Sounds like they are only putting out a statement now because Polygon is about to publish something about them and they didn’t like the way the article was shaping up.
In the interest of transparency, we are now sharing our complete responses to a series of questions we received from a reporter at Polygon regarding our company and the accounts on social media. Some of these accounts are true, others are not, and a few we are continuing to investigate.
Sounds like they are only putting out a statement now because Polygon is about to publish something about them and they didn’t like the way the article was shaping up.
I don't want to offend, but I believe that you read this piece with a "verdict" in mind, and you've analyzed it through that lens. For example: The answer did not dodge a yes or no question. It...
I don't want to offend, but I believe that you read this piece with a "verdict" in mind, and you've analyzed it through that lens.
For example:
Very well-wordsmithed way of dodging a yes or no question. Yes, he invited subordinates to his apartment for 1-1 meetings.
The answer did not dodge a yes or no question. It was explicitly "yes" by the phrase that states "To our knowledge, 1-1 meetings were rare and completely professional." This means that 1-1 meetings in the apartment were rare and professional. The surrounding information is important because the the question itself is meant to evoke outrage for people who read it. For a sufficiently large company, it would be very weird to have 1-1 meetings with someone in one's residence; for a small, decentralized company that uses the area as office space, this is not weird. The point of the question is to paint the picture that things are necessarily inappropriate if someone does that, but it's not necessarily inappropriate. I've run businesses before where I had an office in my home, and I've had people to my home for business meetings. I'm not saying this to excuse Max Temkin, but I'm saying that the journalist knew what they were doing with that question, and is using it as a weapon.
With respect to data they have that "paints them in a particular light" I think you're once again being a bit unfair. It's all relatively summed up by this section:
Under normal circumstances, we would consider this conversation to be a confidential employee matter and would not share it publicly. However, since this person has already tweeted publicly and incorrectly about the events in question, we feel we must present this evidence.
So they are only providing the screenshots when someone is perhaps directly lying about what was said, and otherwise are keeping direct quotations out. There's no real way for them to win on this one, because they either respect the privacy of the people involved by not sharing things that are likely against their own employment agreement to share and get called out on it, or they do share and violate the privacy of their employees, which would be quite detrimental in the middle of this issue about them not respecting their employees.
That is not what that means. It means the person writing this doesn't explicitly know of any non-professional conduct. That's a somewhat different thing.
It was explicitly "yes" by the phrase that states "To our knowledge, 1-1 meetings were rare and completely professional." This means that 1-1 meetings in the apartment were rare and professional.
That is not what that means. It means the person writing this doesn't explicitly know of any non-professional conduct. That's a somewhat different thing.
You are incorrect, or making an inference that had nothing to do with what I said. In the context of the question asked, and the way the question was answered, they confirmed both that the...
You are incorrect, or making an inference that had nothing to do with what I said. In the context of the question asked, and the way the question was answered, they confirmed both that the meetings happened and that nothing untoward happened during them. I am not claiming that as an absolute fact; I'm saying that they answered the question, whereas the person I replied to said they dodged the question. I'm not saying that they were necessarily telling the truth or that they knew the entirety of truth. Context is important.
You are assuming that there is something to find out in the 1 on 1 meetings at Temkins' apartment, and they have failed to do so. The message they have given is "to our knowledge, nothing...
It means the person writing this doesn't explicitly know of any non-professional conduct.
They could have found out, but didn't.
You are assuming that there is something to find out in the 1 on 1 meetings at Temkins' apartment, and they have failed to do so.
The message they have given is "to our knowledge, nothing unprofessional happened" which insinuates (if not outright states) that they did not have a formal complaint about people going to Temkins' apartment on file. So to their knowledge, to wit their independent HR department's lack of complaints on the matter, there were no issues with the situation.
Look. I think their defense is super weak, and it's easy to point out the failings here. We can go back and forth on exactly how poor their response was, but it's not really going to change...
Look. I think their defense is super weak, and it's easy to point out the failings here. We can go back and forth on exactly how poor their response was, but it's not really going to change anyone's mind. Let's just stop this thread.
I'll drop it, but I feel like this whole thread has just been moving goalposts. My original stance was that the person I responded to read it through the lens of a predetermined verdict, and...
I'll drop it, but I feel like this whole thread has just been moving goalposts. My original stance was that the person I responded to read it through the lens of a predetermined verdict, and you're doing it too. I never said this was a really well thought out statement or public defence, which is fine because it's an interview and not either of those things.
Which feels like a bit of a PR dodge given it doesn't make mention of whether he will still profit from the project or not.
While this project began as a team of four including Max Temkin, this project really belongs to Jordan, Simon and our team of artists, as shown in the original video. On June 9th, Max stepped back from the Magic Puzzles project so we could better focus on fulfillment. We assure you that this change will cause no disruption. Max's duties have been assumed by other members of the existing team. You will see that, going forward, the project page will be run by our new group, the Magic Puzzle Company. We remain committed to bringing these puzzles to life as they were intended and are fully dedicated to fulfillment of this project.
Which feels like a bit of a PR dodge given it doesn't make mention of whether he will still profit from the project or not.
Because logic would dictate that contracts are long since signed, work has long since been done, and even if he was nothing more than a name drop for attention, any idea that he would allow...
Which feels like a bit of a PR dodge given it doesn't make mention of whether he will still profit from the project or not.
Because logic would dictate that contracts are long since signed, work has long since been done, and even if he was nothing more than a name drop for attention, any idea that he would allow himself to be attached to it without financial incentive is pointless.
Now what does matter is how one would like to decide how their money is spent. Do you cancel and punish the artists that had nothing to do with his actions?
That's the overly simplified moral false dilemma they want you to think you're trapped in, but the truth is that contracts are renegotiable, and can even be nullified if both parties agree to it....
Do you cancel and punish the artists that had nothing to do with his actions?
That's the overly simplified moral false dilemma they want you to think you're trapped in, but the truth is that contracts are renegotiable, and can even be nullified if both parties agree to it. However, Max and his partners clearly don't want that to happen, likely because of greed and loyalty, which is why they are trying to placate people with this meaningless "stepping back" approach instead, thereby forcing people into said moral dilemma. And IMO because of the emotional blackmail aspect of that, it makes the leadership at the company the ones fully culpable for any damage Max's continued involvement causes to the other employees there, not the people who refuse to allow themselves to be held morally hostage by them and cancel their backing of the project.
I don't claim to know what others are thinking, but as long as Max Temkin doesn't want to relinquish his shares or investment in a company, there really isn't much they can do to force him out if...
However, Max and his partners clearly don't want that to happen, likely because of greed and loyalty, which is why they are trying to placate people with this meaningless "stepping back" approach instead [...]
I don't claim to know what others are thinking, but as long as Max Temkin doesn't want to relinquish his shares or investment in a company, there really isn't much they can do to force him out if he's the founder. Other people may want him to leave, but if he doesn't agree, what are they going to do about it?
My comment was primarily addressing the moral/ethical implication of those cancelling their backing, not the obligations and options of those at the company... but to answer your question: Not...
My comment was primarily addressing the moral/ethical implication of those cancelling their backing, not the obligations and options of those at the company... but to answer your question:
there really isn't much they can do to force him out if he's the founder. Other people may want him to leave, but if he doesn't agree, what are they going to do about it?
Not true. If they really wanted him gone even if he refused, they could have attempted to pressure him to do so by publicly stating that he refused to divest his interests despite the controversy, or that they wanted to renegotiate the terms but that he refused to. But they instead are clearly hoping that him simply "stepping back" will be enough to placate people, which regardless of their reasoning for going with that approach, still doesn't make cancelling backing their project any less of a moral imperative given he is still going to profit from it, IMO.
Two points: I think it's a tough spot for people in a business relationship with him because they might not be able to just wash their hands of him immediately (or at all) like you can in a social...
Two points:
I think it's a tough spot for people in a business relationship with him because they might not be able to just wash their hands of him immediately (or at all) like you can in a social situation.
I think we're arguing past each other here.
If they really wanted him gone even if he refused, they could have attempted to pressure him to do so by publicly stating that he refused to divest his interests despite the controversy, or that they wanted to renegotiate the terms but that he refused to.
They can do all that, but if he owns part of the company and doesn't want to leave, they can't make him. They can try and shame him by saying, "we asked him to leave and he refused!" but if he doesn't want to give up his share, they probably can't do much about it. That's my point. I'm not talking about the moral or ethical issues, that's a whole different can of worms. I'm saying that if he really doesn't want to sell off his interest in CAH or this Kickstarter, they can't force him to give up his ownership of the company. It has to be mutual.
I explicitly said from the very start that it had to be mutual, so what was the point in your interjection here? Because my point was involving the ethical considerations, and that by not even...
I explicitly said from the very start that it had to be mutual, so what was the point in your interjection here? Because my point was involving the ethical considerations, and that by not even attempting to force his hand through contract renegotiation and/or public pressure, and instead being conciliatory, they are essentially moral blackmailing people and ultimately just perpetuating the cycle of industry shitheads not actually being held accountable for their actions.
I'll be honest, I misread your original comment. My brain read it as "even if they don't agree" rather than "if both parties agree". That's totally my mistake. Sorry!
I'll be honest, I misread your original comment. My brain read it as "even if they don't agree" rather than "if both parties agree".
No worries. ❤️ :) And sorry for me getting a bit worked up as well. This is something I'm rather passionate about, so I tend to get a bit too emotional about it.
No worries. ❤️ :) And sorry for me getting a bit worked up as well. This is something I'm rather passionate about, so I tend to get a bit too emotional about it.
Yeah. I was waiting for their response but I cancelled it yesterday. It was not transparent and I just don't want this hanging over my head while I do a puzzle.
Yeah. I was waiting for their response but I cancelled it yesterday. It was not transparent and I just don't want this hanging over my head while I do a puzzle.
Sounds like they are only putting out a statement now because Polygon is about to publish something about them and they didn’t like the way the article was shaping up.
The article Polygon published today: Former employees accuse Cards Against Humanity of a racist and sexist office culture
I don't want to offend, but I believe that you read this piece with a "verdict" in mind, and you've analyzed it through that lens.
For example:
The answer did not dodge a yes or no question. It was explicitly "yes" by the phrase that states "To our knowledge, 1-1 meetings were rare and completely professional." This means that 1-1 meetings in the apartment were rare and professional. The surrounding information is important because the the question itself is meant to evoke outrage for people who read it. For a sufficiently large company, it would be very weird to have 1-1 meetings with someone in one's residence; for a small, decentralized company that uses the area as office space, this is not weird. The point of the question is to paint the picture that things are necessarily inappropriate if someone does that, but it's not necessarily inappropriate. I've run businesses before where I had an office in my home, and I've had people to my home for business meetings. I'm not saying this to excuse Max Temkin, but I'm saying that the journalist knew what they were doing with that question, and is using it as a weapon.
With respect to data they have that "paints them in a particular light" I think you're once again being a bit unfair. It's all relatively summed up by this section:
So they are only providing the screenshots when someone is perhaps directly lying about what was said, and otherwise are keeping direct quotations out. There's no real way for them to win on this one, because they either respect the privacy of the people involved by not sharing things that are likely against their own employment agreement to share and get called out on it, or they do share and violate the privacy of their employees, which would be quite detrimental in the middle of this issue about them not respecting their employees.
That is not what that means. It means the person writing this doesn't explicitly know of any non-professional conduct. That's a somewhat different thing.
You are incorrect, or making an inference that had nothing to do with what I said. In the context of the question asked, and the way the question was answered, they confirmed both that the meetings happened and that nothing untoward happened during them. I am not claiming that as an absolute fact; I'm saying that they answered the question, whereas the person I replied to said they dodged the question. I'm not saying that they were necessarily telling the truth or that they knew the entirety of truth. Context is important.
If the question is "Did anything unprofessional occur?" Saying "Not to my knowledge." is dodging the question. They could have found out, but didn't.
You are assuming that there is something to find out in the 1 on 1 meetings at Temkins' apartment, and they have failed to do so.
The message they have given is "to our knowledge, nothing unprofessional happened" which insinuates (if not outright states) that they did not have a formal complaint about people going to Temkins' apartment on file. So to their knowledge, to wit their independent HR department's lack of complaints on the matter, there were no issues with the situation.
Look. I think their defense is super weak, and it's easy to point out the failings here. We can go back and forth on exactly how poor their response was, but it's not really going to change anyone's mind. Let's just stop this thread.
I'll drop it, but I feel like this whole thread has just been moving goalposts. My original stance was that the person I responded to read it through the lens of a predetermined verdict, and you're doing it too. I never said this was a really well thought out statement or public defence, which is fine because it's an interview and not either of those things.
It's not an interview. It's a series of PR statements to presubmitted questions.
The Magic Puzzles Kickstarter also put out an update on their relationship with Max Temkin.
Which feels like a bit of a PR dodge given it doesn't make mention of whether he will still profit from the project or not.
Because logic would dictate that contracts are long since signed, work has long since been done, and even if he was nothing more than a name drop for attention, any idea that he would allow himself to be attached to it without financial incentive is pointless.
Now what does matter is how one would like to decide how their money is spent. Do you cancel and punish the artists that had nothing to do with his actions?
That's the overly simplified moral false dilemma they want you to think you're trapped in, but the truth is that contracts are renegotiable, and can even be nullified if both parties agree to it. However, Max and his partners clearly don't want that to happen, likely because of greed and loyalty, which is why they are trying to placate people with this meaningless "stepping back" approach instead, thereby forcing people into said moral dilemma. And IMO because of the emotional blackmail aspect of that, it makes the leadership at the company the ones fully culpable for any damage Max's continued involvement causes to the other employees there, not the people who refuse to allow themselves to be held morally hostage by them and cancel their backing of the project.
I don't claim to know what others are thinking, but as long as Max Temkin doesn't want to relinquish his shares or investment in a company, there really isn't much they can do to force him out if he's the founder. Other people may want him to leave, but if he doesn't agree, what are they going to do about it?
My comment was primarily addressing the moral/ethical implication of those cancelling their backing, not the obligations and options of those at the company... but to answer your question:
Not true. If they really wanted him gone even if he refused, they could have attempted to pressure him to do so by publicly stating that he refused to divest his interests despite the controversy, or that they wanted to renegotiate the terms but that he refused to. But they instead are clearly hoping that him simply "stepping back" will be enough to placate people, which regardless of their reasoning for going with that approach, still doesn't make cancelling backing their project any less of a moral imperative given he is still going to profit from it, IMO.
Two points:
I think it's a tough spot for people in a business relationship with him because they might not be able to just wash their hands of him immediately (or at all) like you can in a social situation.
I think we're arguing past each other here.
They can do all that, but if he owns part of the company and doesn't want to leave, they can't make him. They can try and shame him by saying, "we asked him to leave and he refused!" but if he doesn't want to give up his share, they probably can't do much about it. That's my point. I'm not talking about the moral or ethical issues, that's a whole different can of worms. I'm saying that if he really doesn't want to sell off his interest in CAH or this Kickstarter, they can't force him to give up his ownership of the company. It has to be mutual.
I explicitly said from the very start that it had to be mutual, so what was the point in your interjection here? Because my point was involving the ethical considerations, and that by not even attempting to force his hand through contract renegotiation and/or public pressure, and instead being conciliatory, they are essentially moral blackmailing people and ultimately just perpetuating the cycle of industry shitheads not actually being held accountable for their actions.
I'll be honest, I misread your original comment. My brain read it as "even if they don't agree" rather than "if both parties agree".
That's totally my mistake. Sorry!
No worries. ❤️ :) And sorry for me getting a bit worked up as well. This is something I'm rather passionate about, so I tend to get a bit too emotional about it.
Yeah. I was waiting for their response but I cancelled it yesterday. It was not transparent and I just don't want this hanging over my head while I do a puzzle.