Nothing, no decent person would approve of that behavior IF IT HAPPENED. I'm talking about the impulse to immediately burn people at the stake for being accused of impropriety. When I say "new age of Puritanism," I'm speaking to a larger issue. The puritanical mindset relishes in finding and punishing evildoers, and presuming any modicum of innocence just gets in the way of the fun--the demonizing of others and the demonstration of your own relative goodness.

Nah man. Maybe it has to do with seeing it happen in my industry and knowing people it directly affected. Maybe it has to do with the fact that many times they weren't taken seriously when they reported it or were told it's to as big a deal as they are making it out to be. Maybe it has to do with harassers not being disciplined, precisely because of the sentiment you write above.

I was worried that you were going to read the "you" in that last sentence as a personal reference (I'm talking about phenomenon that's bigger than you--although I've certainly seen you eager to make absolute and premature pronouncements on stuff based on [what strikes me anyway as] a rather strict worldview).

I've seen things, too, Cody, like people being fired based on hearsay. I'm not in any way, shape, or form pro-harassment. I am for hearing both sides when serious accusations are made, finding out the truth, and due process. I am against the presumption of guilt and mob rule, especially now when the mob is so empowered to act quickly and reflexively.

Regarding Quantic Dream, they seem to have pushed back as forcefully as they possibly could to the allegations, and that's a significant factor to me (that said, judging by the comments, you're in the majority in not trusting the corporate leaders, but that's a bias. You can say that they are just protecting their bottom line, but if the allegations are baseless, how should they act?). I also think that boycotts (which you seemed to be advocating) tend to be counterproductive and are a lazy way to deal with controversial issues. Not in all cases, but often.

Nothing, no decent person would approve of that behavior IF IT HAPPENED. I'm talking about the impulse to immediately burn people at the stake for being accused of impropriety. When I say "new age of Puritanism," I'm speaking to a larger issue. The puritanical mindset relishes in finding and punishing evildoers, and presuming any modicum of innocence just gets in the way of the fun--the demonizing of others and the demonstration of your own relative goodness.

Nah man. Maybe it has to do with seeing it happen in my industry and knowing people it directly affected. Maybe it has to do with the fact that many times they weren't taken seriously when they reported it or were told it's to as big a deal as they are making it out to be. Maybe it has to do with harassers not being disciplined, precisely because of the sentiment you write above.

This is not the 'first whiff" of wrongdoing.

The story just broke, Cody. Coincidentally (or maybe not) just as they are releasing a game.

It broke in January dude.

Mea culpa. Didn't notice the date.

Public shaming is out of control in this new age of Puritanism,

What is puritan about not wanting the co-ceo forcing himself upon employees at company events?

Nothing, no decent person would approve of that behavior IF IT HAPPENED. I'm talking about the impulse to immediately burn people at the stake for being accused of impropriety. When I say "new age of Puritanism," I'm speaking to a larger issue. The puritanical mindset relishes in finding and punishing evildoers, and presuming any modicum of innocence just gets in the way of the fun--the demonizing of others and the demonstration of your own relative goodness.

This is not the 'first whiff" of wrongdoing.

The story just broke, Cody. Coincidentally (or maybe not) just as they are releasing a game.

It broke in January dude.

Public shaming is out of control in this new age of Puritanism,

What is puritan about not wanting the co-ceo forcing himself upon employees at company events?

Your automatic assumption of guilt out of the gate and willingness to punish and encourage others to punish was the focus. I've not argued against your right to do that, but I do see as problematic this current tendency to organize the public to be an extra-legal judge and jury acting on the first whiff of wrongdoing.

Because it's most likely true dude. Le Monde is a legit publication, and they had investigative reporters look into the story and investigate. Wikipedia says "It is one of the most important and widely respected newspapers in the world." It's not the ramblings of some lone blogger. Especially given that some of the photoshops in question have been released, and emails detail Fondaumière knew about them.

This is not the 'first whiff" of wrongdoing.

The story just broke, Cody. Coincidentally (or maybe not) just as they are releasing a game.

Public shaming is out of control in this new age of Puritanism, and traditional and social media feed off each other on these issues (and both are far from infallible). If you don't see that, you're not paying attention.

Everything being said about Quantic Dream may turn out to be absolutely true. When punishments inflicted by the public can be greater than those inflicted by the law, it seems wise to adopt some measure of the caution similar to what the law would require before calling for the punishment to be inflicted.

Your automatic assumption of guilt out of the gate and willingness to punish and encourage others to punish was the focus. I've not argued against your right to do that, but I do see as problematic this current tendency to organize the public to be an extra-legal judge and jury acting on the first whiff of wrongdoing.

Because it's most likely true dude. Le Monde is a legit publication, and they had investigative reporters look into the story and investigate. Wikipedia says "It is one of the most important and widely respected newspapers in the world." It's not the ramblings of some lone blogger. Especially given that some of the photoshops in question have been released, and emails detail Fondaumière knew about them.

This is not the 'first whiff" of wrongdoing.

You raise good points. David Cage is very unlikely to starve to death, but many other people can be hurt if he and this game are hurt.

Never in a million years would you hear the following:

"Your honor, while my client committed armed robbery, he is the sole breadwinner for his wife and 5 kids. They have nobody else, and they will be hurt without his income. So you can't send him to prison."

But that's what you are arguing. And that's why people in power never get punished. It's a bullshit way to look at things dude.

I get the sense that the caution being discussed is against premature judgement and "sentencing" via the court of public opinion. In your example, the court case is underway, and would certainly be the point in time to judge the person, regardless of their employer or bread-winning status.

An acquittal in court is not necessarily proof of innocence. All it means is that your guilt could not be determined from the evidence. Many guilty people go free precisely because we rightly set the standard for conviction very high.

French (and many European countries) have somewhat lax laws when it comes to freedom of speech. You can be convicted in court of slander or libel even if what you say is true. So I would not put faith in the French court system when it comes to journalistic matters since freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not as strongly codified as in the US for example.

Quantic Dream could very well win their case even if the allegations are true.

And there's always the possibility that they lose their case even if the allegations are false, although that's probably less likely. But the court's verdict has not been the focus of this discussion. Your automatic assumption of guilt out of the gate and willingness to punish and encourage others to punish was the focus. I've not argued against your right to do that, but I do see as problematic this current tendency to organize the public to be an extra-legal judge and jury acting on the first whiff of wrongdoing.

You raise good points. David Cage is very unlikely to starve to death, but many other people can be hurt if he and this game are hurt.

Never in a million years would you hear the following:

"Your honor, while my client committed armed robbery, he is the sole breadwinner for his wife and 5 kids. They have nobody else, and they will be hurt without his income. So you can't send him to prison."

But that's what you are arguing. And that's why people in power never get punished. It's a bullshit way to look at things dude.

I get the sense that the caution being discussed is against premature judgement and "sentencing" via the court of public opinion. In your example, the court case is underway, and would certainly be the point in time to judge the person, regardless of their employer or bread-winning status.

An acquittal in court is not necessarily proof of innocence. All it means is that your guilt could not be determined from the evidence. Many guilty people go free precisely because we rightly set the standard for conviction very high.

French (and many European countries) have somewhat lax laws when it comes to freedom of speech. You can be convicted in court of slander or libel even if what you say is true. So I would not put faith in the French court system when it comes to journalistic matters since freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not as strongly codified as in the US for example.

Quantic Dream could very well win their case even if the allegations are true.

You raise good points. David Cage is very unlikely to starve to death, but many other people can be hurt if he and this game are hurt.

Never in a million years would you hear the following:

"Your honor, while my client committed armed robbery, he is the sole breadwinner for his wife and 5 kids. They have nobody else, and they will be hurt without his income. So you can't send him to prison."

But that's what you are arguing. And that's why people in power never get punished. It's a bullshit way to look at things dude.

I get the sense that the caution being discussed is against premature judgement and "sentencing" via the court of public opinion. In your example, the court case is underway, and would certainly be the point in time to judge the person, regardless of their employer or bread-winning status.

While you may fire that babysitter, it's by no means fair. We should be fair in all aspects of life; we decide to jettison that fairness for one reason or another, but it's still a failing all the same.

Wait wait wait.

So let's say a neighbor who also previously employed this babysitter tells you something negative-- it could be about abuse or potential abuse, the example need not be specific.

To some extent, the example does need to be specific; there would be follow up questions. Why in the hell was I able to acquire this babysitter if there is legitimacy to these claims?

Concerned, you confront the babysitter. They deny it.

Certainly lots of things factor in-- how credible the neighbor is, how familiar you are with them, and the same for the babysitter.

But assuming you believe there's a non-zero chance of the allegation being true, you have to decide whether or not to continue to employ this person and balance the need to be "fair" against potential harm to your child.

I'll quote myself:

We should be fair in all aspects of life; we decide to jettison that fairness for one reason or another, but it's still a failing all the same.

You raise good points. David Cage is very unlikely to starve to death, but many other people can be hurt if he and this game are hurt.

Never in a million years would you hear the following:

"Your honor, while my client committed armed robbery, he is the sole breadwinner for his wife and 5 kids. They have nobody else, and they will be hurt without his income. So you can't send him to prison."

But that's what you are arguing. And that's why people in power never get punished. It's a bullshit way to look at things dude.

Especially given that the allegations aren't against David Cage solely, and many are about the culture of the studio in general.

It's why even after Mankind Divided was free on PSN, I deleted it after downloading it for a hot second (and due to the way free PSN games work, can never get it back now).

Uh, that's not how the free PS+ games work. You don't even need to download the game to retain access, as long as your PS+ subscription is active.

But that's besides the point, I get it.

Oh? I thought once the free period passes you have to pay to download the game.

No. As long as you "claim" it and add it to your account when it's free, it's yours for as long as your a PS+ subscriber.

You raise good points. David Cage is very unlikely to starve to death, but many other people can be hurt if he and this game are hurt.

Never in a million years would you hear the following:

"Your honor, while my client committed armed robbery, he is the sole breadwinner for his wife and 5 kids. They have nobody else, and they will be hurt without his income. So you can't send him to prison."

But that's what you are arguing. And that's why people in power never get punished. It's a bullshit way to look at things dude.

It's why even after Mankind Divided was free on PSN, I deleted it after downloading it for a hot second (and due to the way free PSN games work, can never get it back now).

Uh, that's not how the free PS+ games work. You don't even need to download the game to retain access, as long as your PS+ subscription is active.

But that's besides the point, I get it.

Oh? I thought once the free period passes you have to pay to download the game.

It's why even after Mankind Divided was free on PSN, I deleted it after downloading it for a hot second (and due to the way free PSN games work, can never get it back now).

Uh, that's not how the free PS+ games work. You don't even need to download the game to retain access, as long as your PS+ subscription is active.

But that's besides the point, I get it.

Add to the whole story a healthy bit of skepticism applied to everything everyone is saying, and I think it's wise not to make decisions about it. From time to time I've known first-hand information about events that are reported on in the media and in each and every case, they got major elements wrong, especially at first.

But you are right. Because in a sense it's not enough to just impact them monetarily. You have to impact the cultural relevance of it too for it to really matter.

It's why even after Mankind Divided was free on PSN, I deleted it after downloading it for a hot second (and due to the way free PSN games work, can never get it back now).

You might has well just buy it then. If you’re going to take a moral position, actually stand by that position and don’t play it. Now you’re just doing something that allows you to feel morally superior while still doing the thing you want. It’s like saying Disney doesn’t deserve your money and then pirating all their movies. That’s not exactly an ethical position to take.

This isn’t to say that you shouldn’t be able to share a game with a friend, but I do think it weakens your stand. I feel like it’s not just about giving them money—if someone really had an issue with the culture of a developer, why not reject their games outright and simply skip them altogether?