Straight_ManGeeky, in my own wayNaples, FLIcrontian
WTF? Calling this mob justice implies a mob mentality; logging onto the Internet, reading Krahulik's blog, and then choosing on your own to do something with the information presented there hardly qualifies. I fail to see how this is any different than any other public figure getting called on their BS.
Frankly, it is the publicity that made Krahulik's blog a public thing, so I have to agree some with the mob thing as what appears to be happening. BUT, it is justified because of the BS that Krahulik posted in blog I think. And yes, he made himself public, just as anyone who is on Facebook or Twitter is publicly speaking when he or she posts.
The whole Internet, thanks to Google, is now pretty public - some hta'd pages and subfora excepted - so folks need to watch what they say. That includes me and everyone else hanging here and on every place they hang out and any forum and blog and newsgroup on the web that Google can index.
Honestly, the reason WHY people like this Paul guy exists is because we have LESS people like Mike with the capability or the attitude to do what he did. I adamantly refuse to put Mike in the wrong for this, and quite frankly, I'm kind of shocked that someone would -legitimately- take offense to what he did.
Is it childish? Sure. Is pretty much unleashing the internet on a single asshole and his career an extreme measure? Of course.
But it was Mike's finger on the button, and honestly if you had just come off fresh from witnessing said injustice, you would have pressed it too. Bullies only persist when there's nobody that'll stand up and push them back into place. And the degree of douchebaggery that Paul showed certainly calls for a strong shock to his system and ego.
This is not the way to do business. Examples must be made. Paul and Ocean Marketing is now one of them. And I honestly believe that is quite fine in the universe, in my opinion.
It's an overreaction on both sides to a relatively mundane and entirely normal process of everyday life/business.
The internet will be the internet, and a naive PR guy tough guy had to learn it the hard way. Unfortunately, for him, the internet won't stop when you tell it to.
IMO, crap like this cuts the internet's legs out from underneath it when you attempt to defend it's 'rights' and proper use. Who wants to defend something where anonymity allows you to be as ...unhuman as this?
I'm kinda confused here. I'm going to side with PR guy overreacted in the complete opposite way to the initial conversation, then you described him as unhuman. Did I get that right, or are you trying to say that calling out an asshole on being an asshole on the internet is unhuman? See the last paragraph of my earlier post.
Keyboard commando death threats are unlikely to meet with reality, however fucking moronic those kids are to make them in the first place. Welcome to the internet :/
Someone driving by your house and throwing a brick through your window with a death threat would be vastly more scary.
I don't see how anyone can defend this prick, especially after this most recent dick move. Unless someone actually physically harms him, I don't feel one iota of pity for him. Dude has made his bed (and continues to make it), now he must lie in it.
Guess Paul is being extra awesome by not turning over the social media account info belonging to his former clients.
I came to post just this. I reiterate my claim that this guy is indefensible, deserves what he is getting and thank Dave/Mike for making it public.
@CB and @Nights: do you guys reallllllly want to keep defending him after reading the escapist article, and in particular, this quote:
Paul told me on the phone two hours ago that "Eight months ago, I locked down all this stuff so they wouldn't be able to fuck with me. If they don't give me what I want, it's war." His demands include a contract written on his terms and substantial compensation, both immediate and for as long as the company continues to exist. He flaunted the PR debacle he created as proof that he "made the company a success", citing all the media and public attention as the "best thing that ever happened to Avenger".
I certainly am not defending Christoforo (and the entire douchebag industry that's just like him). Hell, I worked for a guy who is exactly LIKE Paul Christoforo. I loathe people like this, with a passion.
I think what CB is trying to say here, rather obtusely, but genuinely, is this—be careful of whom you allow to influence you. Mob justice has no brain.
@Tushon and @ardichoke: never once did CB defend Christoforo's actions, he's meaning to open debate on the point of where the responsibility for dispensing justice should lie. Be careful not to misrepresent his position here.
Straight_ManGeeky, in my own wayNaples, FLIcrontian
@Tushon and @ardichoke: never once did CB defend Christoforo's actions, he's meaning to open debate on the point of where the responsibility for dispensing justice should lie. Be careful not to misrepresent his position here.
True, that is kinda what this seems to have been about, using the working example of what Brian wrote about and what then developed. Christoforo committed PR career suicide himself by messing up.
But, as to justice, what is criticism??? Is logical criticism that is justified by circumstances the sole purview of judges??? NO, absolutely not.
In the US we have freedom of expression, which cuts both ways. Joe (or Sam or Harry) can hold one position, others can hold others, and US constitutional amendment protects BOTH of the two or ALL of them severally and/or singly.
Consensus is powerful, let us make no mistake about this. Some countries have other ways of ensuring freedom of expression - some legally, some by populace custom over ages of time which have the FORCE of law if not the letter (and written expression of spirit) of law also. BOTH work. For some countries, people in them have to use the web to have freedom of expression.
This is a US website, Ocean Marketing and the other primarily involved parties in this mess are in the US. So, US rules as to results apply.
Is the world a dog-eat-dog world in some cases??? It CAN be if voices of REASON do not prevail.
@Tushon and @ardichoke: never once did CB defend Christoforo's actions, he's meaning to open debate on the point of where the responsibility for dispensing justice should lie. Be careful not to misrepresent his position here.
The punishment here—the ruining of a man’s career, buckets of hate mail (including death threats), the permanent ire of the entire geek culture, and the potential that someone will do him real physical harm—doesn’t fit the crime.
This is all I was referring to. He's saying that the guy's actions didn't warrant his career being ruined. Given that his career is supposed to be in PR and customer relations, I'd say that's damn close to defending the guy. Also, given all that's come to light, his career definitely should be ruined because he sucks at it. I'd say he deserves the ire as well given the contempt he's shown for his customer and their customers.
As for the rest of it "potential someone will do him real physical harm" is a red herring. There's ALWAYS potential that someone would do anyone real physical harm for any or no reason every single day. Someone could just walk up to you on the street and punch you in the face regardless of what anyone on the Internet says. Unless it actually happens, that whole line of argument is meaningless. As for the hate mail, I'm not defending that. At the end of the day, he can always change his email address or Ctrl+a, del though.
In the end, as someone who was victimized by bullies for most of my young life, I'm not shedding a single fucking tear over a bully that is getting a taste of his own medicine.
In the end, as someone who was victimized by bullies for most of my young life, I'm not shedding a single fucking tear over a bully that is getting a taste of his own medicine.
This is exactly the issue here. Essentially, this guy wandered into the wrong neighborhood and shit on the wrong guy's lawn. I'm painting with a very broad brush, here, but the internet has a very large population that have gone through exactly this in the 'real world'*. When 'real world' bully comes into internet world's domain and attempts to do the same thing, this is what happens.
Anyone who has spent time on the web knows this is what was to take place. I think we can all agree. So, that having been said:
Where I disagree with what went on is how this entire thing was carried out: publicly. You're kidding yourself if you don't think real world toughguys do this same shit in the real world. The difference, however, is it results in burned bridges and a loss of business - one way or another they always lose business.
The could have just as easily been carried out in private, through e-mail, to the right channels to ensure that this guy not only loses business, but never gets any again for this type of media: the internet. The players involved here are large and important enough to essentially blackball this guy from internet PR existance. To be fair, by all accounts it looks like this is what the initial guy that inquired about shipping did this.
Instead of keeping it that way, however, Gabe chose to air the laundry out in the open and allow for all to see for exactly that same reason: he'd been bullied before, so it made it right - 'you wandered into the wrong neighborhood'.
Am I defending PR dope for his actions? No. But I'm also not going to defend actions of a larger populace that should know better.
*Internet of course is considered real, as well, but for the sake of differentiating the two to explain my position I've noted a difference.
I'd rather this take place all out in the open as opposed to some powerful players blackballing someone in secret. Secrecy leads to REAL abuse of power. The point of the Internet is the free dissemination of information. If you don't like it, or if you're going to be an asshat in such a way that would ruin you if it became public, maybe you shouldn't be doing it on the Internet.
I suppose you also take offense to negative reviews on sites like Yelp @NiGHTS? What happens when a bunch of people leave negative reviews about a terrible restaurant and put it out of business? Should they also have just kept it quiet and not made it public?
*sigh* No, @ardichoke. All that talk about red-herrings and you drop that?
A site like Yelp exists explicitly for that purpose: review my business. Now, if you want to keep with the Yelp theme, had Gabe done this on Yelp, I'd have no problem with it - that's what it's there for.
Without drawing this out further, since I'm just trying to explain my point of view - I guess my opinion on proper ways of doing business differ dramatically from yours. Dealing with an issue like this isn't 'secrecy' in my book, it's proper conduct. Putting it on a website millions of people visit for, by and large, a daily comic, is the abuse of power. I don't need to air that dirty laundry for all to see; those that need to know, will.
I think the real fallacy is all the tech sites using this incident to write editorials about what happened that are basically click-bait for a hot tech news controversy.
I feel like anyone who was really outraged about the whole thing would do better to just leave it alone instead of giving additional press to either Penny Arcade or "Ocean Marketing", the power you're speaking of largely sits with the tech media on this and by publishing op-eds and getting more people stirred up you're just feeding the machine.
Also, I'm not just speaking about this article in particular, but it hit me after reading the Kotaku article that Brian linked that basically every tech site out there now has an article tracking this thing and providing updates and opinions and it's just breathing more life into it.
A site like Yelp exists explicitly for that purpose: review my business. Now, if you want to keep with the Yelp theme, had Gabe done this on Yelp, I'd have no problem with it - that's what it's there for.
Without drawing this out further, since I'm just trying to explain my point of view - I guess my opinion on proper ways of doing business differ dramatically from yours. Dealing with an issue like this isn't 'secrecy' in my book, it's proper conduct. Putting it on a website millions of people visit for, by and large, a daily comic, is the abuse of power. I don't need to air that dirty laundry for all to see; those that need to know, will.
It's also HIS site, where he commonly posts HIS thoughts and rants on HIS blog. He has every right to post that there.
I don't think our opinion on the "proper ways of doing business" differ, I think our opinions on whether or not it's acceptable to publicly call out someone for conducting business inappropriately is what differs. What I've taken away from your posts is that if a PR guy, representing a company to which you may have paid money for a product or otherwise had business dealings with, treats you like shit or name-drops you while bashing a customer, you shouldn't be able to post that publicly and call him out for behaving completely inappropriately. I think they should have every right to do so.
The way I see it, if I were in Mike's shoes, I'd be concerned that this tool had used my name when bashing and threatening other customers as well without me knowing about it. I would then want to post the email and a scathing rebuttal solely to distance myself from him and make it very clear that I was not in any way associated with him because I would not want ANYONE to think that I was associated with him in any way shape or form. Dealing with him in private won't do that and wouldn't discourage him from using my name and reputation in the future. Posting a very public rebuttal as well as his own emails will. Simple as that.
I think the real fallacy is all the tech sites using this incident to write editorials about what happened that are basically click-bait for a hot tech news controversy.
I feel like anyone who was really outraged about the whole thing would do better to just leave it alone instead of giving additional press to either Penny Arcade or "Ocean Marketing", the power you're speaking of largely sits with the tech media on this and by publishing op-eds and getting more people stirred up you're just feeding the machine.
Also, I'm not just speaking about this article in particular, but it hit me after reading the Kotaku article that Brian linked that basically every tech site out there now has an article tracking this thing and providing updates and opinions and it's just breathing more life into it.
I completely agree with this, which is what I was saying in my post too. I can't wait for this to blow over. However, I'm somehow addicted to reading the comments in this thread for no other reason than I find all the attention this is getting to be completely absurd.
It's also HIS site, where he commonly posts HIS thoughts and rants on HIS blog. He has every right to post that there.
I don't think our opinion on the "proper ways of doing business" differ, I think our opinions on whether or not it's acceptable to publicly call out someone for conducting business inappropriately is what differs. What I've taken away from your posts is that if a PR guy, representing a company to which you may have paid money for a product or otherwise had business dealings with, treats you like shit or name-drops you while bashing a customer, you shouldn't be able to post that publicly and call him out for behaving completely inappropriately. I think they should have every right to do so.
Oh definitely, I think they should have every right to as well, sorry to mislead. I just don't think this is the most mature way of handling it. I mean, Gabe even points out it's caused legal problems in the past, but this line:
I will personally burn everything I’ve made to the fucking ground if I think I can catch them in the flames.
kinda drives that point home. He even has the self-realization that he might indeed be the bigger bully, this time.
The way I see it, if I were in Mike's shoes, I'd be concerned that this tool had used my name when bashing and threatening other customers as well without me knowing about it. I would then want to post the email and a scathing rebuttal solely to distance myself from him and make it very clear that I was not in any way associated with him because I would not want ANYONE to think that I was associated with him in any way shape or form. Dealing with him in private won't do that and wouldn't discourage him from using my name and reputation in the future. Posting a very public rebuttal as well as his own emails will. Simple as that.
Fair enough, I'd be just as concerned as well. By proxy, this man now represents my business (however loosely) and must be dealt with. For me, dealing with him in private would only be the first step in a larger chain. In the end we're agreeing on the same thing: let your shareholders know. My stance is that I'd prefer to do this by phone/e-mail/whatever to my shareholders/customers/prime interests instead, though, to get ahead of it. Gabe is certainly large enough to get the ear of anyone who will listen, and I would have preferred he'd done it more discreetly.
Just for giggles, say Gabe sends an e-mail. We both know it would have gotten out on the larger websiphere anyway, but the attitude would have been totally different. Gabe doesn't look vindictive, it looks like he's keeping everyone aware of what's going on. Hey, I've got a problem here, this is the guy, this is what he's up to, he no longer represents me in any way. I've taken these steps to remediate the issues, I'd ask you consider doing the same based on the following.
End of the day, we both agree on the main issues. Like you said, we just differ on how we'd go about solving this idiot's mess.
If I'm the gun, and Mike Krahulik wields me, then the extent of his action was to place the gun in Christofo's hand and watch him shoot himself. Over and over and over again. This is not a "Jenny Jones" situation where someone was murdered after getting outed on TV. This is a case where a bad businessman had been dealing in threats, evidently for a while, and got his bluff called. Chistoforo can only suffer damage equivalent to the size of the castle of lies that he built.
Comments
The whole Internet, thanks to Google, is now pretty public - some hta'd pages and subfora excepted - so folks need to watch what they say. That includes me and everyone else hanging here and on every place they hang out and any forum and blog and newsgroup on the web that Google can index.
So even our discussion is public.
John.
Is it childish? Sure.
Is pretty much unleashing the internet on a single asshole and his career an extreme measure? Of course.
But it was Mike's finger on the button, and honestly if you had just come off fresh from witnessing said injustice, you would have pressed it too. Bullies only persist when there's nobody that'll stand up and push them back into place. And the degree of douchebaggery that Paul showed certainly calls for a strong shock to his system and ego.
This is not the way to do business. Examples must be made. Paul and Ocean Marketing is now one of them.
And I honestly believe that is quite fine in the universe, in my opinion.
Someone driving by your house and throwing a brick through your window with a death threat would be vastly more scary.
Guess Paul is being extra awesome by not turning over the social media account info belonging to his former clients.
@CB and @Nights: do you guys reallllllly want to keep defending him after reading the escapist article, and in particular, this quote:
Paul told me on the phone two hours ago that "Eight months ago, I locked down all this stuff so they wouldn't be able to fuck with me. If they don't give me what I want, it's war." His demands include a contract written on his terms and substantial compensation, both immediate and for as long as the company continues to exist. He flaunted the PR debacle he created as proof that he "made the company a success", citing all the media and public attention as the "best thing that ever happened to Avenger".
I think what CB is trying to say here, rather obtusely, but genuinely, is this—be careful of whom you allow to influence you. Mob justice has no brain.
But, as to justice, what is criticism??? Is logical criticism that is justified by circumstances the sole purview of judges??? NO, absolutely not.
In the US we have freedom of expression, which cuts both ways. Joe (or Sam or Harry) can hold one position, others can hold others, and US constitutional amendment protects BOTH of the two or ALL of them severally and/or singly.
Consensus is powerful, let us make no mistake about this. Some countries have other ways of ensuring freedom of expression - some legally, some by populace custom over ages of time which have the FORCE of law if not the letter (and written expression of spirit) of law also. BOTH work. For some countries, people in them have to use the web to have freedom of expression.
This is a US website, Ocean Marketing and the other primarily involved parties in this mess are in the US. So, US rules as to results apply.
Is the world a dog-eat-dog world in some cases??? It CAN be if voices of REASON do not prevail.
John.
As for the rest of it "potential someone will do him real physical harm" is a red herring. There's ALWAYS potential that someone would do anyone real physical harm for any or no reason every single day. Someone could just walk up to you on the street and punch you in the face regardless of what anyone on the Internet says. Unless it actually happens, that whole line of argument is meaningless. As for the hate mail, I'm not defending that. At the end of the day, he can always change his email address or Ctrl+a, del though.
In the end, as someone who was victimized by bullies for most of my young life, I'm not shedding a single fucking tear over a bully that is getting a taste of his own medicine.
Anyone who has spent time on the web knows this is what was to take place. I think we can all agree. So, that having been said:
Where I disagree with what went on is how this entire thing was carried out: publicly. You're kidding yourself if you don't think real world toughguys do this same shit in the real world. The difference, however, is it results in burned bridges and a loss of business - one way or another they always lose business.
The could have just as easily been carried out in private, through e-mail, to the right channels to ensure that this guy not only loses business, but never gets any again for this type of media: the internet. The players involved here are large and important enough to essentially blackball this guy from internet PR existance. To be fair, by all accounts it looks like this is what the initial guy that inquired about shipping did this.
Instead of keeping it that way, however, Gabe chose to air the laundry out in the open and allow for all to see for exactly that same reason: he'd been bullied before, so it made it right - 'you wandered into the wrong neighborhood'.
Am I defending PR dope for his actions? No. But I'm also not going to defend actions of a larger populace that should know better.
*Internet of course is considered real, as well, but for the sake of differentiating the two to explain my position I've noted a difference.
I suppose you also take offense to negative reviews on sites like Yelp @NiGHTS? What happens when a bunch of people leave negative reviews about a terrible restaurant and put it out of business? Should they also have just kept it quiet and not made it public?
A site like Yelp exists explicitly for that purpose: review my business. Now, if you want to keep with the Yelp theme, had Gabe done this on Yelp, I'd have no problem with it - that's what it's there for.
Without drawing this out further, since I'm just trying to explain my point of view - I guess my opinion on proper ways of doing business differ dramatically from yours. Dealing with an issue like this isn't 'secrecy' in my book, it's proper conduct. Putting it on a website millions of people visit for, by and large, a daily comic, is the abuse of power. I don't need to air that dirty laundry for all to see; those that need to know, will.
I feel like anyone who was really outraged about the whole thing would do better to just leave it alone instead of giving additional press to either Penny Arcade or "Ocean Marketing", the power you're speaking of largely sits with the tech media on this and by publishing op-eds and getting more people stirred up you're just feeding the machine.
Also, I'm not just speaking about this article in particular, but it hit me after reading the Kotaku article that Brian linked that basically every tech site out there now has an article tracking this thing and providing updates and opinions and it's just breathing more life into it.
I don't think our opinion on the "proper ways of doing business" differ, I think our opinions on whether or not it's acceptable to publicly call out someone for conducting business inappropriately is what differs. What I've taken away from your posts is that if a PR guy, representing a company to which you may have paid money for a product or otherwise had business dealings with, treats you like shit or name-drops you while bashing a customer, you shouldn't be able to post that publicly and call him out for behaving completely inappropriately. I think they should have every right to do so.
The way I see it, if I were in Mike's shoes, I'd be concerned that this tool had used my name when bashing and threatening other customers as well without me knowing about it. I would then want to post the email and a scathing rebuttal solely to distance myself from him and make it very clear that I was not in any way associated with him because I would not want ANYONE to think that I was associated with him in any way shape or form. Dealing with him in private won't do that and wouldn't discourage him from using my name and reputation in the future. Posting a very public rebuttal as well as his own emails will. Simple as that.
Just for giggles, say Gabe sends an e-mail. We both know it would have gotten out on the larger websiphere anyway, but the attitude would have been totally different. Gabe doesn't look vindictive, it looks like he's keeping everyone aware of what's going on. Hey, I've got a problem here, this is the guy, this is what he's up to, he no longer represents me in any way. I've taken these steps to remediate the issues, I'd ask you consider doing the same based on the following.
End of the day, we both agree on the main issues. Like you said, we just differ on how we'd go about solving this idiot's mess.