Game Over for One Insanely Abrasive Video-Game PR Guy(adweek.com)
adweek.com
Game Over for One Insanely Abrasive Video-Game PR Guy
http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/its-game-over-one-insanely-abrasive-video-game-pr-guy-137287
74 comments
I agree. N-Control appears to deserve neither the loyalty nor cash of its customers.
It's wild to me that people are giving you trouble for "can't" when "ponderousnessly" is clearly the more compelling target. (An odd choice even if rendered as "ponderously". "Clumsily unlikely?" Eh, okay, I guess you can have it.)
> To put it more plainly: picking apart a small typo here is gratuitous.
Yes, that's true, but when dropping the following, Caesar's wife must be above reproach to avoid comedic side effects:
> [4] The man can't even spell, much less formulate a vaguely grammatically correct sentence.
> To put it more plainly: picking apart a small typo here is gratuitous.
Yes, that's true, but when dropping the following, Caesar's wife must be above reproach to avoid comedic side effects:
> [4] The man can't even spell, much less formulate a vaguely grammatically correct sentence.
> It's wild to me that people are giving you trouble for "can't" when "ponderousnessly" is clearly the more compelling target. (An odd choice even if rendered as "ponderously". "Clumsily unlikely?" Eh, okay, I guess you can have it.)
I completely missed that one (and it's much more deserving than "can't"). I assume the size of the word caused most reader's eyes to flow right through it.
You win, regardless; ponderously was the intended word, aiming to convey the implication you've described.
That said, I wish the focus was on N-Control as an organization and the seemingly bizarre shadowy world of business they may inhabit, rather than my small missteps.
I completely missed that one (and it's much more deserving than "can't"). I assume the size of the word caused most reader's eyes to flow right through it.
You win, regardless; ponderously was the intended word, aiming to convey the implication you've described.
That said, I wish the focus was on N-Control as an organization and the seemingly bizarre shadowy world of business they may inhabit, rather than my small missteps.
[deleted](2)
can't
In a different report, the following was mentioned[1]:
> A search through Florida's public Department of State Division of Corporations database reveals that Kotkin [inventor of controller] and Christoforo are listed as officers in a company called Afternoon Artists. Afternoon Artists was registered this July.
Of course, I wouldn't call it the most reliable of sources, and the reportage from the likes of this site are a bit too impassioned, but it's interesting to note how there might be more to it all than meets the eye.
[1] http://kotaku.com/5871479/pr-trolling-ocean-stratagy-out-of-...
> A search through Florida's public Department of State Division of Corporations database reveals that Kotkin [inventor of controller] and Christoforo are listed as officers in a company called Afternoon Artists. Afternoon Artists was registered this July.
Of course, I wouldn't call it the most reliable of sources, and the reportage from the likes of this site are a bit too impassioned, but it's interesting to note how there might be more to it all than meets the eye.
[1] http://kotaku.com/5871479/pr-trolling-ocean-stratagy-out-of-...
"According to @TheSchwartz173, twitter account of Eli Schwartz and N-Control rep, "[Afternoon Artists Inc.] was going to be a charity LLC as I understand it, it never was officially created. Just the LLC name was bought."" [0]
Paul Christoforo was also pegged a user of anabolic steroids [1] and has been accused of domestic violence [2].
Regular updates at Examiner.com [3].
[0] https://twitter.com/#!/TheSchwartz173/status/151883626227838...
[1] http://kotaku.com/5871400/cut-paul-oceanmarketting-christofo...
[2] http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/4224/article/ocean-market...
[3] http://www.examiner.com/video-game-industry-in-national/ocea...
Paul Christoforo was also pegged a user of anabolic steroids [1] and has been accused of domestic violence [2].
Regular updates at Examiner.com [3].
[0] https://twitter.com/#!/TheSchwartz173/status/151883626227838...
[1] http://kotaku.com/5871400/cut-paul-oceanmarketting-christofo...
[2] http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/4224/article/ocean-market...
[3] http://www.examiner.com/video-game-industry-in-national/ocea...
Was he ever charged/convicted? Seems kind of specious to even bring up a police report with nothing else. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
I think there's the typical case here of other 'communities' on the internet going all out vigilante and trying to dig up as much dirt as they possibly can.
The PR guy has been or will be held accountable for his actions, in the form of losing his job or his business, so to go even further than that feels somewhat like mob justice. I don't think that's a particularly good thing, and no one directly involved (ie. PR guy, Penny Arcade guy, and irate customer) comes out of it very well.
The PR guy has been or will be held accountable for his actions, in the form of losing his job or his business, so to go even further than that feels somewhat like mob justice. I don't think that's a particularly good thing, and no one directly involved (ie. PR guy, Penny Arcade guy, and irate customer) comes out of it very well.
Note that I wrote "has been accused of domestic violence". Whether he was charged or convicted, I have no clue, IANAL and using my Google-fu I couldn't find anything more recent on the matter.
The document is from "Superior Court of California, County of San Diego" and speaks of a case concerning domestic violence. Whether it's just a police report or an announcement of a criminal case, I cannot discern.
The document is from "Superior Court of California, County of San Diego" and speaks of a case concerning domestic violence. Whether it's just a police report or an announcement of a criminal case, I cannot discern.
What's the saying about never attributing something to conspiracy that you can also attribute to incompetence?
Sure, it could all be a very well thought-out P/R routine. All P/R is good, right? Except now you've got hundreds of one-star reviews on Amazon, a league of pissed-off kids, and your company name connected to this guy for all eternity on the Googles. Is that worth it?
Sure, it could all be a very well thought-out P/R routine. All P/R is good, right? Except now you've got hundreds of one-star reviews on Amazon, a league of pissed-off kids, and your company name connected to this guy for all eternity on the Googles. Is that worth it?
The flip side is that now a lot of prospective customers know about the product and will consider purchasing it. The reality is that if you need something and all the negative press you find isn't about the product itself, but is instead about someone at the company (or it's reps) being rude, most people won't be discouraged from buying it. So yeah, in the end it's probably worth it.
That said, I think you're right. This wasn't a carefully orchestrated campaign to get press; it was just one guy caught being a douche.
That said, I think you're right. This wasn't a carefully orchestrated campaign to get press; it was just one guy caught being a douche.
> "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Apparently it was an idea they had for a charity that never went anywhere:
"David (Kotkin) said it was a LLC for a charity that was never actually created," he said. "He bought the name thinking Paul would be involved, but nothing came of it. The company never actually existed."
"David (Kotkin) said it was a LLC for a charity that was never actually created," he said. "He bought the name thinking Paul would be involved, but nothing came of it. The company never actually existed."
This is easily the best thing to come out of this whole debacle: http://wwebsiteasontheinternet.com
I know this is pretty funny, but would anyone here honestly describe this as "intellectually gratifying"? There are other places to read stories like this. Please flag fluff pieces — even entertaining ones — on HN, to keep the signal-to-noise ratio high.
The value isn't in the entertainment, it makes the point that you should be careful if you outsource any aspect of customer relationship or this could happen. A lot of technical business owners aren't comfortable handling customers themselves, so it's especially important that we remember what the downside of farming it out can be.
I agree that's a good thing to remember, but that isn't really the point of this article. If you wanted to write one with that angle, I'd probably upvote it. But any vacuous fluff piece likely contains some small nugget of wisdom you can infer (Lindsay Lohan's cell phone got hacked? Shows you the importance of security even in seemingly inconsequential systems), but if the article isn't actually aiming to educate us on the matter, it is still overall more noise than signal.
I think there's a lesson for startup founders: Choose your PR agency carefully. Or if you're representing yourself, watch what you're saying. "Rough around the edges" would be a very nice way to refer to some programmer/engineer/entrepreneur personalities, too.
Since it's hard to keep up with the various turns his Twitter account has taken (it was originally, @OceanMarketting, with 2 Ts): He's now renamed it from @OceanStratagy (with 2 As!) to @OceanDeepSea, and was smart enough to immediately reregister @OceanStratagy again before someone else snaps it up, and has been tweeting more under it: http://twitter.com/OceanStratagy.
Someone else now runs @OceanMarketting to promote indie games, and there's also an @OceanStretagy.
Someone else now runs @OceanMarketting to promote indie games, and there's also an @OceanStretagy.
What exactly did N-Control need a PR firm? Maybe I'm a control freak, but it seems risky to trust your image and communication to someone external to your company, when this gives them the power to alienate a sizable chunk of your customer base with a single email.
OTOH I had never heard of this product and now I'm looking into it.
Exactly. I know everything this is to know about a product, its business practices and its principals and I don't even game. Well done, Mr. Christoforo.
they got the name out, and are disconnected from christoforo. this is what i'd call a cheap slam dunk.
As a Bostonian, I'm embarrassed. Not so much by the shit-talking, but more so by the horrible punctuation in his missives. I'd wager that he'd flunk a TOEFL.
More than a few native English speakers stand a fair chance of flunking the TOEFL ;)
Speaking for myself, I couldn't answer the following question off the top of my head :
"True or False : Intensive Pronouns contain the same words as Reflexive Pronouns – they just have different terms of usage and function."
Speaking for myself, I couldn't answer the following question off the top of my head :
"True or False : Intensive Pronouns contain the same words as Reflexive Pronouns – they just have different terms of usage and function."
He wasn't just abrasive, he was incompetent.
His website is entirely plagiarized from various other sites on the internet. He appears to have zero actual customer interaction skills. He is a classic charlatan, one wonders how he managed to worm his way into anyone's employ.
"one wonders how he managed to worm his way into anyone's employ."
Intimidation?
Look at the mug on this guy: http://1.2.3.11/bmi/www.gameranx.com/img/11-Dec/paulchristof...
Intimidation?
Look at the mug on this guy: http://1.2.3.11/bmi/www.gameranx.com/img/11-Dec/paulchristof...
Some people like to employ con artists, hoping that at least they will be on your side. Unless they are on a well structured commission, they probably aren't.
Career-ending disaster, or brilliant viral marketing campaign for the Avenger controller? The world may never know ;)
I feel as though the victim may be the target here. If you've dealt with customers in any way shape or form you'll see a huge percentage of them need to be put into the corner with the dunce hat on.
Him telling them how it is doesn't change anything. Its as if he has committed a crime for saying what every customer facing worker thinks on a daily basis.
Him telling them how it is doesn't change anything. Its as if he has committed a crime for saying what every customer facing worker thinks on a daily basis.
I'm not sure there's anything in the criminal code about gross incompetence, but it's obviously not acceptable behavior.
When you're being paid as a mouthpiece, what you're thinking has absolutely no bearing on what you should be saying. What you should be saying is the company line, with all the accountability and courtesy that implies. You don't get to blow off steam on the same people whose money helps pay your rent.
> Him telling them how it is doesn't change anything.
On the contrary - him "telling how it is" has changed the company's fortunes dramatically, taking an unreleased product and bombing it with one-star Amazon reviews, for just one toll of the damage, here.
When you're being paid as a mouthpiece, what you're thinking has absolutely no bearing on what you should be saying. What you should be saying is the company line, with all the accountability and courtesy that implies. You don't get to blow off steam on the same people whose money helps pay your rent.
> Him telling them how it is doesn't change anything.
On the contrary - him "telling how it is" has changed the company's fortunes dramatically, taking an unreleased product and bombing it with one-star Amazon reviews, for just one toll of the damage, here.
I am disappointed. I was hoping this was a news item indicating Epic's "Cliffy B" had fallen into an open manhole or something.
"If this guy has a booth at Pax east we will cancel it."
This isn't how you run a business.
Nobody sees a problem with this? This guy is an asshole, yes, but one bad email shouldn't mean your booth gets cancelled at a major video game show.
What if I wanted to do the same thing, but for a political opinion? would that be okay?
This isn't how you run a business.
Nobody sees a problem with this? This guy is an asshole, yes, but one bad email shouldn't mean your booth gets cancelled at a major video game show.
What if I wanted to do the same thing, but for a political opinion? would that be okay?
That is exactly how you run a business. Business isn't just about products. You need people to buy them. If your brand is tarnished because people don't like you, it doesn't matter how good your products are. If you run something like Pax and people don't want to come because you have a reputation for having a bunch of arrogant a-holes, you will not have a viable business model for long.
Most people miss the human aspect to business. It's one of the most crucial elements that affects marketing, branding, customer service, sales, etc. If people hate you, no matter how much they like your products, you eventually fail.
Most people miss the human aspect to business. It's one of the most crucial elements that affects marketing, branding, customer service, sales, etc. If people hate you, no matter how much they like your products, you eventually fail.
Reminds me of a quote from the Office that I thought was rather poignant: "Business is always personal. It's the most personal thing in the world."
I've just finished reading Altered Carbon[1], and quite enjoyed this quote:
'The personal, as every one's so fucking fond of saying, is political. So if some idiot politician, some power player, tries to execute policies that harm you or those you care about, TAKE IT PERSONALLY. Get angry. The Machinery of Justice will not serve you here — it is slow and cold, and it is theirs, hardware and soft-. Only the little people suffer at the hands of Justice; the creatures of power slide out from under -with a -wink and a grin. If you want justice, you will have to claw it from them. Make it PERSONAL. Do as much damage as you can. GET YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS. That way you stand afar better chance of being taken seriously next time. Of being considered dangerous. And make no mistake about this: being taken seriously, being considered dangerous marks the difference, the ONLY difference in their eyes, between players and little people. Players they will make deals with. Little people they liquidate. And time and again they cream your liquidation, your displacement, your torture and brutal execution with the ultimate insult that it's just business, it's politics, it's the way of the world, it's a tough life and that IT'S NOTHING PERSONAL, mil, fuck them. Make it personal.'
QUELLCRIST FALCONER
Things I Should Have Learnt by Now
Volume II
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_Carbon
'The personal, as every one's so fucking fond of saying, is political. So if some idiot politician, some power player, tries to execute policies that harm you or those you care about, TAKE IT PERSONALLY. Get angry. The Machinery of Justice will not serve you here — it is slow and cold, and it is theirs, hardware and soft-. Only the little people suffer at the hands of Justice; the creatures of power slide out from under -with a -wink and a grin. If you want justice, you will have to claw it from them. Make it PERSONAL. Do as much damage as you can. GET YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS. That way you stand afar better chance of being taken seriously next time. Of being considered dangerous. And make no mistake about this: being taken seriously, being considered dangerous marks the difference, the ONLY difference in their eyes, between players and little people. Players they will make deals with. Little people they liquidate. And time and again they cream your liquidation, your displacement, your torture and brutal execution with the ultimate insult that it's just business, it's politics, it's the way of the world, it's a tough life and that IT'S NOTHING PERSONAL, mil, fuck them. Make it personal.'
QUELLCRIST FALCONER
Things I Should Have Learnt by Now
Volume II
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_Carbon
Even better,
I'm going to run a software convention and exclude anyone associated with the GNU or how about anyone that is homosexual?
I know there have been cases that have come up on HN where people have been legally excluded and because it was against the ideals of the majority of the community, it was "discrimination". I don't like this guy either, but if you allow this sort of behavior, don't complain when there are other groups excluded in the future.
and btw, it's not how you run a business. If he was an asshole when he's there, then just kick him out. It's very unprofessional and childish to exclude someone from your show based on feelings and emotions.
I'm going to run a software convention and exclude anyone associated with the GNU or how about anyone that is homosexual?
I know there have been cases that have come up on HN where people have been legally excluded and because it was against the ideals of the majority of the community, it was "discrimination". I don't like this guy either, but if you allow this sort of behavior, don't complain when there are other groups excluded in the future.
and btw, it's not how you run a business. If he was an asshole when he's there, then just kick him out. It's very unprofessional and childish to exclude someone from your show based on feelings and emotions.
You don't even know what discrimination is. It is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. In other words, excluding someone associated with GNU or anyone who is a homosexual is discrimination but excluding someone who is an asshole is not discrimination. Please do not use the term incorrectly.
This isn't "excluding a group." This is excluding an asshole.
How do you conflate imposing consequences on one person's bad behavior, over which they have full control, with excluding homosexuals? Seriously. Is this is a thing where you haven't fully woken up yet and you're just typing to type? Because I've done that and it's the only reasonable explanation what you're saying here.
One of the great things about running your own business is that you get to decide your values and navigate by them. Deciding one of your values is never to reward people who are assholes to your customers is an entirely reasonable call.
How do you conflate imposing consequences on one person's bad behavior, over which they have full control, with excluding homosexuals? Seriously. Is this is a thing where you haven't fully woken up yet and you're just typing to type? Because I've done that and it's the only reasonable explanation what you're saying here.
One of the great things about running your own business is that you get to decide your values and navigate by them. Deciding one of your values is never to reward people who are assholes to your customers is an entirely reasonable call.
"If you run something like Pax and people don't want to come because you have a reputation for having a bunch of arrogant a-holes, you will not have a viable business model for long."
So, if I start a restaurant and decide that only Christians can eat here, would that be okay with you? After all, non-Christians may tarnish the quality of the restaurant.
If I decide to not hire people with earrings, are ugly (let's say I have a hooters), or I just don't like, I would either get lawsuits for discrimination or from the ACLU.
How is this any different? and why shouldn't I also be able to choose whom I do business with?
So, if I start a restaurant and decide that only Christians can eat here, would that be okay with you? After all, non-Christians may tarnish the quality of the restaurant.
If I decide to not hire people with earrings, are ugly (let's say I have a hooters), or I just don't like, I would either get lawsuits for discrimination or from the ACLU.
How is this any different? and why shouldn't I also be able to choose whom I do business with?
First, if you only allow christians into your public[1] restaurant that would be illegal. But no one would come because they found out you were an ass and the government would take you to court for violating the Civil rights act.
Second, you are in your rights to do those things. You can't discriminate based on race, age, gender or religion; tats, piercings and ugliness are fair game.
If you are in the US, CA or EU you should read up on what the local human rights/civil rights laws entail.
Edit: There are exemptions for "members only" places, which is different than public restaurants. but then you would no longer be a restaurant but considered a club. For example, the gym, curves, is members only. One of the membership requirements is being a woman. If they decide to open a coffeeshop on the side they wouldn't be allowed to have it open to the public. It's either fully open or mostly closed, now in between.
Second, you are in your rights to do those things. You can't discriminate based on race, age, gender or religion; tats, piercings and ugliness are fair game.
If you are in the US, CA or EU you should read up on what the local human rights/civil rights laws entail.
Edit: There are exemptions for "members only" places, which is different than public restaurants. but then you would no longer be a restaurant but considered a club. For example, the gym, curves, is members only. One of the membership requirements is being a woman. If they decide to open a coffeeshop on the side they wouldn't be allowed to have it open to the public. It's either fully open or mostly closed, now in between.
"Second, you are in your rights to do those things. You can't discriminate based on race, age, gender or religion; tats, piercings and ugliness are fair game."
Really, when you think about it, not being a christian is a choice (which is why I didn't mention race, age, or gender). Just like this guy being an asshole.
It's not much different. Someone is getting excluded from business because another group doesn't like them.
Really, when you think about it, not being a christian is a choice (which is why I didn't mention race, age, or gender). Just like this guy being an asshole.
It's not much different. Someone is getting excluded from business because another group doesn't like them.
While I think that anyone should be allowed to discriminate against anyone they want to in private forums (i.e. restaurants or businesses), laws prevent you from discriminating on the basis of sex although not appearance (with the exception of a few states) or if the position is covered under the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception. That being said, "being an asshole" isn't a covered category under anti-discrimination law, so they're perfectly allowed to discriminate all they want.
[deleted]
Irascible human being is not fit for PR/Marketing. Whether he's a christian or has earrings does not come into factor.
Its called judging a man by the content of his character and/or skills. Its not discrimination. Someone with Parkinson's is unfit for a bomb disposal unit. Someone with arts degree is useless as Rocket scientist and useless at a NASA convention.
Its called judging a man by the content of his character and/or skills. Its not discrimination. Someone with Parkinson's is unfit for a bomb disposal unit. Someone with arts degree is useless as Rocket scientist and useless at a NASA convention.
rolling..rolling.rolling..my free speech is gone.
You get what you pay for.
Having ill-considered opinions down voted isn't a violation of your right to free speech (which was never guaranteed in a private venue in the first place, by the by).
Instead, it's an expression of everyone else's speech. You're allowed to be wrong. Others are allowed to point it out.
Having ill-considered opinions down voted isn't a violation of your right to free speech (which was never guaranteed in a private venue in the first place, by the by).
Instead, it's an expression of everyone else's speech. You're allowed to be wrong. Others are allowed to point it out.
PAX is already known (and generally praised for) for being opinionated on the quality of booths. For example, they make a point to ban "booth babes". Kicking out companies that act like jerks to customers sounds like a good business plan to me.
> Nobody sees a problem with this?
I don't see a problem with it -- I assume it's largely a PR move. If it'll produce an overall positive reaction from the public, it's a good move, right? You're not suggesting there's something illegal about canceling their booth, are you?
> What if I wanted to do the same thing, but for a political opinion?
It depends how unpopular that opinion is. If you choose to exclude someone who's a vocal Nazi, it'd probably be smart move to publicly distance yourself. If it's someone who just disagrees with you on tax policy, it'd probably do you more harm than good to try to exclude them on those grounds.
I don't see a problem with it -- I assume it's largely a PR move. If it'll produce an overall positive reaction from the public, it's a good move, right? You're not suggesting there's something illegal about canceling their booth, are you?
> What if I wanted to do the same thing, but for a political opinion?
It depends how unpopular that opinion is. If you choose to exclude someone who's a vocal Nazi, it'd probably be smart move to publicly distance yourself. If it's someone who just disagrees with you on tax policy, it'd probably do you more harm than good to try to exclude them on those grounds.
"It depends how unpopular that opinion is. If you choose to exclude someone who's a vocal Nazi, it'd probably be smart move to publicly distance yourself. If it's someone who just disagrees with you on tax policy, it'd probably do you more harm than good to try to exclude them on those grounds."
I don't think you could even get away with it. If there were a large enough group of people that were excluded, you would have enough lawsuits in court to put you out of business.
Hooters has had lawsuits due to only hiring "attactive people". There as a guy that sued a bunch of night clubs in New York city due to "free drink ladies night"..and he won.
I don't think you could even get away with it. If there were a large enough group of people that were excluded, you would have enough lawsuits in court to put you out of business.
Hooters has had lawsuits due to only hiring "attactive people". There as a guy that sued a bunch of night clubs in New York city due to "free drink ladies night"..and he won.
"This isn't how you run a business."
It absolutely is. If I were running an event like PAX, I wouldn't want someone like that ruining the perception of the quality of my event. Event organizers are on the hook to curate the quality of their associated partners.
It absolutely is. If I were running an event like PAX, I wouldn't want someone like that ruining the perception of the quality of my event. Event organizers are on the hook to curate the quality of their associated partners.
Exactly. Penny Arcade knows who their customers are -- the gaming population at large.
Those customers not only buy branded merchandise, but are also the reason that PAX is profitable, because those gamers buy tickets to PAX, and then go to the convention and buy gaming-related goods.
The vendors are not the customer. They're important, but secondary to the gamers by a wide margin.
What Mike has done is to show, in a very concrete way, that he will stand up for his customers, and in any business, that's a solid move.
Those customers not only buy branded merchandise, but are also the reason that PAX is profitable, because those gamers buy tickets to PAX, and then go to the convention and buy gaming-related goods.
The vendors are not the customer. They're important, but secondary to the gamers by a wide margin.
What Mike has done is to show, in a very concrete way, that he will stand up for his customers, and in any business, that's a solid move.
> The vendors are not the customer. They're important, but secondary to the gamers by a wide margin.
Actually no, unless PAX has a very unusual business model (which I've seen attempted by one event organiser once, and it didn't go well) the vendors are more important than customers.
Obviously, both are technically customers, as both pay money and if you lose 100% of either group your event is dead. But generally speaking vendors are considered more valuable - largely because each single vendor is worth X visitors in revenue (where X > 1).
This is still a good move by PAX though, because a.) PR, they got to be part of this story, b.) The exhibitor they banned (for all we know they weren't even going to have a booth - PAX might have just banned someone who wouldn't have been giving them any money anyway) was small enough that the lost revenue was small, and I imagine very replaceable with another exhibitor; meanwhile the upside in PR and what consumers think of them is greater, as a small move shows people that they can trust PAX events to only host "good" companies.
Actually no, unless PAX has a very unusual business model (which I've seen attempted by one event organiser once, and it didn't go well) the vendors are more important than customers.
Obviously, both are technically customers, as both pay money and if you lose 100% of either group your event is dead. But generally speaking vendors are considered more valuable - largely because each single vendor is worth X visitors in revenue (where X > 1).
This is still a good move by PAX though, because a.) PR, they got to be part of this story, b.) The exhibitor they banned (for all we know they weren't even going to have a booth - PAX might have just banned someone who wouldn't have been giving them any money anyway) was small enough that the lost revenue was small, and I imagine very replaceable with another exhibitor; meanwhile the upside in PR and what consumers think of them is greater, as a small move shows people that they can trust PAX events to only host "good" companies.
When PG mentioned that SOPA supporters were no longer invited to YC demo days did you bring up the same argument?
I'm actually going to bring it up now.
I think it's entirely appropriate to determine that you do not want to have a _terrible_ business person occupying an official booth, as long as that determination is based on decisions and actions that person made in a business setting. Particularly a business setting that is in your industry or very close to home.
It's not "one bad email," it is a series of emails demonstrating a pattern of ridiculous and entirely unacceptable behavior. Behavior that is unbecoming of any businessperson, and not someone I personally would associate myself with if possible.
It's not "one bad email," it is a series of emails demonstrating a pattern of ridiculous and entirely unacceptable behavior. Behavior that is unbecoming of any businessperson, and not someone I personally would associate myself with if possible.
"I think it's entirely appropriate to determine that you do not want to have a _terrible_ business person occupying an official booth, as long as that determination is based on decisions and actions that person made in a business setting."
I believe there was an article awhile back about employers looking at Facebook profiles when hiring. I find this perfectly acceptable.
However, many people here in the HN community felt it was a "violation" (even though Facebook is a public place).
"It's not "one bad email," it is a series of emails demonstrating a pattern of ridiculous and entirely unacceptable behavior. Behavior that is unbecoming of any businessperson, and not someone I personally would associate myself with if possible."
My problem is that if you did this in any other sort of setting, there would be lawsuits about discrimination.
I believe there was an article awhile back about employers looking at Facebook profiles when hiring. I find this perfectly acceptable.
However, many people here in the HN community felt it was a "violation" (even though Facebook is a public place).
"It's not "one bad email," it is a series of emails demonstrating a pattern of ridiculous and entirely unacceptable behavior. Behavior that is unbecoming of any businessperson, and not someone I personally would associate myself with if possible."
My problem is that if you did this in any other sort of setting, there would be lawsuits about discrimination.
My problem is that if you did this in any other sort of setting, there would be lawsuits about discrimination.
Really? Penny Arcade is kicking him out for being an asshat, not because he's black, gay or Muslim. Don't businesses have the right to refuse service? If Penny Arcade is breaking a contract then a suit over breach of contract is fine, but I doubt that occurred & Penny Arcade can revoke vendors from PAX as they please per contract/TOS.
As far as your Facebook example, if an employer was to contact a person who looked drunk on their Facebook & said "This doesn't seem to be a very professional image you're putting out for yourself." and the person replied back saying "Fuck you asshole cunt faces, suck my balls". I think the business has every right to not hire that person.
Really? Penny Arcade is kicking him out for being an asshat, not because he's black, gay or Muslim. Don't businesses have the right to refuse service? If Penny Arcade is breaking a contract then a suit over breach of contract is fine, but I doubt that occurred & Penny Arcade can revoke vendors from PAX as they please per contract/TOS.
As far as your Facebook example, if an employer was to contact a person who looked drunk on their Facebook & said "This doesn't seem to be a very professional image you're putting out for yourself." and the person replied back saying "Fuck you asshole cunt faces, suck my balls". I think the business has every right to not hire that person.
Huh? Have you forgotten the GoDaddy shit-stirring that dominated the front page for a week with everyone under the Sun vowing to switch domains? So long ago, I know, but when the internet nerds focus their rage on a particular person or brand, one would be remiss not to pile on.
On the other hand, Mr. Christoforo and by extent Mr. Krahulik have set up what could be the best even at the next PAX East: Paul Christoforo as a dunk-tank clown. Not only would nerds be able to have a go at a real, live villain, but it would also serve to provide the required kiss and make up portion of any public blowout.
On the other hand, Mr. Christoforo and by extent Mr. Krahulik have set up what could be the best even at the next PAX East: Paul Christoforo as a dunk-tank clown. Not only would nerds be able to have a go at a real, live villain, but it would also serve to provide the required kiss and make up portion of any public blowout.
"Huh? Have you forgotten the GoDaddy shit-stirring that dominated the front page for a week with everyone under the Sun vowing to switch domains?"
Yes, I remember the Godaddy witch hunt, the people jumping to conclusions, and the list of businesses that "support sopa".
It was only supported because you were on the side against sopa. If there was a witch hunt for something you didn't support, you would be against it.
I just wish more people would do the right thing, even if it is against their ideals.
Yes, I remember the Godaddy witch hunt, the people jumping to conclusions, and the list of businesses that "support sopa".
It was only supported because you were on the side against sopa. If there was a witch hunt for something you didn't support, you would be against it.
I just wish more people would do the right thing, even if it is against their ideals.
Nonsense.
> Yes, I remember the Godaddy witch hunt
> I just wish more people would do the right thing, even if
> it is against their ideals.
I'm not particularly convinced that the principals at N-Control aren't all that dissimilar to Paul Christoforo, or that he's not still somehow involved.
[1] His entire website is plagiarized: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AnMPztotGCGadE1s...
[2] A previous example from 6 months ago: http://www.natesnetwork.com/Poor-customer-service
[3] They were dropped by a previous marketing firm when they brought Christoforo onboard: http://kotaku.com/5871400/cut-paul-oceanmarketting-christofo...
[4] The man can't even spell, much less formulate a vaguely grammatically correct sentence.