3484 réponses à ce sujet

[addiction21]

kaztas wrote...

You're wrong and right. We didn't "use"  the charity, but you can believe whichever you wish. $80,000 was raised for Child's Play, but that doesn't matter because we're all so "devious".  While only a few..very very very few, asked for their money back, with anything you do a few sour grapes are always in the bunch, they don't represent the mass of the ReTake movement.

Points are made, children are happy. What's wrong with this? Nothing. Now grabbing kids and putting placards on them and marching them around....that's using them....however...hmm (im kidding)


BioWare made the right decision in donating the cupcakes (which I fouind to be poetic Irony in itself)

This is about that bolded point. It is not point towards you but Viyu. Viyu who is trying to turn the actions of a few people (those that disagreed with the Childs play/retake charity drive) against all others. Those "BioWare supporters" BioWare themselves and Penny Arcade.
BioWare was not here criticising the charity.
Penny Arcade was not criticising the movment. A problem arouse and they handled it in a perfectly acceptable manner. Some donated for the wrong reason and asked for their money back. Before it became a bigger issue they stopped that and explained why they stopped it.

What Viyu is attempting to do is connect those couple of people that had some issue with the Childs Play/Retake fund to BIoWare and Penny Arcade.

It is a desperate and transparent move.

@Viyu
Are people that donated to this asking for their cupcakes back?

[kaztas]

DayusMakhina wrote...

Do quit being so defensive and flat out putting words in my mouth. I have never once called any of the Retake movement "devious" or even commented on the movement at all so your attitude is nothing more than pointless. I equally have made no attempt at all to write off the money made by that campaign.

Furthermore you have completely taken my use of "use" out of context. The retake movement did use the charity, they raised money for Child's Play and thus made use of the charity. That is all that comment meant. If you reply to me again please atleast try to be objective.

Wow talk about being defensive. I never said you called me devious, however many who have made criticisms of ReTake have made them seem devious, hence the " " and not the literal - Devious. It was in regard to not just you. So relax a little there.

Now you DID say "The Child's Play situation did warrant criticism, because that was using
the charity in order to send a message, something that was clearly a
bad idea as evidenced by the numerous issues caused by it."

That, my friend is how I interepreted your phrase of  "Use" and in that context I was right. What's next? "depends on what the  definition of "is" is?"

You're way to defensive too tell others not to be.

EDIT: I can understand it though. I quoted you to start off and yet I was speaking about many conversations on here from many people. I didn't mean to lump you in with them in the same paragraph.

Modifié par kaztas, 02 avril 2012 - 04:15 .

[KingDan97]

I just want to say, and I won't check this thread again because personally I feel it's served it's purpose but generally CAPS LOCK IS NOT CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL and I really think if you want people to think that you have anything of value to say you should probably keep it out of your thread titles.

Just my opinion though, no need to go spreading it around.

[MikoDoll]

DayusMakhina wrote...

I can't properly quote right now because I'm on my phone, but here's a rebuttal anyway.

Those two comparisons aren't valid because your statement that they gave them away to send a message to the fans is just your personal (and negative) view of the situation.

Here's the thing. The decision of what to do with the cupcakes was based primarily on the jab. Viyu is NOT saying Bioware is bad. I don't know why you keep saying it's her "negative" view on the situation.Bioware wasn't wrong for giving it it away. The fault is constantly being debated at the wrong source. The "wrong" is in the hypocrisy of various movements to slam the "take back" efforts who failed to be consistent in their attitudes when Bioware does the same. What it communicates to me is that many of these people who were complaining cared more about slamming the fans than they were interested in the kids being the primary motive. Ironic I think. Bioware has stated that they gave the cupcakes away because the message was very critical of their work. Is it bad? No! But were kids the primary motivation? No..I really can't say I arrived to that conclusion. They were ultimately given away primarily because:

while we do appreciate that fans were
    creative in how they expressed their views, after a lot of discussion,
    we decided ultimately the reason that they were sent was not done in the
    context of celebrating the work or accomplishment of the Mass Effect 3
    team. This is a subtle, but important aspect in determining how to pass
    the feedback to the team. "

They were sent away primarily because they did not celebrte ME3 and had it been celebratory they wouldn't have considered giving them away at all. Bioware isn't wrong and their handling of the situation was in fact very mature. That doesn't change the fact though that the children were nonetheless secondary in the company's motives. yet none of the retake moaners had anything to say about it.

@Viyu
Are people that donated to this asking for their cupcakes back?

And this is a widespread issue or just a few fools people intend to broad brush everyone over as? Secondly, it doesn't change the fact that neither sides donations had the children as their primary motive.

Modifié par MikoDoll, 02 avril 2012 - 05:15 .

[Viyu]

addiction21 wrote...

kaztas wrote...

You're wrong and right. We didn't "use"  the charity, but you can believe whichever you wish. $80,000 was raised for Child's Play, but that doesn't matter because we're all so "devious".  While only a few..very very very few, asked for their money back, with anything you do a few sour grapes are always in the bunch, they don't represent the mass of the ReTake movement.

Points are made, children are happy. What's wrong with this? Nothing. Now grabbing kids and putting placards on them and marching them around....that's using them....however...hmm (im kidding)


BioWare made the right decision in donating the cupcakes (which I fouind to be poetic Irony in itself)

This is about that bolded point. It is not point towards you but Viyu. Viyu who is trying to turn the actions of a few people (those that disagreed with the Childs play/retake charity drive) against all others. Those "BioWare supporters" BioWare themselves and Penny Arcade.
BioWare was not here criticising the charity.
Penny Arcade was not criticising the movment. A problem arouse and they handled it in a perfectly acceptable manner. Some donated for the wrong reason and asked for their money back. Before it became a bigger issue they stopped that and explained why they stopped it.

What Viyu is attempting to do is connect those couple of people that had some issue with the Childs Play/Retake fund to BIoWare and Penny Arcade.

It is a desperate and transparent move.

Woah woah woaaaaah. You've got it all dead wrong. I am not saying I had any strong sentimental dislike for the ChipIn movement, in fact I'm sort of defending it here. What I am saying is that Penny Arcade was using issues in the movement to evoke criticism towards the ChipIn movement. Now whether you think that was petty or not is your call. But I'm saying they shouldn't get to pick and choose, complaining about the ChipIn movement, but not about Bioware. Why? Because when both sides do the same thing (the part about donating for reasons beyond the children, anyway), it makes Penny Arcade look like they're just masquerading "concern" for needy children in order to knock down a movement they don't approve of.

If you think Bioware or ChipIn did any right or wrong, that's not exactly the issue. The double standard is. So the argument is being framed through PA's standards, and the only reason Bioware is even being mentioned is not necessarily to attack them, but to use their actions as a means of calling Penny Arcade out.

Modifié par Viyu, 02 avril 2012 - 05:50 .

[addiction21]

MikoDoll wrote...

And this is a widespread issue or just a few fools people intend to broad brush everyone over as? Secondly, it doesn't change the fact that neither sides donations had the children as their primary motive.

1. Yes it is a few foolish people on each side
2. No it was not BioWare trying to paint Retake or the charity drive in bad light.
3. Penny Arcade also was not doing it
4. It was only some people that had a issuee with tieing a charity into a seperate movement.
5. See number 4. It was only a few that asked for their money back.
6. Reread 4 and 5. That is why Childs Play stopped the donnantions.


7. And this is the big thing. I do like to believe there are those on bothsides that had the charity as their primary motive. Those in the retake fund that knew they were donating to that cause and BIoWare knew they were doing a good thing.
It is all public relations moves. One side is doing it out of emotions and the other is doing it because they have been forced into that action.



Edit:
Sorry but I just find all this bickering sad.
Retake movement did something good. Some problems came up so they got hammered because of a couple people mad mistakes.
BioWare got a message and chose to donate the food to a shelter. Now a few are trying to hammer them for that.
I find it sad.

Modifié par addiction21, 02 avril 2012 - 05:37 .

[Viyu]

addiction21 wrote...

MikoDoll wrote...

And this is a widespread issue or just a few fools people intend to broad brush everyone over as? Secondly, it doesn't change the fact that neither sides donations had the children as their primary motive.

1. Yes it is a few foolish people on each side
2. No it was not BioWare trying to paint Retake or the charity drive in bad light.
3. Penny Arcade also was not doing it
4. It was only some people that had a issuee with tieing a charity into a seperate movement.
5. See number 4. It was only a few that asked for their money back.
6. Reread 4 and 5. That is why Childs Play stopped the donnantions.


7. And this is the big thing. I do like to believe there are those on bothsides that had the charity as their primary motive. Those in the retake fund that knew they were donating to that cause and BIoWare knew they were doing a good thing.
It is all public relations moves. One side is doing it out of emotions and the other is doing it because they have been forced into that action.

MikoDoll wasn't saying that Bioware was painting it in a negative light. But as for Penny Arcade....This was posted on their site:

You have almost certainly heard of “Retake Mass Effect”
by now. One of many grassroots efforts to get a new ending to Mass
Effect 3, it’s part community, part online petition, and part (here is
where things get complicated) Child’s Play Donation Drive. They have
stopped taking donations now partly because they basically won and partly because we don’t know how to feel about this use of the charity.
As the main point of contact for Child’s Play, Jamie has been buried
under mail about this situation.  Apparently some of the people giving
to the cause seemed to think that they were paying for a new ending to
Mass Effect. She’s been asked what the goal is, and how much they need
to raise in order to get the ending produced. We’ve also been contacted
by PayPal due to a high number of people asking for their donations
back.  This is in addition to readers who simply couldn’t understand how
this was connected to Child’s Play’s mission.  We were dealing with a
lot of very confused people, more every day, and that told us we had a
problem.

We have policies in place to deal with direct abuse: we don’t allow
companies to use Child’s Play in order to sell more stuff.  To that end
we do not allow deals like “1 cent of every dollar goes to Child’s
Play!” or whatever.  But this isn’t anywhere on that continuum!  This is
a passionate community that formed around one thing, and some of that
passion was expressed in charitable giving.  I actually support this
cause, but I am a pessimist, and I’m thinking about the next time
something like this happens - when someone attaches Child’s Play to
something we can’t get behind, or leverages your history of generosity
and fellow feeling for their own weird bull****.  So, we need to have
something like a policy on this.  This is the best way I can think to
say it:

Child’s Play cannot be a tool to draw attention to a cause.  Child’s Play must be the Cause.

Nothing like this has ever happened in the almost ten years the charity
has been running, so it kind of threw me for a loop.  Thanks for
listening.


(CW)TB

So yes, it essentially was critical. Which it has the right to be, but they either need be equal about it, or mind their business.

Edit:
Sorry but I just find all this bickering sad.
Retake movement did something good. Some problems came up so they got hammered because of a couple people mad mistakes.
BioWare got a message and chose to donate the food to a shelter. Now a few are trying to hammer them for that.
I find it sad.

This effort is more focused on hammering the critics who in my mind are being hypocritical, not necessarily Bioware. Bioware is just being used as an example to explain how PA is not being consistent with its own principles.

Modifié par Viyu, 02 avril 2012 - 05:53 .

[DayusMakhina]

Suspire wrote...
It explicitly says it's about feedback: "we decided ultimately the reason that they were sent was not done in the context of celebrating the work or accomplishment of the Mass Effect 3 team. This is a subtle, but important aspect in determining how to pass the feedback to the team."
The reason for the cupcakes = the feedback. In what other way is it important "how to pass the feedback" in this sentence?
It has to be a mistake and then Chris tried to fix it. Or my english really really sucks. Or you have to read minds to read their messages to know what they really mean.
I don't think they can say PR makes mistakes or if he does or doesn't co-sign things, but I'm guessing.

I don't think anyone sees the whole event as negative. Chris tended to the PR message already and if I had seen it before I'd have assumed it was a bad PR mistake.... what's one more mistake by BW, right. About the charity/eating thing I see both sides, which is one more reason I'm not commenting about it anymore.

Apologies for not touching on this beforehand, didn't have time. Yeh it does mention 'the feedback", but equally the cupcakes themselves were a part of said feedback (after all that was the purpose of them). My interpretation of that being that "pass the feedback" determined solely the cakes because that's about the only way that makes any sense. Them saying they don't want negative feedback would be one of the most insane things to say and makes even less sense considering Chris Priestley's numerous posts about how feedback is important, that and the message pinned to the top of this forum from the co-founder of Bioware starting that constructive criticism is important. That whole thing is very badly written to the extent that it can be misconstrued/twisted to indicate that Bioware don't want any negative feedback, but the whole idea that they would intentionally say such a thing is laughable at best when the opposite has been stated countless times and is right there for all to see.

kaztas wrote...

DayusMakhina wrote...

Do quit being so defensive and flat out putting words in my mouth. I have never once called any of the Retake movement "devious" or even commented on the movement at all so your attitude is nothing more than pointless. I equally have made no attempt at all to write off the money made by that campaign.

Furthermore you have completely taken my use of "use" out of context. The retake movement did use the charity, they raised money for Child's Play and thus made use of the charity. That is all that comment meant. If you reply to me again please atleast try to be objective.

Wow talk about being defensive. I never said you called me devious, however many who have made criticisms of ReTake have made them seem devious, hence the " " and not the literal - Devious. It was in regard to not just you. So relax a little there. 

You started out stating 'we' with the retake movement, thus alligning yourself with the movement, you then stated that I (or what i thought was in reference to myself) was putting across that people from the retake movement were devious, hence my use of 'you'. Obviously I wasn't to know parts your post weren't actually directed at me.

Now you DID say "The Child's Play situation did warrant criticism, because that was using
the charity in order to send a message, something that was clearly a 
bad idea as evidenced by the numerous issues caused by it."

That, my friend is how I interepreted your phrase of  "Use" and in that context I was right. What's next? "depends on what the  definition of "is" is?"

From your previous post it appeared you had attached negative stigma to my usage of the word 'use', which was simply not the connotation I was going for. Probably my bad english there, of which i'll use the 4am excuse. Basically, using Child's Play was a noble idea, but it was pretty much inevitable to me that it would end badly. That's as far as my opinion on that whole matter goes really.

Viyu wrote...
So yes, it essentially was critical. Which it has the right to be, but they either need be equal about it, or mind their business.

They were minding their own business. Penny Arcade founded the Child's Play charity and thus when the movement affected their charity in a negative manner they had every right to be critical of it because Penny Arcade and Child's Play are essentially the same entity.

On the other hand, they wouldn't be critical of Bioware giving away cupcakes to local kids quite simply because it doesn't affect them in any way thus they would have no reason to comment on it.

There's no hypocrisy there from Penny Arcade because as i've said a few times the situations were different.

Modifié par DayusMakhina, 02 avril 2012 - 05:54 .

[addiction21]

Viyu wrote...

So yes, it essentially was critical. Which it has the right to be, but they either need be equal about it, or mind their business.

You clearly did not read this part "This is a passionate community that formed around one thing, and some of that passion was expressed in charitable giving.  I actually support this cause, but I am a pessimist, and I’m thinking about the next time something like this happens - when someone attaches Child’s Play to something we can’t get behind, or leverages your history of generosity and fellow feeling for their own weird bull****."

They were more then equal about it.

And I qoute "I actually support this cause, but I am a pessimist, and I’m thinking about the next time something like this happens - when someone attaches Child’s Play to something we can’t get behind, or leverages your history of generosity and fellow feeling for their own weird bull****"

They support you. They agree with you. They are in your camp.

They flat out agree with you BUT DO NOT WANT THEIR CHARITY BEING USED FOR SOME OTHER REASON THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH.
Not to mention the problems of people being confused as to why they were donatiing in the first place. That it was not for a charity but for a new ending and to put an end to that.

Penny arcade is not the problem. BIoWare are not the problem (in this issue). People like you are the issue. Good was done on all sides but you are so desperate to twist it to your own needs.

[MikoDoll]

I wasn't really pointing the fingers at Penny Arcade myself. I was just noting that the moaners about the retake movement didn't say anything when Bioware essentially did the same in making the children secondary in motives. I also want to make clear that I did not say Bioware was wrong, or that they were the ones making statements against the donations. Again my feelings of hypocrisy are geared mostly to individuals who'd been moaning about the kids being secondary in motive but obviously have nothing to say right now.

[Viyu]

addiction21 wrote...

They flat out agree with you BUT DO NOT WANT THEIR CHARITY BEING USED FOR SOME OTHER REASON THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH.
Not to mention the problems of people being confused as to why they were donatiing in the first place. That it was not for a charity but for a new ending and to put an end to that.

I'll get to this later.

Penny arcade is not the problem. BIoWare are not the problem (in this issue). People like you are the issue. Good was done on all sides but you are so desperate to twist it to your own needs.

My... needs? Please chill, I've said several times I'm willing and very open to be wrong on this issue. It's no sweat off my back if I am, I'm just not convinced yet. But, the quote that is burned in my mind is the last sentence when they say that:

Child’s Play cannot be a tool to draw attention to a cause.  Child’s Play must be the Cause.

The reason I find this particular quote unnerving was because I felt it was like they were essentially saying that donating to children was a tool to get attention for a cause. This implies that the very function...the very creation of the movement was broken from the start. Because from the very beginning, the donations were meant to peacefully protest Bioware in a constructive manner, and to a degree garner attention for both the children and the Retake cause. I feel like it's a contradiction to say they "support" the cause and what people were doing, but then on the same token say Child's Play movement was a tool to draw people's attention to a cause. I.... hope I'm conveying my feelings clearly. 

Modifié par Viyu, 02 avril 2012 - 06:35 .

[Suspire]

DayusMakhina wrote...

Suspire wrote...
It explicitly says it's about feedback: "we decided ultimately the reason that they were sent was not done in the context of celebrating the work or accomplishment of the Mass Effect 3 team. This is a subtle, but important aspect in determining how to pass the feedback to the team."
The reason for the cupcakes = the feedback. In what other way is it important "how to pass the feedback" in this sentence?
It has to be a mistake and then Chris tried to fix it. Or my english really really sucks. Or you have to read minds to read their messages to know what they really mean.
I don't think they can say PR makes mistakes or if he does or doesn't co-sign things, but I'm guessing.

I don't think anyone sees the whole event as negative. Chris tended to the PR message already and if I had seen it before I'd have assumed it was a bad PR mistake.... what's one more mistake by BW, right. About the charity/eating thing I see both sides, which is one more reason I'm not commenting about it anymore.

Apologies for not touching on this beforehand, didn't have time. Yeh it does mention 'the feedback", but equally the cupcakes themselves were a part of said feedback (after all that was the purpose of them). My interpretation of that being that "pass the feedback" determined solely the cakes because that's about the only way that makes any sense. Them saying they don't want negative feedback would be one of the most insane things to say and makes even less sense considering Chris Priestley's numerous posts about how feedback is important, that and the message pinned to the top of this forum from the co-founder of Bioware starting that constructive criticism is important. That whole thing is very badly written to the extent that it can be misconstrued/twisted to indicate that Bioware don't want any negative feedback, but the whole idea that they would intentionally say such a thing is laughable at best when the opposite has been stated countless times and is right there for all to see.

Oh no worries, I wasn't asking you to. Specially cause there's nothing to disprove what I said.

So which option is it? That my english sucks? Because to me you're the one twisting the message to be in accordance to Chris's message. But it wasn't. It is simply written as it is:
"we decided ultimately the reason that they were sent was not done in the context of celebrating the work or accomplishment of the Mass Effect 3 team. This is a subtle, but important aspect in determining how to pass the feedback to the team."
Do you think "the cupcakes are feedback" explains anything? If the cupcakes are feedback and they're talking about cupcakes, they're still saying they have to be a celebration.
(The cupcakes are feedback in the way and reasons they were made. I think that's obvious.)
Now your interpretation is only that, and you said:" "pass the feedback" determined solely the cakes" ....determined the cakes what? Not celebrative? We already know this, but they also say it's an important aspect in determining how to "send cupcakes" (feedback) So they're saying it's important whether it's criticism or celebration whenever they receive feedback, because they wanted celebration, and they wanted people to keep this in mind.
You saying it's "insane" and "laughable" doesn't prove anything, that's your very subjective opinion, and means nothing to me.
I didn't say I thought  it was intentional, did you read my posts at all?
So if you're just gonna interpret things differently by ignoring the rest of the sentence and have nothing solid there's no point in arguing opinions and perceptions about what might have been on PR's mind when they wrote that.

Modifié par Suspire, 02 avril 2012 - 07:06 .

[DayusMakhina]

Suspire wrote...

Oh no worries, I wasn't asking you to. Specially cause there's nothing to disprove what I said.

So which option is it? That my english sucks? Because to me you're the one twisting the message to be in accordance to Chris's message. But it wasn't. It is simply written as it is:
"we decided ultimately the reason that they were sent was not done in the context of celebrating the work or accomplishment of the Mass Effect 3 team. This is a subtle, but important aspect in determining how to pass the feedback to the team."

The option is that the english in the passage of text posted by Chris sucks.

Do you think "the cupcakes are feedback" explains anything? If the cupcakes are feedback and they're talking about cupcakes, they're still saying they have to be a celebration.
(The cupcakes are feedback in the way and reasons they were made. I think that's obvious.)

Yes I do. It being about cupcakes and not general feedback makes a difference because of what cupcakes are. If it's just about feedback then it's saying they don't want negative feedback period. If it's about the cupcakes then it's essentially saying they do not want to eat the cupcakes because they shouldn't be celebrating (cupcakes are a nice thing, thus more of a reward) when the reason they were sent was not a celebration. That's more akin to saying "thanks for the cupcakes, but we don't feel like we deserve them from you guys as you're all clearly not happy about the outcome of the game so instead we shall give them to a far more deserving cause, our local youth shelter". That interpretation that i've just put up there is a whole lot more acceptable, no? Yes it's still not accepting them because the were negative and not a celebration, but it's saying it in a far more logical and understandable way than "we arent accepting these because they're negative".

Now your interpretation is only that, and you said:" "pass the feedback" determined solely the cakes" ....determined the cakes what? Not celebrative? We already know this, but they also say it's an important aspect in determining how to "send cupcakes" (feedback) So they're saying it's important whether it's criticism or celebration whenever they receive feedback, because they wanted celebration, and they wanted people to keep this in mind.
You saying it's "insane" and "laughable" doesn't prove anything, that's your very subjective opinion, and means nothing to me.

Recieve feedback = eat cupcakes. My interpretation is that they're saying that they feel they shouldn't eat a treat when it's merely about so many people being unhappy, because why would they want to celebrate their fans not being happy? An I was saying it's "insane" that their PR would intentionally state that they don't care about feedback when it's negative when there are numerous messages all over this forum saying the complete opposite of that. I'm not seeing how that 'means nothing", it's an indication that the idea that they would mean to say such a thing is wrong as evidenced by numerous examples of the opposite being stated by Bioware. That itself isn't all that subjective when I was indicating facts.

I didn't say I thought  it was intentional, did you read my posts at all?

So if you're just gonna interpret things differently by ignoring the rest of the sentence and have nothing solid there's no point in arguing opinions and perceptions about what might have been on PR's mind when they wrote that.

I haven't ignored any single aspect of the rest of the sentence intentionally, have taken it all into account as i've further explained above. There isn't really a case of having anything more solid considering it's all just an interpetation of a passage of text. 

Also, mentioning whether it ws intentional or not was more of a general statement, and not directed at you. That comment was more in relation to the beginning of this conversation where the other guy appearred to be wanting to use said PR statement to moan about Bioware (not that I think there is anything wrong with moaning about Bioware, I just feel that people should moan about Bioware with regards to things they have clearly done wrong, rather than everything), which was the entire reason why I started this conversation in the first place. You on the other hand don't think that, so we're essentially in disagreement about nothing, which is probably a sign we should stop beating this like a dead horse. In fact yes, this shall be my last post on the matter.

[Suspire]

Yeah, we're never going to agree. You really have to squint and twist and add lots of words to think they're saying something so convoluted you can barely explain it. It's insane that they made a PR mistake? That's still pretty subjective. I think it's more sane than the theory you've come up with about 2 sentences.

it's still not accepting them because the were negative and not a
celebration, but it's saying it in a far more logical and understandable
way than "we arent accepting these because they're negative".

All that contradicting logic, it must hurt.
Points for being so creative though, you could probably explain the endings away.

Modifié par Suspire, 02 avril 2012 - 11:28 .

[DayusMakhina]

Suspire wrote...

It's insane that they made a PR mistake?

One last thing, just because I do not like people telling me i've said something when I have not. With regards to the quote up there... I did NOT say that.

I said:

  An I was saying it's "insane" that their PR would intentionally state that they don't care about feedback when it's negative when there are numerous messages all over this forum saying the complete opposite of that.

Huge difference, an that is all, really.

[Nightfire78]

*Looks around in wonder*... dudes, we sent them cupcakes, they gave the cupcakes to kids but kept the messages attached. Win-win for everyone except the Bioware employees who were looking forward to cupcakes. I'm not sure where all this extra discussion is coming from.

As for charities having to be the main goal of something... I'm not sure most charities would agree because a lot of charities get their money from fundraisers that are not purely focused on the charity. Take school charity drives like the kind my high school started after we had a boy commit suicide. The charity was for kids with leukemia, not anything to do with the boy who died, and there was no secret made out of the fact that they started it to give the students a positive channel for their negative, confused emotions and energies. Something to make the world seem like a good place and like they/we could make a positive difference to try and counteract the problem that frequently follows a suicide in such a setting (namely that other people also contemplate or even attempt to do the same).

I really don't think the leukemia charity was bothered by the fact that they were not the primary cause/reason/motivation for the drive, nor did they seem to mind the media attention that they shared with the school. The red cross routinely gets major donations when there's a catastrophe, but that money does not only go to red cross activities related to said catastrophe because the red cross is a much broader organization so really people aren't donating because their hearts are with the red cross but because they want to do *something* that could/might/hopefully will help people involved in said catastrophe. Political organizations and businesses routinely gather for multiple charities where the people at the event buying the ticket or dinner seat or <insert whatever here> don't even know all of them or what they do, just that there are charitable organizations being helped.

My point is that there's a certain amount of people who are passionate about 1 specific cause and support that purely on this basis, there are huge masses of people who would like to do something good, but are up for pretty much anything that's presented to them (ie. children's hospital stuff, education related stuff, kids who've been injured by landmines in Africa etc etc are all equally worthy to them). This means that no charity will ever be able to live purely off the people for whom it is the be-all-and-end-all of causes. The people who just want to do something good and know there's a lot of good causes out there and are equally willing to give for AIDs babies as for diverse cancer research or school books for children in Africa are the ones who need group initiatives, on-line or tv ads, telethons etc. to get activated.

In other words, group initiatives (usually started by someone for whom the charitable cause is of importance because they would have picked one of the 100000000 other causes instead otherwise) tap into the goodness of people that have come together because of whatever the thing is that defines the group. It's not new or unheard of or an insult to the charity or a bad thing for the children/adults/sick people who benefit from the donations.

That being said, if a charity feels it is either unequipped to deal with the response it is receiving or has not as yet had time to develop a standard plan for press releases that ascertain the charity's neutrality on whatever issue a group has formed around, then it can be in it's best interest to step back a moment and sort this stuff out.

We have established that some people apparently did not read the text on the donation page before donating; we have established that some people felt CP wasn't acting in the best interest of the children by breaking off the drive; we have established that some very very very few of these people asked for their money back.
More importantly, we have established that a whole lot of people, over 1000 (I can no longer remember the exact number) happily, permanently donated to CP, many of whom wouldn't even have known CP existed otherwise and some of whom will certainly continue donating now that they do know.
And yes, Retake got attention for it, just like my High School did, this does not mean either organization should not have started a charity drive, and coincidentally, it also means the charities got attention... especially good for charities that are not so well known in the general populace.

Really, I think the discussion has been had, all points have been gone over repeatedly, and we all should really move on.

And seriously, it has nothing to do with the cupcakes. The cupcakes were a fun way to say "we're here, we're not going away, we love you guys, but the ending was disappointing". Sure we would have loved the people to whom we were also trying to signal our love for the quality of work throughout the rest of the trilogy to eat the yummy cupcakes, but they decided to join in the spirit of giving and give them to the children's shelter... nothing any more wrong about that than about the CP drive, and let's face it... Fuzz isn't that far away from them and I assume Bioware pays enough that they could all go grab a cupcake there after work anyway

Anyway, I need to get back to work (deadline is ever approaching). I hope when I check in next I'll find a positive happy thread talking about new and nifty ideas rather than rehashing these tired old discussions-_-

Hold the line!

[Dominator24]

Great

[MikoDoll]

As for charities having to be the main goal of something... I'm not sure most charities would agree because a lot of charities get their money from fundraisers that are not purely focused on the charity. Take school charity drives like the kind my high school started after we had a boy commit suicide. The charity was for kids with leukemia, not anything to do with the boy who died, and there was no secret made out of the fact that they started it to give the students a positive channel for their negative, confused emotions and energies. Something to make the world seem like a good place and like they/we could make a positive difference to try and counteract the problem that frequently follows a suicide in such a setting (namely that other people also contemplate or even attempt to do the same).

The people discussing the fact that the kids weren't the primary motive aren't saying this out of any upset towards Bioware though. We think it was a good thing what they did. Our distaste is directed towards many of the moaners who complained about the take back movement because the kids weren't the primary motive but don't say anything about this. Now, if they did we'd be the first to defend Bioware. Its the fact they're not saying anything which implies hypocrisy.  No one's saying to be mad at Bioware. We're just saying if you're going to moan about one side doing it, it's only consistent if you moan when the other does it.

[Swimming Ferret]

After reading all 139 pages, I must say I am impressed with Bioware fans. Though I have the urge to add a quote about free speech;

"Free speech as a legal concept only guarantees you the right to speak.
It doesn’t guarantee you the right to be heard, it doesn’t guarantee you
the right to be agreed with, it certainly doesn’t guarantee you the
right for your speech to not be challenged by someone else’s speech, and
most importantly of all, it doesn’t mean you can’t suffer consequences
if and when your free speech is used to cause harm to someone. Which is
exactly what sexual harassment, racial slurs, and verbal bigotry are.
That’s not censorship. That’s fairness."  

This is aimed towards all those people cussing and calling others trolls for having different opinions and the written spats I've read. You are entitled to say something, but someone is entitled to respond back and, heavens forbid, disagree with you about it.  Disagreeing =/= being a troll.

My take/outsider view on the situation;

So Bioware was given loads of cupcakes, which visually represent the choice they gave to players during the end of ME3, accompanied by some cheeky, yet overall kind notes from donators. However in a statement Bioware said they didn't like the fact they felt the cupcakes were a critizism of their work, so they donated all the cupcakes given specifically to them to kids, so if anyone complains they seem like dicks about the whole situation.

Hey Bioware, part of growing up and being in a gaming/creative industry means accepting critque, not deflecting it into a PR move. That is how you improve, not from lavish amounts of praise; that doesn't help in the least. You learn more from mistakes and critque than you do from asskissing. Please Bioware, act like adults.

Though you have been leeched on by EA, so that may not be possible anymore.

[VironZ]

wish I had some cupcakes

[oYOSSARIANo]

To the people that organised this, the people that paid for it and to Bioware for passing the cupcakes on to a deserving cause,

I salute you.

I really do.  You should all be proud of what you've done.

Modifié par oYOSSARIANo, 03 avril 2012 - 01:38 .

[Swimming Ferret]

VironZ wrote...

wish I had some cupcakes

I'm going to buy some donuts when I drive home. This whole thread is making me crave some sugary treats.

[MikoDoll]

DayusMakhina wrote...

They were minding their own business. Penny Arcade founded the Child's Play charity and thus when the movement affected their charity in a negative manner they had every right to be critical of it because Penny Arcade and Child's Play are essentially the same entity.


On the other hand, they wouldn't be critical of Bioware giving away cupcakes to local kids quite simply because it doesn't affect them in any way thus they would have no reason to comment on it.

There's no hypocrisy there from Penny Arcade because as i've said a few times the situations were different.

No there is. If Penny Arcade had simply said "we're closing this down because this is a financial risk" that would've been fine. Penny Arcade from what I'm reading in addition to that said that the kids should be the primary motivation and not a secondary motivation. This seems to be a critical position on the retake movement. However they did not apply that principle to Bioware when they gave away the cupcakes.  The situatons are not different where it counts. Both sides seem to have had the kids as secondary in their motives.  Bioware's stunt not affecting Penny Arcade doesn't change that the same principles of the kids being secondary in motive didn't occur.

Modifié par MikoDoll, 03 avril 2012 - 01:51 .

[NVKen42]

 I just received an email that claimed it was from EA, and specifically from Thomas Rogers. It says that Thomas would like to discuss my concerns over the ending, and asks me to reply to the email with a good phone number and my time zone so they can schedule an interview. Is this legit, or is someone trying to SPAM me using a fake EA email?

[stonbw1]

That is a bit odd. You may want to reply but ask him for his number rather than vice versa??