everyone equal period"?
It's a neat idea but people, by their very nature, don't do that and aren't doing that.
That's the problem. Leaving people to just choose themselves has led to a very undiverse workforce in some industries.
Last edited:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Yup and this is why this is even more Divide et Impera (D&I matches this as well as an acronym) and theatre.
The very top, most important, decision making positions will likely not have quotas and DI policies will mostly only affect middle management and base workers... and then you will have sectors where nobody shouts for them and media does not cover (do not hear much about strong push to increase diversity in front line soldiers, miners, and other less paid and less socially important positions). Making it less and less likely for this kind of workforce, split more and more into factions, to unionise effectively, is the proverbial and very appealing icing on the cake HR/work wise.
Taking diversity in consideration, like affirmative action, is a statement that racism is making it impossible for a class of people to do X and you are then tipping the scales in their favour to give them a chance. If you select the best of the best and on top you consider D&I maybe... but then you have cases where for example they were doing blind auditions for say Orchestras which choose the best of the best and D&I activists are pushing to eliminate this completely to give the ability to use race as a factor.
That coupled with politicians that more than welcome a society made of very separate smaller and smaller groups (again easier to handle than larger united fronts) makes for a recipe where the outcome may swing to be much worse than the condition we currently have.
Mr. PlayStation
Member
Can we stop with this type of throwing insult at people? Shaun Ecasyg that you're mentioning as black director wrote and co directed Uncharted Lost Legacy which was a stellar uncharted game. Just because Avengers didn't turn out to be a great game doesn't take away a person's talent
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Once you think again about the efforts (only concerning positions of power and/or high salaries interestingly, who gives a f* about diversity in the miners population) to correct that and take it a bit further and wonder why people will take these kind of thoughts/policies as totalitarian.
This is the sad irony of it all... same as when people put a super strong emphasis on curtailing more and more free speech (and conveniently decide to ignore the monopolistic/tight cartel of companies controlling social media channels, cloud providers, etc... that make deplatforming so effective and easy to induce without legislations and internationally). The entire idea of deplatforming, especially in the context of political activism and news, and thought crime (sure there are some limits to everything) is fundamentally fighting against the notion of universal suffrage: “you are telling me you really want people that can be influenced by any random tweet and Facebook post, which is why you are trying to ban those messages from those platforms to begin with, to vote?! Really?!”.
I know this is a bit of a stretch, but you need to consider what you really believe in and the conclusions it takes you. The same about discussing about justice reform without saying if you believe in punishment being reformative or or punitive... or if you believe in having innocents in jail for the “promise” of no guilty person going free or if you accept some guilty people being acquitted trying to avoid innocent people in jail...
Going back to your point about letting people in the industry decide for the neves: is it the right problem you need to attack? Hiring? That implies that you are convinced that the talent pool capable of applying at the same level is just as diverse as what you seek, but you have the same fights over D&I In STEM courses in University and lower education which puts quite a dent there.
Also, are you trying to match which criteria? National Census Distribution? Regional? Global?
Last edited:
Last edited:
nemiroff
Gold Member
I was asking for some studies / evidence, I see none but more claims. Again, I watched an interview with Daryl Davis yesterday (the reason I mentioned his name) and his seemingly very effective strategy in his corner to enlighten and unite, and not so much about "enforcing". Since we're back to making claims, I'll just do one of my own: The problem here may just as well be more about a class fight than race in itself, and to unite to get rid of the establishment's dangerous divisiveness-machine that may have regressed some of the headway made since the 50s. You can't fix that with more racism.
It's not the same thing, but as an example to extrapolate parts of it for the good; Data shows that in Norway (with one of the strictest gender diversity laws in the world) gender quotas for women doesn't work, at all. The glaring irony is that there is now less women in sectors that was supposed to "be fixed" by enforcement. That experiment seriously failed.. So in that case "leaving people to just choose themselves" turned out to be the better strategy after all.
Last edited:
cormack12
Gold Member
Stupid person. No input.
Thought the edit wouldn't be caught? It's ok mate, dry your eyes. Don't cry and
You're clearly out your depth in basic conversations. As for unoriginality, check your attempt at trying to wind people up while embarassing yourself. It only works if you agitate people, it falls apart when people question you, and you're left there like an idiot who can't respond.
Last edited:
Are the people making these decisions the ones without a successful business? or failed business? or do they already have a lot of cash?
Talent and Skill > Diversity, if you want people to be able to feed their families. Reverse racism, it's a thing and it's true. You can't correct past mistakes or injustices with knee jerk reactions and punish the majority. It's exactly the same thing, just different sides.
If the government pays or supports the Diversity hire at no risk to the business, then okay maybe?
Maybe support education and grass root training/learning more actively, so ALL people can go earn these jobs based on knowledge and skill.
filling quotas, for million dollar business, is a recipe for disaster.
Talent and Skill > Diversity, if you want people to be able to feed their families. Reverse racism, it's a thing and it's true. You can't correct past mistakes or injustices with knee jerk reactions and punish the majority. It's exactly the same thing, just different sides.
If the government pays or supports the Diversity hire at no risk to the business, then okay maybe?
Maybe support education and grass root training/learning more actively, so ALL people can go earn these jobs based on knowledge and skill.
filling quotas, for million dollar business, is a recipe for disaster.
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
D.Final
Banned
I agree with this
darth.shrimp
Member
Now I'm starting to wonder what would happen if the Twitter mobs tried to "cancel" someone as big as Activision...
D.Final
Banned
The caos scenario
Excess
Member
Two words: litigation and incentive.
Companies can also be held liable for discrimination in not hiring someone. All it takes is one candidate to call their lawyer. Secondly, the government encourages this with diversity quotas.
Having said that, I have been working in corporate for a few years, and a lot of the stratification is based on networking and people skills. You could have some of the most brilliant people working for you, but also learn they have little ability to "play the game". This has exposed many companies to legal liability over who gets promoted. Some of it is warranted, most of it is not.
HaveButOneLife
Banned
Maybe they'll think twice before meeting with Sarkeesian again.
yurinka
Member
I was the manager in a department of a game development studio for a major publisher in Europe, and now I run my own indie team. I've been working on gamedev for 15 years and have friends in many studios from all around the world.
Over 90% of the people who applies for gamedev jobs in Europe and North America and more or less fits the requirements (and those who didn't fit the requirements too) of these job positions in terms of skills and working experience are white males. The main reason is that to study gamedev is fairly expensive and requires a lot of time both in school and practicing or learning by yourself at home, and most people who can afford it in Europe and North America are white, in the same way that in the Chinese or Japanese studios most of them are Asian.
Many of these job positions are related to geeky stuff like engineering, careers traditionally populated by males. People are free to choose their career, and for whatever reason (biological, social, etc) some careers are populated by mostly only males or by mostly only females. But not only in the companies, also in the schools and universities. Nobody is forcing them to study or learn something, they choose whatever they want. The more free and the less sexist is their environment (when comparing countries in Europe), the bigger is that difference.
We always hired filtering by skills, talent and working experience. Not by tokenism (which is now being forced in many big gaming companies). We had a fairly diverse cast compared to the gaming industry average, but not because we were trying to hire diverse people. It was because for some job positions we didn't find people with certain skills/knowledge/working experience we needed and with the budget we had in our country, so we had to go to find them outside, and some of them turned out to be 'diverse'.
We hired the best candidates we found in terms of CV, being good doing their job, not depending on their genitals, skin color or sexual preferences. I think everybody should do that and get rid of the diversity quotas nonsense because they assume that there are enough good 'diverse' candidates when it isn't the case, in fact in most cases aren't even enough good white male candidates.
What stops people from studying that or working on that are personal preferences or being too poor to dedicate many years of that to study that in expensive schools and universities and to spend a ton of time at home learning by yourself. Universities or companies don't reject accepting people depending on their skin color, genitals or sexual preferences. If you want to increase diversity in these countries, make schools and universities and masters affordable to anyone, turn the majority of the population of your country to non-white, and convince little girls to become engineers in the future.
But well, having different skin color, genitals or sexual preferences don't make them work better or worse. If instead of focusing on choosing the candidates with the best CV you choose to fill a diversity quota you won't be choosing the best candidates, so your company/team performance will be worse.
Over 90% of the people who applies for gamedev jobs in Europe and North America and more or less fits the requirements (and those who didn't fit the requirements too) of these job positions in terms of skills and working experience are white males. The main reason is that to study gamedev is fairly expensive and requires a lot of time both in school and practicing or learning by yourself at home, and most people who can afford it in Europe and North America are white, in the same way that in the Chinese or Japanese studios most of them are Asian.
Many of these job positions are related to geeky stuff like engineering, careers traditionally populated by males. People are free to choose their career, and for whatever reason (biological, social, etc) some careers are populated by mostly only males or by mostly only females. But not only in the companies, also in the schools and universities. Nobody is forcing them to study or learn something, they choose whatever they want. The more free and the less sexist is their environment (when comparing countries in Europe), the bigger is that difference.
We always hired filtering by skills, talent and working experience. Not by tokenism (which is now being forced in many big gaming companies). We had a fairly diverse cast compared to the gaming industry average, but not because we were trying to hire diverse people. It was because for some job positions we didn't find people with certain skills/knowledge/working experience we needed and with the budget we had in our country, so we had to go to find them outside, and some of them turned out to be 'diverse'.
We hired the best candidates we found in terms of CV, being good doing their job, not depending on their genitals, skin color or sexual preferences. I think everybody should do that and get rid of the diversity quotas nonsense because they assume that there are enough good 'diverse' candidates when it isn't the case, in fact in most cases aren't even enough good white male candidates.
What stops people from studying that or working on that are personal preferences or being too poor to dedicate many years of that to study that in expensive schools and universities and to spend a ton of time at home learning by yourself. Universities or companies don't reject accepting people depending on their skin color, genitals or sexual preferences. If you want to increase diversity in these countries, make schools and universities and masters affordable to anyone, turn the majority of the population of your country to non-white, and convince little girls to become engineers in the future.
But well, having different skin color, genitals or sexual preferences don't make them work better or worse. If instead of focusing on choosing the candidates with the best CV you choose to fill a diversity quota you won't be choosing the best candidates, so your company/team performance will be worse.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked