angelic
Banned
Last edited:
-
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.
Riot Games hires its first Chief "Diversity and inclusion" Officer.
- Thread starter Voost Kain
- Start date
LucidFeuer
Banned
So what makes her "black", what's your problem with her being black exactly?
angelic
Banned
Are you mentally ill? Good day sir.
LucidFeuer
Banned
The question is simple, you made the statement that she's black as if it was a or the problem, so why can't you answer?
BusierDonkey
Member
Her job is to make sure the incredibly sexist and racist practice of hiring based on race and gender alone is followed. Her position has no real value other than to cater to the SJW crowd and to virtue signal to people outside the industry that the gaming industry isn't racist or sexist. It's bananas. the people they pander to don't play games, don't buy games, and don't actually care if the business improves or not.
Diversity hiring is about as racist and sexist as anything can be. It exists solely to penalize a group of people solely on the color of their skin and their gender. Imagine a hair and nail salon hiring a fat old white guy like me to try to get other straight white men to work at the salon. Turning down women because there are already too many of them and we need more men. I imagine it wouldn't go very well. Trying to shoehorn any group into roles they typically don't even apply for will not make the company stronger. It will drive out the remaining programmers and artists that will get fed up with the increased workload and a feeling that they have to watch over their shoulders at all times, and they'll go work somewhere else that just wants people to work.
If I run a company I would want to fill it with only the most qualified people I can afford to pay. If it ends up being mostly one race or gender what difference does it make? It just means apparently that group is more likely to have enough of an interest in the job to go to school and learn the business. I work in structural steel in industrial coatings. In a decade I've seen one woman hired, and she quit within a month because the conditions were too harsh. I work 12-16 hour days, have to lift over 100lbs frequently, and work outside regardless of weather. Women typically don't seek out this role, just like women typically don't aspire to be hunched in a cubicle crunching numbers and code all day for 12-16 hours or more a day.
Last edited:
Grinchy
Banned
This is the part that annoys me about all of this kind of shit. For some reason we only seem to need diversity when an industry is made up of mostly men (and even worse if it's white men). And, the only time those jobs need more women is if the job isn't dirty or dangerous.
Sit in an office all day? Hey, why are you gatekeeping women?? Drive to peoples' homes and fix their shit-filled toilets? Men are good at that kinda stuff!
Last edited:
RedVIper
Banned
I think you kinda missed a joke.
I think he's saying they wouldn't hire a white diversity chief because that itself wouldn't be "diverse"
H
hariseldon
Unconfirmed Member
Creativity does not flourish when one is under the whip, at risk due to wrongthink.
infinitys_7th
Member
Shame. I thought they had kicked the trash out when they got rid of Bex and co.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
You'll never see "diversity officers" in sanitation or the like. I wonder why that is?
ExpandKong
Banned
Guess the ol’ diversity mill on the edge of town finally shut down, good on her for landing on her feet.
Voost Kain
Banned
Her twitter profile apparently has the hash tag in her description at some point in the past. Or that's what reddits saying.
LucidFeuer
Banned
But they did. If you read the article, the two employees mentioned as diversity employees are white, not that it matters except for coherence's sake in the diversity-washing, as it's the case in most companies since they refuse to hire black people at position too high even when it's "diversity" bullshit...only to do it just for political marketing reasons.
So no there's no joke.
angelic
Banned
You must be great fun at parties.
choodi
Banned
Fundamentally, I have no problem with "diversity officers" as there is plenty of evidence to show that diversity in workplaces has real benefits to productivity, culture and performance.
However, diversity is relative and any attempts to increase it should be handled with great care so as not to destroy the existing positives of a company culture in the drive for increased diversity.
Basically, like all professions, there are good diversity officers and bad ones. Only time will tell if this appointment will be a good one or bad one for Riot.
However, diversity is relative and any attempts to increase it should be handled with great care so as not to destroy the existing positives of a company culture in the drive for increased diversity.
Basically, like all professions, there are good diversity officers and bad ones. Only time will tell if this appointment will be a good one or bad one for Riot.
Red Crayon Aristocrat
Member
So much money and resources is going to be wasted by the modern world hiring people who don't need to be there based on gender and skin color alone.
Manstructiclops
Banned
Being paid because she has a pair of tits, yet I bet I'm the priveleged one!
ArusGrayrat
Neo Member
lol, got a great time reading the comments, i just don't know how to react to this news . Not knowing why and how they picked them should be the 1st problem not the color/tits/money or anything , we are not the one in control you know ? (-Bandersnatch)
Angry_Megalodon
Member
It can only be for bad. For one single reason: diversity is IN CONTRADICTION to productivity and performance which is the only true value of a successful company. When you have a diversity officer taking high-level decisions it means that RESULTS IS NOT THE FOCUS. She will prioritize "diversity reasons" against "profitability reasons" . And that cannot be good news for any private company.
I have yet to see an industry or business where diversity focus is translated into bigger profits. It's not happening.
BusierDonkey
Member
I see no value in a position that exists only to impose limitations one race/gender based solely on those factors, it's archaic and narrow-minded to put it nicely. Jobs should go to the people most qualified regardless of factors beyond their control like race/gender. In my field that practice would be outright dangerous and I would file with the union over it, or find a safer employer. If 90% of the people that apply for a position are white or male, then why is it a bad thing if 90% of the people that get the jobs are white or male? How does dredging the applicant pile and hiring less qualified people based on race/gender automatically improve anything? I've hired a few dozen people in my career, and I've always looked at qualifications/pertinent education first, work history second, physical fitness, and dependant on the position, gender. Race doesn't factor into anything because I'm not a lunatic. If I need a sandblaster, I can't hire a 120lb woman, she will not be able to control the hose and she will likely either hurt herself or damage something. I need a strong but agile guy that can muscle his way through the job but still crawl around the parts. If I need a painter I need to know if they can work in an industrial paint shop, it's super hot and you need to wear a plastic suit for hours on end. Experience trumps all here because nobody sweats a gallon a day for years if they aren't willing to do the work. I can't hire an old fat guy because I'll be calling an ambulance for him. I can't hire a short guy because he can't reach anything. If I need an equipment operator, tickets, training, experience, who gives a fuck about race/gender, there's a job to do. Can you run a telehandler quickly but safely? You got the job! You can't? Fuck off! I can't hire a guy that might have to communicate with other crews that doesn't speak fluid English because a miscommunication moving a 40,000lb beam could straight up kill someone. I'm not being "non-inclusive", I just don't want to have to go check for pulses or mop up what's left of people I hire and won't be responsible for ruining someone's life to be "diverse". Not surprisingly, I've never had a woman or geriatric apply because generally speaking common sense prevails and only suitable people apply in the first place.
I can't imagine a developer studio is any different. You have a deadline to meet, and a fixed amount of assets working on a game. Expect long-ass hours, lots of pressure, and say goodbye to your social life until the project is over. If a number of those people were hired without qualifications just to fill a diversity quota, the remaining people have an increased workload. This does not help productivity in any fashion. It creates a rift in the workplace where the qualified employees start developing animosity to the people they have to fill in the gaps for. This rift gets tagged as racism/sexism even though it's literally just people that are pissed at the increased workload the diversity crew has bestowed upon them. If you need coders is education, experience, speed and ability not the top priority? If you need artists shouldn't talent, speed and outcome quality be your main concerns? If you need managers and leaders wouldn't their previous experience and history working with teams and ability to shuffle the team around as needed be a top qualifier? These guys should be all-stars that know the team and can get them to happily work harder, hired from within, trusted by their peers, not brought in from diversity land for being race/gender. If they mostly end up being one color or gender, how is it racist or sexist? Everyone was hired under the same criteria. I can't imagine the circumstance where ignoring hard work and effort in lieu of race/gender isn't anything but racist/sexist.
Last edited:
I'm not sure where to begin. Let's start with your perception of my post. I specifically mention "bro culture" and "toxic bro culture" because not all are toxic and neither did I say all bro cultures were. Moreover, I don't know what kind of denial you have to be in to assume a "bro culture" cannot be toxic or any kind of man culture can't be toxic. That's ridiculous. You're basically saying that no group of men can ever have a toxic culture.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
What she will focus on is dumbing down policies making it like everyone feels like they are walking on eggshells..... all because a small number of people complained and execs took action.
Thank god my company doesn't have someone like this. Every gets along, many people crack absurd jokes, including sex jokes, and nobody seems to care. You just got to watch who you say it around, and when not to do it.
One guy at my work is big dude with a beard and tattoos. He's loud and crack dumb jokes sometimes and is not a smooth formal speaker kind of person. So he's definitely not the one you want to recite a funeral speech. No doubt he'd get a one on one chat with Mrs. Diversity Officer. However, he's good guy, does a great job and everyone loves him. The guy is actually a big teddy bear.
5secondrulesucks
Banned
lmao what a stupid pointless job
choodi
Banned
I think Nintendo is a good example of how increasing diversity has allowed a company to improve its performance. Games like Splatoon and Animal Crossing have been borne out of their action to hire a more diverse developer base. That's just off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are plenty of others.
To me, the successful kind of action on diversity =/= affirmative action. That shit is regressive and definitely leads to the situations you are describing. The best candidate should always be hired. End of story.
However, my idea of good action on diversity is working out how to attract a broader range of candidates to apply or want to work at the business. If only a narrow demographic is applying for work at your business, then that is a problem because you are potentially not getting the best candidate. Employing a diversity officer can help to identify and solve that kind of problem and generate a bigger field of candidates to choose from.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed because that is not what a diversity officer should be doing.
Angry_Megalodon
Member
I live in a culture in which you can express yourself almost carefree at work but in a multinational company I worked for long talking about religion, politics or "sensitive" topics might lead to layoff. I once got scolded because in a private message between me and my manager I used the expression "thinking heads" (ironically) referring to HR guys. That was forwarded by mistake to them and they lectured me on the company values and shit like that. Pretty ridiculous. people should worry about doing their job properly instead of preaching from ivory towers.
The main issue with that sort of position is that when there are no problems THEY CREATE THEM as to justifying their own positions. It is the only logical outcome when you are free of work the whole day, and your mind starts creating imaginary plots and reasons to make yourself look important or relevant in the company.
W
Whataborman
Unconfirmed Member
I give RIot 3 years before League is a ghost town...
Acerac
Banned
It has a point. To show everyone how much Riot cares about diversity.
It won't help the company produce a better product, but there's absolutely a point behind it.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
People got to remember, HR people aren't there to support employees. They are there to support the company.
All those policies you see aren't there to ensure people get along. It's to ensure the company doesn't get sued.
If HR really cared about employees, they wouldn't be firing people before Christmas (which I've seen many times..... they couldn't even wait until the new year..... and that's so they can book the costs in the current year than affecting the books with severance charges next year), or telling the extreme complainers to grow a spine like the other 99% of people who are fine.
HR's two main functions are: 1. Payroll/benefits 2. Sculpting a corporate culture that works as problem free as possible. And that means forcing policies to reduce employee lawsuits, and employees complaining to labour boards, and tweaking diversity ratios so the government gives them brownie points on federal contracts or "Top 100 Companies to Work For" metrics, they will do that.
In Canada, federal contracts require a company to prove they meet certain criteria. And some of them involve employee diversity. It says nothing about requiring highly skilled or qualified people. It's all about demographic ratios.
Put it this way:
Company 1: Employees are highly skilled. Tons of experience with MBAs and PhDs. All stereotypical white dudes
Company 2: Employees have mixed/average skills. Mishmash of good, bad, and unpredictable skill sets and experience/education. Company has a nice mix of gender/race.
Result: Company 2 would get brownie pts to get the contract.
All those policies you see aren't there to ensure people get along. It's to ensure the company doesn't get sued.
If HR really cared about employees, they wouldn't be firing people before Christmas (which I've seen many times..... they couldn't even wait until the new year..... and that's so they can book the costs in the current year than affecting the books with severance charges next year), or telling the extreme complainers to grow a spine like the other 99% of people who are fine.
HR's two main functions are: 1. Payroll/benefits 2. Sculpting a corporate culture that works as problem free as possible. And that means forcing policies to reduce employee lawsuits, and employees complaining to labour boards, and tweaking diversity ratios so the government gives them brownie points on federal contracts or "Top 100 Companies to Work For" metrics, they will do that.
In Canada, federal contracts require a company to prove they meet certain criteria. And some of them involve employee diversity. It says nothing about requiring highly skilled or qualified people. It's all about demographic ratios.
Put it this way:
Company 1: Employees are highly skilled. Tons of experience with MBAs and PhDs. All stereotypical white dudes
Company 2: Employees have mixed/average skills. Mishmash of good, bad, and unpredictable skill sets and experience/education. Company has a nice mix of gender/race.
Result: Company 2 would get brownie pts to get the contract.
Last edited:
Angry_Megalodon
Member
Yes, and that would be truly GREAT. However, for realizing that the Diversity Officer should have a certain set of skills, very much related to recruiting, talent management, coaching and the likes. However I would gamble and say that many of these officers do not have themselves the right skills for doing what you just said. My theory is that these positions are for self-promotion.
These positions are ENDOGAMIC. They are a cult within companies and do not have any further skills other than survival. And well, this is not theory, this is reality.
Have a look at the Linkedin profile of this person:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/angela-roseboro-8449927/
There is ZERO experience other than Diversity stuff. Z-E-R-O. My god.
Last edited:
choodi
Banned
Stop generalising. This is an emerging profession and the norms and behaviours are still forming. Yes there are bad examples, but there are also good examples. Let the woman do her job before you start judging her performance.
autoduelist
Member
Plane flying overhead?
BusierDonkey
Member
What is your argument based on? Is there a solid definition of this position and it's responsibilites listed anywhere? I know what a COO is, but I know that what he does varies greatly in various fields of employment. Some sit behind desks all day, the COO at the company I work for spends just as much time working in the field with crews as he does in an office. This position seems even more vague than that. Assuming the diversity officer is doing only as you describe, and not simply boosting numbers for public image like many assume, what metric is used to determine that the positions filled utilising this method are more successful than they would otherwise have been? Are there any concrete statistics proving this is of any real benefit? I look at the concept of Ford's assembly line, immediate results and undeniable proof of it's effects and benefits. Toyota brought in JIT production to the process and once again it was instantly apparent it was a massive benefit to industry. Are you claiming that games like Splatoon and Animal Crossing could never be made without this method of attracting diverse employees, or that not using this method would result in failure in the same projects? Is there any viable proof that diversity is the reason Nintendo has increased performance? Your examples are strange. Animal Crossing was developed at Nintendo EAD and EPD, and was created by Katsuya Eguchi. It was entirely Japanese. NOA only localised the game, translating and changing dialogue that didn't make sense in other regions. Diversity didn't have a hand in making the game. The localisation team did alter two effeminate male characters in the game though, simply making them female instead which actually reduced character diversity in the finished game. Splatoon was also created entirely at Nintendo EAD and just like Animal Crossing only the translation and localisation was handled outside of Japan. Feel free to read through the staff list at Nintendo EAD and EPD. I suppose I don't have a list of all of Nintendo's employees in Japan, but I think it's safe to assume the whole list would read similarly.
How does a diversity officer increase interest in a group if it simply doesn't exist? Take my field as an example, we get a very singular base that applies as it's not a job a lot of people would even look at, frankly it's a "shitty job". We would have to offer a lot more money to garner interest from anyone else and have to offer things like shorter hours and rotating workstations, all of which would be very costly in terms of time spent and actual financial investment for no tangible return. A game studio is different of course, but a job like a programmer for instance appeals only to a small selection of people with the hours needed to meet deadlines. What is a diversity officer doing that is going to attract this diverse group that they are looking for? Are they trying to dissuade people that don't belong to that group? Are they offering added incentive to the group they seek that they aren't offering to the other group? How are they attracting people to a profession that they were not interested in before? What changes are being made? Are we creating new or redundant positions to draw in a new group that will cost more money or require added resources? Are they spending money and time advertising solely to the group they want to attract? If the incentives are race or gender targeted I don't see that as good step, and if you offered the same incentive across the board you'd likely see an increase in applicants across the board as well. I'm not trying to be a dick, I just see no evidence that what you vaguely describe a diversity officer to be isn't simply racist/sexist in practice and a pointless position. If none of the above is what they do either, then what exactly is being done in the position?
Of your other good examples, besides the two entirely Japanese games you listed, is there any proof that more staff diversity was the sole reason for a successful outcome? I have no way to stop this woman from doing her job, my voice is a fart in a huricane, but I'll certainly voice my opinions or concerns over something I find controversial, and I find this emerging profession to be the HR equivalent of selling snake oil. Convince people it works in the hope it catches on, soon people will jump on swords to protect it's existence despite there being no solid evidence it has any actual value.
Last edited:
It's a two minute read.
choodi
Banned
Two minutes to read it, but how many minutes to decipher?
I'm at work and I'm not going to bother reading it now. From my quick scan, it does come across as the ravings of a bloke with a heavy agenda though.
There is plenty of evidence to show that diversity is good for workplaces. I don't need to dig it all out, but it is there if you're interested in searching.
As I've said in all my comments, increased diversity is good if the process to achieve it is done right. If it is just another dressed-up form of affirmative action, then fuck that shit.
Red Crayon Aristocrat
Member
Let's just be honest here, "bro culture" is probably just a code name for "I dislike men and dislike working with them in large numbers"
Anything that's not men cowering before the feet of a feminist is interrupted as toxicity.
Anything that's not men cowering before the feet of a feminist is interrupted as toxicity.
lukilladog
Member
What a useless job lol. At the company/business/social side, discrimination is already illegal (dooh!), and on the product side, games are about exclusivity not the other way around, like the moment you decide to make a racing game, you are already excluding most people lol. Waste of resources.
Cute. But hey, if having your head in the sand is comfortable for you, so be it.
H
hariseldon
Unconfirmed Member
Imagine for a minute a diversity officer had been in charge of The Beatles. Hmmm too much straight white male here. Let's drop John Lennon and replace him with a black lesbian, that'll help. Hmm still too straight and white. Ok Paul can go and we'll bring in a brown trans-man. Off you go George, we need more diversity, we'll have a bisexual non-binary person please.
Now at this point what you have is Ringo Starr plus diversity hires. Is the Beatles magic still going to happen? Who knows, maybe a new amazing band might be formed, but we've sure as hell lost the magic we have today. My point here is that creativity and art is lightning-in-a-bottle. It's a product of people and how they relate to each other, the skills they have, the experiences in their lives, and a certain amount of randomness of the right people getting together at the right time to create something wonderful. Think Bioware around KOTOR, think the Bitmap Brothers in the early 90s, think Bullfrog in their peak years, think Sensible Software. All of them were wonderful with a specific set of people, and started to lose their way as some left and others came in - the lightning got out of the bottle and they couldn't put it back in. Creative magic is an impermanent thing.
If we start meddling in teams that may well be successful (and let's be real - those are the ones it'll happen to because those are the ones who will be targetted and who are the most prestigious) we'll end up with something just not as good.
The thing that amuses me here is that, as others above have observed, this is about trying to protect companies from litigation and bad press, in theory. Here's the problem. Diversity officers will push out the people who aren't likely to sue (try being a white male and suing for discrimination), who aren't likely to cause bad publicity (because the press doesn't care about white guys) and bring in people who are.. not so much. Having removed people who don't sue they replace them with people who do - people they will really struggle to fire if they're incompetent because if they do they'll be hammered for discrimination in the courts, or worse in the media (where of course the standard of proof is effectively zero).
One more thing. Guys will solve a problem one-to-one. They'll maybe insult each other, have a fight even (though this isn't usual in an office) but in a fairly short space of time they'll be working together to get shit done. Women, not so much. They fight socially, and they hold grudges. Managing these groups will be a much harder task, dealing with much more toxicity, all to meet a quota. Instead of a largely self-managing group one ends up in what is effectively playgroup, having to deal with "waaah he said a mean thing" and "waah she's a big meanie" as one deals with people who prefer to run to an arbiter instead of self-managing problems.
Last thing, I promise. Games development is hard. Most of the skills required are a product of obsessive self-development. There's a reason most programmers are autistic. I can tell you now that those guys will get absolutely torn to shreds in a female-driven political office, they're not equipped to deal with it (hi I'm autistic - I spent some time as a teacher, the ultimate female-dominated highly-political environment, it was hell, I'm back to programming and it's great). In the end it's going to discriminate against people who have carved out a space, who are often rejected outside of that space, and I honestly don't think that will end well. Just as importantly however, good talent is really hard to find. If you start making the environment one in which your talent doesn't wish to remain (and I've seen it happen - I worked at a web dev company and a similar made-up-job person came along, a 'change consultant' and started asking us all what kind of animal we were - almost the entire programming team was gone within 6 months) you face a problem. Where do you find the new talent? How do you cope with the lost knowledge (remember that while good practice dictates that things are documented, there will always be bits of knowledge and company memory lost as people leave - those things prevent repetition of past mistakes)? All of this is BAD for a company's bottom line.
Certain types of people get attracted to these jobs and build empires (if you've ever encountered a HR department you'll be aware of that). Focus not on what it should be but on what it is and what it will be.
Now at this point what you have is Ringo Starr plus diversity hires. Is the Beatles magic still going to happen? Who knows, maybe a new amazing band might be formed, but we've sure as hell lost the magic we have today. My point here is that creativity and art is lightning-in-a-bottle. It's a product of people and how they relate to each other, the skills they have, the experiences in their lives, and a certain amount of randomness of the right people getting together at the right time to create something wonderful. Think Bioware around KOTOR, think the Bitmap Brothers in the early 90s, think Bullfrog in their peak years, think Sensible Software. All of them were wonderful with a specific set of people, and started to lose their way as some left and others came in - the lightning got out of the bottle and they couldn't put it back in. Creative magic is an impermanent thing.
If we start meddling in teams that may well be successful (and let's be real - those are the ones it'll happen to because those are the ones who will be targetted and who are the most prestigious) we'll end up with something just not as good.
The thing that amuses me here is that, as others above have observed, this is about trying to protect companies from litigation and bad press, in theory. Here's the problem. Diversity officers will push out the people who aren't likely to sue (try being a white male and suing for discrimination), who aren't likely to cause bad publicity (because the press doesn't care about white guys) and bring in people who are.. not so much. Having removed people who don't sue they replace them with people who do - people they will really struggle to fire if they're incompetent because if they do they'll be hammered for discrimination in the courts, or worse in the media (where of course the standard of proof is effectively zero).
One more thing. Guys will solve a problem one-to-one. They'll maybe insult each other, have a fight even (though this isn't usual in an office) but in a fairly short space of time they'll be working together to get shit done. Women, not so much. They fight socially, and they hold grudges. Managing these groups will be a much harder task, dealing with much more toxicity, all to meet a quota. Instead of a largely self-managing group one ends up in what is effectively playgroup, having to deal with "waaah he said a mean thing" and "waah she's a big meanie" as one deals with people who prefer to run to an arbiter instead of self-managing problems.
Last thing, I promise. Games development is hard. Most of the skills required are a product of obsessive self-development. There's a reason most programmers are autistic. I can tell you now that those guys will get absolutely torn to shreds in a female-driven political office, they're not equipped to deal with it (hi I'm autistic - I spent some time as a teacher, the ultimate female-dominated highly-political environment, it was hell, I'm back to programming and it's great). In the end it's going to discriminate against people who have carved out a space, who are often rejected outside of that space, and I honestly don't think that will end well. Just as importantly however, good talent is really hard to find. If you start making the environment one in which your talent doesn't wish to remain (and I've seen it happen - I worked at a web dev company and a similar made-up-job person came along, a 'change consultant' and started asking us all what kind of animal we were - almost the entire programming team was gone within 6 months) you face a problem. Where do you find the new talent? How do you cope with the lost knowledge (remember that while good practice dictates that things are documented, there will always be bits of knowledge and company memory lost as people leave - those things prevent repetition of past mistakes)? All of this is BAD for a company's bottom line.
Certain types of people get attracted to these jobs and build empires (if you've ever encountered a HR department you'll be aware of that). Focus not on what it should be but on what it is and what it will be.
reconminicon
Banned
Straight white men need not apply
JCK75
Member
Is this a joke? By her photo.
How do you know she isn't Transracial? did you just assume she identifies as black without asking her? you should really try to be less of a bigot!
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
This feels like the precursor to forced sensitivity rehabilitation.
angelic
Banned
You've caught me, i was trying to destabalise the entire black race, its a fair cop. I also used a white pool ball to oppress an innocent black ball into a side pocket yesterday, I'm neogaf's greatest monster.
Similar threads
- Locked