Alby_da_Wolf said:
Kasz216 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Kasz216 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Kasz216 said:
.jayderyu said:
Ethics & Morals weighed against Legal Contract. That's the dillema. Do you favor a legal contract that owns your soul? or do you favor what's more ethical? Legal does not mean Ethical. Often I find that Legal is a way to get around Ethical treatment of employees. Ever notice some of the contracts you sign up to a company that waves the rights to some of the labour laws? Legal yes, Ethical no.
|
How is it ethics and morals vs a legal contract when West and Zampella were the unethical, immoral ones who broke their contracts?
|
Activision not paying the whole team in due time their share on the game profits was actually the first to violate the contract. A CEO that doesn't pay his best teams in due time is a bad CEO and a danger for his company.
|
Except for the fact that Activision tried to pay them.... but West and Zampella blocked said payments and demanded they be paid all the bonus if anything and didn't submit any actual bonus payment structure outside of that?
You can't blame a company for not paying you if you refuse to fill out your tax forms and refuse to take your paycheck everytime it's haned to you.
|
This is what Activision states about the issue, while West and Zampella's versions are quite different. And IIRC, they didn't agree about the amount, either . And there was also disagreement about the control on the MW series. I wouldn't take W and Z's versions as Gospel , but neither I would Activision's one. So, given Kotick's record about trying to get blood out of a stone, I prefer to side with W and Z unless Activision's reason become undoubtable.
|
So your taking the word of the group of people you KNOW did something wrong, because you dislike the other group of people. Thank you for proving my point.
Afterall your taking the side of "They did something wrong, but it's ok because they said activision did something wrong too, with no proof, and apparently with memos and notices stating the exact opposite in evidence."
Which by the way isn't an actual defense. Even if they are telling the truth about the payments, they are still guilty of breach of contract. If someone else breaches your contract you don't breach it as well and claim "they did first" and thing everything is going to be ok. You start legal procedings.
Unless you are buying the story that "They fired them so they could keep a few million dollars while risking sales in the billions of dollars..."
|
Two wrongs don't make a right, I perfectly know. No wrong from any part has been proven in tribunal yet, anyway, but you accuse me of buying W and Z's story while you buy Activision's one. And you also look desperate to downplay Activision's possible wrong just in case two wrongs are proven. BTW, in many countries, after the strongest part commits a serious breach of contract, the weakest one is often considered relieved from many or even every contract obligations.
|
Only if proven before they breach said contracts themselves. Hence you know, why you'd lawyer up.
I'm not "buying" anything. I'm looking at the facts objectivly. I mean hell, I can't even name the last activision game I've bought. I recieved Red Steel as a gift... that's all I can thnk of.
One the one hand, you've got West and Zampella, who are pretty much known for this kind of thing, who definitly did something illegal that everyone can agree with.
On the otherhand you have activision... who may or may not have done something wrong... and who specifically mention correspondense to them about said event. Which either they have or it's more or less an auto-lose so there is no point to bring it up unless it exists unless they exist.
I mean, have you even bothered to look at the evidence that HAS released so far?
There are text messages of Zampella while working at activison talking about how he did something specifically to hurt activision and "COD: WaW".
You are taking the side who is pretty much already proven guilty of something, (or at least there is heavy proof they are guilty) against the side of someone in which there is no proof against them.
