The Mess That Came After Nintendo Fired An Employee

The Mess That Came After Nintendo Fired An Employee

The twisting controversies about the translation of Nintendo games, harassment and the firing of one of its employees got even messier this week. Two weeks ago, word spread through social media and sites like ours that Nintendo had fired product marketing specialist Alison Rapp, the target of a months-long campaign to initially blame her for perceived political correctness in changes to Nintendo's games. Nintendo said they fired Rapp for a second job at "conflict with Nintendo's corporate culture", denying that harassment of Rapp was a factor. Rapp acknowledged she had another job.

Her critics -- many of whom are members of the kinds of amorphous groups of largely anonymous online individuals who mostly drive these efforts -- initially zeroed in on risque modelling photos. And then, this past weekend, users of a message board notorious for facilitating doxxing and harassment offered up evidence she was an escort based on an online listing that presented some visual similarities. Though Rapp had already been fired, one of the central goals for her detractors, they kept digging for new information.

The Mess That Came After Nintendo Fired An Employee

Meanwhile, Rapp has reported that harassment against her has intensified. This past weekend, Rapp tweeted about her family getting hassled, their phone numbers and home addresses magically appearing online and one individual claiming they have filed a police report, hoping investigators would knock on her door. On Wednesday, her husband, Jake Rapp, said in a blog post that he quit his job as a barista at Nintendo's internal coffee shop, describing his own online harassment of hurled insults and theorising about his life as being forced "to lie there and take every kick until they [the harassers] grow tired, flaccid, and move on to the next victim".

This story has been a mess and a minefield, one that raises questions about the best ways to report on harassment while providing readers as full a picture as possible.

Some of this had become a media controversy. When she was fired, Rapp publicly laid blame at the hands of harassers who she said motivated her employer to "look at her tweets". We reported that story and were critical of Nintendo for having taken no public action involving Rapp all these months, only to then fire her. After our story ran, Nintendo did comment, saying the dismissal was due to the second job. Internet detectives began poring over the available material. The escort allegation has been based on pictures found on an escort website, and closely comparing tattoos and photographic metadata. (We looked at some of the evidence ourselves, weighing, inconclusively, the possibilities that it was an elaborate hoax or that it was real.)

Rapp did not comment when asked about this, nor has Nintendo. Even the idea of asking about this, though, stirs some controversy. A reporter's obligation is to find the truth, but for stories like this we also weigh the potential of incentivising harassers, of amplifying unconfirmed claims. We've debated that internally. The Washington Post, which reported on these latest developments earlier this week, likened the type of digging done on Rapp to political opposition research, in which details about a story, often negative, are dropped into the laps of reporters in the hopes that they will end up running a story about it. Reporters don't usually talk about this part of the process, however, a chief reason this story even exists is to give you a sense of how this all works vis a vis a story we've been following for some time.

The Mess That Came After Nintendo Fired An Employee

Recent events have turned this saga into The Alison Rapp Story or into an examination of whether Nintendo was right or wrong to fire her, but to focus only on that would be to lose sight of the myriad issues at hand.

The debate over how to localise Japanese games, which circuitously led to the Rapp situation, is but one skirmish in a larger cultural struggle that's been taking place on the internet for years, but didn't move to the forefront until GamerGate emerged in 2014. The interesting questions raised by these debates, often focused on portrayals of sex and gender and artistic integrity, are easily drowned out by ugly and disingenuous attacks meant to overwhelm and silence. The tactics, which operate by mining a person's past for anything that could be construed as wrongdoing or hypocrisy in the present, have become a playbook. These attacks largely take place on social media, putting them out of sight and out of mind for many. But the attacks and even what they dig up can be relevant, derailing or both.

I learned about Rapp during my months of reporting on the suggested censorship of Japanese games, and how Nintendo had become such a figure of controversy. Changes often involved removing sexualised content but also sometimes involved more mundane dialogue changes, like the altering of jokes. My first story on the topic ran in December, and focused on the difficult arguments about the best ways to translate Japanese artistic creations for American audiences and the motivations for specific changes. These remain underexplored issues that have been debated largely on the wild front lines of gaming's culture war, with angry recriminations about censorship and the supposedly pernicious effect of "social justice warriors".

The Mess That Came After Nintendo Fired An Employee

Image Credit: Sam Woolley

Game creators have mostly been silent, and as I reported then, none more so than Nintendo. Despite my repeated attempts, they have declined to discuss the issue with me. The lack of specific explanations has fuelled speculation. Maybe these changes meant they were selling out their artistic integrity, bowing to real or imagined commercial pressures, or having second thoughts as they get a chance to polish their games for a second regional release.

In the absence of any other explanation, Rapp became an answer, her feminist rhetoric online a cipher for the the localisation changes made to certain Nintendo games, such as the the removal of a bust slider in Xenoblade Chronicles X. Though my reporting indicated she was not involved in those changes -- Rapp later said she even liked the bust slider -- attacks on her shifted the focus. Now, it was about discrediting her over a university paper someone found that she wrote, over new and old Tweets, over presumptions about her views on child pornography, then the modelling photos, then the second job. Things are thrown at the wall until, finally, something sticks.

The reporting of this saga has been tricky. We're not talking about products. We're talking about people in all their complexity. Every new piece of "evidence" is more salacious than the last, making it hard to tell if people care about Rapp's firing or simply find themselves enraptured by the spectacle of a person's personal life becoming public. (Some places, like the popular gaming forum NeoGAF, outright banned the mining of her past.) It's not possible to write a simple story here, a point made all the more difficult by a litany of external factors. Hundreds of people have emailed and tweeted, asking me to look into this or that, but it's difficult to know their agenda. Some yell, others scream obscenities and a few have genuine questions. It wouldn't be the first time I've been sent misleading information in the hopes that it will make me look negligent. I've tried to exercise judgment and follow leads, wherever it takes me.

It's possible for Rapp to have violated her contract with Nintendo and to be angry at how she was treated. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.

The fiery cultural debates at the heart of gaming is what attracted me to this story in the first place, not a person's private life. They're easy to ignore; they ask us to grapple with questions that lack easy answers. But for me, nothing's changed, and I'll continue to follow the stories happening beneath the surface of video games.

One point I want to make, though. For the great sin of covering this topic, the personal details of my family have been investigated, with harassers finding ways to target us in real-life. That we cannot even have a discussion without such extremes shows how toxic this has all become.

Image Credit: Jim Cooke


Comments

    "their phone numbers and home addresses magically appearing online and one individual claiming they have filed a police report, hoping investigators would knock on her door"
    ...
    "For the great sin of covering this topic, the personal details of my family have been investigated, with harassers finding ways to target us in real-life."

    My condolences to both you, Ms Rapp, and your respective families. This is the point where the critics have lost all credibility. Whatever the cause, harassing someone and doxxing them is not a reasonable nor acceptable course of action.

    There are legitimate complaints to be made about the localisation of Japanese games. This can be done in a rational manner without pursuing an individual with the aim of getting them fired. Continuing to harass a person even after they have lost their job that was supposedly the cause of the anger is just plain idiotic. Now that the harassment is attributed to her past paper on Japan's sexualisation of children via anime/manga, wouldn't that be carrying out attacks based on a social agenda... say becoming a "social justice warrior"?

      I wouldn't feel too sorry for Alison. She's now posted doujin pics on Twitter, which she said she couldn't do before (because Nintendo). Said doujin stuff includes pornographic book of Splatoon, which I am 99% would lead to a child porn conviction in Australia. Sick stuff http://archive.is/zDlCa

        But see, this is the thing. I can *still* feel bad for Alison, entirely separate from what she might post to Twitter and whether I agree with it. The harassment is unjustified. If she's posting illegal pornography to twitter that's a matter for the authorities. I'll accept such a post being reported to the local police, but anything past that is vigilantism. If she's legitimately guilty of something (and I find it hard to believe that child pornography laws are much softer in North America) then the courts will decide an appropriate punishment.

          Apparently the laws on child porn (more particularly fictional creations such as manga) are much softer in the US. Australia has some of the toughest anti-CP laws in the world.

          I'd feel sorry for Alison too, but her attitude demonstrates that she is apparently unconcerned by the harassment. She has bigger problems, such as borderline personality disorder / bipolar disorder.

            Presumably that's because of a freedom of speech angle?

            Honestly I haven't dived too deep into this issue, I get most of it from Kotaku and the comments section. I just think it's important to take a strong stand against this kind of harassment. I'm willing to believe that the targets of it aren't saints, but I really can't think of a justification for this kind of hounding. I want this method of attack to stopped and any problems with people dealt with through more traditional channels. I realise a lot of people find it slow and frustrating, but it's a system we've been working towards for hundreds (if not thousands of years) with the goal of making it fair for everyone. Not that I think we've perfected it yet, just that I doubt doxxing is the innovation we're looking for.

              I know what you mean. I'm a fan of the rule of law as well :-)

            Hmmm...and what kind of disorders might those taking the time to harass a stranger have?

            You can be concerned by harassment without outwardly showing it online. Many people might suggest that it's best to pretend not to be affected even if you are, whether that's good advice or not. I would say that whether a person is bothered by it or not, it's still not cool.

    This is why I have distanced my real life information as much as possible from my social media accounts. People are insane! If I do or say something someone doesn't like, I don't want to end up being fired for it. As a teacher, I know there's plenty of things people could find out about me that could have me fired in an instant... or at least one major thing.

    The best thing any of us can do is to keep out anonymity to a maximum. That might mean going as far as to get rid of your facebook or twitter account, especially if you have any relatives on it because once they find your loved ones, it's over.

      a couple of years ago I was watching some videos on YouTube of a certain band that people either love or really hate. Anyway this one dud had a shit load of comments saying how shit they are etc. and so I replied to him with a funny comment regarding the amount of time hes wasting on a band he hates. Well it must of pissed him off because he started going though and replying with discusting stuff to my other comments of completely unrelated videos on youtube. Then other places on the internet... then my facebook...

      Closed my facebook after that an REALLy careful about my personal life online now. Its scary to think the lengths someone would go to just for that

        That always confused me, I see people who hate the music I like spending hours on the video claiming the music sucks. Do they not have anything to do? Shouldn't they be listening to the music they actually like.

        You probably though about that comment for 5 minutes, and forgot it. Yet this guy fixated on it for days, possibly weeks depending on how long his campaign lasted. It's scary that these people exist.

        Have we truly created a society where a difference of opinion on something so subjective and trivial inspires such abnormal and abhorrent behavior? Do they lose it when somebody goes to Macca's and orders a Fanta with their Big Mac? Because a Big Mac obviously goes better with Coke.

        Last edited 16/04/16 11:58 pm

          If I don't think we have created a society, it has always been here. If it's not on the Internet they can just become a religious zealot and harass people other ways. I don't think this behaviour is new it's just there are more outlets now.

            I suppose these people can keep their mouth shut in public, for fear of physical retribution.

            But being anonymous on the Internet allows you to spout any crazy thing you like and even create multiple personalities to back it up. It's not like people can reach through the screen and slap them.

            I am all for Freedom of Speech, I just don't believe Freedom of Speech means Freedom from Consequences or that people even have to listen to you or provide a venue for it.

              Simple explanation is that thanks to the openness of the internet, the world is a smaller place, and people feel they have a voice that needs to be heard. It doesnt matter what other people think, only that their opinion gets heard. And they're right.

              It was explained to me in an interesting way some time ago. Go back to the 1800's, you knew everyone in your town or suburb, and not many others because you simply didnt go anywhere else. Travelling across Sydney was an adventure, and usually one that took a couple of days out of your life, so you only did it when you needed to.

              As we've grown, our sphere of influence has expanded as well. Cars, then telephones, then better cars, and now the internet has meant we know people all over the world.

              Add to that the fact that we generally group with like minded people, the sheer openness of the internet is a stark reminder that not everyone thinks the same as you. Online, its like everyone can be in the same room as you, and shout their opinions. I've copped it myself, though not to any massive degree, so I tend to keep opinions to myself these days.

              Its just not worth the risk that someone with a keyboard has a neuron go wrong and does this sort of thing.

              But in the end its because people think they can shout what they want in the modern world, and that their opinion is the only one that matters.

    These people need to go out and get a life. =/ I mean, it's one thing being passionate, but it's another to harass people and their families. Do they not realise this destructive practise is only making things worse?
    I understand that people don't want the games changed. That's fine, but go through the proper channels. The harassment does not help your cause.

    Has there ever been any research into the people doing these attacks? Are they internet savvy horny and hormonal tweens capitalising on sloppy privacy settings or are they virginal thirty-something black hats who blame women for all of their social failings (and their subsequent inability to partake in 'the sex')?

      Imagine if these creeps had their own browser histories made public ...

      My impression from reading about these kinds of things since the dawn of the internet is that all of what you said is the case, it is done by all sorts and ages, for varying reasons.

      Often in online games we'll see these sorts of banal conversations going on and people will say "oh look, the kids are home from school", but you just know that some of the people involved in the shitstirring are 30+ year olds who just want to watch the rest of the world burn...

      In my not extensive experience interacting with such individuals, they have come across as reclusive early-twenties dudes living in their moms' basement that one day in the past were rejected by their high-school crush or similar and rather than consider whether they were rejected because their creepiness, lack of personal depth and hygiene issues, they decide that it happened because all women are bitches and they need to be made pay.

      I'm not sure how much of an "or" there is, beyond the ages.

    Cowards and bullies. The phenomenon of sustained online harassment and abuse because of a differing opinion is one of the most dangerous social tantrums in which we can collectively participate.

    Obviously this is a shitty situation all round. People getting harrased and losing their jobs. And games are still gonna get changed for Western releases. NOBODY WINS. There is no excuse for the harrasement of some people to this extent especially once people realised Rapp had nothing to do with localisation choices.
    But it begs the obvious... If Nintendo had faithfully adapted their games in the first place and didn't remove content... Would any of this ever have happened?

    Last edited 16/04/16 10:17 am

      No, then they would slammed for differences in culture that is acceptable in the east and not in the west (such as sexualising younger characters).
      Its a dammed if you do, dammed if you don't scenario just like the Tracer pose "issue".

      It doesn't really matter. The argument of so many of these critics is it's "the developer's right" to include/exclude certain things. So it was Nintendo's right to choose not to include a bust slider.

      And seriously, all this over a titty slider? I understand changing dialogue etc is a bit lame, but it's not a valid excuse for this shit.

      The people responsible are the kind who would have just found something else or the next developer to move on to.

      (not saying you're defending what's happened, just saying that asking if Nintendo didn't localise would have avoided this is beside the point)

        Unfortunately it's not just the titty slider. When all the issues with Fire Emblem's translation was found out, Rapp was one of the people asked why things like the slider were removed, why characters whole personalities were changed, genders changed, sexual preferences changed, etc. Rapp's replay was that it was all changed because they wanted to push the "progressive narrative" and this in turn got people heated.

        Gamers are fighting a never ending war against a "progressive narrative" which is forcing values and beliefs into a medium that doesn't require their inclusion. The amount of gamers who don't care about equality, gender politics and all that other "progressive" stuff number in the millions. Gamers want good stories with engaging characters, not checklist inclusionary tropes.

        This is where Rapp became a target. She pushed the "progressive narrative" in her replies along with a "well people like me are in control and there is nothing you can do about it" attitude and people pushed back at her. Leading to the current situation.

          "Gamers are fighting a never ending war against a "progressive narrative" which is forcing values and beliefs into a medium that doesn't require their inclusion. The amount of gamers who don't care about equality, gender politics and all that other "progressive" stuff number in the millions. "

          This is why I question why I bother with the Kotaku comments section now.

          "Gamers" are not one socially homogenous group of white dudes who like Japanese games as they are with titty sliders and no "progressive narrative". Gamers are not valiant heroes fighting the good fight against big bad SJWs. Equality is good. Stronger female AND MALE characters are good. Progression is good. Get over it. I'm staying out of these topics from now on, and you can hold me to that.

          Last edited 16/04/16 11:40 am

            You put your hand into a weeaboo nest and it came out slimed, what did you expect, senpai?

            ok sure, equality and all that is great. But that doesn't mean that things need to be removed from games. What does equality have anything to do with my enjoyment of the kinds of things being removed from games? Are people really offended by seeing skimpily clad girls in a game? I'm certainly not offended if I see half naked handsome men in a game (as a straight male). I would never complain about female oriented fan service. Everyone is entitled to see things they enjoy. But why does that mean that games should be removing content? It doesn't. This is the problem.

              You're acting like it's a new thing.

              The amount of censorship has dramatically decreased, compared to the games of old. The CastleVania games (along with stuff like Devil's Crush on the TG-16 and Mega Drive) had religious imagery and blood censored out. Naked statues in 16-bit games were covered up. Whole characters taken out of the game (eg. Streets of Rage series). Character's ages changed to gloss over pervy elements in other games, though this happens a little now too (Snatcher).

              We actually get stuff like Sengran Kagura and Oneechanbara now... back then, they'd have either painted clothes on, or not even bothered in the first place.

              We've got it pretty good now, all things considered.

              Last edited 17/04/16 5:11 pm

          "Gamers are fighting a never ending war against a "progressive narrative"."
          Gamers are also fighting a war against a conservative narrative; developers who genuinely care about social issues are not just being told what they can and can't include in THEIR works, they're being harassed about it. Developers should be free to make the games THEY want to make; if you don't like what they make, play something else.

            They have made the game though. But in translation it gets changed. Why can one audience have it but not another is the point I think.

              You can have either version you want. It's not overly difficult to import a game. After all, if translation changes bother people, just play the original Japanese version. Many gamers, anime fans and lovers of Japanese culture have even taken the time to learn Japanese to experience their preferred media in the original language in which it was created.

        It's not just about how small the changes are. It's the fact that changes are made at all and that Nintendo isn't being faithful in the actual dialogue. Sometimes they are even inserting memes into dialogue that weren't there originally. There is a really good picture floating around comparing the good translation done by Nintendo of Europe vs the terrible one done by Nintendo of America. This is a very important issue to a lot of Nintendo fans including myself. I want games to be exactly like the Japanese version, but in English.

        Obviously no, it does not justify any of the harassment Rapp received in any way. It has gone way too far. But i suppose some people in the community feel like this is a way to get Nintendo to notice how angry they are at what they are doing during localisation... Again, no excuses, this is a bad situation all round. These people should leave individuals alone and start emailing nice heartfelt messages to Nintendo about what they want instead.

          But surely a "Nintendo we want a more faithful localisation" petition would have been better than the "Get the woman who dares to work in the games industry" cyber bullying campaign?

          Thats not how real translations work. I saw the FE screenshots, and a lot of it was cleaning up the dialogue so that it would read smoother, because English and Japanese have very different grammar. Humour is also another thing that does not translate well, so when they substitute memes or references Western audiences would understand, thats good initiative. Nintendo cannot be expected to cater exclusively to die-hard fans who speak Japanese and understand Japanese references like myself. Thats irresponsible since FE is a big commercial product and the majority of potential earning will be the general public and not people who will almost definitely buy the game already.

          I will admit some dialogue cuts seem just lazy, like the ninja-ninja support convo being silenced. But on the whole, the english version was well-done.

          Some changes I would say didn't go far enough. The base bonding sessions with the face rubbing seem kinda stupid. But they should have gotten rid of that sequence entirely. Having that awkward closeup without interaction is just as bad.

      If Nintendo released these games unedited, it's highly likely they would have received negative attention from the media. Critics of video games have, in the past, tried to link violent video games to real life violence, attempting to blame society's woes on games such as Grand Theft Auto.
      Video games that feature sexualised pre-teen looking characters would be an incredibly easy target for click bait media. If Nintendo left these games unedited, they'd simply be swapping one shit-storm for another.

    This whole thing makes me sick for so many reasons. And quite frankly it's making me hate Fire Emblem, my favourite Nintendo franchise since I was a teen, mainly because that game seems to have been the source of all this ridiculous stuff. Australian gamer, will still pick up my special edition when it finally releases, but I continue to have weird feelings towards that game. Yet it's not the game's fault! Just a group of wankers on the internet tarnishing the things I love.

      Seriously. Don't let communities get to you over what you like. If I did that then I wouldn't be able to enjoy quality cartoons and games that are generally aimed at kids but fun for all anyway.

        Well Fire Emblem is a tough one because I kind of haven't liked the direction the series has taken since Awakening... So I already have many reasons to dislike it besides this stuff haha... But your advice is sound for anyone's fav media.

    Details like addresses and phone numbers don't magically make their way online. Most of the time people will freely drop their personal info online and it doesn't take much to find the information out. Got an Amazon Wishlist? Then I can get your address and information from the shipping information. Got Facebook? Then I can find out age, location, date of birth, current and previous jobs, etc. (If you haven't locked that information down) Got a Linkdin account? Then there's plenty of information about you there.

    The lesson here is if you don't post shit, then you won't have anything out there that will come bite you in the ass. Rapp's case is that she posted a lot of things that make Nintendo look non-Family friendly, and she would have been caught eventually for it. The only thing is that it took a group looking to put blame on anyone from Nintendo for Nintendo themselves to actually look into her like they should have in the beginning. You should never put anyone as a public face of your company, like Rapp was on many occasions, without at least having some way to see their social media profiles.

    Doxxing is wrong on many levels, and harassment should never be something that we condone. What has happened with a group of people that seem to have it out for Rapp in such a manner in which they are targeting her and her family is not on.

      Yes, it's not hard to get people's information; people's phone numbers used to be listed publicly in phone books. But that doesn't mean it's ok to get someone's number and start harassing them. What you're doing is victim blaming.

        Doxxing is wrong on many levels, and harassment should never be something that we condone. What has happened with a group of people that seem to have it out for Rapp in such a manner in which they are targeting her and her family is not on.

        So you completely ignored this part of my comment or just don't want to acknowledge that I agree that doxxing is wrong no matter the reason. My main point is that if you stop putting stupid shit, that you KNOW can get you into trouble with your JOB then you shouldn't put the shit out there.

        That is not victim blaming, it's called COMMON SENSE, something that people have forgotten about in this day and age. "Victim Blaming" is just a term to use to cover stupid people being stupid.

        Last edited 16/04/16 1:53 pm

          WRONG. What you did what straight-up victim blaming. You implied the victim was at fault, because they left their details online. That is undeniably victim blaming.
          You see, you don't think it's victim blaming, because you know victim blaming is wrong. It's what bad people do. And you're not a bad person, are you? I'm sure you don't think you are. But here's the thing; there are plenty of homophobic, sexist and racist comments made on the Internet, but none of those responsible for those comments see themselves as homophobic, sexist or racist. Because they all know those kinds of people are not good people. Those nasty, homophobic, racist and sexist people are the bad guys. And no-one wants to think that they themselves are the bad guy.
          You've just displayed the exact same thought pattern as those people.

            That's where you're wrong. I do bad things, I say the "wrong" things, I have thoughts and opinions that a lot of progressive people do not like to hear and I admit that. Why? Because I'm a human being, and human beings are allowed to be flawed and act like assholes. I've said sexist & racist things (surprisingly not homophobic thing when I think back) and I'm not afraid to admit it. I also have the guts to admit when I'm wrong, I also have the guts to say said things in front of the people I intend them for, not behind their backs like a coward.

            As Kasterix outlines below, "Victim Blaming" has become nothing more than a term used to try and squash facts and statements about someone being stupid on the Internet, someone that is dumb enough to post personal things public ally on the Internet and then get upset when that information is freely found.

            I've done nothing more than say that Rapp got busted for hiding something she knows is wrong. Call it victim blaming all you want because you want to white knight someone who doesn't know you exist or some sort of higher cause or whatever morality bullshit you believe in, but just remember that once you step away from the keyboard, leave your house and enter the world, people like me exist and will have no problems using things like facts and common sense to shatter your protected world view bubble life.

              "I also have the guts to admit when I'm wrong".

              Clearly, you don't.
              You blamed a victim for leaving their details online. That is victim blaming. You couldn't get a clearer case of it. Yet you still think it's not, and act like it's other people who are wrong, throwing around accusations such as "white knighting" (when I never defended Rapp; I just called you out on your victim blaming) in an attempt to build an incredibly weak Strawman argument. You're continuing to exhibit the exact same behaviour I mentioned earlier, trying to justify your own argument because you're trying to tell yourself that you are really the good guy here, and it's everyone else who is wrong.
              To further prove my point, you've even gone as far as trying to assume I've lived some sort of sheltered life, when you have absolutely no idea about who I am or what I've been through in my life.
              So I'll say it once again.
              You are wrong.

            If I walk out on a gun range and I get shot. I guess it's the shooters fault. Not mine that would be victim blaming.

            People do in part pay a certain amount of responsibility for their own safety. Same as if you're a high profile person part of your own safety would be keeping some of your details private. Yes doxxing is wrong but bad things happen. We all have a responsibility for our own safety and I'm not blaming her just saying she could have taken a few more steps in her self preservation.

            Look at driving if you're about to be in an accident that's not your fault and you can take reasonable action to avoid it you must take it. If you don't you can be found partially at fault as well. That's not victims blaming that's a chain of responsibility.

            If you put yourself in potential danger and you get hurt you share some responsibility.

            Yes it's not right it's not the way it should be but it's the way it is.

            Edit: I am not referring to this case in particular, just the over use of the term victim blaming.

            Last edited 17/04/16 11:45 am

              If someone has walked out onto a gun range, (wether inadvertantly or to collect targets for scoring purposes) then you DO NOT fire your weapon. That's been pretty well established at the ranges I've been to.
              As for keeping details private; these hackers literally searched for her accounts, then broke into them. That information WAS private until they stole it.

                Glad you live in a world where accidents don't happen and perhaps gun range was a bad example being the safest sport in the world. Though I did give other examples.

                All the evidence points to the information was freely available on line in the public realm. I don't know where this stole it came from.

                I'm going to leave this here as you are only selectively responding to parts of a discussion rather then the entirety of a statement made. Secondly i said i was talking about the phrase victim blaming not the specific case, which you through in any way. You're just picking bits here and there to bolster your own opinion rather then openly discussing all views put on the table.

                Last edited 17/04/16 2:24 pm

                  Evidence? Such as what?
                  And even then, even if it was "freely available" online, don't forget that the article also states that her family members were also targeted. Was their private information "freely available" online too?
                  And if someone's information was freely available online, is that an excuse to harass them and their family?

      Got to agree with @scruffy here - this is serious victim blaming.

      She is a PR person. Part of her job is to make herself public. So she has a public persona where she puts on her Nintendo-family-friend-persona and behaves in the way they would expect her to.

      However, she also had a private persona that wasn't intended to be associated with her public personality or linked to her professional life. Sure, an IT savvy person should know that these could be linked by someone, but that it would take a lot of effort and/or a deliberate campaign to do so.

      Let's not mince words here. These assholes deliberately went after Rapp and linked her private persona with her public persona. This was a deliberate and malicious campaign designed to personally harm and undermine her.

      I'm sorry, you don't get to blame Rapp for this. The blame lies squarely in one place: the pricks that engaged in personal attacks on her.

        No, no. Stop.

        Rapp hid a secondary job that she knew that the main company she works for would fire her for. Don't do stupid shit, and you won't be risking anything at all. She tried to be "smart" and sneaky with something she knows is wrong. She got caught, fired and everyone is defending her...

        While the method it was all uncovered is wrong, however if Nintendo's HR did their job and vetted her social media when giving her a public PR position (As most companies do when hiring PR people) she would have been caught and fired a long time ago.

          "No, no. Stop." Yourself.

          You're changing your argument to attempt to claim the moral high ground again. You can't just shift the goalposts when your previous argument has been undermined.

          According to Rapp having a second job (at least one unrelated to the gaming industry) wasn't/isn't an issue. It's the *type* of job that was the issue. Furthermore, it's not really clear *what* that job was. I've seen suggestions of prostitute, stripper, or just a dancer.

          Rapp attempted to keep her private life separate from her public life, and these people uncovered that information. For someone who says "doxxing is bad", you're doing a good job of blaming Rapp for being doxxed.

            Actually I place blame on all 3 parties involved: Rapp, Nintendo & the Doxxers.

            Nintendo should have vetted her social media. Any HR department who doesn't look into the social media accounts of the people who are speaking on their behalf are stupid, especially when that person you have speaking on your behalf uses their personal account to speak for the company.

            Rapp knows she was doing something that would get her in trouble with Nintendo in her highly questionable second job. You don't go to extreme lengths to hide something like that unless you know it's going to cause shit.

            Rapp attempted to keep her private life separate from her public life

            There is a difference between keeping personal information away from the public, like family issues or whatever, but to hide a "highly questionable second job" from your main employer is something completely different.

            The Doxxers are scum, they shouldn't have taken things this far at all. Hell they should have left Rapp alone as she had no direct involvement in the Fire Emblem game (according to her own posts, but she was quick to act like she had control).

            Last edited 16/04/16 7:49 pm

              Okay, so let's pose a hypothetical.

              Say Rapp was doing something like posting on Craigslist for swingers or something similar that definitely wouldn't fit with Nintendo's "family values" but something that could be perfectly acceptable between her and her partner. Say this was discovered by those attacking her and used as the means for them to undermine her and get her fired. Would this then be acceptable and would she still be culpable?

              If, and this is IF Rapp is correct in her assertion that a second job is not a problem, then it is entirely the nature of that second (previously private) job that led to her being fired and NOT the fact that she had a second job.

              If it wasn't a job but merely activities she engaged in on a personal basis - that were presumably legal - why should this constitute a failing on her part and warrant her firing?

                In the situation you put forth, that would be considered private life and it's a 50/50 on her firing. While it's a private matter, it's still something that Nintendo would possibly have some sort of disciplinary action (probably a warning to not advertise on a public forum like Craigslist) about. This situation already happened when she expressed her views on child pornography. It was the escort job which then becomes the issue. The difference between Rapp's second job and your situation: Money is involved, thus it becomes a job. This was the violation.

                Now, once again, you're acting like Rapp is an angel in all of this. She stated having a secondary job is fine with Nintendo. Nintendo, in their statement, said that having a second job was against company policy. In this case, I'd be believing Nintendo over Rapp.

            What's this public and private persona stuff. You can't say one job is public life and another job is private. She is one person. You can't suddenly switch the world off because you're no longer at work. If I'm an ass hole to someone at work. I can't turn around on the weekend and act like all is well "I'm just on my private persona now, it was my public one that was an asshole" she's not an actor playing a part she is a single person. You can't split your life into separate sections.

              By that logic, then all your personal and private details should be made public on the Internet, because you're just one person.

              You're either willfully misinterpreting my point, or you simply don't understand the concept of privacy.

        So this is very much an 'in general' comment, a long one as it turns out. As information about Rapp's situation is unclear in various ways to me so it's hard to comment on it with any certainty beyond 'harassing people is cowardly bullshit'.

        Anyway, "Victim blaming!" accusations are something I've always had issue with... People can't control assholes harassing them or anyone else. This is true. But they still have to accept some responsibility for putting their own information out there, having their "private" social media profile's settings on public (it actually amazes me how many people do this), etc.

        In a number of cases you'll see people openly post a lot of this so-called 'private' information which the cretins later use, and then complain about how said cretins went "digging" for it as if it took great extremes to get hold of openly available information. It's true some assholes will go to extremes and likely still find the information no matter how careful you are, but the majority simply wont because it's too much effort to get their miscreant jollies off.

        However, it is also true a lot of people simply want to take no responsibility at all for their own personal safety or well being anymore. Which is precisely where my problem lies. People think they shouldn't have to accept any responsibility at all. Now in an ideal world they'd be right, but to put it bluntly we're just not living in that world and people very much need to wake up to the fact.

        The moment someone becomes a 'victim' these days the majority of society turns a blind eye to anything they've done and absolves them of all responsibility, because they don't want to look like insensitive assholes. In my mind that is a harmful mentality to have, to believe blindly simply because it'd be uncomfortable to question. Admittedly it is more a problem with the majority not wanting to question anything purely out of fear of looking bad, even I understand not wanting to look like an insensitive prick. I just feel sometimes it is necessary.

        And I understand how this comment can be applied beyond online harassment, etc, so I should be very clear... It's one thing for someone to be partly responsible for ending up in a situation that ends badly for them, but it's a whole other thing to say they deserved what happened because of it. That's not what I'm saying at all. Though to me it is precisely what "Victim blaming!" accusations seem to think the person they're directed at is saying about the 'victim', and one of the reasons why I find them problematic.

        Maybe it's just me, but I've just always been hesitant to believe anything blindly especially if it's something of a serious nature. So if that makes me a bad person, because I don't blindly "listen and believe" without questioning anything, then so be it.

        Last edited 16/04/16 2:11 pm

          It's true that people "can't control assholes". And people do need to take care. But victim blaming only helps arseholes justify their actions. And those arseholes have to take responsibility for THEIR actions. Just because a girl is dressed provocatively, that doesn't give anyone the right to rape her. Just because a car is parked on the street, that doesn't give anyone a right to break into it. Just because Coles put their fresh fruit on display, that doesn't give anyone the right to walk in and just start eating it.
          Even Masa Vukotic, the murdered Melbourne schoolgirl, was subject to victim blaming; as if it were her fault for being murdered while she was outside, in a park, near her home, during daylight hours on a Tuesday.
          People do need to take care. But as soon as people start victim blaming, it only helps justify the actions of arseholes, intentional or not.

            People making some effort, any effort, to acknowledge potential risks is all I could ask of anyone really. Even then I know it doesn't guarantees anything in regards to keeping someone safe, but there's also the off chance that half a second of vigilant thought might make all the difference one needs.

            Anything is better than thinking, "Nothing could possibly happen!" as you walk with gleeful ignorance into situations that you might otherwise avoid given a moment's thought.

              I highly doubt people are walking around believing nothing could possibly happen; we all know how shitty people can be. But when people are literally going to great lengths to commit wrongdoings, such as hacking Rapp's personal data, in which case they've searched for her accounts, then broken into them, it isn't the victim's fault.

            But what about some more appropriate examples, like if that car was left outside with the doors unlocked. Is it breaking in if the door's not locked? Or what if they left the windows down, then it started to rain. Or if they kept all their money as cash stuffed under the bed, then their house burnt down. Or if they don't put on their seatbelt, then get injured in a car accident.

            I mean I freely admit I have a lot of trouble understanding the whole "victim blaming" thing, I just can't get my head around how it's meant to not be your fault if you fail to take basic preventative measures against something which eventuates.

              Yes, it's still "breaking in" if the door is unlocked; it's called unlawful entry/trespassing. Highly illegal.
              And the retrieval of Rapp's personal information isn't akin to leaving the doors unlocked; people had to break into her accounts to get that information.

                Unlawful entry sounds like a different thing to breaking in. What with there being no breaking at all.

                Regardless, that was just a side-thought. Nothing mentioned so far seemed to indicate anything about hacking into accounts to retrieve information, and nothing I asked involved anything along those lines either, so that doesn't really answer the question at all.

                  "Breaking in" is just the colloquial term for unlawful entry (whether anything was broken or not). In regards to the retrieval of information, how do you think they got Rapp's private info? I'm pretty sure Nintendo don't just put the private addresses and personal phone numbers of their employees up on the website. And according to the article, it wasn't just Rapp's details published; but those of family members too. And even then, if the private addresses and phone numbers of Rapp's family members had somehow magically found their way online, that isn't excuse for people to abuse her or her family.

                  @scruffy A quick google led me to believe they are two separate things, nothing colloquial about it. But anyway.

                  So you're just assuming they hacked into her accounts, and presenting it as fact? Dude. Come on.

                  And still you're avoiding the question I actually asked in the first place, which had nothing specifically to do with Rapp at all.

                  No, I'm not avoiding the question. I already answered it. The examples you provided in your comment posted at 12:21pm have nothing to do with victim blaming; they're examples of bad luck, maybe even a little stupidity. But what we're talking about isn't an act of nature such as rain coming in while you've left the windows open; it's people deliberately going out of their way to specifically target someone, and their family. And harassing people is unlawful no matter what the circumstances.
                  As for the data retrieval, would you care to explain exactly how someone's PRIVATE information, and that of their family would be "public"? Show me how they got that information legally, and I'll concede the point.
                  By the way, you still haven't answered MY question; does having access to someone's private details give you the right to harass them and their family?
                  Dude. Come on.

                  @scruffy I was looking for some clarification on where poor judgement ends and victim blaming begins. And still feel none the wiser.

                  As for the data retrieval, would you care to explain exactly how someone's PRIVATE information, and that of their family would be "public"? Show me how they got that information legally, and I'll concede the point.You were the first one to postulate that it was gained illegally, it should be up to you to show the proof :P
                  All sorts of private information can be gained through public means. Look up someone's name in the phone book, find a post where they mentioned their place of employment/area of residence/similar, hell maybe they even posted a photo of something they received in the post without blanking out the address on the label or envelope. And then once you've gained some firm details they can lead on to other details, which lets you know about others related to the person in question, and further details about them, etc. I thought this was obvious?

                  I don't recall stating that anyone had the right to harass anyone. In fact I'm pretty sure most of my posts have been geared towards the very opposite of that.

                  Place of employment/area of residence =/= SPECIFIC phone numbers and addresses of family members. You HAVE to some serious digging there. And obtaining someone's private information WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT is literally illegal. As in, there are specific laws that target the unauthorised collection of personal information. There is literally no legal way for that information to be acquired without consent. So there's your proof.
                  You say "I don't recall stating that anyone had the right to harass anyone", yet you're dedicating a lot of time to making excuses for those who do.

                  @scruffy Uh. One can easily lead to the other. I used to be super mysterious about how old I was with some new friends, just for shits and giggles. It drove one of them up the wall so there was this constant battle for them to find out, eventually they managed to dig up an old forum account where I had actually put in my birthday for god knows what reason, and it was still floating around despite not being used in maybe half a dozen years or so. And from that and other things that were found along the way they were able to find out all sorts of other information about things I'd done and friends I had, and through some other known information were also able to figure out where I lived. Including the home phone number.

                  There is absolutely nothing illegal about that at all even if I "didn't consent", and you're deluded if you think so. And I'm not making excuses for anyone. If I put my phone number up on a hypothetical facebook/twitter/whatever account and a bunch of people decided to call up at all hours of the night just to be annoying, then that is on me. I did something dumb and am suffering the consequences for it. That does not, however, preclude them from being dicks.

              It is illegal for others to access YOUR personal information without YOUR consent. Here's proof: https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy-law/privacy-archive/privacy-resources-archive/privacy-fact-sheet-2-national-privacy-principles
              And now you're resorting to insults, calling me deluded just because you lost the argument? Have some class.

                Fyi that link is for organisations, not for I put my info on the internet and now I got caught out and I'm gonna have a massive social media cry and embrace victim hood culture.

                If I say something, say, racist, on the internet, and someone found it and figured out who I am and where I work and told my employer and I get fired, would you be championing my privacy? I suspect not. I imagine it would be similar to Whatserface from the USA for making the AIDS joke on the way to S. Africa - should've known better, did it anyway, suffered the consequence.

                Last edited 18/04/16 6:44 pm

                See, it's not an insult if it's true :P

                  You call me deluded while you defend the actions of people who attacked Rapp, when she literally had nothing to do with the localisation issues these people attacked her over?

                  @scruffy No, I call you deluded while you spin stories that literally have little to do with reality.

                  Which "stories" are you referring to, exactly? I've just put forward the facts. You've spent your time defending the actions of people who attacked a woman over the localisation of a video game that she wasn't even responsible for. Those people harassed her. They harassed her family. And you're defending their actions because you think it's somehow her fault?

                  @scruffy This constant presentation of facts which are anything but. Such as the claim that I'm defending the harassment of an individual (please point out exactly where I did this). Or that these people hacked their way into her accounts to obtain information (when pressed for details on this you revealed that it was just an assumption on your part). Or that it is illegal to obtain someone's personal information without their consent (one of the few things you've provided proof for, which was unfortunately already refuted by @zeitxgeist even though you are plugging your ears and yelling lalalala in response). Resorting to claiming that I was insulting you - what you were saying was factually incorrect, so all I said was that if you still believed you were correct then you are the dictionary definition of deluded. That is the word for it. Saying I do not have class, that sounds more like resorting to insults.

                  And all the while you keep throwing back to the emotional "but the girl was INNOCENT and was HARASSED and even her FAMILY and it was BAD" despite it being tangentially related to the discussion at best and in no way at all constructive. You've got it in your head that I'm somehow siding with the harassers and therefore must be wrong about everything, when the only reason I stepped into the discussion at all in the first place was because I wanted to better understand something and despite all the words that have flown around since I'm still nowhere closer to achieving that.

                  No, my evidence wasn't refuted by zeitxgeist. Corporations are run by people. People are governed by law. If you do something wrong while in a corporation, the individual can (and usually is) prosecuted. For example, smoking in a workplace can attract a hefty fine for the company, but under that same law, the individual can be fined as well. People are subject to the same laws whether they like it or not. Another example: The Royal Comission into Unions found several examples of corruption; the Union members guilty of it were the ones who paid the price. Same thing with the Commonwealth bank recently. Corporation broke the law, individuals pay for it.

                  And back to the gathering of Rapp's personal data. You claim that I'm assuming it was stolen, but you're making an assumption yourself by assuming it wasn't. Her privacy, and that of her family, were violated when their private details were posted online. Privacy invasion is illegal. Here's another link: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publishing-personal-and-private-information

                  You said you had trouble understanding the "Victim Blaming" concept; so let me explain it, once more, to you. When someone is attacked or harassed, and you blame the victim, that is victim blaming. It doesn't matter if a woman is wearing provocative clothing; it's still no excuse to rape her. It doesn't matter if a car is parked on the street; it's still no excuse to steal it. It doesn't matter if someone cuts you off in traffic; it's still no excuse to try to run them off the road. When you try to blame the victim, either partially or fully, then what you're doing is helping the perpetrator justify their actions. When you say it's a victim's fault and you place blame on the victim, that helps remove blame from the person who actually did the wrong thing. By placing blame on the victim (in this case, Rapp and her family) you are literally helping the perpetrators justify their actions, even if you don't even realise you're doing it.

                  @scruffy If those laws you linked pertained to the individual, they would say as such. They would not be saying "an organisation". You know how when you sign up to a new account you have to click a checkbox saying you've read their privacy policy? That's the sort of crap that relates to, how they handle the personal data you're willingly handing over. Have you ever approached a friend and asked them for another friend's phone number or address or anything? According to what you're saying, if they gave you that information they are performing an illegal act. Which ties in to the next thing.

                  You claim that I'm assuming it was stolen, but you're making an assumption yourself by assuming it wasn'tThat is not how logic works. My point is that there is no evidence that it IS stolen. That doesn't mean that it wasn't. It means we don't KNOW that it was. It could have been illegally obtained, it would have been found in publicly posted information, or it could have been obtained from others. Social engineering is a thing you know. Just like in the example I gave above, talking to friends. It could have been any of these things, it could have been all of them, it could have been something else entirely. We don't know. And yet there you stand, saying that without shred of a doubt that this information was illegally obtained based on nothing but your wanting it to be the truth. That is not how facts work.

                  You said you had trouble understanding the "Victim Blaming" concept; so let me explain it, once more, to you. When someone is attacked or harassed, and you blame the victim, that is victim blaming. It doesn't matter if a woman is wearing provocative clothing; it's still no excuse to rape her. It doesn't matter if a car is parked on the street; it's still no excuse to steal it. It doesn't matter if someone cuts you off in traffic; it's still no excuse to try to run them off the road. When you try to blame the victim, either partially or fully, then what you're doing is helping the perpetrator justify their actions.See, it feels like you're taking a weird angle with this thing. You're talking about these things that party A does as being excuses for party B to commit an unconscionable action, when nobody is trying to argue that they are. I mean, when insurers won't pay out on a claim because you left your door unlocked or a window open or otherwise allowed a burglar to gain access to your property, are they victim blaming? In fact can't the police issue a fine for leaving your car door unlocked or your window open? I'm fairly sure that's a thing. But yeah, are they saying that the burglar isn't in the wrong? I don't think they are.

                  One party being in the wrong doesn't automatically absolve the other party of all responsibility, yet that feels like it's the concept being pushed. And it's the concept I'm having trouble wrapping my head around.

                  If they did somehow, magically, get the information legally, they still have no right to publish it. There is no public interest justification in regards to the private details of Rapp's family. None.

                  This article isn't about an unlocked door; you're off topic. It's about people being victimised, and people are trying to justify that victimisation by claiming it was somehow their fault that other people were able to hunt down their PRIVATE details.

                  @scruffy It's amazing how much disagreement there's been between two people who apparently agree with each other :P

                  Well, the world isn't really black and white, just a whole lot of different shades of grey.

                @zeitxgeist
                And who runs organisations? People. And those people can be prosecuted.
                And you're wrong. I believe everyone has the right to privacy; Rapp's case is a matter between her and Nintendo. If you did say something racist, then that is a matter for you and your employer. Not every nut job on the Internet. Nobody deserves to be harassed the way Rapp or her family have, yet people keep trying to justify it and make excuses for the attackers as if people who get attacked deserve it.
                The dumbest thing about all this is that Rapp wasn't even responsible for localisation. Attacking her is like having a bad customer service experience at McDonalds and then abusing their I.T. department.

                  That's not at all how the privacy laws work. That's not how any of this works at all lol. Maybe you are delusional!

                  @zeitxgeist
                  Resorting to insults because you lost the argument? That was quick. And that IS how privacy laws work; you legally cannot obtain someone else's personal information without their consent. That's the law. Don't agree with it? Take it up with the Federal Government.

      And since leaving Nintendo she got worse http://archive.is/zDlCa

    I did some quick research on this.

    She said that she "moonlighted to pay off student fees", and the comparison photos of the escort and her official account matched up multiple things like a ring, a star on her right shoulder, and a blurry tattoo on her left arm. She also hasn't denied being an escort, has confirmed that she was terminated due to a "questionable" second job, and the camera metadata apparently matches(haven't confirmed this last point). So it's pretty safe to assume that she was a prostitute. "Moonlighting" to pay off student fees by itself is incriminating... what possible ways are there to "moonlight" to earn money?

    Pedophilia. It's universally seen as wrong, and will land your ass in jail. But her paper argued the merits of young, non-real porn/art from Japan. Does the fictionalization of a very harmful rl fetish excuse it? Yes. And no. But arguing for it is a dangerous social stance to take.

    Idk what her actual influence on the localization of games were, but censoring things is a controversial issue, as is enforcing one's personal views on others. She also said she wanted the "boob slider" which was removed to be incorporated, which makes sense to me.

    There is definitely a sexism problem in gaming, but sometimes it's not that. In this case, she seems like a fairly nice person, that has a bit of a scandalous personal life. Good for her! Unfortunately, Nintendo is a very wholesome, antiquated and "honorable" company which clashes with that. It's human nature to dig and lap up juicy scandals, so it's easy to see why it all went down the way that it did. It also doesn't justify it, but people hate deceit and like to call it out. It's very similar to the Liz Katz thing. It's victimization and wrong.

    Comparatively; Anita Sarkeesian. She's a liar, and gives people reasons to hate her. I'm pro-feminism but anti-her.

      Again, Rapp's personal life was something she tried to keep secret and separate from her professional life. Those attacking her linked the two, and once that's done, it can't be undone.

      That said, I'd also question your comments on Sarkeesian. I don't hate her, I don't like the way she constructs her arguments. She cherry picks and in many cases deliberately misrepresents things by showing them without context, but that's not quite the same as lying. The discussion about sexism in games is an important one to have - unfortunately I just don't think she is capable of doing it in the reasoned and intelligent manner in which it deserves.

        Yes I know this. She tried to keep it hidden, for good reason. To me, there's nothing wrong with that. It's her body, but it was illegal in her state and also against Nintendo's wholesome policy. Why did the people link her secret life to her public one though? Were they just being assholes? It's actually because she publicly supported actual child porn. That's a bit different from hentai and even burglars know it's wrong.

        https://twitter.com/alisonrapp/status/122100442602803200

        Anita does do exactly what you said, but she also lies and deceives, like the video footage of her saying that she didn't like/play games. She steals footage from other players etc too, and seemed to jump on a cause for personal gain. Everyone can play a Zelda game and enjoy it without issue, but she's the one voice that comes along and goes "no that's sexist".

          Okay, now you're doing EXACTLY what I complained Anita does. You're misrepresenting things by presenting them without context.

          Rapp's thesis is not pro-child-porn - if you actually bothered to read it.
          Anita's "I don't like/play video games" video was something she said at Uni. It appears more than likely that she started to play games after that time.

          I can't explain that tweet, and everyone has clearly crucified her for it and doesn't even want to hear whatever explanation she might have - as I'm pretty certain she doesn't actually support pedophilia - but herp, derp trial by Internet.

            No, I supplied the context. In my first post, I mentioned her paper; which delved into her justifying "young fictitious porn in japanese art". This is questionable, but real children are not being directly exploited and/or harmed so there is some room for creative debate. That was from my first post - if you bothered to read it. The TWEET which I then supplied in my next post has her being PUBLICLY ANNOYED that a man was arrested for REAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, even if it was obtained by theft. Now maybe there's some innocent way to spin/justify it, but that is not the message that the general public got(and if there was some misunderstanding, it remains hidden to this day). This appears to be why a war was waged against her.

            Anita is well known for deceiving. "I don't like/play video games" is one nail of many. It also appears more than likely that she still doesn't like/play video games. There's also questions of where the funds went, cherry picking, etc. Men and women have come down on her; she gives people reasons to hate her.

            You can't explain that tweet, but how is it clear that they don't want to hear whatever explanation she might have? I try to look at the facts impartially, but with my internet sleuthing, I can't find anything that she has put forward to publicly exonerate herself. When you are in a position like the PR spokesperson for Nintendo, the onus is on you to project good public relations even MORE than normal because you are even more in the spotlight. But anyway like I said; I'm not taking sides. I'm just showing you why it appears she was attacked.

      The campaign of harassment against Rapp is reprehensible. But Rapp was fired from Nintenso because she breached her employment contract by having a second job as a prostitite. Which is a bad move if you're a PR rep for a business that likes to market itself as being family friendly.

      Her dismissal was fair. The harassment from a group of aggrieved people or opportunistic trolls on the other hand isn't.

      Off topic - Gamer Gate is the Social Justice Warrior of the opposite side. The term means jack shit these days.

        The people who had her fired were doing so under the impression that she supports actual pedophilia, as per the tweet in the post above this one. You could then turn "harassment" into "campaigning" and "opportunistic trolls" into "moral police". I'm not taking either side; I can see why both sides did the things that they did.

          Well, maybe. Rapp's paper is... Odd I guess, but the thing with her husband and their relationship is digging for dirt for lulz. I don't shed any tears for her being fired but her personal life isn't really relevant.

    Wow, what a depressing story. Showcases some of the worse examples humanity has to offer.

    Me and my friend were playing games and talking about this today and a both find it disgusting. I love the internet but hate how it has become the feeding ground of the worst parts of humanity.

    I am so weary of this bullshit. Both sides needs to grow the fuck up. There's something seriously wrong with people if they think trying to ruin someone's career or life is an appropriate course of action for anything, let alone trivial shit like this.

    - If you don't like the article she wrote ages ago about underage sexualised imagery, don't read it. It has nothing to do with how well she does or doesn't do her job today.

    - If you think she had something to do with things being left out of western ports of Japanese games (which she didn't), write a letter to Nintendo asking them to please not cut content and then go buy the Japanese version.

    In no universe is the correct response to either of these minor inconveniences 'let's make a concerted effort to get someone fired, taint their ability to get future work in the same industry, and make them fear for their safety'. It's not funny, it's not deserved, it's not justice (social or otherwise). The people (on both sides) doing this are cowards hiding behind the anonymity of the internet to act like total fuckwads because there's no apparent consequences.

    To Kotaku: I hate doing something like this because I like to keep up to date on gaming news for better or worse, but I'm so damn tired of seeing shit like this, I think I might have to skip articles like it in future. Page views are the de facto currency here and I don't want to give you guys the impression that I want to be reminded of how the world is full of scumbags and self-righteous fools as often as you guys pump these 'social justice in gaming' articles out.

      I hear you on the spoilered comment but possibly a slightly different view. I actually want to know about articles like this, the experience however is ruined for me when I see the comments section. As such the default reaction moving forward is as you said to avoid articles like this all together.

    Recent events have turned this saga into The Alison Rapp Story or into an examination of whether Nintendo was right or wrong to fire her, but to focus only on that would be to lose sight of the myriad issues at hand.

    Really? You think there should be a debate on whether or not a family friendly company is within its rights to fire an employee engaged in PR on social media also uses the same social media accounts to try and sell sexually explicit images of themselves?

    This whole situation is a non-issue because it's pretty obvious that a public facing company representative should curate a public image befitting of the organisation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

    Who cares if she had modelling photos done or any of the other things she's been accused of? Personal life should be irrelevant to work. Companies and their contracts shouldn't cater to people who demand sackings over things that don't matter to the work. That repression of a person's legal freedoms is more offensive than any of this bull****

    "She's a woman and she doesn't love being a victim of sexist abuse, therefore she must be the reason I can't look at sexualised 13 year old girls."

    @scruffy
    "And who runs organisations? People."

    Okay, sign me up for a corporate tax rate - people run corporations, I'm a person. I deserve it.

    Mate, you linked the wrong link, firstly; secondly, organisational privacy laws are not the same as your personal privacy laws. If you're going to link a link, read it first at the very least.

    3 One who gives publicity to a matter concerning
    the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion
    of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly
    offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the
    public;

    Firstly, "Pro-child porn" views are of legitimate concern to the public.
    Second, they re-produced facts that were already in the public sphere thanks to social media. Point me somewhere that can, without a doubt, confirm that the information was obtained by violating someone's privacy, then I will concede.

    So far, you've failed to do so and have just given out information of what we already know. If I save something to my hard drive, and you then open up my computer and read that information and publish it, that is a violation of my privacy; if I post something to social media I have forfeited that right to privacy as I've a) put it in the public sphere and b) is owned by the social media company, not the poster.

    Protecting your privacy

    "[..]This means that it is best to check each sites privacy policies to see how they collect, store and use your information."

    "Most social media websites have privacy settings that users can set based on their preferences. These privacy settings allow you to choose who can and can’t view your profile, photos, posts, etc. You should review your privacy settings often, and know what information is protected under the privacy policy. Think very carefully about who you are sharing information with, and what they plan on doing with it."

    It's almost as if the information you freely give to an organisation is theirs to do with as per their privacy policy, unless they're an Australian company. Because that's how it works.

    "Are you sure you want that information to be public?"

    "What happens to the information I post on social networking sites?
    The information you share online may be permanently recorded. Even when you deactivate your account, the information you shared may remain in archived or old versions of websites, or in comments you’ve made on other people’s pages.

    You may not have control over who sees or accesses the personal information you share on social media. The results of over-sharing, or having your posts shared without your consent, can be as varied as personal and professional reputational damage and identity theft. You should always think carefully about the information and content you post about yourself.

    Read the privacy policies of the social networking sites you use and choose the privacy settings that best suit your needs."

    We could go on and on. It's okay to be wrong man.

    Last edited 19/04/16 8:36 am

      Business tax rates: https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/company-tax/
      It's likely that you're already paying the same rate as many businesses.

      So, how exactly are the personal phone numbers and addresses of Rapp and her family of concern to the public? If she is pro-child porn, as you claim, then THAT information could possibly be relevant to the public IF she has been deemed to be a threat to her community. But where exactly is the justification for releasing the details of family members?

      And how do you know Rapp's information came from a social media account, and not from, for example, an Amazon account? Or eBay? What evidence are you providing over the origin of the data? How do you know where the data came from?

Join the discussion!