I think people are Review bombing the game because they don't pay volunteers.

[Fangsgalaxy5]

It's not good. Just stop review bombing the game for people who were just doing VOLUNTEER WORK. Volunteer work is WORK WITHOUT PAY. Seriously how do people not know the meaning of volunteer or do they just think volunteering means actually getting hired.

[Kindred Spirit]

Originally posted by ierlewine:

Also, truth be told, It's really hard to find a "correct" answer

Well, if people still wanted to work with Tiy then it would have been a simple win for Chucklefish to take the Stardock route and sponsor those developers as recompense for work/IP provided in the past. Remember those who helped you during the lean times.

If people still wanted to work with Tiy.

If people still wanted to work for Tiy.

People are certainly acquiring "experience".

[Dr. Raven]

Originally posted by cutieryan:

Originally posted by Dr. Raven:

I'm not entirely sure forums are for you then. I've never seen a steam game forum that was both active and wasn't full of "aggressive cyber bullying" directed at fellow fans. If anything this is less toxic than the majority of forums such as TF2 or CS:GO. As most of, if not nearly all the hate is directed at Chuckefish themselves or the people whiteknighting them. Neither necessarily deserve pity, as at the very least no developer who has worked on starbound has contradicted any of the statements made by the various developers who did at least confirm that they used hundreds of hours of volunteer work along with toxic behaviour of "well if you won't do it there's hundreds lined up that will".

My suggestion is avoiding large forums and sticking to more personal communities, but even those eventually have their share of mean words being directed at other people in the group if you stick around them. There's virtually no way to get rid of what you aren't okay with short of removing the anonymity of the internet and service of steam.

I don't even go on to forums at all, (except for this one recently for obvious reasons, making this one the first one I'm actively on.) They were so aggressive about cyberbullying that you can read the forum titles on the top of the community page that they absolutely HATE Starbound fans more than Chucklefish, that's how I found out about all this mess in the first place.

Also, it wasn't a large forum, it was SEVERAL forums dedicated to cyberbullying.

I'm guessing you mean off the official starbound steam forums. As much as I look I can't find anything here. In fact it sounds like that according to you, you went to forums dedicated to cyberbullying? Why would you be surprised that aggressive cyberbullying exists on forums dedicated to it? Tho I would like links if you could provide because I'm generally just curious as to what you're talking about at this point, I assume you mean steam groups possibly.

I was so curious I've looked through your entire post history to see if I could find out where this is happening. Sad if true. But while looking through your post history I found something odd, what I found is that you only post whenever something negative is going on around the game, usually fear-mongering about how this game could supposedly get removed from steam. Why? Why does this really concern you? Isn't this more damaging towards the community as this is not a reality that is likely to happen ever, so why try to spread irrational fear of it. There's no way the game could ever get removed from your library and the chances of it being removed from the store is 0.000001% chance. For for that matter, why bother paying attention to places dedicated to aggressive cyberbullying? It sounds like it's completely disconnected from here and that the fans as you claim aren't really being subjected to it.

[RodHull]

Originally posted by KickySonichu:

Originally posted by Billy Baxter:

Surely once everyone is done with Chuckle Fish they will start demanding Apple, Samsung, Foxconn and all the clothing companies to pay their workers a fair wage too. RIGHT?

I don't follow you. People do demand that Apple, Samsung, Nike etc. pay their workers a fair wage. That is already a thing.

And yet they don't at all, most tech and clothing brands rely on workers in SE Asia working in the most appalling victorian workhouse like conditions to produce goods for them. Some have literally been found to inadvertently use actual slave labour as they outsource production to 3rd parties who aren't governed by the same law, so the big businesses can then claim ignorance.

Clothing brands are some of the worst, as are phone tech companies, but even 'ethical' companies like Apple are not free from controversy

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/21/apple-students-illegal-overtime-reports-iphone-x-foxconn-interns

Yeah sure remember all those people boycotting the iPhone X launch cause of the way it treats its interns... oh no wait thats not convenient easier to get outraged about a random game on steam

[Dr. Raven]

Originally posted by RodHull:

Originally posted by KickySonichu:

I don't follow you. People do demand that Apple, Samsung, Nike etc. pay their workers a fair wage. That is already a thing.

And yet they don't at all, most tech and clothing brands rely on workers in SE Asia working in the most appalling victorian workhouse like conditions to produce goods for them. Some have literally been found to inadvertently use actual slave labour as they outsource production to 3rd parties who aren't governed by the same law, so the big businesses can then claim ignorance

It's a lot more harder to notice or demand things of a country that operates outside of your hemisphere or area, such as a company benefiting from slave labour overseas. That shouldn't discount the efforts of people who do exactly what I think you're trying to claim they don't. A lot of people have demanded amazon and walmart no longer pay americans a starvation wage. And in the case of amazon they were successful. Not completely successful with Walmart quite yet, but getting there.

[Broski]

I cannot enjoy this game in earnest knowing that the people who pitched in to bring it back from the brink of failure were hopeful for employment and instead got nothing after it was a wild success.

[RodHull]

Originally posted by Dr. Raven:

Originally posted by RodHull:

And yet they don't at all, most tech and clothing brands rely on workers in SE Asia working in the most appalling victorian workhouse like conditions to produce goods for them. Some have literally been found to inadvertently use actual slave labour as they outsource production to 3rd parties who aren't governed by the same law, so the big businesses can then claim ignorance

It's a lot more harder to notice or demand things of a country that operates outside of your hemisphere or area, such as a company benefiting from slave labour overseas. That shouldn't discount the efforts of people who do exactly what I think you're trying to claim they don't. A lot of people have demanded amazon and walmart no longer pay americans a starvation wage. And in the case of amazon they were successful. Not completely successful with Walmart quite yet, but getting there.

But you can do something about it, the point being made is if the outrage over people being mistreated in order to produce goods was genuine we would all be boycotting most (like 90%) of the clothing and tech manufacturers, but we don't cause thats not convenient. Of course we cant control laws in our own or any other country but we can choose to not support companies who do these things, Im willing to bet for all your outrage you have at least one probably many products or services provided to you by someone being mistreated

[Kuromiya]

Originally posted by RodHull:

Originally posted by Dr. Raven:

It's a lot more harder to notice or demand things of a country that operates outside of your hemisphere or area, such as a company benefiting from slave labour overseas. That shouldn't discount the efforts of people who do exactly what I think you're trying to claim they don't. A lot of people have demanded amazon and walmart no longer pay americans a starvation wage. And in the case of amazon they were successful. Not completely successful with Walmart quite yet, but getting there.

But you can do something about it, the point being made is if the outrage over people being mistreated in order to produce goods was genuine we would all be boycotting most (like 90%) of the clothing and tech manufacturers, but we don't cause thats not convenient. Of course we cant control laws in our own or any other country but we can choose to not support companies who do these things, Im willing to bet for all your outrage you have at least one probably many products or services provided to you by someone being mistreated

Four problems here.

------------------
1) You don't boycott. Not we don't boycott. Plenty of people boycott corporations whose practices they find to be unethical. An entire upmarket industry (the "fairtrade" movement) has been created solely to cater to ethical consumers.


------------------
2) Corporations that are difficult to boycott tend to be corporations that have almost inescapable market control over products that are necessary for everyday life. Telecoms, energy providers, and agribusiness are extremely difficult to boycott on ethical grounds (especially for the economically disadvantaged). Clothing, chemical products, retail outlets, and electronics hardware can also be very difficult to boycott, depending on your situation.

Video games are a luxury good. You don't need them to function in everyday life. They can be boycotted with even the slightest exercise of self-control - and, if the video game developer whose ethics are in question has only one game on the market, then your boycott is essentially both costless and effortless.


------------------
3) Even if you've got so little willpower and self-control that you can't possibly live without a reskinned Terraria knockoff: video games are easy to get a hold of. Strictly speaking, so long as you have friends who are willing to let you borrow from them, you don't HAVE to pay Chucklefish a cent.


------------------
4) The ethics of Third World corporate employment are actually quite complicated; many situations characterized by Western observers as "sweat shop labour" are in reality not so clear cut, and when considered within the framework of local economies, may actually offer a net positive for the community. (see, for example: Paul Krugman, "Reckonings: Hearts and Heads", New York Times, April 22, 2001) By contrast, the ethics of First World employment are far more clear cut. There is no ambiguity. No danger of children starving or turning into prostitutes because Chucklefish wouldn't let them spend five hundred hours encoding audio.

Exploiting Bangladeshi children to produce sneakers for pennies a day, children who would otherwise starve, beg, or turn to prostitution, is unfortunate.

Exploiting Swedish children to produce a million+ selling video game for literally nothing a day, children who would otherwise go to college, start a Twitch stream, or go outside and play, is just plain insanity.

[RodHull]

Originally posted by KickySonichu:

Four problems here.

------------------
1) You don't boycott. Not we don't boycott. Plenty of people boycott corporations whose practices they find to be unethical. An entire upmarket industry (the "fairtrade" movement) has been created solely to cater to ethical consumers.

Im willing to bet most of the people here bleating about this have happily played and bought plenty of other games from other developers who act equally poorly toward their interns or workers, how many of the people outraged by this own and iPhone X ?? After apple were found to have used Asian students for free to help develop it Im sure they all threw their phones in the garbage yes?

Originally posted by KickySonichu:

------------------
2) Corporations that are difficult to boycott tend to be corporations that have almost inescapable market control over products that are necessary for everyday life. Telecoms, energy providers, and agribusiness are extremely difficult to boycott on ethical grounds (especially for the economically disadvantaged). Clothing, chemical products, retail outlets, and electronics hardware can also be very difficult to boycott, depending on your situation.

Video games are a luxury good. You don't need them to function in everyday life. They can be boycotted with even the slightest exercise of self-control - and, if the video game developer whose ethics are in question has only one game on the market, then your boycott is essentially both costless and effortless.

So because its easy to kick this particular developer we all get to cathartically feel great about ourselves but anything thats tricky to change or boycott which might be inconvenient to us yeah not so much... sorry I like to behave with consistency, If Im willing to give money to awful companies like Sony and MS then I dont see why I should hold CF up to higher standards.

Originally posted by KickySonichu:

------------------
3) Even if you've got so little willpower and self-control that you can't possibly live without a reskinned Terraria knockoff: video games are easy to get a hold of. Strictly speaking, so long as you have friends who are willing to let you borrow from them, you don't HAVE to pay Chucklefish a cent.

Good for you, go do that then?? Won't stop others not caring about this overblown drama.

Originally posted by KickySonichu:

Exploiting Bangladeshi children to produce sneakers for pennies a day, children who would otherwise starve, beg, or turn to prostitution, is unfortunate.

Exploiting Swedish children to produce a million+ selling video game for literally nothing a day, children who would otherwise go to college, start a Twitch stream, or go outside and play, is just plain insanity.

Wow so basically if the children are white and from privileged countries and ended up with career experience then went to better things its not ok, but if children are brown and end up in a life of servitude producing capitilast fodder for you its ok. Gotcha

The fact you think this will produce change is cute, it won't. So beyond change whats the end game of this outrage if its merely to show solidarity and 'make a stand' against these awful practices then surely making a similarly toothless stand against the likes of Addidas or Nike would be correct and consistent behaviour as well. As for your assertion that unless they were being paid pennies they'd be forced into prostitution thats utter nonsense and you know it.

Bottom line some young people chose CHOSE to volunteer their services on with some vague notion bandied around a 'job in the industry' might await them. From what Ive seen many many of those complaining do indeed now have jobs in the industry based on the work they did here, so please explain whats so improper here? They worked internships essentially and went on to other things, thats how the world has worked for like 50+ years in numerous professional industries, why are they special cases? Just another example of generation snowflake.

[Kindred Spirit]

Originally posted by RodHull:

Bottom line some young people chose CHOSE to volunteer their services on with some vague notion bandied around a 'job in the industry' might await them. From what Ive seen many many of those complaining do indeed now have jobs in the industry based on the work they did here, so please explain whats so improper here? They worked internships essentially and went on to other things, thats how the world has worked for like 50+ years in numerous professional industries, why are they special cases? Just another example of generation snowflake.

That you believe this was about internship confirms that you really have no clue what happened.

Basically, CF targeted a bunch of minors to provide free assets under dodgy contracts with the fraudulent inducement of pay or a job at some point. A lot didn't get the "exposure" they were paid in. They got work elsewhere because of their own efforts, not because of Chucklefish.

Meanwhile, Chucklefish have leaned on the creations of those who did most of the work themselves for their own company's rep. The worst one was Stardew Valley being known as "a Chucklefish game" and getting even Eurogamer having to STILL correct themselves that CF wasn't the developer, so that ConcernedApe would take his game back for self-publishing.

Yeah, sucks that the world has other screwed up things, but hey, children are being exploited elsewhere in the world so why care about predatory game publishers doing the same, right? We're told to police the world before our own backyards, oh, wait, now we're villains for policing the world.

At least you could stop being lazy and really learn about what's going on here if you're going to try to blow smoke.

[Kuromiya]

Originally posted by RodHull:

Originally posted by KickySonichu:

Four problems here.

------------------
1) You don't boycott. Not we don't boycott. Plenty of people boycott corporations whose practices they find to be unethical. An entire upmarket industry (the "fairtrade" movement) has been created solely to cater to ethical consumers.

Im willing to bet most of the people here bleating about this have happily played and bought plenty of other games from other developers who act equally poorly toward their interns or workers, how many of the people outraged by this own and iPhone X ?? After apple were found to have used Asian students for free to help develop it Im sure they all threw their phones in the garbage yes?

In this instance, does "I'm willing to bet" mean "I have no evidence, but I will say the following anyways"?

I'm willing to bet it does!

(and even if it doesn't; still doesn't matter. A few Steam forum users who are not committed to ethical consumerism does not change the fact that ethical consumers exist)

Originally posted by KickySonichu:

------------------
2) Corporations that are difficult to boycott tend to be corporations that have almost inescapable market control over products that are necessary for everyday life. Telecoms, energy providers, and agribusiness are extremely difficult to boycott on ethical grounds (especially for the economically disadvantaged). Clothing, chemical products, retail outlets, and electronics hardware can also be very difficult to boycott, depending on your situation.

Video games are a luxury good. You don't need them to function in everyday life. They can be boycotted with even the slightest exercise of self-control - and, if the video game developer whose ethics are in question has only one game on the market, then your boycott is essentially both costless and effortless.

So because its easy to kick this particular developer we all get to cathartically feel great about ourselves but anything thats tricky to change or boycott which might be inconvenient to us yeah not so much... sorry I like to behave with consistency, If Im willing to give money to awful companies like Sony and MS then I dont see why I should hold CF up to higher standards.

Um.... no?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd encourage people to boycott any and all products and services that go against their ethical convictions. But I am not a Kantian robot; I can recognize that some things on the market are difficult to escape (Monsanto agricultural products when you're living in a food desert, for example)

My point there was simply that you don't get let off easily when it comes to Chucklefish. There are valid excuses for buying many different products. For Chucklefish products, you have none.

(although in your case, I'm willing to believe that you have no valid excuses for continuing to buy products you find to be unethical. In that case, that's entirely on you: if you want to be part of the problem and wallow in a filthy existence of your own creation, we can't stop you from doing that)

Originally posted by KickySonichu:

------------------
3) Even if you've got so little willpower and self-control that you can't possibly live without a reskinned Terraria knockoff: video games are easy to get a hold of. Strictly speaking, so long as you have friends who are willing to let you borrow from them, you don't HAVE to pay Chucklefish a cent.

Good for you, go do that then?? Won't stop others not caring about this overblown drama.

You do care, though. If your posting history is any indication, you care a whole lot.

Originally posted by KickySonichu:

Exploiting Bangladeshi children to produce sneakers for pennies a day, children who would otherwise starve, beg, or turn to prostitution, is unfortunate.

Exploiting Swedish children to produce a million+ selling video game for literally nothing a day, children who would otherwise go to college, start a Twitch stream, or go outside and play, is just plain insanity.

Wow so basically if the children are white and from privileged countries and ended up with career experience then went to better things its not ok, but if children are brown and end up in a life of servitude producing capitilast fodder for you its ok. Gotcha

No, that's not what I said at all. You can read what I wrote for yourself; you can also read the sources I provided.

As for your assertion that unless they were being paid pennies they'd be forced into prostitution thats utter nonsense and you know it.

No, it's true. Again, read the source I provided; I mentioned it for a reason. Studies conducted by aid organizations and NGOs have shown that, when textile Chucklefish's close their doors, the former employees tend to wind up in much worse living conditions (including prostitution). What this means is that, in the absence of local alternative infrastructures, working for pennies at a textile Chucklefish may be the least of a hundred evils.

This is not the case for the children Chucklefish exploited. These children DO have other options. Local Infrastructure IS in place to provide for them, whether or not they work for not-even-pennies at a digital Chucklefish.

They worked internships essentially

No, they didn't work an internship "essentially" - they didn't work an internship "at all". That's kind of an important difference!
i mean, it's kind of the entire reason for this controversy. Because some teenagers thought they were interns, but after the work was done, Chucklefish said "lol no gtfo."

[Kindred Spirit]

Originally posted by KickySonichu:

No, they didn't work an internship "essentially" - they didn't work an internship "at all". That's kind of an important difference! i mean, it's kind of the entire reason for this controversy. Because some teenagers thought they were interns, but after the work was done, Chucklefish said "lol no gtfo."

Worse than that.

It was basically sign a dodgy contract to hand over uncompensated IP rights to assets made in the lure they would someday become an intern, paid, or have a job.

[RodHull]

Originally posted by l'Original:

Originally posted by KickySonichu:

No, they didn't work an internship "essentially" - they didn't work an internship "at all". That's kind of an important difference! i mean, it's kind of the entire reason for this controversy. Because some teenagers thought they were interns, but after the work was done, Chucklefish said "lol no gtfo."

Worse than that.

It was basically sign a dodgy contract to hand over uncompensated IP rights to assets made in the lure they would someday become an intern, paid, or have a job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internship

Im not sure what country you're from but nowhere is an offer of employment guaranteed at the end of an internship, sometimes it can be implied but its never guaranteed.

And yes your right they werent even interns as interns are covered by some legal rights, I used the term cause it was easy to compare this with decades of work history in the western capital world and how this is a storm in a teacup. But no they werent interns they were volunteers which basically means they had no right to claim anything for their time period.

[Kindred Spirit]

Originally posted by RodHull:

Originally posted by l'Original:

Worse than that.

It was basically sign a dodgy contract to hand over uncompensated IP rights to assets made in the lure they would someday become an intern, paid, or have a job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internship

Im not sure what country you're from but nowhere is an offer of employment guaranteed at the end of an internship, sometimes it can be implied but its never guaranteed.

And yes your right they werent even interns as interns are covered by some legal rights, I used the term cause it was easy to compare this with decades of work history in the western capital world and how this is a storm in a teacup. But no they werent interns they were volunteers which basically means they had no right to claim anything for their time period.

That was such a spectacularly incompetent backpedal.

At least you're starting to get the idea that minors fraudulently induced into signing away their IP rights for nothing in return (yet believe they are going to someday get something for it) aren't interns. This is why we have laws against targeting minors with this stuff.

It's up to those who recounted their work experiences, as some have been for years, but mostly it's been a reveal of one facet of the problematic history around the company. It isn't some sudden outrage, though the tabloids abandoning the 'fish is a nice touch since they used to print propaganda for the company. PC Gamer turning, lovely.

Most of those Not-Interns have been successful for their own efforts elsewhere, not because of anything they did for SB.

[Red Rocket.TTV]

Originally posted by RodHull:

they were volunteers which basically means they had no right to claim anything for their time period.

This dude wins :P

[Kindred Spirit]

Originally posted by Noodles:

Originally posted by RodHull:

they were volunteers which basically means they had no right to claim anything for their time period.

This dude wins :P

Sounds like we have the fans of DaddyOFive here if exploiting minors for free assets is to be applauded.