Yes, I’m serious. It’s very clear to me you don’t want to say that the strike will fail, but also don’t want to say anything that would define it as a success, so as to avoid having to admit that whatever-it-was didn’t happen.
By piously refusing to define any win conditions, you want to give yourself the freedom to say anything was a win.
…you seriously believe the strike could get resolved by SAG-AFTRA agreeing to soda?
Of course I’m not going to say the strike will definitely fail. I’m open to the possibility it will fail, and would be disappointed if it did, but I accept its one of the two possible outcomes. What on earth is your problem with me holding that position? Why are you demanding I must accept your position?
I have clearly and unambiguously stated how I would define this as a success. That you choose not to accept that definition is your problem, not mine.
Except I have defined my “win condition.” And my win conditions don’t give me the freedom to say anything is a win. If the voice actors are not happy with the deal it won’t be a win. End of story.
No, you haven’t. Your definition is Neither clear nor unambiguous:
How (clearly and unambiguously) would you determine if the voice actors are not happy? If the union votes to accept the deal, would that alone be the definition? So if the union decides to simply abandon the field without gaining any meaningful concessions, and votes to end the strike, is that the proof that the voice actors are happy?
If not, what is?
…I’ll take this as a concession that I have provided a definition, and that your prior characterization of my position was incorrect.
“Hey Nolan! Are you happy with the resolution of the strike?”
“Yes I am!”
A clear and unambiguous signal the strike was a success.
“Hey Nolan! Are you happy with the resolution of the strike?”
“Nope. We were screwed.”
A clear and unambiguous signal the strike did not succeed.
Gosh, that wasn’t as hard as you thought! You find out whether or not people are happy with the resolution by asking them. If they are happy, they will tell you, and if they are not, then they will tell you that as well.
Wait, what?
You plan to ask the members? .Or just Nolan?
What if Nolan says he’s pleased and Wil and Ashly say they were screwed?
…I don’t plan to ask anyone at all. Games Media will do that. Its what they do.
There is this thing called a “consensus.” There was a consensus after the WGA strike in 2007 that the strike was a failure was there not? When this is all over the games media will be all over this. There are certain games media analysts that I follow quite closely who have their ear close to the ground, and they will give a fair assessment of the outcome of the strike. I’m willing to wait for that to happen. Why can’t you?
Again, this isn’t really hard to understand. Although you are trying your damndest to make it as difficult as possible.
Honestly: what is your obsession with this? I want the best possible outcome for the voice actors here. If they are happy with the end resolution, then I’m happy. Is that objectively wrong? What the fuck are you trying to prove at the moment?
I’d say there was, but the WGA declared success. I have no idea which publications might have taken which positions on the issue.
For one: because this is the first time you’ve mentioned this authoritative cadre of analysts whose opinions you will find dispositive.
Are you willing to share their names? I’m certainly willing to wait for their opinion if I know who to look for.
I’m not obsessed; I sense you’re weaseling because you want the best possible outcome for the voice actors and are reluctant to commit to a position in which you’ll be forced to admit that the opposite outcome was closer to what ended up happening.
…which is exactly why I’m not using SAG-AFTRA as the benchmark, but the voice actors.
No it isn’t. Read the thread.
Read the thread.
Or maybe I’m not fucking weaseling, and I’m simply stating my honest opinion, which for some fucking reason you refuse to accept. I think your metrics are stupid. I think that your position that if SAG-AFTRA do not get 100% of everything they are asking for the strike has failed is an asinine position. And it is asinine because it ignores the entire history of industrial relations, it ignores the entire purpose of bargaining. But no matter how silly I think your position is: unlike you I’m not demanding you change your position. I’m not accusing you of weaseling because you won’t change your position. I’m not ascribing any particular motivations to you because you hold these positions.
You want me to state definitively now that the strike has failed. I refuse to do that not because I am weaseling but because the strike objectively hasn’t failed. This was never ever going to be a short-term process. I accept the possibility the strike might fail, but I also accept the possibility that the strike may not.
You have not presented strong arguments in this thread that the strike has failed. You allude to “Before the Storm”: a game released after the strike that was successful with non-union talent as an indicator the strike has failed, but you ignore the Witcher 3, which was also a successful game that used non-union talent that was released before the strike. Apart from that: the only other argument you have presented that the strike has failed is the fact that the strike is still on-going: which in actuality is proof that the strike is not currently in a fail state.
These arguments are simply not convincing. It is not weaseling to say you have not made your case. What is weaseling is the fact you have studiously ignored pretty much every single fact that I have introduced into this thread and have resorted to personal attacks and an obsession with getting me to say that the strike has failed. What is weaseling is your constant shifting of definitions, your unwillingness to commit to what we are actually supposed to be debating in this thread, your inability to concede when you get something wrong, of demanding cites and sources from me when the only cites you’ve provided in this thread have been to an online database of amatuer voice talent and a link to a fucking song. What is weaseling is having the fucking gall to accuse me of weaseling.
In this thread I’ve taken the time to research and link to the positions of SAG-AFTRA, I’ve taken the time to try and explain why voice-actors have taken a very risky action and why it is important to them, I’ve explained why name voice actors are important to productions, I’ve linked to industry experts who talk about how name voice actors can make or break a game. In this thread you’ve bought nothing to the table but your opinion.
To your first proposition: that “name” voice talent is/is not pivotal to the success of some video games, I think that I have proven that name voice talent is pivotal to the success of some video games. I think I have also shown in this thread the value of name voice actors over both famous voice actors and most non-union talent. To your second proposition: that the strike has failed, I think the fact that the strike is still ongoing disproves that notion pretty comprehensively.
So no Bricker: I am not weaseling. Its a pretty distasteful allegation to make considering the effort I have actually made to turn this thread into an actual debate.
The relevance of “Before the Storm” isn’t just that non-union voice acting can be successful but that a franchise can be successful even after replacing well known union voice actors with non-union ones in important character roles.
…its also just a single data-point. Burch’s performance in Life is Strange was no “Tiny Tina.” It wasn’t what made people buy the game and wasn’t iconic enough to make a real difference to the franchise. Rhianna DeVries was the original motion-capture artist for Chloe in the original Life is Strange so there is continuity and Burch still worked on the production as a writer and consultant. So I don’t really think that this says as much about the strike as you think it does.
Huh? We’re talking about voice acting. Who was the motion-capture artist is entirely irrelevant. Who wrote the script is entirely irrelevant. It’s not as though people heard DeVries as Chloe’s voice and thought “Wow, that sounds like the motion-capture artist from the original game! What continuity!” or “Hey, that doesn’t sound like the Chloe I know and love at all but I guess it sounds like the motion-capture artist so that’s cool.”
Likewise, trying to wave away its importance by pretending that Chloe isn’t “iconic” enough for LiS fans is just crazy-talk.
Look, I can agree on the “one data point” but it really sounds as though you’re trying hard to downplay a result that, frankly, should be extremely troubling for people trying to find leverage in this strike.
…I think the fans of the first game care. There wasn’t a back-lash against this game because Burch didn’t voice Chloe: something that might have happened if both Burch wasn’t involved in the production and if the person who took over the voice role wasn’t so closely tied to the original game.
You can think what you like.
I’m not trying to downplay anything. Can a franchise or a series survive and thrive after the recasting of a character? Of course it can. The Fresh Prince of Bel Air continued with a new Aunt Viv. Rosanne was successful even through they had interchangeable Becky’s. Metal Gear Solid 5 recast David Fucking Hayter and the game shipped 3 million copies in the first five days.
So it isn’t troubling for me to point out that the success of “Before the Storm” says absolutely nothing about the strike at all in my opinion. Nobody has claimed that games would stop selling after the strike happened, and that a very good sequel to a very good game has sold quite well should come as a surprise to nobody.
Yes: they might be able to get more “leverage” if Burch didn’t do the decent thing and help out on this production, or if the union had tried to make this game a failure for using non-union talent. But you, like Bricker, are missing the point. Voice actors don’t want games to fail. They don’t want to be on strike. They want to work. They never had that much leverage to begin with: but in their opinion what they are fighting for is important.
Sure you are. When I claim you haven’t named the cadre of authorities you’re relying on, and you say, “Read the thread,” instead of naming them or providing a post number, that’s weaseling.
I say again that you’re setting yourself up to be able to point to virtually any result and claim it was a victory. You hotly deny it, and assert you’ll be willing to accept the consensus of game media analysts. . . who you won’t name.
…Jim Fucking Sterling son. Leigh Alexander. Nathan Grayson. Ben Kuchera. Laura Kate Dale. Arthur Gies. John Walker. Stephen Totilo. Katherine Cross. Susan Arendt. Andrew Todd. Anthony Burch. Carolyn Petit. Anita Sarkeesian.
No not all of those names were listed in the thread. Because honest-to-god I had no idea you were actually this fucking interested in the games journalists that I follow. Would you care to provide for us the list of games journalists that you follow for the rest of us?
I wasn’t fucking weaseling. I’m just tired of having to do your homework for you. I’m just tired of having to provide you cites when all you’ve bought to your table is your (uninformed) opinion.
I both look forward to your withdrawal of your accusation of weasling and your apology.
And I’ll say again that I am not doing that. I have set clear parameters on what I consider would be the success or failure of the strike. For some absolutely bizarre reason you think that I am incapable of calling the strike a failure if it turns out to be a failure. Why the fuck do you think that? I’ve been on these boards since 2002. When have I ever previously exhibited that sort of behaviour here?
I refuse to call the strike a failure **now **because the strike is not currently in a state of failure. I refuse to use your metrics for the success or failure of the strike because your metrics don’t take into account the nature of bargaining, and the essentials of how industrial relations work. We don’t look back in history and declare strikes successes or failures because the union got a 5% pay increase instead of 6%. Compromise is an essential part of negotiations. Your metrics ignore this.
Your metrics also do what you are accusing me of doing. They’ve been set up in a way that it is almost guaranteed the strike will be “declared a failure”: because any attempt at compromise will bring the strike into the fail state regardless of context. You’ve set yourself up so that virtually any result (except complete and utter perfection) will deem the strike as a failure. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. (Which, by the way, I am **not **doing.)
No this isn’t what I meant.
The consensus I’m talking about is not the consensus of games media analysts: but the consensus of voice actors who went on strike. The games media analysts will report on the result of the strike. They will interview the voice actors, the production companies, they will form a picture of what happened, it will very quickly become apparent if the outcome of the strike was a good one or a bad one for the voice actors.
On re-read what I wrote was unclear, so here I am clearing it up for you.
That first guy has a really unfortunate name.
But thank you for naming them all now, for the first time.
I don’t, but since I also didn’t claim to repose any particular authority in any game journalists’ analysis, that’s understandable.
As you can see from the remainder of this post, I still believe you’re dodging any specific, clear, unambiguous standards by which the eventual outcome can be measured, so at present, in my view, you’re still weaseling.
No. “Clear,” still eludes you.
A clear parameter would be one in which a neutral observer could unambiguously reach the conclusion you reach.
Never, but since you continue to dodge my effort to draw from you a clear and unambiguous standard of judgement, I guess that makes you a first offender.
Absolutely reasonable.
Understood, and no objection from me.
Not exactly. I’m willing to call it a success if any one of those goals is achieved.
In other words, if they get the requested residuals and nothing else, I believe they won. If they get the two hour vs. four hour condition, and nothing else, they win. If they get the title/role disclosure and nothing else, they win.
Thank you for clearing it up, but now we’re back to the question I asked: what if some striking actors opine that the strike was a failure, and others aver it was a success? Suppose you were to learn that, post-strike, an informal straw poll of the strikers revealed that 70% believed the strike was not successful and 30% believed it was. You claim to have described clear and unambiguous criteria, so how would you treat that outcome?
http://www.thejimquisition.com/im-jim-fucking-sterling-son-shirt-back-in-store-for-limited-run/
…this isn’t a withdrawal nor an apology. I was expecting better from you than this.
And neither do I.
And at this particular stage, considering the lengths I have gone to clarify my position, you are no longer using the word “weasel” as a descriptor of my behaviour, but as an insult. I would ask that if you intend to stand by that characterization that you do it in the pit. There is no way that you could read what I wrote and still continue to think my intent is to weasel. So just stop it already.
No it does not.
And a neutral observer could unambiguously reach the conclusion I reach.
I haven’t dodged your efforts though. I’ve given you my parameters. These parameters don’t meet your standards. :: shrug :: So what the fuck do you want me to do about that then? Your parameters don’t meet my standards. But I’m putting zero effort into getting you to change your standards because I’m not obsessed with making you do my bidding. So why don’t you just stop trying to get me to change my parameters. As I’ve already told you I’m not your fucking monkey, I’m not going to dance for your amusement.
Of course it is fucking reasonable. Why did it take you until now though to accept that?
Which is why your metrics don’t work. If they get the residuals but don’t get anything to relieve vocal stress or stunt co-ordinators then the voice actors won’t see it as a win. Your metrics lack context, they lack nuance. Your metrics will declare the strike a success even if every single voice actor declares the strike a failure.
CONSENSUS.
If the majority of voice actors thought the strike was not successful, who the fuck am I to disagree? (And in case you try to characterize that response as “weasling” again, let me make it clear for you: if the majority of strikers believe the strike was not successful, then as far as I’m concerned the strike was not successful. And a neutral observer would come to the same conclusion.)
In the unlikely event of a “50% 50% split”, that would simply mean that the result of the strike would be “mixed.” Because another problem with your metrics is that the only possible result are either a “win” or a “loss”: but in the real world “you win some, you loose some.” The real world is nuanced. The real world is not binary. The goal of this industrial action isn’t to “win”: but to come to a conclusion that is satisfactory to both parties in the dispute. You are looking at this whole thing wrong and you’ve been looking at it wrong since the opening post.
For reasons explained in my immediately preceding post (#235), I don’t agree that you’ve provided a clear, unambigous metric before now.
I’m sorry, but it’s not an insult to you: it’s an accurate description of your reluctance to accept or share measurable standards. You keep saying “consensus,” without any indication of how that consensus is to be determined.
How, specifically, would that neutral observer learn what the majority of the strikers felt?
Don’t say “by reading game journalists,” unless you believe that game journalists will publish a controlled survey.
I suppose that’s true, but my metrics are drawn from the very web page upon which SAG-AFTRA explains their desired outcome. For this reason, I am comfortable saything that I’m entitled to rely on it as an accurate description of their goals.
Yes, see, this almost unambiguous. In fact, strike that – it IS clear and unambiguous.
But it’s stlll not complete, because it’s unclear to me that such numbers will ever be available. So the adoption of this standard does nothing to dispel my prior characterization: you pick this, I think to myself, because no definitive poll of voice actors will be done, and this will allow you to claim defeat never occurred. “Cite that more than 50% are not satisfied,” you’ll say to me, and I won’t be able to.
Is that your plan?
Where will the numbers come from?
…my metrics haven’t changed for the entire thread.
If you were being “accurate” then your commentary would be reduced to “I disagree with how you measure the success of the strike.” But you aren’t being accurate. You state I show a “reluctance to accept or share measurable standards” when I’ve been doing just that: and you are now starting to concede I am doing just that. By characterising my posts as “weasling” you are accusing me of trying to achieve something by use of cunning or deceit. Of being a deceitful or treacherous person. Of behaving or talking evasively. None of that is remotely accurate. I’m not doing any of those things. I gave you a pass while I elaborated on my position. But I honestly can’t explain myself any more than I have. If at this stage you still think I’m trying to achieve something though cunning or deceit then yes: you are insulting me. Because I’m being open and honest with you. We have a disagreement on measureable standards. I’m not trying to weasel out of anything.
You never asked.
The thing is Bricker we live in the real world. The stakes for me simply aren’t that fucking high. If a neutral observer wanted to find out what happened with a relatively obscure event in the games industry they are going to turn to games journalism to find out the answer. The only person in the world who requires a controlled survey is you. The rest of us are more than capable enough to be able to read a range of coverage and be able to figure out what happened.
Its an accurate description of their opening position. Its a negotiation. Just the other day I was asked to provide a quote on a job. I quoted about $500.00 more than I normally would for the job. They bargained me down $300.00. They walked away happy because they saved themselves $300 bucks. I was absolutely stoked because I made $200.00 more than I normally would.
This is how the real world works. You quote high, they quote low, you meet in the middle. Sometimes you quote so high they walk away. And sometimes they quote so low that it is uneconomical to take the job.
So if you are measuring the success of the negotiations based on “the high quote” then you ignore the fact that they’ve probably quoted high knowing the employers will come to the table with a low bid. And if you start negotiations at your “goal rate” then you are nearly always going to end up with less than what you wanted.
Honest to goodness Bricker this is real basic stuff.
No Bricker. There is no fucking plan. I’m not trying to trick you. I’m not trying to game you. There is no agenda. I don’t have a clue why you are so suspicious of me. I can’t for the life of me understand why the fuck you would think that I am trying to avoid calling the strike a failure if it turns out to be a failure. I don’t have a fucking clue why you would think that I am trying to claim a “defeat never occurred.” I just don’t get it. I’m reading your words and I’m thinking “what the fuck are you talking about?” How on earth are you getting that from any of my posts? If you would simply stop with the assumption I’m trying to weasel out of anything, and simply read my words exactly as written, then it all should become crystal clear.
If the strike fails it will be fucking obvious. There will be no need for “objective measures” because the sound of disappointment from the voice actors would be deafening.
When the strike finally ends I’m going to log onto twitter, and I’ll have a pretty clear idea of the outcome of the strike within minutes. I follow a lot of voice actors on twitter. And they follow other voice actors. And it won’t take long to hear what happened directly from the “horses mouth”. I’ll read what they have to say. I’ll listen to Jim’s bonus Jimquisition that he will most certainly put out that day. I’ll read the various takes on Kotaku and Polygon. And I will have a much clearer picture of what happened than you will with you and your metrics. Your metrics allow for the strike to be determined a “victory” when every single voice actor might be lamenting its failure. If that were to happen: would you consider the voice actors were lying?
You are simply over-thinking this. You are thinking in abstract, and not in the real world. I’ve been up front and honest with you. I want the voice actors to succeed. That doesn’t mean that if the strike fails, I’m going to pretend that it didn’t. The only person in this thread who is emotionally invested in the “win/loss” state of this strike is you.
Yes, the latter: you are being evasive when it comes to answering specifics.
Look:
No, I don’t agree that this is true. I suppose it’s possible that the strike will end so monolithically clearly that all commentators agree, but it’s far more likely that if ten people write about it, at least one or two will find something positive to say, and you will, I suspect, latch on to those as though they had been handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai. “The rest of us” business is the kicker. This is a series of evasions as to what constitutes success. You were willing to claim percentages in prior posts but now admit hat there won’t be any particular way to measure those percentages.
That, my ursine friend, is evasion.
That’s why I agreed that if even one condition was met, they’re in reasonable shape to declare a win.
But how would it work to “lose $300” on the demand that the role and title are disclosed before contracts are signed? They’d only reveal every other letter of the title? They’d reveal the role, but by interpretive dance instead of words? See, that condition doesn’t really have a compromise position. It’s a yes-or-no proposition, is it not?
Because of your continued efforts to avoid saying anything that would allow a neutral observer to definitively lock in an answer.
I’m saying that you ignore the possibility that the “every single voice” thing doesn’t happen, that a few voices speak favorably and most don’t, and this will give you the escape rope to claim victory.
I think you’re invested strongly in this being a win, and because of that, you’ll seize on very thin rationales to declare that it was a win, such seizing made possible by your failure to specify a clearly falsifiable win metric.
…stop accusing me of being evasive. Having a fundamental disagreement on terms is **not being evasive **and is not weaseling.
You don’t have a fucking clue about the video games industry and you don’t have a fucking clue what I’m going to do when the strike is over. You can’t even name a games journalist that you follow. So stop pretending you have a clue how games journalists would react to this.
I listed a bunch of video game journalists before. They are not a monolithic bunch, they have opinions all over the spectrum and the reason I follow them is because many of them don’t agree with each other.
So how about you wait until the strike is over before you attack my character even more? If I do as you suspect then you will have cause to point it out. But until that happens would you kindly keep your suspicions to yourself.
No you introduced the percentages. I only used them to illustrate a point. That wasn’t an evasion.
You are not my friend, and that wasn’t fucking evasion.
I’m going to go back to what I said a while ago: something that obviously you didn’t understand. I’m not your fucking monkey. I’m not going to dance to your tune. I’m not going to play to your rules.
I’ve plainly told you my criteria for how I would consider the strike a success or not. My criteria are entirely reasonable and it is the same criteria that many, if not most reasonable people would adopt. If the headlines the next day say “Voice actors happy with the deal” then a reasonable person would consider the strike to be a success. If the headlines the next day said “Voice actors distraught as strike fails” then a reasonable person would consider the strike to be a fail.
It is not evasion to disagree with your criteria and to offer my criteria up instead. You can disagree with my criteria, you can try and point holes in my criteria, but you cannot make claims of evasion. Because I am not evading jack-shit.
Nope. You said that if one condition was met then they can declare a win.
Does this sort of ridiculous deconstruction of an argument actually work in a court of law?
Here is what is asked for:
"Transparency
Actors need to know more about the projects that they are working on. SAG-AFTRA has proposed that the actual title of the project and the role being hired for should be made available to at least our representatives before signing a contract. We have also heard stories of actors coming into a session and being asked, without prior consent, to do content that contains simulated sex scenes and racial slurs. To be placed in a session, and asked to do a sex scene and racial slurs that will be forever tied to an actor’s name should be a choice made by an actor prior to booking."
The compromise might be a non-disclosure agreement. The compromise could be the title and the role might be withheld, but full disclosure of any sex scenes or racial slurs would have to be made. So it isn’t a yes-or-no proposition at all.
By refusing to accept my word that I am not going to pretend that the strike is a win when it is a clear fail you are calling me a liar. Just stop it. Accept me at my word and stop claiming I’m going to do something that I’m not. I don’t appreciate being called a weasel, and I don’t appreciate being called a liar.
Can you stop with this strawman already? How many fucking times do I need to tell you that I’m not looking for an escape rope? I am not going to seize upon the slightest positive and claim victory. And I’m not going to do that because that would be fucking stupid. Only a moron would do that. I’m not a fucking moron. I’m not lying to you. Stop treating me like I’m a fucking moron and a liar.
And I’m telling you that you are wrong. You don’t fucking know me. Stop making this debate about me. If you want to accuse me of being a liar, then take it to the pit.
I have done my damndest not to make this thread about you. I could have talked about how disingenuous the thread OP was, how I don’t think you actually want to talk about video games and how the actual point of this thread was so that you could point and laugh at the union. But instead of that I’ve kept this thread on track, talking about the actual demands of the union, what voice actors bring to the table.
But you can’t stop attacking my character. And the reason you are doing that is you’ve got nothing else to bring to the debate. I was right in my first post in this thread. “Its too early to tell.” If you want to talk about what voice actors bring to the table, or about the strike, then I’m ready to go. But if you want to talk about what you “suspect I’m going to do when the strike is over” then do it in the pit.