3 ms·

This is nonsense. The employee usernames are RiotSoAndSo or RiotNameHere, so they are clearly representing the company with their behavior. In fact one of the

This is nonsense. The employee usernames are RiotSoAndSo or RiotNameHere, so they are clearly representing the company with their behavior. In fact one of the explicitly listed common bad behaviors is abusing their position with the company: > the use of authoritative language, sometimes using their authority as a Riot employee to intimidate or threaten others There's no reason to think this shouldn't be a fireable offense, especially if there's a pattern of this kind of behavior.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
learc83 10y ago
The article talked about mining employee data before they became employees and flagging potential new hires based on automated sentiment analysis. I don't have a problem with a company trying to find examples of employees representing the company poorly. I do have a problem with using automated system to classify people into fire and don't hire categories based on something as inexact as sentiment analysis. Any company should be terrified of using any kind of automated system like this to reject employees. If for whatever reason it starts kicking out a higher percentage of employees from a protected class, you open yourself up to huge lawsuits. Sentiment analysis is an art, and I'd be surprised if their algorithm didn't have different accuracy rates for different dialects.
dogma1138 10y ago
People that work for Riot do not usually use their riot accounts when just casually playing. To put into a perspective this isn't about someone using a "GM" or some community manager account, it's about people using their own private account. This is a bad precedent, it's not even about people trashing the company, or even doing anything "wrong" it's about people participating in a behaviour that the company doesn't like. Let me put it into another frame of reference for you would you support an employer that fired or did not hire someone because they liked, or even wrote a political post on facebook? Keep in mind that most of the political speech on facebook doesn't exactly look like an Aaron Sorkin script draft. We already had a CEO of a company having to step down for donating to a political cause, and no matter how vile that cause might be, it's still a horribly regressive thing, not that they've donated to an anti-gay cause but that they had to step down over it. Now CEO's and other fiduciary roles might be the "exception" rather than the rule, but let's face it employers datamine the hell out of your "online footprint" and it's a bad thing, I know people that weren't "hired" not because they had a bad social presence but because they didn't had one and the hiring manager thought that they were untrustworthy because of it. What you say in public and in private should not have any bearing on your employment unless you wave the corporate flag at the same time, what Riot is doing is Philip K. Dick level of shady, and there are sadly way too many employers especially in the tech business that do the same thing and even worse. We've already came to a point where your right to employment conflicts with your more important rights of privacy and free speech and we should strive to revert these changes not hail them as something good and somehow a victory for liberalism and social justice.
- karmajunkie 10y ago
  > Let me put it into another frame of reference for you would you support an employer that fired or did not hire someone because they liked, or even wrote a political post on facebook? It doesn't matter whether I support this or not; its legal. >We already had a CEO of a company having to step down for donating to a political cause, and no matter how vile that cause might be, it's still a horribly regressive thing, not that they've donated to an anti-gay cause but that they had to step down over it. I'm assuming you're talking about Brenden Eich. He stepped down as a result of the PR optics of his politics, which made him untenable as the de facto head of the Mozilla community. He was not fired. I do not agree that it is repressive. If your views are so vile as to convince the majority of your users/customers that they no longer want to do business with you, then maybe the problem is your views. > We've already came to a point where your right to employment conflicts with your more important rights of privacy and free speech and we should strive to revert these changes not hail them as something good and somehow a victory for liberalism and social justice. One does not have a right to employment. You have a right to not be discriminated against for status as a member of a protected class. These are not the same thing.
- yahyahyahs 10y ago
  That's not true. Riot expects you to have a level 12 account before hiring you, and then they convert that account to a riot account after hiring you. So the time you spent playing on your private account before joining the company counts toward your total player behavior. Additionally, I know several riot employees and they all play on their main riot account in their free time.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

learc83 10y ago

The article talked about mining employee data before they became employees and flagging potential new hires based on automated sentiment analysis. I don't have a problem with a company trying to find examples of employees representing the company poorly. I do have a problem with using automated system to classify people into fire and don't hire categories based on something as inexact as sentiment analysis. Any company should be terrified of using any kind of automated system like this to reject employees. If for whatever reason it starts kicking out a higher percentage of employees from a protected class, you open yourself up to huge lawsuits. Sentiment analysis is an art, and I'd be surprised if their algorithm didn't have different accuracy rates for different dialects.

dogma1138 10y ago

People that work for Riot do not usually use their riot accounts when just casually playing. To put into a perspective this isn't about someone using a "GM" or some community manager account, it's about people using their own private account. This is a bad precedent, it's not even about people trashing the company, or even doing anything "wrong" it's about people participating in a behaviour that the company doesn't like. Let me put it into another frame of reference for you would you support an employer that fired or did not hire someone because they liked, or even wrote a political post on facebook? Keep in mind that most of the political speech on facebook doesn't exactly look like an Aaron Sorkin script draft. We already had a CEO of a company having to step down for donating to a political cause, and no matter how vile that cause might be, it's still a horribly regressive thing, not that they've donated to an anti-gay cause but that they had to step down over it. Now CEO's and other fiduciary roles might be the "exception" rather than the rule, but let's face it employers datamine the hell out of your "online footprint" and it's a bad thing, I know people that weren't "hired" not because they had a bad social presence but because they didn't had one and the hiring manager thought that they were untrustworthy because of it. What you say in public and in private should not have any bearing on your employment unless you wave the corporate flag at the same time, what Riot is doing is Philip K. Dick level of shady, and there are sadly way too many employers especially in the tech business that do the same thing and even worse. We've already came to a point where your right to employment conflicts with your more important rights of privacy and free speech and we should strive to revert these changes not hail them as something good and somehow a victory for liberalism and social justice.

karmajunkie 10y ago
> Let me put it into another frame of reference for you would you support an employer that fired or did not hire someone because they liked, or even wrote a political post on facebook? It doesn't matter whether I support this or not; its legal. >We already had a CEO of a company having to step down for donating to a political cause, and no matter how vile that cause might be, it's still a horribly regressive thing, not that they've donated to an anti-gay cause but that they had to step down over it. I'm assuming you're talking about Brenden Eich. He stepped down as a result of the PR optics of his politics, which made him untenable as the de facto head of the Mozilla community. He was not fired. I do not agree that it is repressive. If your views are so vile as to convince the majority of your users/customers that they no longer want to do business with you, then maybe the problem is your views. > We've already came to a point where your right to employment conflicts with your more important rights of privacy and free speech and we should strive to revert these changes not hail them as something good and somehow a victory for liberalism and social justice. One does not have a right to employment. You have a right to not be discriminated against for status as a member of a protected class. These are not the same thing.
yahyahyahs 10y ago
That's not true. Riot expects you to have a level 12 account before hiring you, and then they convert that account to a riot account after hiring you. So the time you spent playing on your private account before joining the company counts toward your total player behavior. Additionally, I know several riot employees and they all play on their main riot account in their free time.