Modern Driver training focuses on the concept of "defensive driving". Often, while discussing courses of action in hypothetical situations, a student will propose an aggressive approach based on the rules of right-of-way. In response, the teacher will tell the student "You're right. You're dead right."
The point expressed is that principle and the specifics of the law are all well and good, but it is irresponsible to act on the assumption that everyone will be following the rules.
We have, as a given, that hacking isn't going to stop. While it's theoretically possible that it will, the past few decades of experience render that possibility pretty close to nil. If your system isn't being hacked, it's because a) no one cares about your system, or b) you're serving your audience to the point where people don't think it's worth the trouble.
Needless to say, you want b to apply. DRM/Copy Protection, etc. is an aggressive manner of achieving b, focusing on the "not worth the trouble" side of the equation. Among the many many reasons why this is a terrible idea from a customer service standpoint, it's not effective. You know what all that fancy DRM is to a hacker who's decided to make you a target? A free puzzle game. You see Fort Knox; he sees Pushmo.
There are always going to be scofflaws. There are always going to be the jerks who go to the counter at a fast food restaurant, ask for a cup for water, then, without trying to hide what they're doing, fill the water cup with soda. A manager can write off the trivial loss, or can crack down, make a scene, and throw the soda jerk out of the store. With the former, it's lost profit at negligible actual cost, while a scofflaw gets stuff for free; with the latter, scofflaws know they can't get away with it, but there's a projection of a negative environment for the legitimate patrons ("There's no sign saying Free Refills. Will he throw me out if I try?")
The former cedes the moral high ground, but is far better customer service and maintains a pleasant environment. The latter maintains moral high ground, but that's the restaurant where the manager is always hovering to make sure you only get two ketchup packets to go with your fries.
And, on top of this, Nintendo already has a terrible reputation with third parties. The fact that first parties with exploits don't get pulled isn't doing them any favors there.
@MegaBeedrill Normally, I'd agree with you, and I'm reluctant to jump to any huge conclusions - they could just be revealing a couple non-starrters later. But, coming from the pokemon.co.jp website, this has a lot more viability than the average leak (and it's easily replicable).
So here's an attempt to separate fact and speculation: FACT - The site in question is http://www.pokemon.co.jp/ex/sun_moon/pokemon/partner_01/ (and 02 and 03) FACT - The site pulls images from http://www.pokemon.co.jp/ex/sun_moon/pokemon/images/icon01.png (and 02-06) FACT - We have four typings announced: Grass (01), Flying (02), Fire(04), and Water (05), and two unannounced: Ground (03) and Fighting (06) FACT - Pokemon starters have traditionally been presented in the order of Grass-Fire-Water, and dual typing for them always retains the original element as the primary type. SPECULATION - Ground and Fighting are the two other types that will appear among the starter pokemon. SPECULATION - Given the positioning, Ground will appear before Fire (i.e., for Grass); and Fighting will appear after water (i.e., for Water) SPECULATION - Though unusual, there isn't anything preventing Litten from adopting Grass, Flying, or Ground types as well. Similarly, Popplio could potentially adopt Grass, Flying, Ground, or Fire. CAVEAT - The types could have been uploaded in error (i.e., wrong type uploaded). Or they could be for another announced pokemon. Or the could be out of order.
I'd put the confidence level on the initial impression being accurate at about 80%.
Now, just putting this out there, but they were flirting with three types this last generation (cf. Trick or Treat, Forest's Curse). Could they be crazy enough to have a Grass/Flying/Ground?
While it does sound certifiably insane, hear me out: it's generally been the conventional wisdom that Grass is underpowered, as it rarely leaves its own type, is resisted by most competitive mons, and has a ton of weaknesses.
Putting those three types together, we'd have: Immune to Electric and Ground Half Damage from Grass and Fighting Double damage from Fire and Flying 8x(!!) damage from Ice
First things first, merits of IDGA's inserting themselves aside, they're simply wrong on a factual level. If, as claimed, an employee is singled out for harassment by a "hate group," there's a no-win situation. If the employee is fired, for any reason, a group that's built around irrational hatred will claim victory, no matter when, how, or why. That's the thing about irrational hate groups.
On to the subject of whether they should have gotten involved, I'd say no. At best, it's a silly gesture and an incoherent statement. At worst, it's a cynical self-promotion that also serves to legitimize the people they're fighting against. If you're important (as they believe themselves to be), and you jump in to a situation that barely concerns you, to lecture one party about how their actions serve to "legitimize" a hate group, then your intervention further serves to legitimize them - "We're so important and relevant that these big important people at IDGA consider us an active threat to their way of life!"
Then we get to the core incident at hand. I'll admit that I haven't quite followed the chain of events from "FE localization is terrible!" to "Let's get the pedo fired!" Frankly, I don't care all that much.
From what I understand, Ms. Rapp is trying to argue a valid, if somewhat touchy and unsavory concern, with two key prongs: (1) attempts to quash child pornography have ratcheted to an untenable degree, such that erotic drawings of flat-chested women are, in some regions, considered "child pornography" (2) criminalization of mere possession of child pornography caries with it many negative unintended consequences (including, for example, following a shortened URL could lead you to a web page with child pornography, which is now "in your possession," making you a felon). Such a position requires a light touch, a sympathetic audience, and nuance. Unfortunately, this is the internet.
As I understand, most of the hate toward her comes from those accusations. However, on Nintendo's side, it sounds like she had her own problems. To wit: (1) she doesn't seem to realize what it means to be a PR rep for a major company. Rule number 1 for PR reps is that you scrupulously avoid ANYTHING that might reflect poorly on the company you're representing. No one can argue that she did so. (Failure to perform key duties in a satisfactory manner) (2) I read somewhere in this whole mess that her supervisors had counseled her on the content of her social media postings, but she didn't tone them down or otherwise self-censor (Failure to address deficiencies in performance in a timely manner following notification) (3) The Big One, cited by Nintendo themselves - a side job that did not fall within the bounds of approved moonlighting (Violation of company Standards of Conduct). What we've got here is a problem employee, external issues aside. PR is a big deal, and very demanding - if you can't put your best foot forward, all day, every day, you really have no business being anywhere near PR.
Comments 4
Re: Talking Point: 3DS Homebrew Development Causes Another Game Takedown as Nintendo Maintains Its Tight Grip
Modern Driver training focuses on the concept of "defensive driving". Often, while discussing courses of action in hypothetical situations, a student will propose an aggressive approach based on the rules of right-of-way. In response, the teacher will tell the student "You're right. You're dead right."
The point expressed is that principle and the specifics of the law are all well and good, but it is irresponsible to act on the assumption that everyone will be following the rules.
We have, as a given, that hacking isn't going to stop. While it's theoretically possible that it will, the past few decades of experience render that possibility pretty close to nil. If your system isn't being hacked, it's because a) no one cares about your system, or b) you're serving your audience to the point where people don't think it's worth the trouble.
Needless to say, you want b to apply. DRM/Copy Protection, etc. is an aggressive manner of achieving b, focusing on the "not worth the trouble" side of the equation. Among the many many reasons why this is a terrible idea from a customer service standpoint, it's not effective. You know what all that fancy DRM is to a hacker who's decided to make you a target? A free puzzle game. You see Fort Knox; he sees Pushmo.
There are always going to be scofflaws. There are always going to be the jerks who go to the counter at a fast food restaurant, ask for a cup for water, then, without trying to hide what they're doing, fill the water cup with soda. A manager can write off the trivial loss, or can crack down, make a scene, and throw the soda jerk out of the store. With the former, it's lost profit at negligible actual cost, while a scofflaw gets stuff for free; with the latter, scofflaws know they can't get away with it, but there's a projection of a negative environment for the legitimate patrons ("There's no sign saying Free Refills. Will he throw me out if I try?")
The former cedes the moral high ground, but is far better customer service and maintains a pleasant environment. The latter maintains moral high ground, but that's the restaurant where the manager is always hovering to make sure you only get two ketchup packets to go with your fries.
And, on top of this, Nintendo already has a terrible reputation with third parties. The fact that first parties with exploits don't get pulled isn't doing them any favors there.
Re: Video: Potential Pokémon Sun & Moon Starter Evolution Types Revealed
@MegaBeedrill Normally, I'd agree with you, and I'm reluctant to jump to any huge conclusions - they could just be revealing a couple non-starrters later. But, coming from the pokemon.co.jp website, this has a lot more viability than the average leak (and it's easily replicable).
So here's an attempt to separate fact and speculation:
FACT - The site in question is http://www.pokemon.co.jp/ex/sun_moon/pokemon/partner_01/ (and 02 and 03)
FACT - The site pulls images from http://www.pokemon.co.jp/ex/sun_moon/pokemon/images/icon01.png (and 02-06)
FACT - We have four typings announced: Grass (01), Flying (02), Fire(04), and Water (05), and two unannounced: Ground (03) and Fighting (06)
FACT - Pokemon starters have traditionally been presented in the order of Grass-Fire-Water, and dual typing for them always retains the original element as the primary type.
SPECULATION - Ground and Fighting are the two other types that will appear among the starter pokemon.
SPECULATION - Given the positioning, Ground will appear before Fire (i.e., for Grass); and Fighting will appear after water (i.e., for Water)
SPECULATION - Though unusual, there isn't anything preventing Litten from adopting Grass, Flying, or Ground types as well. Similarly, Popplio could potentially adopt Grass, Flying, Ground, or Fire.
CAVEAT - The types could have been uploaded in error (i.e., wrong type uploaded). Or they could be for another announced pokemon. Or the could be out of order.
I'd put the confidence level on the initial impression being accurate at about 80%.
Re: Video: Potential Pokémon Sun & Moon Starter Evolution Types Revealed
Now, just putting this out there, but they were flirting with three types this last generation (cf. Trick or Treat, Forest's Curse). Could they be crazy enough to have a Grass/Flying/Ground?
While it does sound certifiably insane, hear me out: it's generally been the conventional wisdom that Grass is underpowered, as it rarely leaves its own type, is resisted by most competitive mons, and has a ton of weaknesses.
Putting those three types together, we'd have:
Immune to Electric and Ground
Half Damage from Grass and Fighting
Double damage from Fire and Flying
8x(!!) damage from Ice
Re: International Game Developers Association Issues Critical Statement Over Nintendo and Alison Rapp
Lots of thoughts to be had on this.
First things first, merits of IDGA's inserting themselves aside, they're simply wrong on a factual level. If, as claimed, an employee is singled out for harassment by a "hate group," there's a no-win situation. If the employee is fired, for any reason, a group that's built around irrational hatred will claim victory, no matter when, how, or why. That's the thing about irrational hate groups.
On to the subject of whether they should have gotten involved, I'd say no. At best, it's a silly gesture and an incoherent statement. At worst, it's a cynical self-promotion that also serves to legitimize the people they're fighting against. If you're important (as they believe themselves to be), and you jump in to a situation that barely concerns you, to lecture one party about how their actions serve to "legitimize" a hate group, then your intervention further serves to legitimize them - "We're so important and relevant that these big important people at IDGA consider us an active threat to their way of life!"
Then we get to the core incident at hand. I'll admit that I haven't quite followed the chain of events from "FE localization is terrible!" to "Let's get the pedo fired!" Frankly, I don't care all that much.
From what I understand, Ms. Rapp is trying to argue a valid, if somewhat touchy and unsavory concern, with two key prongs: (1) attempts to quash child pornography have ratcheted to an untenable degree, such that erotic drawings of flat-chested women are, in some regions, considered "child pornography" (2) criminalization of mere possession of child pornography caries with it many negative unintended consequences (including, for example, following a shortened URL could lead you to a web page with child pornography, which is now "in your possession," making you a felon). Such a position requires a light touch, a sympathetic audience, and nuance. Unfortunately, this is the internet.
As I understand, most of the hate toward her comes from those accusations. However, on Nintendo's side, it sounds like she had her own problems. To wit: (1) she doesn't seem to realize what it means to be a PR rep for a major company. Rule number 1 for PR reps is that you scrupulously avoid ANYTHING that might reflect poorly on the company you're representing. No one can argue that she did so. (Failure to perform key duties in a satisfactory manner) (2) I read somewhere in this whole mess that her supervisors had counseled her on the content of her social media postings, but she didn't tone them down or otherwise self-censor (Failure to address deficiencies in performance in a timely manner following notification) (3) The Big One, cited by Nintendo themselves - a side job that did not fall within the bounds of approved moonlighting (Violation of company Standards of Conduct). What we've got here is a problem employee, external issues aside. PR is a big deal, and very demanding - if you can't put your best foot forward, all day, every day, you really have no business being anywhere near PR.