I've been effectively managing a a fair chunk of a video game fan community for fifteen years now - and I have to say @ArenaNet 's decision was the entirely wrong way to approach this.
@ArenaNet Aside from the obvious impacts on staff morale (and the likelihood most of them are now sending out resumes), it rewards toxic behaviour in the community and it will NOT stop at trying to police the private lives of developers.
@ArenaNet A certain amount of toxicity in a fandom is inevitable, there is no product so pure that it only appeals to good people. But when you reward toxic behaviour, you essentially command it to be done and make it your new mechanic.
@ArenaNet Don't like someone's fan art? Harass the shit out of them.
Don't like someone's idea in a thread? Harass the shit out of them.
Don't like a trailer? Harass the shit out of the company.
Disagree with a game decision? Harass the shit out of the company.
Don't like someone's idea in a thread? Harass the shit out of them.
Don't like a trailer? Harass the shit out of the company.
Disagree with a game decision? Harass the shit out of the company.
Once that becomes understood to be a standard - that becomes the new game.
It's a game people will find exciting, because it has real world consequences and lets them exercise power without responsibility.
It's a game people will find exciting, because it has real world consequences and lets them exercise power without responsibility.
People who don't even give a shit about your games and openly brag about not playing them will start showing up to join the game, and now the game is fuck with your business.
And it will get out of hand, because the average game has no idea how anything in games or games development works.
They will appoint themselves art directors and insist updating of styles is "incompetence"
They will appoint themselves art directors and insist updating of styles is "incompetence"
They will demand that thousands of lines of dialog be re-recorded to meet their expectations.
They will demand that free DLC equal to the size of the game be released to compensate them for a game they played 200+ hours of already.
They will demand that free DLC equal to the size of the game be released to compensate them for a game they played 200+ hours of already.
They will demand all this and more, because the message is: They are in charge and now they own everything - including the right to decide who is and isn't in the community.
Then, when they get everything the demanded: They will hate you for it because they have nothing left to demand of a game they've ruined with their ridiculous, poorly considered demands.
Getting feedback about what people don't like is important, protecting your brand is important, but rewarding toxicity achieves neither.
What does achieve both is expecting standards from who you recognise as your community.
What does achieve both is expecting standards from who you recognise as your community.
A civil community where boundaries are set will attract more people who are more supportive - because they feel safe and that they're getting value out of it.
That's the community you want to recognize and cooperate with.
That's the community you want to recognize and cooperate with.
If nothing else because the feedback they give you will be genuine and not the result of a pissing contest over who can make the most outrageous demands of the company.
(And as a side note: There is not enough money you could pay a person to reasonably compensate them for working full time as a write and expecting them to also be a professional PR/community person 24/7.)
