Dev sends death threat to Valve CEO, has game removed from STEAM

[Valsuelm]

The lesson I'm taking from this is to avoid partnering with someone who may be a loose cannon when frustrated. Good on Valve and GabeN for not pressing charges BTW, the guy may be an idiot but going to prison for that would be dumb.

 

While the U.S. marches ever towards dystopia, one would thankfully still be hard pressed today to find a jury to send someone to prison for making such statements as were made on twitter that inspired the creation of this thread. Granted, I'll concede that there may be laws on the books to do so in our police state, as certainly some here such as yourself would think there would/should be, but as of yet it's not happening. Thankfully.

[Hurlshort]

I think I already said this, but if Gabe Newell decided to press charges, he would be well within his rights, and we should all expect that law enforcement would take such a threat seriously.  Do you really want them to ignore death threats just because they are made on twitter?  

 

Their investigation would probably show that the threat was not serious in any way, but it would be on record, which is important if this individual ever did follow through on one of his outbursts.

 

The police are supposed to err on the side of caution in these situations.  Their job is to serve and protect.  I fail to see how it serves us if they make a habit of ignoring death threats.

[Valsuelm]

  Their job is to serve and protect. 

 

Not really. Their job is to collect revenue and enforce the will of those who run the state and this is generally what they effectively do, despite them being advertised as otherwise and even despite the best intentions of some police officers.

 

Regardless of that. While various states have different statutes, in general Gabe could file a claim of harassment with the police and they would very possibly press charges regardless of the outcome of their investigation (if they even bother to investigate, they often don't) as reasonable discretion isn't common (thought it does exist) in your average police department due to there very rarely being accountability. In addition, and probably concurrently (depending on the state) Gabe could seek to have an order of protection placed upon the guy making the threats. The effectiveness of such things in actually protecting someone is pretty much nil, however they are fairly effective sometimes of messing up the life of the person they are given to (this is particularly true in domestic cases, and because of this are often used as a weapon).

 

If Gabe actually truly believes the guy is a threat, in the end contacting the police won't do much good for him. The police are always only a minute away when you need them in mere seconds. Gabe should opt for some good home security and a gun. I'll wager he's already got both.

[ManifestedISO]

Absolutists and their lens-covered periscope. Come out of the bunker, it's nice. There's flowers, hot dogs, blue skies ... other people. 

[Volourn]

"What's nonsensical about it? An 18 year old  has probably never held a corporate job and doesn't know what a code of conduct is. The only time he could have  interacted with people is on the Internet so his idea of acceptable comments would be based on that experience

 

And that would not be the same as how he can conduct himself in RL. We see this all the time where people have to be trained in what they can and cant say to customers and fellow staff members. This is directly related to a persons age and life experiences"

 

Wrong.

 

P.S. Petitions are for weaklings.

[Gfted1]

"I have been recently affected by my now (ex) partners lack of civil control and inability to understand that words have consequences."

 

Smart of him to remove the problem.

[Valsuelm]

"I have been recently affected by my now (ex) partners lack of civil control and inability to understand that words have consequences."

 

Smart of him to remove the problem.

 

Except he didn't remove it. Mike, the guy who posted the naughty tweets, voluntarily sold his half of the company to Travis, at least that's what's publicly stated.

 

The amount of 'let's punish that guy!' or 'that guy deserves @)#($!' in this thread is disconcerting inasmuch as it's a reflection of our society. This attitude is in part why we have overflowing prisons in the U.S..

Edited October 27, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Gfted1]

 

"I have been recently affected by my now (ex) partners lack of civil control and inability to understand that words have consequences."

 

Smart of him to remove the problem.

 

Except he didn't remove it. Mike, the guy who posted the naughty tweets, voluntarily sold his half of the company to Travis, at least that's what's publicly stated.

 

The amount of 'let's punish that guy!' or 'that guy deserves @)#($!' in this thread is disconcerting inasmuch as it's a reflection of our society. This attitude is in part why we have overflowing prisons in the U.S..

 

 

Eh, I couldn't care less what happens to the bigmouth. I was trying to express that the best thing the partner did for the company was remove the cancer (I mean he totally "resigned".)

 

The prison reference made me lol though.

[Orogun01]

 

"I have been recently affected by my now (ex) partners lack of civil control and inability to understand that words have consequences."

 

Smart of him to remove the problem.

 

Except he didn't remove it. Mike, the guy who posted the naughty tweets, voluntarily sold his half of the company to Travis, at least that's what's publicly stated.

 

The amount of 'let's punish that guy!' or 'that guy deserves @)#($!' in this thread is disconcerting inasmuch as it's a reflection of our society. This attitude is in part why we have overflowing prisons in the U.S..

 

The punitive and accusatory nature of that comes as part of the English language (that's a speculated cause) aside, it is the best move for every party involved.

[TrashMan]

I'm looking at what is truly important.

 

Was there true malice/evil intent? No.

Was there any harm done? No.

Is what was done truly unforgivable/horrifying? No.

 

Slap on the wrist and move on. Bloody simple.

 

Here we have a venerable Witch Hunt.

[Hiro Protagonist]

I'm not signing it. Maybe the best thing for that other guy to do is change his company name to something else and start all over again. And the game looks crap.

[TrashMan]

So much hate.

What can man do against it?

[Hiro Protagonist]

So much hate.

What can man do against it?

 

Is that directed at me?

 

a) I see no reason to sign it.

b) If that other dev wants to distance himself from this, then maybe it's best to start all over. The name of the company will be tainted with Steam. Starting over with a new company and new image would help this imo.

c) and the game does look like crap.

 

You seriously like this and want to play it?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzaM7aS1n54

[Rosbjerg]

I'm looking at what is truly important.

 

Was there true malice/evil intent? No.

Was there any harm done? No.

Is what was done truly unforgivable/horrifying? No.

 

Slap on the wrist and move on. Bloody simple.

 

Here we have a venerable Witch Hunt.

 

It's not about intent it's about the kind of conduct we want our fellow citizens to uphold. Who wants a situation where it's perfectly ok to throw around death threats "for the lulz"?

 

Are you ok with a random stranger you slightly pissed off coming up to you and screaming in your face that he's going to kill you? and.. giving how you think Valve should've reacted, you simply have to take this abuse with a smile, since you know - no malice was intended, just venting some frustration.

 

I think it's fair to expect that, while in a public forum - we behave respectfully and responsibly towards one another. It's makes for far less frictions and better moods all around.

 

Edit: but to be clear, no one here is arguing against being allowed to be frustrated, angry and disappointed and venting those emotions. It's just that saying "Gabe, you really screwed me over here, that's not ******** all right!!" is a lot more constructive than "I'll kill you!". And essentially also why we try to teach kid how to deescalate conflicts rather than escalate them.

[TrashMan]

 

I'm looking at what is truly important.

 

Was there true malice/evil intent? No.

Was there any harm done? No.

Is what was done truly unforgivable/horrifying? No.

 

Slap on the wrist and move on. Bloody simple.

 

Here we have a venerable Witch Hunt.

 

It's not about intent it's about the kind of conduct we want our fellow citizens to uphold. Who wants a situation where it's perfectly ok to throw around death threats "for the lulz"?

 

Me.

It was never a real death threat and it was never "for the lulz"... and you know it.

It's an overreaction and it's not different from running to ban all the guns when some whacko shoots up a school.

 

 

 

Are you ok with a random stranger you slightly pissed off coming up to you and screaming in your face that he's going to kill you? and.. giving how you think Valve should've reacted, you simply have to take this abuse with a smile, since you know - no malice was intended, just venting some frustration.

 

That's not what he was doing, now is it? Twitter is in a public domain, but it's public in the same way the balcony of your house is. If you're chatting there anyone passing beneath your balcony can hear you. BUT, they have to actively come beneath your balcony to hear it. They have to SEEK it. The only people who see your tweets are those who are looking at what you are tweeting.

 

 

Take it with a smile? Depends on how it was said, but no.

Burning the guys house? Not right either.

 

 

 

I think it's fair to expect that, while in a public forum - we behave respectfully and responsibly towards one another. It's makes for far less frictions and better moods all around.

 

I think a general calmer and relaxed attitude does a lot more than a formalized set of enforced rules. All the rules do is to sometimes keep things hidden.

 

 

 

Edit: but to be clear, no one here is arguing against being allowed to be frustrated, angry and disappointed and venting those emotions. It's just that saying "Gabe, you really screwed me over here, that's not ******** all right!!" is a lot more constructive than "I'll kill you!". And essentially also why we try to teach kid how to deescalate conflicts rather than escalate them.

 

By your own words, hasn't Steam escalated the conflict then?

 

A "Dude! Not cool! Calm down. Take a breath." would have been better.

Edited October 28, 2014 by TrashMan

[Rosbjerg]

Actually Steam did the logic deescalation, they terminated the contact. That's exactly how you deal with this kind of behavior and keep aggression from escalating.

 

 

 

That's not what he was doing, now is it?

In essence it was. 

 

 

Depends on how it was said, but no.

So how would you respond to an angry "I'll kill you!" face to face then?

 

 

 

 

I think a general calmer and relaxed attitude does a lot more than a formalized set of enforced rules. All the rules do is to sometimes keep things hidden.

A relaxed attitude is a lovely byproduct of safety, which comes from social understanding - something people have pointed out several times. In social situations where this behavior is expected, then it won't cause issues. But again, I seriously doubt the majority would freely choose to live in a society in which verbal threats and aggression was common place versus a place where people respectfully addressed one another and aired their grievances in a civil tone. That doesn't create a relaxed attitude, quite the opposite in fact. And why suburban ghettos feel a lot less safe to go through, even though you know the chance of getting mugged (when you understand the social codes) are near zero. You're essentially saying that constant outspoken aggression is a more relaxed environment - and that simply doesn't compute with me.

 

Come to Copenhagen and navigate our traffic for 9 hours vs Athens and tell me you feel much more relaxed and stress free in Greece.

[TrashMan]

Actually Steam did the logic deescalation, they terminated the contact. That's exactly how you deal with this kind of behavior and keep aggression from escalating.

 

Bad decision. Again, other people are affected by this. You keep ignoring that point.

 

 

 

In essence it was.

 

It was not.

A death threat uttered by an angry man, in your face, and with clear possibility of acting on that aggression (since he's right next to you) is not the same as venting on twitter.

 

Let's not forget that 99% of all utterances of "I'll kill X" are never meant and never amount to anything.

So why act as if all do?

 

 

 

So how would you respond to an angry "I'll kill you!" face to face then?

 

Probably with a "Why?"

 

 

 

A relaxed attitude is a lovely byproduct of safety, which comes from social understanding - something people have pointed out several times.

 

And a guy venting on the internet makes it pretty safe, now doesn't it?

Even if he were angry enough to attack you, he is instead typing it out and venting on the net, miles and miles away from you.

I recieved plenty of internet death threats and am still here.

[Hurlshort]

Trashman, unless you live in the Big Brother house, it's really not comparable to Twitter.  No need to make bad analogies.  Twitter is a social media platform.  There are public and protected tweets.  His were very much public.

[Rosbjerg]

Unfortunately we don't have a legal system that can judge individual emotions on a case by case basis.

 

 

 

It was not.

A death threat uttered by an angry man, in your face, and with clear possibility of acting on that aggression (since he's right next to you) is not the same as venting on twitter.

What makes you certain that it's a possibility? his proximity? If so do you think that the person in question would've potentially killed Gaben if he had simply been close enough?

And do we then judge the seriousness of the statement only by whether or not the person has the means to carry out the threat in the moment of making it?

 

What are the criteria here for when the possibility of that threat being a possibility and how do we, legally, take this into account to protect the individuals involved? I think we can agree it would be irresponsible to simply adopt a "we don't care" approach to threats in general right?

 

I would argue it's a lot easier, cheaper (and safer for everyone) to simply curtail this by making statements like that carry weight by default and actions always be taken. Not necessarily legal action, simply terminating contact like here is sufficient in cases like this.

 

 

 

Let's not forget that 99% of all utterances of "I'll kill X" are never meant and never amount to anything. So why act as if all do?

 

Again, what you say in your home (the 99% of them) is irrelevant. It's what you say in a public forum with witnesses, I care about. Out of those I doubt the vast majority are irrelevant, you yourself seemed to think there was a possibility of the threat being carried out when it was in public and to your face.

 

 

 

Probably with a "Why?"

Interesting, do you feel that kind of outward aggression is out of place?

 

 

 

 

I recieved plenty of internet death threats and am still here.

Hmm and I've never received a single one - I wonder if that's relevant to this discussion in some way...

 

 

Again, other people are affected by this. You keep ignoring that point.

You never raised that point to me, but yes a lot of people certainly are... And while it's certainly a shame that consumers are affected, the fault still lies with the developer here imo. And even if I wanted to buy the game, I would not fault Steam for it. I too would not do business with a guy like that. Now the problem seems to be correcting itself however, the guy has been ostracized and the company is trying to get those affected to rally behind them to correct it - thereby proving (as they should) that they are more mature now. Seems like a perfectly reasonable series of events, where the affected people are responding, learning and adapting.

 

Also you ignored my point on whether or not you think an aggressive environment is a more relaxed environment?

[BruceVC]

I have also never received an Internet death threat...I don't think they are as common as you make out Trashman?

[TrashMan]

Unfortunately we don't have a legal system that can judge individual emotions on a case by case basis.

 

 

I would argue it's a lot easier, cheaper (and safer for everyone) to simply curtail this by making statements like that carry weight by default and actions always be taken. Not necessarily legal action, simply terminating contact like here is sufficient in cases like this.

 

I would say things like this HAVE to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

You heard of "innocent until proven guilty?", right?

 

The public shaming the man recieved is punishment enough. Terminating a contract is overkill.

 

 

 

Again, what you say in your home (the 99% of them) is irrelevant.

 

And if the man said that in his house and Gaben just happen to be outside the window, what then?

Would terminating the contract still be OK?

 

 

 

It's what you say in a public forum with witnesses, I care about. Out of those I doubt the vast majority are irrelevant, you yourself seemed to think there was a possibility of the threat being carried out when it was in public and to your face.

 

And yet they are.

Because people who make threats are either overly emotional, drunk or kids. They will calm down in 5 minutes. And even if they don't,even if they really do want to kill Gaben (or whomever), 99% of those won't either have the means to do it (in a different part of the world) or will be sane enough to realize they'd go to jail and drop it.

 

The society already has enough mechnics in place to stop those threats from materializing even when real. Let alone when fake.

 

 

 

 

Probably with a "Why?"

Interesting, do you feel that kind of outward aggression is out of place?

 

Depends on may factors.

What caused anger. How much time has passed. State of mind of the person (drunk, irritated?)

 

If sufficient time has passed, the persons judgment is not impaired by extermal factors and he STILL acts like that? Definitely out of place

Otherwise?

No.

Regrettable and showing poor emotional control, but not really evil or harmful in itself.

 

 

 

You never raised that point to me, but yes a lot of people certainly are... And while it's certainly a shame that consumers are affected, the fault still lies with the developer here imo. And even if I wanted to buy the game, I would not fault Steam for it. I too would not do business with a guy like that. Now the problem seems to be correcting itself however, the guy has been ostracized and the company is trying to get those affected to rally behind them to correct it - thereby proving (as they should) that they are more mature now. Seems like a perfectly reasonable series of events, where the affected people are responding, learning and adapting.

 

There is no one else to fault.

If I take hostages and you decide to shoot me, killing a hostage, it's not my fault the hostage died. It's yours. There is no such thing as "he FORCED me to make this decision".

You took a shot knowing a hostage might be hit.

Steam terminated a contract knowing that everyone else in that company - completely innocent - would suffer for it.

 

Sanctioning that guy and that guy alone was the only appropriate action.

 

 

 

Also you ignored my point on whether or not you think an aggressive environment is a more relaxed environment?

 

An enviroment where people don't assume the worst about other people is by definition more relaxed, regardless how aggressive the words used might be.

 

 

Right now you could make a post "Hey Lotion, you dirty ape. How's your butt hair doing?" and I'd probably respond with something like "this years harvest will be plentiful!"

[Gorgon]

It seems pretty clear to me that 'I AM GOING TO KILL GABE NEWELL' was an expression of exasperation not a real threat. STEAM probably have a policy they are following, and it makes sense to follow a policy every time if it has to do with death threats , that's kinda the point of having one. It's not unlike that guy who jokingly said 'just a bomb' when airport security asked him if he had anything to declare and then couldn't understand why he ended up on the no fly list. 

 

 

He got punished for being stupid. Nothing to see here, move along. 

[Hiro Protagonist]

The public shaming the man recieved is punishment enough. Terminating a contract is overkill.

 

Hang on. The public shaming? Terminating a contract is overkill?

 

Firstly, how did this come all about? How did the public become aware of it? Was it Steam that went to social media to publicly shame this guy? Or was it the guy making such a big deal out of this on social media and continuing to make a big deal on social media that he publicly shamed himself? Terminating it was the best thing Steam could do.

[Hurlshort]

It is actually the only action Steam took.  They didn't publicly shame him, they didn't tell the developer to get rid of him, and they didn't get law enforcement involved.  They distanced themselves from his company.  Seems pretty tame, honestly.

[Valsuelm]

I have also never received an Internet death threat...I don't think they are as common as you make out Trashman?

 

You apparently don't play online multiplayer games much.

 

Then again half of what's ever written in this forum seems to go right over your head as if you never read it. So you might have received them and been too daft to understand them.

 

I received at least a few death threats (among a great many other kind of threats, such as promises to do horrible things to my mother) just this last week, with a couple of them being particularly gruesome in how I was to meet my demise. My reaction ranged from 'oh yay, another zit popping twit' to laughing out loud in amusement.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Valsuelm