SOE Becomes Daybreak / Russian shutdown

Grim1 · Jul 19, 2015

slippery_sl said:
Because dealing with people that threaten and commit crimes against you by insulting and threatening them handles the situation right?

Or, you could handle the situation and go after them privately through the law without making a joke out of yourself and causing your company harm by calling them names and making childish threats at them on Twitter.

I don't have any issues with what he did or how he did it. Couldn't give a fuck less. You seem to be the type that thinks where the fork is placed on the table is more important that the lives of the people putting the fork down.

slippery · Jul 19, 2015

Grim1_sl said:
I don't have any issues with what he did or how he did it. Couldn't give a fuck less. You seem to be the type that thinks where the fork is placed on the table is more important that the lives of the people putting the fork down.

No, I'm the kind of person that thinks how you act as a person and how well you perform as a leader are extremely related.

Grim1 · Jul 19, 2015

slippery_sl said:
No, I'm the kind of person that thinks how you act as a person and how well you perform as a leader are extremely related.

Lol, Ghengis Khan would disagree. in fact most leaders would laugh at you. Except those in roles where morality takes a center stage, like the Pope. But wait, turns out many of them weren't very nice people either, or very professional.

popsicledeath · Jul 19, 2015

slippery being slippery. It's hard to argue with someone who will just bounce back and forth between first saying a leader and public figure deserves to be a victim because he's a bad leader and public figure, and then say he shouldn't be protected as a victim because he's a leader and public figure. Ah, but as a leader and public figure his actions make him deserve being a victim. Ah, but as a victim he shouldn't be protected because he's a public figure!

Yeah, we get it lambchop, you can stop now.

KCXIV · Jul 19, 2015

popsicledeath_sl said:
slippery being slippery. It's hard to argue with someone who will just bounce back and forth between first saying a leader and public figure deserves to be a victim because he's a bad leader and public figure, and then say he shouldn't be protected as a victim because he's a leader and public figure. Ah, but as a leader and public figure his actions make him deserve being a victim. Ah, but as a victim he shouldn't be protected because he's a public figure!

Yeah, we get it lambchop, you can stop now.

lol. i laughed.

Grim1_sl said:
I don't have any issues with what he did or how he did it. Couldn't give a fuck less. You seem to be the type that thinks where the fork is placed on the table is more important that the lives of the people putting the fork down.

Same here. I would have done the same. I have no problems with him calling the dude out and showing the public exactly the kind of bullshit that they pull off and try to "cyber bully" people. They need to be punched in the fucking face.

Ukerric · Jul 19, 2015

slippery_sl said:
No, I'm the kind of person that thinks how you act as a person and how well you perform as a leader are extremely related.

Just finished a book on Elon "I'm going to Mars" Musk, and the biographer says that the only reason Space X works is because he has an assistant that manages to prevent people from actually going into his office to talk to him.

slippery · Jul 19, 2015

popsicledeath_sl said:
slippery being slippery. It's hard to argue with someone who will just bounce back and forth between first saying a leader and public figure deserves to be a victim because he's a bad leader and public figure, and then say he shouldn't be protected as a victim because he's a leader and public figure. Ah, but as a leader and public figure his actions make him deserve being a victim. Ah, but as a victim he shouldn't be protected because he's a public figure!

Yeah, we get it lambchop, you can stop now.

I look forward to seeing the post where I said anything done to him was good, that he deserves to be a victim, or that he shouldn't be protected. I have not said a single one of these things ever.

I know it's a hard concept for you guys to understand, but there are 2 very distinct points and they correlate.

While it's not right for the things that happened to Smed to happen to anyone, that doesn't justify his response of being a child on Twitter. He could have handled the situation in the realm of the law, instead of Twitter. He could have tried to just take action against the people supposedly responsible without doing himself and his company more harm by calling them names and throwing a temper tantrum on the internet.

A CEO who has so little self respect to act like a child on Twitter instead of handling the situation out of the public eye is not a good leader, and fosters the childish drama environment that pervades the company as a whole.

It's funny though, because you guys think what you are saying has any merit at all. Why exactly do you think he left Twitter and Reddit etc? That's not a decision he actually makes, and his statement makes it very clear it was a decision pushed upon him probably under threat of losing his job when he costs the company more money from the next time he pulls a stunt like that. In other words, his new corporate overlords are actually willing to police him, unlike Sony, because they know he does not run a profitable company and they aren't willing to let him piss away their money without oversight.

pharmakos · Jul 19, 2015

FWIW -- i agree with both sides. i completely understand why Smedley reacted as emotionally as he did. but also, a perfect CEO would have kept his cool. that is undeniable. all of DBG's online games were inaccessible because of Smed's Twitter tantrum... an outcome that was both foreseeable and difficult to forgive.

KCXIV · Jul 19, 2015

pharmakos_sl said:
FWIW -- i agree with both sides. i completely understand why Smedley reacted as emotionally as he did. but also, a perfect CEO would have kept his cool. that is undeniable. all of DBG's online games were inaccessible because of Smed's Twitter tantrum... an outcome that was both foreseeable and difficult to forgive.

Reddit, Twitter and Even Facebook were very very forgiving about the downtime in the game. We all know social media is ready to fucking troll the shit out of anyone, but they were mostly ok with it, and when i mean mostly im talking about 95/5 if we want to put percentages on it.

popsicledeath · Jul 19, 2015

slippery_sl said:
I look forward to seeing the post where I said anything done to him was good, that he deserves to be a victim, or that he shouldn't be protected. I have not said a single one of these things ever.

I know it's a hard concept for you guys to understand, but there are 2 very distinct points and they correlate.

While it's not right for the things that happened to Smed to happen to anyone, that doesn't justify his response of being a child on Twitter. He could have handled the situation in the realm of the law, instead of Twitter. He could have tried to just take action against the people supposedly responsible without doing himself and his company more harm by calling them names and throwing a temper tantrum on the internet.

A CEO who has so little self respect to act like a child on Twitter instead of handling the situation out of the public eye is not a good leader, and fosters the childish drama environment that pervades the company as a whole.

It's funny though, because you guys think what you are saying has any merit at all. Why exactly do you think he left Twitter and Reddit etc? That's not a decision he actually makes, and his statement makes it very clear it was a decision pushed upon him probably under threat of losing his job when he costs the company more money from the next time he pulls a stunt like that. In other words, his new corporate overlords are actually willing to police him, unlike Sony, because they know he does not run a profitable company and they aren't willing to let him piss away their money without oversight.

And it's a defacto blame game you're playing. If someone says it's not fair what happened to Smed, and you argue by pointing out that Smed acted poorly, what you're essentially saying is because he acted poorly he deserves what happened.

The only other option is for you to admit you aren't interested in discussing the topic and hand and are instead just taking an opportunity to vent about how Smed doesn't live up to your personal standards of excellence. Essentially, taking an opportunity to attack someone while they're down, which is pretty childish and irresponsible.

Where is your self respect?! I sure hope you're not a CEO, otherwise you should be fired for your behavior!!!

Oh, and nobody believes you're some important insider with secret knowledge. The more you try to convince everyone you're important, the less seriously you'll be taken. Basically, to be taken seriously, you're going to have to not sound like a raving lunatic with a death-shrine dedicated to Smed in your basement. Because right now you have a bunch of mmorpg nerds on a forum with roots in EQ defending John-fucking-Smedly over you.

pharmakos · Jul 19, 2015

KCXIV_sl said:
Reddit, Twitter and Even Facebook were very very forgiving about the downtime in the game. We all know social media is ready to fucking troll the shit out of anyone, but they were mostly ok with it, and when i mean mostly im talking about 95/5 if we want to put percentages on it.

well, count me in the 5%. maybe it would have happened anyway, but after planning and being unable to do a poopsock fest on EQ1 TLP the weekend of the downtime, i've barely logged back in. after a series of disappointments when it came to those servers, this was the final straw.

zzeris · Jul 19, 2015

pharmakos_sl said:
well, count me in the 5%. maybe it would have happened anyway, but after planning and being unable to do a poopsock fest on EQ1 TLP the weekend of the downtime, i've barely logged back in. after a series of disappointments when it came to those servers, this was the final straw.

Yeah, but do you really think the last straw wouldn't have been met sometime in the near future then? I know you say maybe but I'm going to go ahead and upgrade that to definitely. The one thing we can all agree on is that Daybreak is not a very good company especially from the customer service side.

pharmakos · Jul 19, 2015

yup. but the fact that it was one of many bad moves from the company does not mean that it was not indeed a bad move on Smed's part.

dobby_sl · Jul 20, 2015

Plays Hearthstone too much. Good chance psychotic.

gross

dobby_sl · Jul 22, 2015

haters gonna hate

gogojira_sl · Jul 22, 2015

Edit: Eh, deleted. It was a reach and I don't want to be that guy.

Spynx_sl · Jul 22, 2015

Did daybreak finally die? There hasn't been an Eqn update in a month.

Felmega_sl · Jul 22, 2015

Who's gonna buy the Everquest "franchise" next?

Qhue · Jul 22, 2015

Daybreak Game Companys John Smedley steps down as chief executive officer | GamesBeat | Games | by Jeff Grubb

gogojira_sl · Jul 22, 2015

Guess my post wasn't a reach.

Search

SOE Becomes Daybreak / Russian shutdown

Grim1

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

slippery

Grim1

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

popsicledeath

Potato del Grande

KCXIV

Molten Core Raider

Ukerric

Bearded Ape

slippery

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd

KCXIV

Molten Core Raider

popsicledeath

Potato del Grande

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd

zzeris

King Turd of Shit Hill

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd

dobby_sl

shitlord

dobby_sl

shitlord

gogojira_sl

shitlord

Spynx_sl

shitlord

Felmega_sl

shitlord

Qhue

Tranny Chaser

gogojira_sl

shitlord