[neilv]

> Who starts an article, especially one questioning responsibility with the lines in the sort of "woman-owned, queer- and POC-driven ... " ?? It's impossible to try to remove the sense of entitlement one gets from this company after that, [...]

FWIW, I noticed that line as I read it, but it didn't make me prejudge the situation.

I mostly noted it as a potential interesting bit of info that might reflect well on DEFCON organizers involved with the badges.

Are you critiquing the writer's PR savvy -- that they should know that progressive references can both help and hurt them, due to political polarization?

(Examples: Some people warm to them. Others feel skepticism or even anger. Others might be personally indifferent, but assessing the PR situation.)

Or are you saying that you think a line like that definitely hurts reception of the writer's argument much more than helps them, with whomever their target audiences are?

[itsoktocry]

>that they should know that progressive references can both help and hurt them, due to political polarization?

Why is it "political polarization"?

DC hired an engineering firm based on, at least in part, reasons that have nothing to do with engineering. The project fell apart. Should the procurement process not be questioned, along with selection criteria?

[neilv]

I don't know whether that was part of the selection criteria, and I can't tell from the quote.

The assertion of "they expressed that they specifically wanted to work with us" doesn't assert anything about the selection criteria.

Even if we parsed every word rigorously, and took it as absolute truth, it doesn't necessarily mean anything more than the usual excited to be working with you polite enthusiasm convention that many business people and creatives/talent tell each other at the start of a partnership.

It could also be an overture to establish friendliness, in context, like to delicately convey that they are not one of those people who might seem biased against some groups.

Or it could, as you suggest, be alluding to selection criteria (e.g., we need X, Y, and Z, and bonus points if the partner happens to not look like they usually do, because the org wants to appeal to and benefit from a larger pool of hackers who currently don't feel like this this event is for them).

Or maybe we can't even parse it that carefully. Where did someone say they "wanted to work with [Entropic] as a woman-owned, queer- and POC-driven engineering firm to develop an electronic badge with a gaming element for this year’s conference." What exactly did they say, and in what context.

[maxlin]

>Are you critiquing the writer's PR savvy -- that they should know that progressive references can both help and hurt them, due to political polarization?

Yes. This is something that appears extremely defensive / conflict-seeking and just increases the chance of escalation. It's the kind of similar thing if they wrote something like "an engineering firm where 70% of the engineers have proudly summitted Mount Everest, something most people are only hope to do", that has zero relevance to the issue at hand but by default sets a setting where they are trying to appear somehow holier-than-thou and whatever they say is put under undue scrutiny even if that is the only snafu.

In making clarifications like this, one must be as possibly humble as they can and only talk about things with immediate relevance to the issue. That should be so unbelievably obvious. What they say on their frontpage, like trying to give some "vibe" might be something else of course, and doesn't as necessarily have to do with their craft. This PR person confused these two and should probably be fired, for the same reasons of doing the opposite of their job as for example some Helldivers 2 community manager semi-recently did. If a golden retriever in their position would do less damage, they are not the person for the job.

[neilv]

Good point about relevance.

I can make a few guesses why they put it out there (including, but not limited to, a kind of defensive signal "please hear us out, we're good people here", which would be understandable, since they're threatened).

But it's predictably inviting both biased/triggered negative reactions, as well as other people who wonder why you're leading with that when allegations are about something else.

I'm not a PR expert, so I can only guess at what all nuances they have to juggle. As a person, I imagine the situation has been pretty rough on a number of people.