The End of Blizzard

It really is one thing after another.

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    their fall from grace has been so entertaining

    • 2 weeks ago
      anonymous

      yoy mean Blizzard Entertaining

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it really has been. All those wowchuds moving to ffxiv made me a fortune and got me to unlock all friend recruitment items with tons of friendship currency left to spend on expansive dyes. God damn I wonder how much shit wowchuds can still eat after all this time

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I thought they were trying to fix their work environment after the whole breast milk incident.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Managers don't actually understand why people are upset and therefore can't anticipate whether a new move will make them more or less upset.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >just lie and ruin your employees' careers so we can get a nice graph, bro
        Companies have lost their minds.

        Shit like this makes me so happy I'm a government employee with a union.

        >stack rankings
        damn I'm glad I can just slack off at work with my coworkers

        This is the "man" (and his trans/w*man allies) you are all cheering for btw.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >not one single post you quoted is cheering for the guy
          are you retarded?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Social media NOOB. Dad. Gamer. Straight white male. Feminist. LGBTQIA ally. He/Him. BLM.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Do you ever feel stupid for basing your opinions on such irrelevant ad hominem? Stack ranking is ridiculously stupid and refusing to use it is based.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >noooo you can't just get rid of low low performing diversity hires and women!!1! Feels have rights too!
            Hah hah stats go brrrr

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              they shouldnt have been hired in the first place, stop playing stupid.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >shouldnt have been hired in the first place
                >therefore you can't ever get rid of them

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no? if they werent hired, there would be no bell curve bullshit, since that was brought it to control the now exploded hiring process. are you simple? can you follow a story?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                sorry "lilly" that you you got let go, but perhaps try to do something else than trim your nails at your next job?

                You can still fire low performers without stack ranking. Stack ranking means that teams full of jackasses lose the same number of people as solid teams because we have to pretend that every team has the same number of high and low performers. But, I'm guessing you've never been a manager.

                >solid team
                >at blizzard

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >back to square 1
                nice talk ESL.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                team
                >>at blizzard
                >>no breast milk is safe.

                No I in team friend.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You can still fire low performers without stack ranking. Stack ranking means that teams full of jackasses lose the same number of people as solid teams because we have to pretend that every team has the same number of high and low performers. But, I'm guessing you've never been a manager.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ah yes, the many great teams working hard at blizzard! How could we forget about.... ehh... and then there's the team that did.... hmmm...

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                great argument, retard
                I don't understand how people can honestly try to debate anything here, it's like a daycare

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                great argument, retard
                I don't understand how people can honestly try to debate anything here, it's like a daycare

                this is why programmers should never be allowed to make leadership decisions outside of giving actual management usable data

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He's only whining because he doesn't have any white men left to stack rank to the bottom.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He is either the breast milk bandit or one of the rapists judging by his twitter profile

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Anyone who puts his pronouns in bio is automatically a retard.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >feminist
          >blm

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yeah its pozzard, everyone there is a cultural marxist

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >cultural marxist

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              yeas and Im using it correctly instead of vague 'woke' or 'left'

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              found the cultural marxist leftie.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >pozzed bio
          Poor domesticated fool

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Useful idiot is first up against the wall
          Imagine that

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Don't be fucking obtuse. Corporations are the embodiment of greed. Woke has nothing to do with it, other than being a sales tactic. How about you wake up and smell the real shit that's tainting western society which are the garden gnomes

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And woke are the useful idiots and attack dogs

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >BLM
          >An organization that hates white people and ascribes to race war
          >Feminism
          >Modern feminism is literally two women in a comfy bubble complaining about white men not killing themselves enough
          >Unironic pronouns
          Just imagine for a moment your own white father was unironically pro black supremacist. What a fucking weirdo.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          thats the most bland profile. like you googled how to make the most inoffensive one possible.

          >and put the pronouns in, they love when you do that. and you like black people.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >opinions are my own

          he has literally never had an opinion that wasn’t provided to him

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Immediately YIKES activated.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Opinions are my own.
          >All of his "opinions" are the current thing.
          If I didn't already know this was real I'd think this was a troll account.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >straight white male
          The bane of every subhuman, very based.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            keep reading chud

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >"Why are all these bad things happening in this company"
          >IBELIEVEALLWOMENBLMTRANSLIVESMATTERDIVERSITYISOURSTRENGTHTURBOAPLHA
          It shocks me how some people are so intelligent and turn out to be great programmers but havnt a lick of common sense and cant see obvious connections.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He literally HAS to have this in his twitter bio or else he wouldn't have a job at nu-Blizz.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Who are you quoting?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sounds like he always believes that stuff and has morals to him if he refused to do Blizzard's stack ranking shit

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          that' a lot of buzzwords... But wait, what's that? No ukraine flag? Off to the gullag with him

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I doubt he supports Russia

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              tsk, tsk, we've been over this, anon. Silence is violence. If he does not actively support a thing then he must defenitely be against that thing and literally a nazi

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Good riddance. He helped spread the cultural cancer that is Wokeness. People like him deserve be lined up against a wall and taken care of for good.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Managers don't actually understand why people are upset
        The kind of people they hire are chaos incarnate. They are incredible unstable run of the mill libtards who are outraged by anything. Blizzard were warned not to hire them and now they are being cannibalized from within. Karma.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what other kind of milk is there? Platypus milk? Fuck of with that.

      Also, what incident are you talking about?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        People drinking breast milk from the employee fridge

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Women keeping breast milk in the fridge intended for mothers with children to store breast milk for their babies was being raided by the infamous breast milk bandit of blizzard HQ

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >being raided by the infamous breast milk bandit of blizzard HQ
          Fucking rofl.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Coconut milk you retard

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I admire the sheer fucking autism required for you to take issue with the term "breast milk".

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >companies talk about their commitment to diversity and inclusion while implementing systems designed to make employees fight each other competitively for rankings or risk layoff

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      20% of workers do 80% of the work.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Then let those 20% who bust their ass get promotions, but someone shouldn't get a bad evaluation if they're doing the bare minimum that's expected of them.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >just work your ass off subsidizing all the worthless leeches at the office, bro
          >enjoy having most of your paycheck going towards their salaries
          >better not say anything bad about them being worthless either or HR will destroy your career
          imagine how fucking brain-melted you have to be to unironically argue that you should be okay with being forced to give your earnings to people who not only don't contribute anything but who spend their time "at work" actively sabotaging you and making it harder for you to get any work done

          anyone who says something like that sincerely deserves to be murdered

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Fucking moron who doesn't understand stack rankings

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              not him but im not gay like you. just rubbing it in your face.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >not him
                >only one reply
                Who are you trying to fool dicksucker

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                keep coping fag. at least im not gay. sorry your boyfrtiend is ignoring you.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >telling others to cope while you are in the middle of coping
                You are the gayest poster in this thread.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ok mr gay.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >ok mr gay
                t. King Gay

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Unless you work in the shittiest of places then your work will be rewarded with better evals and promotions than people who are lazy, obviously. Always focus on yourself.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Unless you work in the shittiest of places
              Like working for Blizzard?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >"hard work gets rewarded"
              Ganker is 18+, son.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >your work will be rewarded

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The most successful person I know said to never be the hardest or best worker in your group - and to always act busy if someone asks you to do something for them. Do what they've asked if it's not unreasonable but do it on your time and make them act like you're doing them a favour.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >time for your manager to do the evals
              >pulls out progressive stack manual
              Too bad, CIS white male.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Hell yeah! she/they, opinions are my own, ukr

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >your work will be rewarded with better evals and promotions than people who are lazy
              Unless of course you work in a place that fell for the stack ranking meme.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm pretty sure some gnomish psychologist did some garden gnome psychology magic and deducted that raises lead to reduced productivity because people don't try hard to get a raise anymore so raises don't happen as much nowadays

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Deliberately causing your own team members to compete and hate each other is an age old tactic, Alexander The Great promoted this in his armies, where different regiments were basically competing with each other with who gets the most prestige in battle. Two main benefits in war is higher efficiency of troops in battle and much lower chance of underlings revolting when they're busy fighting each other.

            Of course the negative effect was you had to place 2 rivaling regiments on the opposite sides of each other in battles, otherwise they would try to sabotage or even kill each other instead of the enemy.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Even in your example, the competition is between different teams. Forcing people to compete with the people they're working with disincentivizes teamwork and promotes a lack of unity. For something like software, where cooperation is expected both within and without teams, even competition between teams is counterproductive. There are also different stakes involved between prestige and security: giving recognition for the highest performers can be fun, but firing the worst performers (even if they're performing fine) just hurts morale.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Get promotions
          Great, now your qualified, productive and efficient employee is in middle management where they will twirl their thumbs all day, pretend to be busy and check on the people who do the actual heavy lifting.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The alternative is to give raises to the people doing the actual heavy lifting, but we can't have that!

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              That's the way, pay them with the money you save by cutting middle management jobs.
              If you have a talented and skilled workforce they do not need to be micromanaged with daily standup meetings and with the rest of scrum and agile cargo cult stuff. That's why some companies just do away with middle management and use a flat structure. But this only works if you have a elite workforce

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Or you could just save money from cutting middle management and not give raises to your workforce.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If the job market allows it, you need leverage or your skilled employees are going to go be skilled somewhere else.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I mean if you're comfortable outsourcing your work to pajeets then you don't really care about a skillful workforce.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's how you get a Boeing 737 max

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's not that anon. Companies are trying to reduce their employee's numbers. So now, you have less people who have to do way more work. They are already on the top of their department because there is nobody else with them.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          lmao dude you'll understand when you stop living with mom

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >bare minimum

          That's generous for the 80%

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >t. bootlicker

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >t. HR leech

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yes, you are the ubermensch, keep telling yourself that

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Pareto principle predates Juden Peterstein you useless waste of office space

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, but it was always pretty stupid and the only people who take it seriously these days learned about it from Kermit.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          moron please, go suck catbert's toes.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Catbert is the silly and terrifying reminder that HR is the bane of any company.
            For they will hire the cesspit off diversity hires to get profits while killing the company, bonus for hiring a relative to help with the scam, which is what happened to blizzard.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Did you not read even the OPs picture? Blizzard has ranking quotas. It doesn't matter if everyone busts their asses working there, there will be names in those shit lists even if everyone gives their 100%.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I'm BUSTING MY ASS actively destroying the office space and making it impossible for everyone else to get anything done
          >that means I deserve to get paid as much as everyone else
          no, have a nice day

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nice strawmen idiot

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah but your hypothetical doesn’t happen anywhere other than maybe Wall Street investment banks and top tier law firms, and that’s precisely because the lowest performers end up on shit lists even if they only look bad compared to the guy beside them.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Have you literally never worked on a good team? That 20/80 crap is just a meme for selling self-help books (labeled as management books.)

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Have you literally never worked on a good team?
          >Blizzard
          >Good team
          I'm sure the manager's wife was hired to her job because of her teamwork skills.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Reading comprehension: I asked whether you've personally been on a team that's better than other teams in your area. Blizzard is definitely bad, but do you really think that it's spread about evenly? A team completely full of the sort of person you hate would give as many poor reviews as a team filled with the sort of person you would like. It's completely arbitrary. Stack ranking is an example of how Blizzard is bad, not a solution to make it better. Or, do you actually think that arbitrarily giving one bad review to every team will make Blizzard better?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I just found it hilarious that you were talking about good teamwork in a thread about Blizzard. The people in Blizzard that are good at their jobs are very few at this point.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's a question of your understanding of team composition. It seems as though you honestly believe that teams are all the same, which implies that you've only been on bad teams. Even at Blizzard, it won't be spread evenly. Teams also have a tendency to stick together when everyone is good, so it's likely that the few good holdouts at Blizzard were concentrated in the same teams, so stack ranking just results in more of the last remaining solid people being fired while teams completely full of trash only give bad reviews to one or two people.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                go back to mmoc you fucking gay blizz simp gay

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Have you literally never worked on a good team
          Its completely possible for everyone on your team to be part of the 20%, and equally possible for everyone in another department to be part of the 80%.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          To be fair, it is very effective for marketing departments. Although A/B testing is the same thing...But 80/20 helps drive the importance into (lazy) people.
          As is said:
          >It gets the greed glands flowing

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Then why did they forcefully try to give one of those 20% a shit rank?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Sounds like normal thing nowadays. I do work that normally 3-4 people would have done 5-10+ years ago and get paid okeish, but not as much as I would like to.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Easy there professor chud

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Even if you are fully communist you should understand this fact of nature.
          Anyway, if you are communist, I don't understand why you would take this as an indictment on the other workers.
          Obviously, there are many intangible things in life that are not tracked via metrics...and a team working on a project also deals in these. IOW, a "glue guy" or "class clown" is worth his weight in gold even if he does very little "work". Same with "guy who can bring around hot girls."

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          murder all the lefitsts

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's only true of large sample sizes.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        90% of companies make the world worse and wouldn't be able to get that 20% of model if they weren't coerced into employment. Most jobs aren't worth doing, most are even harmful.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And 80% of the work is done in 20% of the available time, what's your point? Stack ranking is literally designed to fuck over workers regardless of how well they do and it encourages the entire work force to not actually put in any effort at all, since chances are very good that you're getting a middling or shit evaluation anyway in order to artificially create a bell curve that in no way reflects reality.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Diversity and inclusion are just twitter-approved union busting.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      my sister works in facebook and it's exactly that

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I had a job at a government postal facility where they had some chud shit about inclusiveness in the induction video and how they dont want to create slaves then the work conditions where so dangerous and bad i quit after 3 days

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Companies do that completely deliberately. The *intention* of all the inclusion and diversity is to distract people from shitty workplace practices. They watch people shit flinging over including a rainbow badge and hug themselves happily knowing that it's all a smokescreen. They do not give a shit about diversity and never did, they do everything they do in order to make more money, and the ever-frustrating part is that it *works*.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Companies do that completely deliberately. The *intention* of all the inclusion and diversity is to distract people from shitty workplace practices. They watch people shit flinging over including a rainbow badge and hug themselves happily knowing that it's all a smokescreen. They do not give a shit about diversity and never did, they do everything they do in order to make more money, and the ever-frustrating part is that it *works*.

      Diversity also makes it less likely that the employees will join together in rebellion. Amazon did a case study on it. Pretty genius for corporations to wield leftist identity politics to increase their control

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Diverse workplaces don't unionize.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The fights will absolutely be determined based on the progressive stack though.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      over the last 10 years, garden gnomes have manipulated language to push terms to mean the opposite of what they actually mean in order to get people to be able to accept double standards

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >just lie and ruin your employees' careers so we can get a nice graph, bro
    Companies have lost their minds.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you don't force employees to use the whole ranking spectrum they'll rank everyone 10/10 making the whole exercise useless.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why would they give a 10/10 to members who are dragging down the rest of the team. If your argument is nepotism, that also affects stack ranking just as much if not worse.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Speaking as someone whose job includes writing performance reviews:

          Your pay raise doesn’t come out of my pocket. I’m gonna give everyone as much as I possibly can, every time I have the opportunity, because that works out best for me. The better you’re paid, the better you work and the less likely you are to leave
          >but shit employees
          Shit employees get fired, I don’t have time to babysit poor performers with a mean-number slap on the wrist in the first place. If you suck, I want you gone, not still around just paid less than your colleagues.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I didn't mean to defend stack ranking, it's a bad system and I think the guy is in the right for protesting it.
          I'm just playing devils advocate, this is not about the suits firing him because they want to make the graph look better

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Then you don't use the system and go back again to the old style where qualified managers evaluated performance based on human interaction. But this corporate shit gets so big and complex that it gets out of human control and they have to create pseudo-science to at least maintain the illusion that they're managing the business based on something relevant.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      garden gnomes
      companies just follow their leaders

      >Michael Morhaime
      >early life
      Morhaime was born into a gnomish family and graduated from Granada Hills High School in 1985.

      Some of you will learn the gnomish meme is not just a "meme".
      the hard way if necessary

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Retard, Morhaime left long ago and was a perfectly fine individual. Bobby garden gnometick is the reason Blizzard is a hellscape.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Another garden gnome.

          Ok.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, he is a greedy goblin after all.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For someone to get a high evaluation, someone is not doing enough. It balances itself out. This system just puts them on notice.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >For someone to get a high evaluation, someone is not doing enough
        Factually incorrect.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Someone has to be slacking for an employee to work twice as hard. If everyone was working at their normal capacity, there would be nothing to strain over.

          "Continual guidance and education" doesn't mean shit, they just want to see how much code you have done.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In every group it is required that someone be ranked highest and someone ranked lowest. Not every team has someone who works twice as hard yet they still have to ranked as if, like you said, there's someone busting their ass to make up for a slacker.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Press S to Spit

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Shit like this makes me so happy I'm a government employee with a union.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Preach bro, preach. Same here but in Bongland. Once world elites inevitably turn the general population into obedient serfs who have to turn off lights at 7pm to save the planet we'll be the arbiters working for the globohomo rulers.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Public sector employees are the scum of the earth.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Go back to work you lazy cunts.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      government workers shouldn't have unions, you're fucking scum

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Currently being a researcher at a Uni on government payroll. Most chill job I have ever had with pretty good pay. Sometimes there's crunch before a conference deadline. But that's mostly my fault anyway.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I hope you die in a fire. Government employees are the most useless people on the planet. I'm not saying this out of jealously or ignorance, I've been IT contracting with the DoD for almost a decade now, it is an observable fact. Twice now I have seen good workers get fired over one of your people's fuckup and all your faggy union does is cover it up and make sure you colossal wastes of space don't get fired for it. Choke on a dick.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >gay that ruined classic
    Rest in piss you will not be missed

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >stack rankings
    damn I'm glad I can just slack off at work with my coworkers

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Capitalism working as intended.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That sounds like a genuinely horrible and stupid place to work, shit.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What killed Blizzard? Did Overwatch's success nuked it with all the subsequent pandering? I remember thinking them making S76 not Pharah's dad because he had a flibg with Ana back in the day dumb. All of that because Pharah's dad is a native american so her having a native american thunderbird skin would not be "culturally appropriating".
    They dumped a potentially cool "mom-dad-daughter" dynamic to not offend imaginary twitter white people with a skin.
    It may be a bit before that, but this revelation, in the form of a simple sticker too, is where I went
    >are they retarded?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      wokeness has killed pretty much every Western AAA game studio. It doesn't matter how morally virtuous you make yourself out to be by pandering with ideology if no one wants to buy and play your games.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        wokeness is the ultimate scapegoat used to excuse poor management and short sighted decisions that have fuckall to do with culture wars or identity politics. The top execs at blizzard are Bobby Kotick and a bunch of ex-cia and ex-bush admin suits.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      WoW unironically killed Blizzard. It made them lazy and then the Activision buyout made them a corporate golem. Couple that with hiring women and purple hairs and adopting the SJW mentality.

      It's a lot of shit that just started to snowball ever since the success of WoW.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They still are butthurt they let Dota escape from them and haven't recovered ever since
      Every interview with a former senior employee, they always mention that they could go back and focus everything on Dota, instead of how Icefrog was laughed out off the door,he went to Valve instead they were smarter and the rest is history
      That's why their obssesion with ESports, chasing the Dota/LoL bottle even now

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        With Battle.net new ToS where Blizzard automatically owns any mods made in the game, theres never going to be another DOTA with Blizzard games. The mod community is basically dead and it was killed by Blizzard. They don't realize Valve scores wins like DOTA and Counter-Strike by letting mod communities do whatever they want, and then simply pick the most popular mods for a real publishing deal, also hire their modders themselves. No need for talent hunting when the talent emerges from a vast ocean of terrible shit automatically and Valve can just pick the cream from the top. Theres no risk involved either because the modders themselves already took all the risks, Valve essentially just picks up and buys things that are already successful.

        You need to let parts of your field to get invaded by weeds every now and then to fertilize the soil. Eventually that field will yield exceptional crops. Valve understands this. Meanwhile Activision Blizzard got butthurt one of the apples on his tree dropped to his neighbours side of the yard, so they decided to burn down the tree and salt the earth so nothing else can grow on it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >that entire Underlords/ Auto Chess fiasco
          Sometimes it backfires immensely with product ubiquity.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What happened?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              DotA Auto Chess became a popular custom game. Valve saw its immense popularity and the whispers of other companies seeing it as well. They want to do their own standalone and official title. The studio that made the custom game also wanted to make their own standalone title, away from the DotA name to reap more profit. Adding to that, Riot and other companies pushed and released their own version of Auto Chess. Then nobody was able to reap the benefits of a new genre and its popularity petered out quick as it rose.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So who was at fault? The autochess chinks for not accepting valve's deal, valve trying to make a autochess clone anyway, or riot & co saturating the market and splitting the playerbase before it could actually grow?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It was everybody's fault and a sign as to how trend-hungry the industry is right now so companies would rather not issue the kind of freedom Valve would allow since they wouldn't be able to capitalize on newfound gold on their turf.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The chinks are largely to blame here. The riot chink for plagiarizing perfectly good idea again and the chink developer who went to tencent and murdered their idea instead of joining valve and let the genre flourish

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If the idea was actually good more people would be playing those games.
                The truth is that it was just a fad propped up by streamers and such. It's like Vampire Survivors, streamers were playing it on twitch and a million clones popped up, but eventually it died out and only a handful of people still play those games while fad chasers went to other FOTM.
                These big companies think that every game that gets popular will be the new MOBA starter and they dont want to miss on that, forgetting the most important rule of the internet: Everything is a trend.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Very well said, anon

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And the funny thing is that Blizzard got their MOBA game, but it flopped and no one cared about it, sometimes things are what they are meant to be
          I can't say DOTA would have been as sucessful with Blizzard at the helm, but going from prior experiences probably not since LoL would also happen

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because they made it far too late. Thing with chasing trends with multiplayer games is that you have to be among the first 5 to have any longevity for your game because once players settle down on spending a lot of time playing that one game, they're not going to try different games on the same genre until their main game stops having updates or turns to shit. This is the reason why LoL, Dota and even SMITE are still a thing. Because they were among the first to claim their slice of the pie. SMITE outlasted Hots and Newerth because it was different enough a game to fill a niche of its own instead of directly competing with Lol and DotA.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              look at those titties. what game?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                SMITE. Gets a big expansion patch today too with huge item shifts and new Conquest map so now's the time to play it when everyone is equally new to the meta.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                mmm what? too busy staring at those honkers

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Hirez is a big believer in titty skins.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                woaha momma TITTAYS

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Aeon of Strife Styled Fortress Assault Game Going On Two Sides
                Pass, but at least porn'll be easier to find now, thanks

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Theres also Arena, 15 minutes of pure teamfighting with some symbolic minions in the middle to kill before they walk inside your "goal". Most popular game mode anyway.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      2007, activision-blizzard merged together. 2007, sunwell introduced a new zone that completely made all other zones worthless and introduced catch-up gear. This was also the year smart phones were released

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    At least no one will be stealing the breast milk anymore

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe the ranking was for breastmilk production.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Breast milk is just too much of a temptation. Absolutely should never hire women.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >More synapses are good because... THEY JUST ARE, OK?!

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Neuron Synapses are the core of your brain and how neurons transmit electric impulses throughout your body to generate motion, transmit information throughout the body and form thought at the brain level.
          More synapses literally means a bigger brain which means you are smarter, these smarts can manifest themselves in either better pattern recognition, better response times, faster thought processes, more complex thought processes etc.

          tldr: men smarter cause they had to be hunters and do all exploring and decision making to protecc the tribe while women mostly opened legs for strongest men

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Pseduo-science for inceloids on 4chinz so they can cope with not being able to shove their peepees in a wethole. There is no correlation between IQ and gender.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          gender correlates with everything

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah that must be why you are a pathetic gay. top lel

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Except IQ, according to all IQ tests we have ever done.
            Women differ emotionally, that means they act differently and do things that may seem illogical to us, but as far as raw processing power goes the female brain and the mail brain have the same "specs", just different software.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Gender correlates with nothing. Sex, however, does.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I had sex a few hours ago, there absolutely is and there’s a bunch of other shit correlated with gender as well
          You’re an incel

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sex with your boyfriend or a prostitute? That doesn't say much.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Hahaha cope gay

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Cope about what? Hahahaa Seems like you are the only one coping here bud.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >There is no correlation between IQ and gender.
          true, there's just correlation between IQ and sex.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Gender=sex, retard.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              that's the joke, mouthbreather.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You are not funny. Maybe go outside and develop a real sense of humour by interacting with real people, dimwitted gay.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I have the sex daily
          women are stupider

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No such thing as "gender" take your meme science elsewhere

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Real tech companies moved on from this Ballmer-esque bullshit years ago.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    stack ranking is such a retarded idea for any collaborative environment it's unreal
    figures MBAs would be all over this shit while preaching of how you need to support your coworkers so the company grows as a whole

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >MBA
      why can they only think of profitability in terms of wages?

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >least mazed wowbuck

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >dragon riding is amazing!
        Praising a ten year old mobility system from another MMO that they did better. We're winning Blizbros.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Gets fired from job
      >will still give money to them and continue using their products

      What is this mentality? Cucked, mind broken? There is something so weird about being fired and then continuing to use their products and give them money when they aren't essential services, and offer only entertainment.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if theres no employee evaluation, how the fuck usa company gives promotion and bonus?
    let me guess, they gives it to garden gnomes, morons, lgbt, and woman

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    HR is some degenerate late stage capitalism shit
    Sad shit is, it's the most popular education in Sweden
    Everybody wants to not work and tell others how to work
    The most useless job there is, but still workplaces demand it

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      im never working somewhere that outsources their hr again. dealing with them is a nightmare, them existing causes troubles and its all your fault for some reason .

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. I know people wanting to be "events manager", "human ressources manager" or other "managers" and when I ask them what they do, they can't describe their job without using the word "manage".
      What the fuck is manage? I'm a software dev and the amount of hours I lose doing reunions with managers who "manages" is insane. Their job is just "we'll discuss this issue, we'll do a brainstorming session, we'll think of a solution" but they never actually DO anything.
      In my """Agile""" dev team, we're 17 people and there's only 7 developers. 7 people actually pushing codes to the product.
      And HR is an even lazier form of managers.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In any team “management” is a real, meaningful set of tasks. The question of whether or not those tasks need an individual dedicated to solving them (rather than just letting everyone do some managing alongside everything else) is one worth asking. The question of whether or not, GIVEN that a dedicated manager is needed, that person should have higher pay, and/or higher authority, than the people doing the real work, is also worth asking.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >he doesn't know why managers are important
        Would delegators be more palatable to you?

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is this company cursed?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's what you get for making games about Evil Devils.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Never heard of him

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Employees are fucking leeches and should be thankful that they get paid for being lazy peices of shit. The world was better when serfdoms were a thing.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is what dimwits on Ganker actually believe

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's the truth. Want to get rich? Actually run your own buisness and supply something people want. If you are gonna work for someone, be thankful they even consider paying you to ride their coattails.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          what happens when you need someone to help you run your business

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then you pay them as little as you can get away with. The owner comes up with the idea, he starts the buisness, he holds all the risk of the buisness failing. The help only exists to serve the owner.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >he holds all the risk of the buisness failing.
              no he doesnt. is he going to be fired when the product fails to deliver? he has risk involved, not all the risk.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Ok but what if everyone has their own business? Then that means you can't run yours because everyone else has their own. You'd need some sort of slave caste.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >slave caste
                They are not slaves, they are consumers.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Ok but what if everyone has their own business?
                It would still level out because everyone buys from each other, the stores would simply be more personalized unless someone goes and buys out other people's stores.

                Conservitards everyone

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Ok but what if everyone has their own business?
                It would still level out because everyone buys from each other, the stores would simply be more personalized unless someone goes and buys out other people's stores.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah but what if a business requires a large amount of people to operate? For example, a factory owner can't run a factory by himself.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The factory owners in your hypothetical (which would be vast in disparate numbers due to everyone owning a store) would simply be a small sized one until such an equilibrium would be broken and other stores can no longer afford the premium to be supplied to and would go out of business.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sounds like dogshit

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No shit, it's not probable that every single human being owns a store.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah which is why "start your own business" is just a shit argument

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, it's not a shit argument when your argument necessitates an extreme improbability.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's a shit argument that necessitates an extreme probability without turning 95% of society into serfs

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What does that mean? What is a "small-sized factory"? How would one person operate this factory entirely by themselves?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Factory would be the wrong word. It would be more like a workshop. In anon's hypothetical, movement of materials would be painfully slow.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Actually, research into this model suggests that it would be FASTER and more efficient in the broader scale. Centralization reduces unit cost at point of production but absolutely explodes storage and transit costs. Just because I can make nails cheaper if I make them eleventy billion at a time doesn’t mean I can get them on a shelf down the street from your house cheaper. Because in order to make them eleventy billion at a time I’ve got to do it all in one place, store them all, ship them all over the country, and coordinate all of that, which wastes literal time and man-hours in both directions (getting inputs to me, getting outputs back to you).

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon's hypothetical doesn't have the suppliers become centralized, in fact they'd be radically decentralized because everyone would own one for their stores.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The hypothetical of everyone owning their own business also has a lot of products just not even existing because there's a lot of things that are literally impossible to create by yourself. Blizzard's AAA games for example, one single person is not capable of doing that all by themselves.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's implied that the things that you cannot create by yourself just wouldn't be made in the hypothetical.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nah you just subcontract work. That’s what it looks like, everyone subcontracting to everyone else. Which shouldn’t be surprising, that’s how your life works. You don’t know how to fix your car and the wiring in your house and weave textiles and sew clothes and grow tomatoes and a billion other things. But you don’t have a little modern serfdom where you employ a textile maker and a tomato farmer and an electrician and a mechanic. You just pay a guy to do that job when you need it done, and when you don’t, he’s doing it for someone else.

                You wanna make a big game in this model, you just subcontract various people to contribute to it. Or, more realistically, a couple small groups come together to make the game as a joint venture, and then subcontract out the tasks they aren’t able to complete internally.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >subcontract

                Or just hire them like a normal business instead of trying to bring back serfdom

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How is subcontracting “bringing back serfdom”? HIRING is serfdom. Hiring is paying a person to work for you, and only for you, doing whatever tasks you want done when you want them done.

                Subcontracting is paying someone to do a job you need done, only for as long as it takes to do it.

                Which one sounds more like Adam Smith’s make believe truck-and-barter ideal? Which one sounds more like a market economy and which one sounds more like a a little fiefdom? Or, put another way, there’s a 1:1 mapping between any major large American corporation and the USSR. Swap “party” for “management”, “KGB” for “HR” and “loss prevention”, “citizen” for “employee”, etc.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Or, put another way, there’s a 1:1 mapping between any major large American corporation and the USSR.

                Full retard

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Explain to me in 2,000 words how I’m wrong, anon. Bureaucracy is bureaucracy. The lack of rational price signals inside a socialist country is identical to the lack of rational price signals inside a corporation. The communication channels are similarly unidirectional and plagued by fear of reprisal. The internal structure is characterized by one-upsmanship, backstabbing, obsession with “promotion” and people rising to their level of incompetence.

                It’s faced with the same problems, is categorized by the same lack of information, the same problems processing that information, and the same perverse incentives in trying to accomplish solutions.

                Union of Soviet Socialist Walmarts, anon.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Explain to me in 2,000 words how I’m wrong, anon.
                Prove yourself right first. Libertarianism is a retarded ideology, full stop.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I’ve already offered two comments engaged in my critique of bureaucracy. I can direct you to books if you want an overview or answer any questions you have. I’m asking you to defend your own position so I have points to engage with rather than sitting here in a thread about Blizzard being a shitpile and giving a goddamn lecture series on the nature of bureaucratic inefficiency and the comparative advantages of price-mediated networked organization WITHIN an industrial setting rather than at the points of input and output

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The idea that all or even most companies run well with no bureaucracy is a
                childish fantasy. Libertarianism is not a serious ideology.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, bureaucracy is great. When I think of all the great things it has accomplished and all the great leaders and thinkers who praised it, I feel confident it’s not a self-perpetuating haven for midwits and parasites. Who could possibly decry bureaucracy? Wherever it’s found, competence and strength are sure to follow. It’s not like it grows like a cancer and kills organizations from within

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I feel confident it’s not a self-perpetuating haven for midwits and parasites.

                Unlike an economy run by aristocrats and landed gentry who 'subcontract' out work to the not-serfs

                Childish and unserious.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Unlike an economy run by aristocrats and landed gentry who 'subcontract' out work to the not-serfs
                This is the most disingenuous argument I’ve ever heard. I can see your nose poking out around the edge of your post.

                Subcontracting is a lot closer in form to “village baker pays village farmer money for a bushel of wheat” and employment is a lot closer to “landed gentry gives you a plot to till in exchange for half the wheat it grows”

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >This is the most disingenuous argument I’ve ever heard. I can see your nose poking out around the edge of your post.
                Highly ironic coming from the ancap fag arguing for the gig economy by pretending it's mercantilism

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Who needs legally binding contracts? Just make promises with word of mouth!

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You are right but it's the same with basically every system. Bureaucracy is a system that works reactively rather than
                incorporating logic and rational thinking into it's processing.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You are correct anon. (I am not the other anon)

                In other news...Blizzard is a very strange company.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Subcontracting is paying someone much less than you would have otherwise by entering an employer - employee relationship. Works decently for highly specialized work and is a disaster for 99% of work needed for society to function.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don’t see how the pay schema has anything to do with the nature or definition of subcontracting. Subcontracting is when, in order to fulfill work you’ve been contracted to do, you must contract someone else to help you complete it.

                In certain specific contexts (with which you might be most familiar?) it means “hiring temporary help because your own workforce isn’t sufficient for the task/timeframe” but that’s by no means rolled into the definition of “subcontractor”. If you’re hired to build a house and you have to hire an electrician to install the wiring because you don’t know how to do that part of it, that electrician is a subcontractor. If, as part of your house-building business, you PERMANENTLY hire the electrician to only work for you on your projects, that electrician is an employee.

                Pay doesn’t enter into it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Households don't hire electricians as employees because it simply costs less to do so. Works fine in that context but not in every context ie developing products or maintaining services for mass consumption that requires onboarding people so they're not utterly clueless when doing work for your company

                Case example of a video game that relied heavily on subcontracters is Halo Infinite.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The argument from cost is asinine. If subcontracting was actually cheaper than hiring, business would all already subcontract everything and hire nobody. Hiring is cheaper because a hiring-based model gives an employer leverage in price (wage) negotiations. Hiring is an exclusive (well, semi-exclusive) relationship which means all of your income traces to a single source. Subcontracting means bids on an open market; even with price competition for the job, if it exists, it’s still just one job among many. An electrician who gets “fired” just goes to the next gig in his schedule. He doesn’t hit the unemployment line. There’s more even negotiating power and that’s why businesses don’t do it

                >Case example of a video game that relied heavily on subcontracters is Halo Infinite.
                Case example of a video game that relied heavily on employees is everything Blizzard is shitting out. I know the game industry is bad but it’s not only bad where distributed production appears you disingenuous fuck. Companies can do a fine and dandy job shitting the bed using in-house help only, and Ubisoft, Zenimax, EA and Actiblizz are all routinely providing evidence of that fact. I don’t give a fuck if 343i had to hire some pajeets to help them try and put out the fire on their latest debacle, they weren’t exactly doing a great job of things before Infinite.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The argument from cost is asinine. If subcontracting was actually cheaper than hiring, business would all already subcontract everything and hire nobody.
                Already a thing in a lot of industries. Its either subcontractors or part-time "seasonal gigs". Companies try their hardest to avoid full-time employing people.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Relatively new phenomenon and its rise has coincided with a rise in employee negotiating power. It’s no coincidence that these past few years are referred to as the “Great Resignation” not the “Great Firing”.

                There are disadvantages to the gig economy AS CURRENTLY STRUCTURED, especially from the POV of the gig worker (and they’re NOT primarily monetary reasons, people don’t take jobs driving Uber because it pays worse than taking jobs driving taxis) that have to do with instability, but it’s important to remember that the gig economy is mostly a bottom-run unskilled labor economy. It needs to be compared to the earning power and job security of being a part-time dishwasher or fry cook.

                Looked at through that comparative lens it isn’t so bad. If my choices were “InstaCart shopper” and “McDonald’s fry cook” I know what I’m most likely to pick. And that pressure is WHY there’s a “labor shortage” in the unskilled market right now.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm sure "unskilled labor economy" doesn't include the vast majority of work needed for society to run properly

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ironically many “essential” industries do operate this way. Farms are notorious subcontractors and have been since antiquity (since labor demands change at harvest and planting time dramatically), and most skilled-technician jobs (home repair and utility work, auto mechanics, etc) are SMEs and subcontracting gigs. It’s by no means a universal rule, but generally speaking a lot less bureaucracy goes into the roof over your head and the food on your plate than goes into the fancy electronic gizmos in your living room.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah it's good we don't have safety inspection regulations for what food is sold and if houses are built because it would mean bureaucracy and bureaucracy is inherently bad. I love libertarianism bro it's so well thought out and not totally retarded.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You’re conflating the job (safety inspection) with the structure (bureaucracy). I’m not saying everything bureaucracies are responsible for is meaningless, I’m saying the bureaucracies themselves are inept and ineffective at the tasks they have been entrusted to perform.

                >This is the most disingenuous argument I’ve ever heard. I can see your nose poking out around the edge of your post.
                Highly ironic coming from the ancap fag arguing for the gig economy by pretending it's mercantilism

                I’m not an ancap.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Good luck subcontracting out safety inspection standards for building houses with no bureaucracy lol

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Im saying the bureaucracies themselves are inept and ineffective at the tasks they have been entrusted to perform.
                As opposed to making those tasks completely optional and superfluous. You are effectively an ancap

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not at all what I’m saying. I think you’re arguing with an imaginary person in your head, anon. I’m talking about organization structure, not about “gubmint regulations”. Bureaucracy is not a phenomenon exclusive to government offices, which is why I’ve been exclusively talking about it in the context of corporate ineptitude (though to be sure it affects government offices too)

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The difference is mostly irrelevant in this context. Your 'organization structure' is ineffective because many jobs require intimate knowledge of the work and how the company functions in order to operate. Neither the contractor or the owner benefits from this. You are never going to manage a modern day logistics operation at scale with your idea of lean bureaucracy.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >many jobs require intimate knowledge of the work
                On a project-to-project basis, sure, I agree. It’s a bad idea to bring on too few people at the start and try to solve it by throwing bodies on at the end. Process knowledge is impacted, on a lot of things you’re talking about from-scratch retraining which is hugely inefficient (or produces substandard results since realistically the latecomers don’t GET the full training and wind up doing shit work)
                >and how the company functions in order to operate
                No, stop with that bullshit right now. You’re arguing that systems which sidestep bureaucratic organization are bad because they aren’t good at interfacing with the existing bureaucracy. That shit’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You’re arguing that systems which sidestep bureaucratic organization are bad because they aren’t good at interfacing with the existing bureaucracy.
                Bureaucracy, like any other, has problems and inefficiencies. Fixing them is never as simple, quick or cheap as simply eliminating it. And they usually aren't the cause of the crisis, and fixing them won't solve it. At a certain point it is needed for organizations operating at scale. It turns out that PepsiCo actually does need a bunch of mid level office workers doing procurement and logistics.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Audit being a category is pretty funny to anyone who knows the history of capital markets.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >PepsiCo actually does need a bunch of mid level office workers doing procurement and logistics.
                Sure but now you’re changing the rules of the argument. From the beginning this has been about how companies like PepsiCo are too goddamn big, and the fact that they have to rely on lunatic bureaucracy is precisely why their size makes them monstrously inefficient. You can produce soda for all markets that want it without a behemoth like PepsiCo existing.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Maybe you can, but not very efficiently without large scale coordination. Large scale coordination eventually settles into bureaucracy. it becomes a technical centralization not a political one

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The alternative your proposing isnt any more effective or competent. It's just cheaper.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Farms are notorious subcontractors and have been since antiquity (since labor demands change at harvest and planting time dramatically)
                Also notorious for being poorly paid and unstable field

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Relatively new phenomenon
                If you count 2008 aftermath as "relatively new", sure.
                >but it’s important to remember that the gig economy is mostly a bottom-run unskilled labor economy.
                Which is funny because middle income labor also has turned to mostly part-times. Some industries have found an even nastier loophole where part-time workers count as "private enterpreneurs" and therefore have even less worker rights than before.

                The main problem with globohomo gig economy where full-times are increasingly replaced with part-times is the fact birthrates plummet along with it. Every single country where full-time job market erodes to part-time, birthrates come down with it exactly the same time. Birthrates started plummeting in Japan in early 2000's when their massive financial crisis happened and the job market never recovered. Finland the gig economy and plummeting birthrates reared its ugly head in early 90's, and again after 2008. The very second chinese real estate bubble burst and factories started closing down or hiring part-time only, chinese birthrates started going down.

                Why is this? Mortgages. You need a house to raise a family, you need a mortgage to get a house. And banks don't give you a mortgage if you don't have a full-time job. And part-time gigs don't allow steady money making so gathering up savings for mortgage or buying house outright is not feasible either. No full-time jobs= No mortgages. No mortgages= No houses. No houses= No young families. No young families= people start having kids in their 40's= very high chance of having only 1 child instead of 2.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I can accept that argument as far as it goes but it really sounds like it’s a problem with the banking and/or real-estate sectors than with the production sector. Your argument basically boils down to
                >this way of producing things is bad, no matter how well it works, because the banks don’t like it as much

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It erodes the fabric of the society, part-times are inherently bad for the long term heatlh of the economy, because it erodes both the buying power of the working class, and the number of the working class. Governments should fight this by setting forced full-time position quotas for companies who wish to get government subsidies.

                Its either that, or figuring out some other steady source of money for the working class and middle-class or the entire system is going to collapse on itself eventually. You can't hand out mortgages to everyone freely either because then 2008 is going to happen again. So the ones who have to bend are the companies and employers. Ford used to say that pay your workers high enough salaries that they can afford their own Fords, he understood that eroding the job market and wages of workers will erode markets and profits themselves, because it disrupts the natural flow of money.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I mean that’s a BIG structural question with complicated answers because it means the approach to housing has to change. Long-term I think a focus on cooperative housing (co-ops and condos) would be the right path to take but given the power of banks that’d take a long time. In the short term, UBI as a stopgap is probably a good thing for any decentralized production model anyway. Sort of “DC-offset” the market fluctuations a bit.

                Ironically in places characterized PRIMARILY by SME, co-op, and self-employed production networks, those sorts of social services are very prevalent. I would argue this suggests the people who actually live and work this way recognize the need for just such an “income stabilizing term” in the formula, which is why they keep coming up with them.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Long-term I think a focus on cooperative housing (co-ops and condos) would be the right path to take
                That won't solve the issue at all. You think men with flatmates would have any success in the dating market? No. You need your own house or women won't even look at you as a father candidate. Even UBI does not solve the issue, it solves the issue of overcomplicated welfare systems (same money, but UBI simplifies the paperwork) and is a big help for small businesses but it won't help with birthrates.

                The only other way to untie this knot of falling birthrates is to drastically reduce living expenses like food and especially real estate. But that won't happen anytime soon because majority of people still see real estate as a source of wealth so the house prices are going to remain very high, until population has already plummeted.

                Simplest fix is to simply bring back the full-time job positions. Banks do not demand high wages for mortgages, they demand a steady income. People don't crave for 15$ minimum wage, example Finland again minimum wage there is 11,5 dollars. More important thing is that the flow of money is steady for years to come, so working class can build their families with it. With gig economy, income is always uncertain and sporadic, you can't plan ahead 10 years into the future like you used to.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >flatmates
                Do you actually know what co-op housing IS, anon? It’s when a piece of real estate is co-owned by residents who pay jointly for common area maintenance. Imagine a large apartment building but it was co-owned by each tenant. I’m not talking about roommates. This is actually a pretty common housing structure in America.

                What’s interesting about it is it often sidesteps mortgages, or takes them a step removed (since they’re granted to the co-op board). Usually your co-op contract becomes a kind of rent-to-own thing, because ultimately YOU don’t own the apartment, the co-op board does, and you’re a partial owner OF the co-op board. So the mortgage is in the co-op’s name.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Imagine a large apartment building but it was co-owned by each tenant.
                Those are called "Duplexes". And those also have to be bought and you also need a mortgage for those. Same with apartment complex housing. People buy a flat from an apartment complex, which in itself acts like a company where all the flat owners are the members of the company. None of that solves the mortgage issue. Often apartment complex flat owners rent their flat forward to pay the mortgage of the flat they just bought.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Those are called "Duplexes"
                Sorry. In America they’re called co-ops (or condos, but technically a condo is a slightly different structure because in a condo your ownership/sale is not subject to vote, your vote only affects common area. You see this more with rows of houses)

                In America at least, though, most co-ops do not allow subletting. Condos, as mentioned, do. But the landlording problem is neither here nor there; your argument for housing mortgages suffers the exact same problem because people can and DO, ALL THE TIME, buy houses on a mortgage to turn around and rent them to others.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And they're still bound to a mortgage. And people living in apartment complex rentals are mostly single, very rarely poor families. Again, the problem of the birthrate is still there. You're not scoring any pussy if you're a single male loser living in a rental. Landlords and those buying flats for rental tend to be higher than middle class people who don't have issues with birthrates. Problem is they're not the majority of the country either. They're not middle-class or the working class which are basically the anchor of any successful society. Keep eroding the paychecks of 70% of the population and lower- to downright poverty class will balloon while middle class keeps eroding.

                And poor people don't buy your expensive corporate products as often, so the entire market suffers from greedy companies eroding the job market prospects and thus the consumers ability to spend money.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >people living in apartment complex rentals are mostly single, very rarely poor families
                Maybe where you live but in America it's really not that uncommon. Rich families often rent penthouse apartments in New York, for instance. And it's perfectly common in higher COL areas for families, even well-off ones, to rent houses rather than buy them. I'm not saying this is a good thing, mind you, I'm just saying it doesn't have much of anything to do with decentralization of production.

                >consumers ability to spend money
                Well okay but now you're just talking about the self-sustenance of the current system of production. "you need to pay people steady wages so they have surplus income to spend on shit they don't want or need so that can become more steady wages". Forget "the economy", that's an abstraction. Let's talk about the ability of society to produce the things people want and need, and not treat the act of purchasing as an end in itself.

                >You're not scoring any pussy if you're a single male loser living in a rental
                You keep coming back to this psychology trap and I get the feeling it's your actual focus more than anything else. There's nothing INHERENT about the concept of a full-time job that leads to men getting laid. If you're talking about SUCCESS, yes, but that's a purely relative term. Being successful is something that only has meaning in the context of the system that measures success and failure. If you're talking about STABILITY, the issue is that a full-time job is not "stability". It hasn't been "stability" for decades and decades.

                In fact, the main advantage of decentralization of production is that it IMPROVES stability precisely because it eliminates single-sourcing of income. If you own a business, nothing in the world would terrify you more than having your financial success or failure tied to your relationship with a single client.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Rich families often rent
                And there it is. Rich families. So its not feasible for poor families.
                >And it's perfectly common in higher COL areas for families, even well-off ones, to rent houses
                America's birthrate is plummeting too. You're not immune to this phenomenom.
                >Let's talk about the ability of society to produce the things people want and need, and not treat the act of purchasing as an end in itself.
                Economy is usually the best dictator of which commodities the public wants and needs. Best example is North Korea where family fathers are forced to work in low paying government jobs, meanwhile their housewives go to the 3 biggest half-legal black markets during their freetime to sell and purchase chinese-imported goods and USB drives full of South Korean tv shows. Those 3 black markets are allowed to exist because they pretty much help the country stay away from yet another famine.
                > There's nothing INHERENT about the concept of a full-time job that leads to men getting laid.
                40% of the childless population are part-time or jobless men. And majority of these single men live in rentals. It is a universal effect in every single society in every part of the world that women don't marry lower rank men, they marry the same- or higher wealth men. In China owning a house and paying the woman's family 80,000 dollars up front are prerequisites for marriage, sometimes even a date. Only very low percentage of women are going to accept you living in your moms basement. You need a house, or at least steady income to quickly buy that house when you pair together.
                >If you're talking about STABILITY, the issue is that a full-time job is not "stability". It hasn't been "stability" for decades and decades.
                It has been the sign of stability for boomers and pre-2008 households. Also banks demand this kind of financial stability for mortgage, because other option is repeat of 2008. Of course it brings stability, you can't argue otherwise.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >40% of the childless population are part-time or jobless men. And majority of these single men live in rentals.
                Yes but 80% of cancer patients are on chemotherapy, that does not imply that if you get rid of the chemotherapy they will stop having cancer. You're assuming that the phenomenon of being childless is CAUSED by being un/underemployed and renting. It's the opposite. Both of those things are a symptom of the same thing as being childless, which is being unmotivated and unsuccessful.

                You take every NEET in his mom's basement and give him, by government fiat, a house and a job with a pension, he's not going to suddenly find a wife. He's still going to be a loser. He ended up in the situation he was in BECAUSE he was a loser, his situation didn't make him a loser. The game will have changed but his ability to play it well won't have changed in the slightest.

                The real reason for declining birthrates is "family planning" (and birth control). The easier it is to not accidentally have a family, the fewer families there are, because having a family is responsibility and expense. You want to fix that problem, you need to start by getting people comfortable with the idea of responsibility, and making them life-long wage slaves is not how you do it. That teaches the opposite. They learn helplessness. They can't fathom responsibility, to them responsibility is something to be abdicated to the proper authorities in the hierarchy.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >which is being unmotivated and unsuccessful.
                Oh the good old "working class are just too lazy"-argument. Its because of garden gnomes like you why modern societies are failing. The guillotines can't come back quickly enough.
                >You take every NEET in his mom's basement and give him, by government fiat, a house and a job with a pension, he's not going to suddenly find a wife.
                Yes he is. A house and a job with pension are signs of stability and success by themselves. He's now marriage material. That is the basis of middle-income dream in most countries. A job, a house with big yard, a family, 2 cars, maybe some patch of forest land and summer cottage on a lake.
                >You want to fix that problem, you need to start by getting people comfortable with the idea of responsibility,
                What "responsibility", what the fuck are you talking about? Are you seriously trying to say that birthrates ACROSS THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD INCLUDING JAPAN THE MOST WORKSLAVE COUNTRY ON EARTH is because people are just lazy? Are you really this much of a spoiled rich retard who has never worked an actual physical labor job in his life? Seriously?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >"working class are just too lazy"-argument
                There's a difference between the "working class" and "the childless" you fucking midwit. I mean fucking christ, you're sitting here arguing that society's problems are the result of women not wanting to fuck unemployed men, how is that not "blaming the working class"?

                >That is the basis of middle-income dream in most countries. A job, a house with big yard, a family, 2 cars, maybe some patch of forest land and summer cottage on a lake.
                That has never been a reality except in TV shows from the 1960s. The reality is that the vast majority of people have NEVER had that kind of wealth. A person living like that is propped up by an unseen horde of actual working class people. Is your argument that we need to do a better job of selling this lie to the working class? Because it's never actually been an attainable reality for most.

                > Are you seriously trying to say that birthrates ACROSS THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD INCLUDING JAPAN THE MOST WORKSLAVE COUNTRY ON EARTH is because people are just lazy?
                No. I'm saying it's a combination of "people don't want kids" and "people don't have to have kids".

                I think the amount of "people don't want kids" is about the same as it has been for a very long time. I think that as a country becomes wealthier and modernizes, the amount of "people don't have to have kids" increases. Accidental families don't happen nearly as often. Your choices are either (a) do everything you can to wind back the clock on that and try to make accidental pregnancy common again, or (b) start actually focusing on making people want to have kids.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >There's a difference between the "working class" and "the childless" you fucking midwit.
                I just spelled out for you how the two terms are combining together, thanks to companies eliminating full-time jobs from the job market.
                >That has never been a reality except in TV shows from the 1960s. The reality is that the vast majority of people have NEVER had that kind of wealth.
                Its very standard form of living in Finland, I'm sorry to hear that America is a shithole. You can kindly shut the fuck up with your "You'll own nothing and you'll be happy"-propaganda.
                >No. I'm saying it's a combination of "people don't want kids" and "people don't have to have kids".
                Thats bullshit. People still have children and settle down as families, the birth-rate plummet is caused by economic realities forcing young couples to delay their child-making to well over 30's to even 40's. Which results in only 1 child instead of 2, which is not sustainable birthrate. People still want and have children, but the economy and the job market prevent them from getting them when they want them.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the birth-rate plummet is caused by economic realities
                If you're right about this, it would mean the decline in US birth rates should coincide fairly nicely with the 2008 housing crisis... and in fact what we should see would be a more or less steady/increasing birth rate during times of economic growth and declines during recession/depression. Or perhaps the inverse (if there's some lag in the data where people's tendencies to have children takes time to respond to long-term economic conditions).

                Instead we see pic related.

                Now I'm curious how you would explain that data if the issue was "economic conditions prevent people from having families when they want to" rather than "technological progress makes it easier for people to avoid having families when they don't want to"

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >There's a difference between the "working class" and "the childless" you fucking midwit.
                I just spelled out for you how the two terms are combining together, thanks to companies eliminating full-time jobs from the job market.
                >That has never been a reality except in TV shows from the 1960s. The reality is that the vast majority of people have NEVER had that kind of wealth.
                Its very standard form of living in Finland, I'm sorry to hear that America is a shithole. You can kindly shut the fuck up with your "You'll own nothing and you'll be happy"-propaganda.
                >No. I'm saying it's a combination of "people don't want kids" and "people don't have to have kids".
                Thats bullshit. People still have children and settle down as families, the birth-rate plummet is caused by economic realities forcing young couples to delay their child-making to well over 30's to even 40's. Which results in only 1 child instead of 2, which is not sustainable birthrate. People still want and have children, but the economy and the job market prevent them from getting them when they want them.

                And in fact, since you note that you're from Finland, here's some data (that doesn't stretch back quite as far) from your country.

                From the looks of things I'd say you're experiencing one hell of a hundred-year economic recession.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Recessions don't last forever, that wasn't my point. Point was job markets usually come out worse with each recession. Finland was hard hit by late 80's-early 90's financial crisis, then got saved by Nokia miracle, then 2008 happened (with 2 year delay repercussions for Finland) and you see th birthrates go down.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Birthrates in healthy western societies settle around 2-3 children, education tends to shave away the 4-6 child families and downsize them to 2-3 child families. This is why Africa is the leading source of overpopulation when even China and India have started seeing a dip in birthrates.

                From there onwards, the birthrates plummet with every financial crisis that erodes the job market. Notice how every downslide on the slope can be contributed to a recession of the times. While the economy usually recovers from these downturns, the job market doesn't. List of available jobs and conditions for those jobs get worse and worse over the years. Generations that get impacted by a recession like say 2008 usually struggle to get steady jobs and establish families later down the line in the future too. Each major financial crisis has the habit of creating "lost generations". Japan in particular still hasn't fully recovered from the 2000's crash. Its employment system is rigid and hostile to anyone who didn't get hired by a company from young age, or anyone who got fired or comes from a company that went under. Japs have been living the part-time gig economy for 23 years now and it shows in their birthrates.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Birthrates in healthy western societies settle around 2-3 children
                You assert that but you don't justify it with data. What across the board per-nation data shows is that by and large, birth rates just decline, steadily.

                You say "they decline to a point for one reason, and then they go right on declining but suddenly it's for a totally different reason that wasn't there before and boy that sure is a fun coincidence".

                Here's birth rates in France.

                There's no substantial "2 child hover" anywhere. Hell even in your Japan pic they're hovering around 4 and then suddenly crash to below 2 with almost no pause.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You assert that but you don't justify it with data. What across the board per-nation data shows is that by and large, birth rates just decline, steadily.
                Never said that. When times are good, people will have kids. And times aren't bad forever. The main problem, again is that job market erodes with each modern financial crisis and never recovers because we just let companies do that.
                >There's no substantial "2 child hover" anywhere.
                Its pretty much 1.8-2 on 1st world country average. If fertility was all down to people just being lazy because of technology, then why did birthrates rise across the world in 2000's? And why did they crash in 2010 (Because of 2008 crisis)?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > then why did birthrates rise across the world in 2000's? And why did they crash in 2010 (Because of 2008 crisis)?

                They didn't. What they did was decline, then decline, then decline.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm talking about 1st world countries. 3rd world countries turning into developing countries skew the statistics. Why was 2000-2010 a good decade for babymaking in Europe?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Like, for example
                >Japan in particular still hasn't fully recovered from the 2000's crash
                >Japan's birth rate has been declining every year since 1975
                >clearly the 2000's crash was so bad, its effects were felt backward in time 30 years.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Pay attention:

                Birthrates in healthy western societies settle around 2-3 children, education tends to shave away the 4-6 child families and downsize them to 2-3 child families. This is why Africa is the leading source of overpopulation when even China and India have started seeing a dip in birthrates.

                From there onwards, the birthrates plummet with every financial crisis that erodes the job market. Notice how every downslide on the slope can be contributed to a recession of the times. While the economy usually recovers from these downturns, the job market doesn't. List of available jobs and conditions for those jobs get worse and worse over the years. Generations that get impacted by a recession like say 2008 usually struggle to get steady jobs and establish families later down the line in the future too. Each major financial crisis has the habit of creating "lost generations". Japan in particular still hasn't fully recovered from the 2000's crash. Its employment system is rigid and hostile to anyone who didn't get hired by a company from young age, or anyone who got fired or comes from a company that went under. Japs have been living the part-time gig economy for 23 years now and it shows in their birthrates.

                >education tends to shave away the 4-6 child families and downsize them to 2-3 child families.

                Education and contraceptives reduce families to 2-3 child families. 1.4-1.5 are caused by issues in the economy.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >In fact, the main advantage of decentralization of production is that it IMPROVES stability
                Having dry seasons in your income is the very antithesis of "stability". Which gig economy does to people. If you're constantly forced to move around the country to hunt for jobs and your pay is never constant but highly dependent what kind of gig you get this time and how many hours per week, then thats the very antithesis of stability. Banks won't give you a mortgage so they don't think you're stable enough.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If you're constantly forced to move around the country to hunt for jobs and your pay is never constant but highly dependent what kind of gig you get this time
                Slow down, you just loaded about 12 pellets of assumption into that shell.

                When we talk about the "gig economy" what are we talking about? Because everything that springs to mind for me is either telecommute-based IT and art work OR local on-demand shit (Uber, InstaCart, DoorDash, whatever), and neither of those things involves "chasing jobs around the country". It's the wage-earners who are the ones who uproot their lives for that "opportunity at the Seattle office", you never EVER fucking hear of gig workers doing that. Maybe there's some trivial case here in an industry I'm not familiar with but I'd hardly consider it the norm.

                At any rate I'm not talking about the "gig economy" specifically, I'm talking about a model that's not entirely dissimilar but a key distinction of the gig economy is its utter lack of capital outlay. When we talk about this kind of production work you have to factor in all the industries that require the operation of some capital goods in order to produce things. The gig economy is entirely labor-based; it's still fundamentally an employment paradigm, in its way, because all that is being sold in a gig economy is labor, not OUTPUT.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >When we talk about the "gig economy" what are we talking about? Because everything that springs to mind for me is either telecommute-based IT and art work OR local on-demand shit (Uber, InstaCart, DoorDash, whatever), and neither of those things involves "chasing jobs around the country".
                Gig economy has spread to manufacturing and traditional blue collar jobs as well. Its not just Uber drivers or bartenders anymore, its literally every job that isn't some manager position where you sucked your husbands cock to get your job.
                >The gig economy is entirely labor-based; it's still fundamentally an employment paradigm, in its way, because all that is being sold in a gig economy is labor, not OUTPUT.
                And big companies have figured out how to abuse the part-time job contracts to avoid paying people their vacation days or other full-time worker benefits, which I know don't exist in US anyway. The output does not get affected because after the legal limit for part-time contract is done, the company then sacks the worker instead of hiring him full-time, and replaces him with a new part-timer because the part-timer is simply a cheaper worker. But only in short term or so, because again it erodes both the talent in the job market, and the job market itself. When every company only offers part-times from butcherhouses to factories to lumberjacking to truck driving to white collar jobs, that leaves majority of middle income and middle class with diminished earnings. Which in turn reflects in the economy itself in the long run.

                People aren't stuck in part-time gigs because "they're lazy and don't have responsibility", they're stuck in part-time gigs because theres no full-time positions available anymore, everything has been changed to part-times. Japan you have two choices for career: 1) You get hired straight from universities to full-time work in a company, job description not specified. 2) You're stuck in part-times for the rest of your life regardless of skill.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But you're still talking about an employment paradigm. Yes, in an economic framework characterized by "most people sell their labor to a single buyer at a time" obviously a longer contract is better than a shorter one. I'm talking about the disadvantages of that paradigm AS A WHOLE. It's an insane way to actually operate in the economy, and it only persists because companies work hard to prevent any other arrangement (see previous discussion re: overemployment).

                >People aren't stuck in part-time gigs because "they're lazy and don't have responsibility"
                I'm not saying they are, I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying people are less responsible and motivated BECAUSE they're stuck in part-time gigs. The way we behave is learned; if we spend every waking minute of our lives deferring responsibility and decisionmaking to superiors, we do not practice the skill of responsible decisionmaking ourselves. If you spent your whole life having someone tie your shoes for you, you'd never learn to tie your shoes. That's not meant as a denigration of the working class, it's a statement of fact. And it's backed up by empirical evidence which shows strong correlation between companies moving to cooperative frameworks and increased civic participation among the people employed at those companies. People LEARN RESPONSIBLITY, they take a more active role in their communities because they develop the skills needed to do so without deferring to 'experts' and 'authorities'.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ah I get you. Better word would be "Loyalty" instead of Responsibility. And it is true big companies are crying about how workers don't have loyalty for their jobs and companies anymore. But why should they when employers obviously have stopped caring about their workers. But again thats a symptom of the issue, not the issue in itself. People don't choose to work part-time for the most part. Would they have the chance to choose most people would take the full-time position because steady income means you can plan ahead for the future, you can get that house and a wife and kids that way. Ultimately work is just means to an end to establishing a family. Except modern work no longer allows you to establish one, until way later in your life.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, I'm not talking about loyalty. I see how you're reading that, as "they don't behave responsibly because they have no motivation to give a shit". I'm saying something unrelated. I'm saying that OVERALL, not just in the context of this job or that job, people show less responsibility, less AUTONOMY, as a consequence of their daily lives being characterized by subservience to bureaucracy and hierarchy.

                It's not that the working class "are lazy", and it's also not that they've "checked out". It's that responsibility is a skill, and the current economic paradigm does not teach that skill to the vast majority of people. When we are young, we defer to our parents. When we grow, we defer to our teachers. When we are adults, we defer to our work supervisors or our political leaders. We seldom are afforded much opportunity to practice the skills of "making choices" and "living with consequences" and as a result of that, we just aren't very good at it. We're afraid of it, because we don't understand it. We're unmotivated to do it because we don't have a lot of positive experience affirming our ability to do it well.

                Now, that's not a universal thing. We have responsibilities in many areas of our lives, and we learn to exercise them fine; making sure we're bathed and clothed, our bills are paid, our meals are prepared, all that good shit. But we don't learn those responsibilities in the key context of socioeconomic participation: we don't learn how to behave responsibly IN THE ECONOMY, how to make smart long-term decisions, coordinate projects, lead teams of people, compromise with others to find mutually beneficial solutions, etc., because they're not skills we have to learn.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Implying population and economic collapse bad. Let it crash and burn so new opportunities can sprout.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The problem with crashing this
                plane with no survivors in the name of accelerationism is the whole no
                survivors part.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Don't be silly. People will continue on with their lives without big banks or useless manager bloat. Only thing stopping people from building their own shack and making babies is the zoning laws preventing them from doing that.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The argument that everyone should subcontract and nobody should hire because it eliminates bureaucracy is an asinine argument to begin with

                >was actually cheaper than hiring, business would all already subcontract everything and hire nobody. Hiring is cheaper
                wew lad

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Explain why a rational agent (assuming you can model a corporate bureaucracy as a rational agent, kek) would ever hire a full-time employee if subcontracting was a cheaper way of getting the same job done.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nta, just wanna add on that,
                If female gets paid lesser, why don't corporates just hire more women than men?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The biggest mistake you free market zealots make is assuming everyone is a rational actor with zero time preference.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don’t assume that at all. What I DO assume is that given modern corporate culture’s almost religious obsession with cutting costs, ESPECIALLY labor costs, if subcontracting was cheaper than hiring, it would be enormously more prevalent than it is.

                Actually, all you have to do is judge the corporate reaction to the phenomenon of overemployment to see what I mean. When a company hires you, they don’t (broadly) view it as paying you to do a job they need done. They view it as buying YOU. The idea that you’re also working for someone else “on their time” raises hackles across the board even if you’re meeting every single productivity/milestone target they’ve set. These businesses thought they were getting an employee, and instead they got a subcontractor, and even though they’re getting the same work done for the same money spent, they’re furious about it. Because they recognize that they have lost LEVERAGE. The dynamic has changed from one of “as your employer I demand loyalty and sacrifice” to one of “fixed money for fixed work, contract is a contract”

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >modern corporate culture’s almost religious obsession with cutting costs, ESPECIALLY labor costs,

                Which totally doesn't happen with contact work and is why subcontracting isn't enormously prevalent. Totally.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But it’s NOT, not really. Not in a big picture sense. In some tech industries where it’s trivial to do it by hiring third-worlders for pennies on the dollar, yes, but it is not broadly how most work in the economy gets done.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >When a company hires you, they don’t (broadly) view it as paying you to do a job they need done. They view it as buying YOU. The idea that you’re also working for someone else “on their time” raises hackles across the board even if you’re meeting every single productivity/milestone target they’ve set. These businesses thought they were getting an employee, and instead they got a subcontractor, and even though they’re getting the same work done for the same money spent, they’re furious about it. Because they recognize that they have lost LEVERAGE.
                They are perfectly fine with losing this :leverage' as long as they can pay you less for your work and don't need to provide benefits. That's the entire appeal of subcontracting, they get your talent at a much lower expense.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They are perfectly fine with losing this :leverage' as long as they can pay you less for your work and don't need to provide benefits.
                Then why are they mad about overemployment? These people treat “did not sign up for benefits” as a RED FLAG that you may be “secretly overemployed”. They should be dancing in the boardrooms about how little the health plan cost this year, instead they’re hollering in all the business journals about this terrifying new phenomenon of employees thinking they aren’t company property.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They're mad people are choosing to be poor and happy than slightly less poor and miserable. US employment statistics are wrong anyway because they don't count in long term unemployed at all. People like the street homeless aren't counted among "jobless" in US so their figures are just outright wrong.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They mad about overemployment because it drives up wages (expenses) that they try to mitigate but cannot eliminate via subcontracting

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Case example of a video game that relied heavily on employees is everything Blizzard is shitting out. I know the game industry is bad but it’s not only bad where distributed production appears you disingenuous fuck

                It's almost exclusively bad under distributed production. The difference between your example and his is that most good games are made by studios with employees while games developed largely by subcontracters are almost exclusively dogshit.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The argument from cost is asinine. If subcontracting was actually cheaper than hiring, business would all already subcontract everything and hire nobody. Hiring is cheaper because a hiring-based model gives an employer leverage in price (wage) negotiations. Hiring is an exclusive (well, semi-exclusive) relationship which means all of your income traces to a single source. Subcontracting means bids on an open market; even with price competition for the job, if it exists, it’s still just one job among many. An electrician who gets “fired” just goes to the next gig in his schedule. He doesn’t hit the unemployment line. There’s more even negotiating power and that’s why businesses don’t do it

                >Case example of a video game that relied heavily on subcontracters is Halo Infinite.
                Case example of a video game that relied heavily on employees is everything Blizzard is shitting out. I know the game industry is bad but it’s not only bad where distributed production appears you disingenuous fuck. Companies can do a fine and dandy job shitting the bed using in-house help only, and Ubisoft, Zenimax, EA and Actiblizz are all routinely providing evidence of that fact. I don’t give a fuck if 343i had to hire some pajeets to help them try and put out the fire on their latest debacle, they weren’t exactly doing a great job of things before Infinite.

                You have to be severely brain damaged to defend and argue in favor of the gig economy

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Right, precisely, I’m responding to the anon who suggested production throughput would be “painfully slow” in a model that switched to “workshop oriented” from “factory oriented”.

                Emilia-Romagna (where they make every Italian luxury car you’ve ever heard of and every brand of pasta you’ve ever seen) is organized this way; dominated by cooperatives and SMEs, one in twelve people is self-employed, most production is small scale and not asset-specific. But it’s grown to be the wealthiest region per-capita in Italy and one of the wealthiest per-capita in Europe, because small operations doing a flexible batch of production tasks to-order on nonspecific capital equipment with a focus on skilled labor with personal investment in project success (due to ownership, co-ownership, or high autonomy within a small team).

                Turns out that when your way of making things ISN’T to produce a trillion of them for a nickel a piece, even when there’s only local demand for 30 of them, you tend to be more efficient overall than the Taylorist nonsense would suggest.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    that fucking description. so what, they just pick people at random to give low scores to, just because it looks good on paper? fuck all that noise.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They have to justify the layoffs somewhat and also to create competition among the workers. Kind of like school.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      When I worked retail jobs they would get in trouble if they gave you a perfect review because it would give you a slightly higher raise and I'm talking at most maybe a 5 cents difference

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This but the way how OP's pic worded it, it's like they have a bad worker quota which is fucking mind-boggling.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This is more common than you think. A lot of companies do this, some of them eventually run out of people to hire because they've spent years regularly firing a certain percentage of their workers under the belief that it somehow makes them more money.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's essentially what it boils down to, forcibly adjusting the performance of your employees to a bell curve

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine being told that you're going to be listed as doing subpar work despite not doing so solely because they need a fall guy for the graph. What the fuck?

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This guy basically tore the behind the scenes wide open on how rushed wotlk classic and dragonflight were

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sauce? because the only thing I've seen Brian tear open is his bussy

      [...]
      [...]
      [...]
      This is the "man" (and his trans/w*man allies) you are all cheering for btw.

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This one in particular is perfect at working in a team. Keeps at least 2 Blizzard developers well fed throughout the project.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      She's bait for another breast milk bandit copycat isn't she?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        She’s definitely got a large reserve to plunder, I tell you what.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If she's feeding 2 people then where does she get her milk from? Does she have 3 breasts? Does she borrow someone elses?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Goldsmith

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, Neo I'm trying to tell you when you're ready you won't need to look at the early life section.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >dream job is for a company who makes things i dont care about
      huh?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In the modern soulless corporate world whatever fucking job you have rn is your dream job

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What race is that

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Prime milk producer.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A Cow Girl hybrid.

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They even have SBMM when hiring people.

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Did garden gnomes intentionally shop his neck longer? His head is out of frame ffs.

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There's your soience, leftards and neocons force fake statistics

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Did I read this correctly, overloards require leads to downrate some employees regardless of actual merit?
    WHAT THE FUCK

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sorry, anon. You drew the short straw I'm gonna have to put you in the shitlist.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you aren't performing the best out of your team you might be the worst anon. Better put in that overtime!

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Welcome to corporate America, coming to a work place in Europe near you soon.

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the end of blizzard
    they are literally too big to fail, even the sexual assault investigations literally did not do anything.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Who are you to separate a man from his milk.

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    And the sad thing is this will get zero traction after like a day when some Blizzard employees staying in a hotel room they named after Bill Cosby before it was even widely known he was a rapist and the vast majority of people still saw him as a goofy comedy dad was a massive scandal.

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hey everyone. I worship and defend multimillion dollar companys. Who is based like me?

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The End of Blizzard
    People have said this for years nothing is going to happen lol

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It takes years for a ship that big to sink.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It HAS been years. I know everyone tried soooo hard with OW2 to fail looking through every nook and cranny and that hasn't failed.

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Time to release more LGBT characters.

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >stack reviews
    >do a good job working 9-5
    >but your coworkers in the same job category are mostly foreigners on work visas terrified of losing their immigration status and they pull 9-9 every day
    >sorry anon you get a D and a pay cut, we might have to let you go if this keeps up
    I don't care who this guy is, if you defend stack reviews you have brain damage

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you think stack reviews are bad you're a cultural marxist

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >if you think mandating that people are given poor reviews regardless of their actual performance is a bad idea you're a <buzzword>
        noose yourself

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >just work your ass off subsidizing all the worthless leeches at the office, bro
          >enjoy having most of your paycheck going towards their salaries
          >better not say anything bad about them being worthless either or HR will destroy your career
          imagine how fucking brain-melted you have to be to unironically argue that you should be okay with being forced to give your earnings to people who not only don't contribute anything but who spend their time "at work" actively sabotaging you and making it harder for you to get any work done

          Im using cultural marxist correctly instead of vague buzzwords 'woke' or 'left'

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            okay cool thats not what stack ranking is though

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The proper argument against your position is the following:
            Employees are not capable of such judgements.
            If you want to do something like this, it should be senior levels only.
            And even then, only senior levels who are capable of such judgements.
            The responsibility falls to the owner.
            Anyway, HR is supposed to exist for this purpose. Other departments should be able to focus on their tasks without having to focus on such problems.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you not understand how stack ranking works? It's not about firing low performers, it's about arbitrarily finding one scapegoat for each team. It even incentivizes managers who like everyone on their team to just give the bad review to someone who had a good review last time so nobody gets fired. You can still fire people and give out bad reviews without stack ranking. Even at companies that don't use stack ranking, managers who never give a bad review are called out for it (which can result in their own bad review.)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >they're just firing low performers
            That's not what stack ranking is. If there is a team of nothing but good workers, then the manager is forced to pick one at random to fire in order to meet their quota of fired workers.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >stack ranking is bad because it means good employees have to receive bad reviews because ?????????
            >HURRR DURRR YOU'RE JUST MAD THEY'RE FIRING BAD EMPLOYEES!!!!
            actually have a nice day, go step into traffic or something

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Tell me how you think stack ranking works.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, stop feeding the chatbot. Don’t teach it to farm (You)s. If the Pajeets that are programming this trash want training data they have to pay for it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Stack reviews are the cultural marxism though, undermining the capitalist model of honest competition.

  35. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >you will live to see the collapse and bankruptcy of Blizzard

  36. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why can't we just replace execs with profit-maximizing AIs? We can even give them gnomish names to keep it true to life

  37. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Americans argue for making every part of their waking life, including their job in this case, to be as hellish as possible, not only for themselves but for their fellow man as well.
    And you dare call asians bugmen

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Amerigolems have been programmed to idealize hardships and to view making sacrifices to increase wealth of their betters as a virtue.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        there's a reason you eurofags have been importing sand morons and chinks into your countries

        it's because you're all lazy fucks who dont want to work, unfortunately for you, so are the trash you're importing, lmao

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >you're all lazy fucks who dont want to work,

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I love signs like this. The total lack of self-awareness on the part of the employer mixed with that terrified desperation encapsulated in the phrase “now hiring all positions”

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >works like 2 people
            >not paid double
            I feel like I am getting scammed here.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I'm entitled to other people's money because... because I just am, ok!?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes goy, keep scrubbing those floors for free, any day now Mr. Goldstein is going to notice your hard work and make you a millionaire!

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Retard doesn't understand that international finance is importing people because neo-liberal woke culture (which also includes treating people like serfs that can't live properly) is responsible for low birth rates thus making the elite import morons (one of many reasons other than self hate)
          NGMI.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm entitled to other people's money because... because I just am, ok!?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh look it's Euro time now

  38. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >we NEED a bellcurve, Mr. Shekelgruber said so
    I do not understand.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      inefficient businesses get propped up by cheap debt, allowing them to do retarded shit like this with little to no consequences

  39. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is what normal distribution autism does to the society

  40. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >bell curve
    fuck that. fire them all and start over

  41. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why are people still trying to pretend that this company is worth anything? They haven't produced anything of value in years.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because Blizzdrones don't want to see Blizzard fail and there are a fuckton of them still despite the dwindling numbers.

  42. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is it standard for places of work to have breastiaries?

  43. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >le 2 more weeks
    Wake me up when something actually happens.

  44. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why are corpos creating artificial bell curves?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It is strange idea of 80/20 cycling...continually culling to get deeper in the 20 (exponential) zone.
      Very large perversion of what 80/20 is of course, but such is life.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        expanded:
        20 percent of team does 80 percent of the work.
        (Natural, observable, much evidence.)
        Theory goes...what if we cut everyone but the 20 and then rehire?
        Theory then goes...No, this ends up with too much churn.
        But we can get closer by doing this sort of rating and cutting some arbitrary percentage of team out.
        Theory eventually goes that you get entire team of "20 percent who do 80 percent", and then you can repeat the process indefinitely.
        Fortunate reality is that 80/20 is unbeatable. Exponential gain is only capable in non-human parts...IE, ads in campaigns. This is where the theory has the most (observable) impact.
        Sadly, the business world is incestuous. And so people apply ideas in strange ways like this.
        I think it was Richard Kroft who popularized the idea first.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          My mistake: Richard Koch

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Thanks for explaining. Shit's fucked man

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, you are welcome. It is a very strange idea because we already know that teams have dynamics and relationships and all this sort of thing. These can aid or hamper a project. There are always "heroes" who do a tremendous amount of work relative to the others...and they enjoy being this way. And the others who "only" do 20 percent of the work...sometimes this is exactly the work that the hero is not willing to do. (Maybe it is boring, maybe he just does not enjoy it.)
            Treating humans like machines is very poor form...Because we are not. All this said: I am a bot. |0_0|

  45. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This retard literally drove Classic into the ground, shame they didn't fire him two years ago when game was still salvageable.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you know Blizzard, then you should know they had to fend off investors, CEO's and other company leeches with a stickto protect Classic from abusive monetization.
      The game could've and should've been better, but it could've been far, far worse. Remember the Warcraft III reforged? Diablo Immortal?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        All they needed was active GMs zapping bots. That's really all it would have taken.

  46. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Another thread of leftists getting completely dominated. Good work, boys.

  47. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Activision Blizzard would be less greedy if they simply hired only white chads who didn't graduate from the woke infected schools

  48. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Since they are losing precious maus, maybe their management is wrong and should be changed.

  49. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >chuds always betray one another and lie about everything

    He really should have known better.

  50. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Blizzard is just seething about China. They went from Western golden standard to mockery. From China's golden goose to getting banned. And all this because of their own greed.

  51. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    everyone should be getting extremely low ratings since the game sucks ass and is a cash cow

  52. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All US-based and EU-based corpo employees will be soon on their way out. Corpos discovered a few years ago that outsourcing to Philippines and India is way cheaper in comparison. You can hire 10 to 20 employees for the price of 1 American, consequences and skill be damned. Hope you guys have good social programs.

  53. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >you need to give bad reviews to good employees because....because you just have to okay????
    MBAs were a mistake

  54. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think he was justified but at the same time the guy seemed like an asshole. A guy was having a legitimate discussion about bots in classic and Brian ended it by calling the guy an anti vaxxer

  55. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is the tech business so cucked? Why do programmers and designers let people who have 0 (ZERO) experience in that work field manage them? Like I know this bitch who manages a team of web devs despite knowing fuck all about coding just because she has manager """"experience"""".

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      because many people in tech are introvert instead of extrovert.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I have bad news for you anon. Even Construction businesses are like this.
      Physics in academia.
      Medicine.
      ETC.
      It's...OVER

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's becoming like this everywhere and it's not going to get better unless everything gets significantly worse and companies start realizing that their HR departments are blowing smoke up their ass

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      California is one big circle-jerk of rich spoiled "progressive" brats. Biggest collection of scum of the earth.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        look at that snoz, that's how they get ya. claim something for progressive purposes, take over hosts with your pussy and continue to thrive.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Remember when Ai art became a thing and drawlets immediately lashed out with lol now yur jeurb is gone lmao. Its the same exact shit. Now imagine an entire industry of these dogshit people, who never are passionate about anything, but they can have their paychech because of consumer stupidity and blackrock fundies. They celebrate how they replaced the actual talents and tgen everyone wonders why is everything so hollow, bland, same-ish, and mediocre. If I say they work 4 hours out of their 8 Im extremely generous.

  56. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    woke people like this don‘t like people like me

  57. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How many Ls can WoWbucks take before they die from cope?

  58. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Go with God Anons. The material world is the devils playground and "people" like the left, the mega corporation leaders and all scoffers of the word of Jesus Christ are of the devil. Soon they will meet their righteous judgement by the Lord

  59. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    WoW has been Dead since 2011- 2012

  60. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why did chris metzen rejoin blizzard when he knew this policy was going to happen

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Money.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      so he can quit for virtue signal points on twitter

  61. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Oldies leaves
    >MORE FRUITS PAINTING

  62. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Chris metzen

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *