'Penny Arcade' Posts Hilariously Unprofessional E-Mails From Marketing Company

It looks like Forbes allowed him the opportunity to tell his side of the story here. He doesn't do himself any favors.

InspectorFowler wrote:

LarryC, I think that's way too broad of a definition. When I showed up for a warrant attempt at a guy's house, and he tried to slam the door on us, we had to use force to coerce him into handcuffs. He got some nasty bruises as a result, but nothing more.

Did we bully him? By your definition, absolutely, and that's never okay in your world. In my world, we had every legal and moral right to arrest this guy.

How about a less violent example that is more closely related to this case? I can't remember if I posted it here or in the other thread, but let's look at specialty vehicle tuner shops. Let's say a tuning shop here in Colorado is doing just fine when they suddenly screw some customer. I mean, let's say they botch an engine swap and tune, and it blows up, costing the customer $6500. For whatever reason, it's all documented somewhere. The customer makes a reasonable attempt to get help from the business and they tell him to get bent. In the end, the customer holds the bag for the full repair bill.

When the customer goes online and presents his evidence of this transaction, the local car clubs will be enraged. If the shop refuses to make it right, I can almost guarantee that the custom shop will be out of business within a year. Via an online campaign of free bad press, he'll find himself looking for work elsewhere real fast. Is that bullying as well?

The only difference here that I can tell is that Paul should have been the sole recipient of this response, while N Control is receiving a huge share of negative reviews and press. I don't buy a damn word of his whole, "My family was threatened!" crap. He did the exact opposite of what he was supposed to in his position, and he endured roughly 24-48 hours of upsetting e-mails (delete key) and phone calls (turn it off), in addition to getting fired. He only acted that way because he thought he wouldn't be found out.

I don't think any of us are going to change anybody's mind in this argument, but I really feel that sometimes force - whether physical, verbal, etc - is the only solution to a problem. Anybody who thinks every single problem can be talked out lives in a different world from me.

I didn't say that every problem can be talked out. I said that some activities are abusive, and that the use of force to coerce using abusive methodology is bullying (but that doesn't mean that bullying has to require force).

There's a fundamental disconnect going here in that we draw the line differently, but don't jump to the conclusion that I represent a faction in your culture that stands opposed on grounds of pure pacifism. I've been mistakenly assigned this position in the past. I'm not a pacifist. I'm not Democrat, I'm not Republican.

It seems to me that the use of force is a hot-button topic in your culture, and that standing opposed to the use of force in some instances tends to get me labeled. Please don't label me, as it messes up our communication and our discussion.

If a car shop screws me over, I tend to get legal on them. I don't patronize shops without full knowledge of their legal obligations to me, and I inform them that I am aware of my rights. If they screw me over, it's a fairly straightforward process to lodge a complaint and get what I have been assured under law. Doesn't your country have similar consumer protections?

Even in black or grey markets, it's not bullying to inform fellow consumers about a shop's more questionable practices, and their response of not patronizing the shop thereby is not bullying, as it is neither abusive, nor a use of force. The shop is not entitled to customer patronage, they have to earn that. No one is bombing their shop with abusive language nor vandalizing the property; it is likely that they will have to change their policies, or close up shop quite soon.

Paleocon wrote:

Yeah. If I witness an assistant coach raping a kid in a shower, I'm going to get coercive and abusive on a deeply personal level. I guess that makes me a bully.

I suppose it does, though I prefer not to label. You think that bullying is good. That can change in the future, and I am an optimist.

It is not necessary to assault the coach, and doing so could open you to assault charges. It is necessary to stop the activity, and there is a prescribed level of intervention, though I would think that just making your presence known would be more than enough to halt whatever is going on.

Volunteering as a witness in the ensuing legal process is neither abusive nor does it involve force, and it is according to due process. I think it's important to offer the assistant coach a reasonable way to live that does not involve abusing children in the future, though some monitoring ought to be instituted, discreetly. As Sun Tzu says, you must offer the enemy a way to retreat, or you risk multiplying his army's morale by inspiring desperation.

Rest assured that in the unlikely event that you are bullied, I will be standing with you, regardless of the cause you represent.

It's funny how the meaning of the word "bullying" has taken a journey in this thread much like that of the word "terrorism" in the eyes of law enforcement.

CheezePavilion wrote:

It's funny how the meaning of the word "bullying" has taken a journey in this thread much like that of the word "terrorism" in the eyes of law enforcement.

Stop bullying me with your words!

LarryC wrote:

I suppose it does, though I prefer not to label.

IMAGE(http://th438.photobucket.com/albums/qq106/Selina_catz/emoticons/food%20and%20drink/th_spit.gif)

Grubber788 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

It's funny how the meaning of the word "bullying" has taken a journey in this thread much like that of the word "terrorism" in the eyes of law enforcement.

Stop bullying me with your words!

I'm not a bully, I'm a complimentary life coach.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

It's funny how the meaning of the word "bullying" has taken a journey in this thread much like that of the word "terrorism" in the eyes of law enforcement.

Stop bullying me with your words!

I'm not a bully, I'm a complimentary life coach.

stop complimentary life coaching us with your words!

LarryC wrote:

Even in black or grey markets, it's not bullying to inform fellow consumers about a shop's more questionable practices.

And how is this different from what Mike did?

Yonder wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Even in black or grey markets, it's not bullying to inform fellow consumers about a shop's more questionable practices.

And how is this different from what Mike did?

I don't think it's any different, I think it's exactly what he did and I am on the side that Mike did nothing wrong with the information he passed out especially since it was work information and nothing personal.

LarryC wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Yeah. If I witness an assistant coach raping a kid in a shower, I'm going to get coercive and abusive on a deeply personal level. I guess that makes me a bully.

I suppose it does, though I prefer not to label. You think that bullying is good. That can change in the future, and I am an optimist.

It is not necessary to assault the coach, and doing so could open you to assault charges. It is necessary to stop the activity, and there is a prescribed level of intervention, though I would think that just making your presence known would be more than enough to halt whatever is going on.

Volunteering as a witness in the ensuing legal process is neither abusive nor does it involve force, and it is according to due process. I think it's important to offer the assistant coach a reasonable way to live that does not involve abusing children in the future, though some monitoring ought to be instituted, discreetly. As Sun Tzu says, you must offer the enemy a way to retreat, or you risk multiplying his army's morale by inspiring desperation.

Rest assured that in the unlikely event that you are bullied, I will be standing with you, regardless of the cause you represent.

Yeah. Witnessing something like that and failing to intervene doesn't make you morally superior. It just makes you a coward.

Sun Tzu also killed an emperor's favorite courtesan to instill fear in the other courtesans so that they might march and drill properly. Hardly a paragon of the moral high ground.

Grubber788 wrote:

Sun Tzu also killed an emperor's favorite courtesan to instill fear in the other courtesans so that they might march and drill properly. Hardly a paragon of the moral high ground.

Abit of context here, Sun Tzu killed her in accordance to the military laws of that time.

He was not on the moral high ground, he didn't have to be, he was just following the law.

Whether the law was just or not, that's another question for another time

Inova wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

Sun Tzu also killed an emperor's favorite courtesan to instill fear in the other courtesans so that they might march and drill properly. Hardly a paragon of the moral high ground.

Abit of context here, Sun Tzu killed her in accordance to the military laws of that time.

He was not on the moral high ground, he didn't have to be, he was just following the law.

Whether the law was just or not, that's another question for another time

I was under the impression he didn't have to kill her. He only did it to make the emperor understand the importance of order and discipline. If it was the law, so be it, but he definitely tried to teach the emperor a lesson with his harsh disciplinary method.

It's a bit of a tangent, but I would still argue that Sun Tzu recognized the value of coercion. This is why the Art of War is so widely read in corporations. You have to be aggressive in business situations, otherwise you will lose wealth and standing.

I'm lifting this from Wikipedia, but it's cited from a scholarly text, so bear with me:

One of the more well-known stories about Sun Tzu, taken from Shiji, illustrates Sun Tzu's temperament as follows: Before hiring Sun Tzu, the King of Wu tested Sun Tzu's skills by commanding him to train a harem of 180 concubines into soldiers. Sun Tzu divided them into two companies, appointing the two concubines most favored by the king as the company commanders. When Sun Tzu first ordered the concubines to face right, they giggled. In response, Sun Tzu said that the general, in this case himself, was responsible for ensuring that soldiers understood the commands given to them. Then, he reiterated the command, and again the concubines giggled. Sun Tzu then ordered the execution of the king's two favored concubines, to the king's protests. He explained that if the general's soldiers understood their commands but did not obey, it was the fault of the officers. Sun Tzu also said that once a general was appointed, it was their duty to carry out their mission, even if the king protested. After both concubines were killed, new officers were chosen to replace them. Afterwards, both companies performed their maneuvers flawlessly.
Yonder wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Even in black or grey markets, it's not bullying to inform fellow consumers about a shop's more questionable practices.

And how is this different from what Mike did?

If he were a private individual, it would not be, but he is a powerful personage who is cognizant of his effect on his forum goers. He knew what was going to happen going in; at the very least the Dickwolves incident should have informed him. Furthermore, he has not shown surprise at the turn of events. I don't think any of us has. It was a completely forseeable cascade of events, and his influence over his followers is without question.

He is the equivalent of a high school clique leader who, himself, doesn't do any bullying, but directs his followers through hints and other indicators. He maintains plausible deniability. It's exactly the same dynamic.

Paleocon wrote:
LarryC wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Yeah. If I witness an assistant coach raping a kid in a shower, I'm going to get coercive and abusive on a deeply personal level. I guess that makes me a bully.

I suppose it does, though I prefer not to label. You think that bullying is good. That can change in the future, and I am an optimist.

It is not necessary to assault the coach, and doing so could open you to assault charges. It is necessary to stop the activity, and there is a prescribed level of intervention, though I would think that just making your presence known would be more than enough to halt whatever is going on.

Volunteering as a witness in the ensuing legal process is neither abusive nor does it involve force, and it is according to due process. I think it's important to offer the assistant coach a reasonable way to live that does not involve abusing children in the future, though some monitoring ought to be instituted, discreetly. As Sun Tzu says, you must offer the enemy a way to retreat, or you risk multiplying his army's morale by inspiring desperation.

Rest assured that in the unlikely event that you are bullied, I will be standing with you, regardless of the cause you represent.

Yeah. Witnessing something like that and failing to intervene doesn't make you morally superior. It just makes you a coward.

At what point did you think I would fail to intervene? Was I not expressly clear that I would? You're committing a fallacy of false dichotomy - I'm either a bully, or I would do nothing. That is not true. I can intervene, without being abusive. I maintain that this is the superior course of action.

If a car shop screws me over, I tend to get legal on them. I don't patronize shops without full knowledge of their legal obligations to me, and I inform them that I am aware of my rights. If they screw me over, it's a fairly straightforward process to lodge a complaint and get what I have been assured under law. Doesn't your country have similar consumer protections?

Does the shop respond "Go ahead, we'll tie you up in court until you run out of money - you aren't anybody and you'll be mortgaging your house to pay for your $49 controller lawsuit by the time you finish with our counter-lawsuits. We know the judges, we know the lawyers, and we'll break you over this." In effect, that's what Christoforo did.

In the US, there are many limits on suits that involve businesses and consumers. For example, the customer might be required to sue in the jurisdiction where the alleged problem occurred, meaning that he might have to travel to LA to do it, or hire a lawyer there. Further, it will cost thousands just to engage a lawyer and start the process; most Americans don't have that kind of money lying around. The company can counter-sue, which puts more expense on the customer. And also, there might be a legal agreement removing the right to sue or requiring arbitration (again at customer cost) as a condition of the order.

American law is not great for the individual going up against a company. Consumer protections are considered Socialist and are the constant target of conservative legislation. After all, doesn't the market take care of bad companies by itself? Ironically, Christoforo is an example that could be cited in an argument *against* consumer protection laws - the guy got what was coming to him without recourse to the law, so why do we need to protect "the little guy"?

Wow. I'd broadly say that you guys need better consumer protection. Given what you've said, Robear, you guys are essentially always buying a pig in a poke, enjoying good product at the pleasure or displeasure of your cartels.

I confess that I find objections to basic consumer protections strange. Yes, the market corrects itself, but there are limits to that reality - antitrust laws being representative of one of its limits. Consumer protections are another.

In truth, that's why I rarely buy online - don't know of an Amazon purchase I can recall that I did. The entire notion of trusting companies to do you right is alien to me. I do not have the remotest power to coerce Amazon to abide by its promises so I avoid purchase from them however I can.

LarryC wrote:
Yonder wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Even in black or grey markets, it's not bullying to inform fellow consumers about a shop's more questionable practices.

And how is this different from what Mike did?

If he were a private individual, it would not be, but he is a powerful personage who is cognizant of his effect on his forum goers. He knew what was going to happen going in; at the very least the Dickwolves incident should have informed him. Furthermore, he has not shown surprise at the turn of events. I don't think any of us has. It was a completely forseeable cascade of events, and his influence over his followers is without question.

He is the equivalent of a high school clique leader who, himself, doesn't do any bullying, but directs his followers through hints and other indicators. He maintains plausible deniability. It's exactly the same dynamic.

Paleocon wrote:
LarryC wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Yeah. If I witness an assistant coach raping a kid in a shower, I'm going to get coercive and abusive on a deeply personal level. I guess that makes me a bully.

I suppose it does, though I prefer not to label. You think that bullying is good. That can change in the future, and I am an optimist.

It is not necessary to assault the coach, and doing so could open you to assault charges. It is necessary to stop the activity, and there is a prescribed level of intervention, though I would think that just making your presence known would be more than enough to halt whatever is going on.

Volunteering as a witness in the ensuing legal process is neither abusive nor does it involve force, and it is according to due process. I think it's important to offer the assistant coach a reasonable way to live that does not involve abusing children in the future, though some monitoring ought to be instituted, discreetly. As Sun Tzu says, you must offer the enemy a way to retreat, or you risk multiplying his army's morale by inspiring desperation.

Rest assured that in the unlikely event that you are bullied, I will be standing with you, regardless of the cause you represent.

Yeah. Witnessing something like that and failing to intervene doesn't make you morally superior. It just makes you a coward.

At what point did you think I would fail to intervene? Was I not expressly clear that I would? You're committing a fallacy of false dichotomy - I'm either a bully, or I would do nothing. That is not true. I can intervene, without being abusive. I maintain that this is the superior course of action.

Here's a good example of a superior course of action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_sex_abuse_scandal
Instead of alerting authorities the assistant coach told his superiors and their course of action was to keep winning football games and took away his locker room privileges. Progress!

I think this topic is derailing. I suppose it was inevitable as soon as Sun Tzu entered the discussion.

FlamingPeasant wrote:

I think this topic is derailing. I suppose it was inevitable as soon as Sun Tzu entered the discussion.

Sun "Hitler" Tzu, as he's known on USENET.

I took another look at the email exchange and counted at least five separate opportunities the dickhead had to do the right thing or face articulated consequences. He did not avail himself of any. Even sun tzu would have to admit he was given ample warning and opportunity to retreat but was instead the author of his own destruction.