I made a bit of a stink on twitter posting that little accusation above (although on Facebook funny enough the response was unanimously “Hells yea!”), and I’d like to explain it a bit more here for people who didn’t fully understand what I was saying.
My best example would be the recent Tim Langdell fiasco that stirred so much controversy over the last year. I feel that many game developers still directly blame the IGDA for the entire situation, not realizing that a good portion of the blame falls back on them. Yes, I really am going to re-open this can of worms. First, let’s recognize that the IGDA made the grave mistake of assuming that people would be satisfied if they stuck to their legal guns rather than listen to the outcry of the members and industry in general. It could even be construed that they held on to Tim Langdell as long as possible to keep him around to work on the new website (a possibility many would find additionally discouraging seeing how the new site was received). Then again, Tim could have stuck around on his own volition for the exact same purpose. They also didn’t come back and provide proper guidance as the situation continued to worsen and Tim continued to refuse to resign.
Now, let’s consider how the IGDA members (or any non-members who saw fit to bad-mouth the org) are equally, if not more, to blame for the whole situation. First, many people were unable to separate the actions of an individual from the actions of the IGDA, and so they contributed to tarnishing the organization’s image by declaring that the Board of Directors were complicit with the actions of Langdell, never mind the fact that the board does not have, nor has ever had, the ability to control what their members do as individuals. People couldn’t just say “Tim Langdell”, they had to say “IGDA Director Tim Langdell” or otherwise associate him directly with the organization. I have no doubt that Tim, in his time and service as a board member, worked hard to further the goals of the organization.
Additionally, many people chose to remain ignorant as to exactly how Tim became a Director in the first place, and how he could be removed. Stephen Jacobs did an excellent job explaining the lack of member interest in voting and how it led to Tim’s election over on his Gamasutra blog (although I would like to correct him on the IGDA’s ability to appoint people), and yet when you look through the comments all people are concerned about are calling out Tim on both his actions against indie developers and his questionable game development history – while continuing to jab at the IGDA for doing nothing. You see, Tim being a member of the IGDA board lent a much stronger argument to people looking to defame him. At least, that’s what I figure given that no one saw fit to take proper action against him as outlined by Stephen.
To make matters even worse, by this time a lot of members were looking at the inactivity of the board and instead of taking responsibility for electing this person into his current position said “fuck this” and left the organization entirely – thereby removing themselves from the ability to vote Tim out of his position. Could it be said that the board is at fault for not informing the members via a statement that they could petition for a special meeting? Yes. However members can also be held accountable for not bothering to read the bylaws of the organization they are a part of, or failing to act upon those laws as is within their right.
A little over a month after Stephen’s post, Corvus Elrod decides to spearhead the petition for a special meeting and the removal of Tim Langdell. I’ve met Corvus, he’s a great guy, but I have to express my disappointment in his blog post – to me the tone sounds as if the membership of the IGDA have reached some sort of last resort, rather than the one thing someone should have done from the very beginning if people had really wanted Tim Langdell drug out of office, regardless of whether the board wanted to keep him or not. ( I am, however, interested in whether the undisclosed board member who told him there was no way to remove Langdell did so out of ignorance of the bylaws, or on purpose to save the board the trouble.)
After Tim resigned following the successful petition for a special meeting (the meeting was never held, but reaching that point gave Tim enough impetus to finally step down on his own), members continued to take action, as they rightly should, to try and prevent such an occurrence from happening again. One of the additional failures of the IGDA was the fact that no one really knew about Tim’s trademark practices before he was elected. The Voter Guidance Committee’s reforms of the election system, if they managed to keep up momentum on the initiative, should come to fruition with the upcoming board elections this month.
On Rockstar San Diego
No I’m not done yet, because the previous discussion leads directly into this one. I had hoped the story above had made it out to more people, who would gain a better understanding of the IGDA and how it functions and how, as members, they can function within it to make it better by doing things like reforming questionable election processes. Apparently this is not the case, as many are still wondering what the IGDA does for them or why the IGDA can not directly affect things like the situation made known by the spouses of Rockstar San Diego employees regarding deplorable working conditions at the studio. (There are also questions as to why people would put up with such treatment. Reid Kimball has a blog post that offers some ideas, and Jay Barnson also has compelling reasons for why people stick with dying projects/hard conditions.)
Let’s get one thing perfectly clear: The IGDA isn’t meant to directly serve the games industry. As a professional organization the best it can do is serve its members. That might make some people go “What?!” – however its members are comprised of the the games industry. By serving its members, the IGDA is in turn serving the games industry. It is the members of the IGDA working together that will make the changes in the industry, not the IGDA itself. The organization exists to empower developers and set standards for companies and individuals to follow. The more who do so, the better things will become. You do not have to join the IGDA for the sole purpose of getting something from it for yourself – that’s rather selfish considering joining the IGDA, at the basic level, shows that you approve of and support the changes your fellow members of the IGDA and the games industry are trying to make within the business of making games. As a non-profit organization, the IGDA is entirely dependent upon its membership for support and growth and the ability to spend money on furthering the goals of its members, who all seek to make the industry better.
It’s unfair for people to point at the IGDA and accuse it of being able to do nothing besides take a stand in support of the employees of Rockstar, because apparently no one at Rockstar decided to approach the IGDA to do something. Yes, the IGDA knew about the situation, but without cooperation from the studio employees or managers there was nothing the organization could do. There’s still nothing the organization can do. Rockstar as a studio never agreed to be withholden to the IGDA’s standards as set forth by the Quality of Life SIG, nor are they a studio member of the organization, therefore the IGDA cannot directly take on the studio. Neither has any group of Rockstar employees risen up with a court case and requested the assistance of the IGDA in fighting for their lost rights. The best anyone has done is band together loosely to release an open letter of condemnation – and those are the spouses of the employees!
Stop blaming yoursleves
So unless you’re ready to start from scratch and form your own organization to simply create a more complex problem out there, or you really think we’re all better off acting as individuals (look how that’s turning out) I suggest you get involved with the IGDA by becoming a member. Do it simply to support all the other members actively working and using the monetary resources you provide to continue to improve standards and reach out to more areas of the industry with their advocacy. Or, if you support the idea of the IGDA but feel there are parts of it that need to change, roll up your sleeves and join a SIG or request the formation of your own to address a certain issue. You certainly do not have to agree with other SIG members to be involved with that group. Debate is a constant practice, and the more voices that are heard the better the resulting compromise will be. The IGDA doesn’t offer a service in your country? There’s no local chapter in your area? Volunteer to research into creating that service, or work to start that chapter (I did the latter, and the NJ Chapter is everything I could have dreamed it would be).
The sooner we get everyone under one banner, working towards a standard set of practices and at least arguing from within the same camp, the less we’ll come across situations like the one we’ve found to exist at Rockstar San Diego. I think Jason Della Rocca, in his “Apology Rant” upon stepping down from Executive Director of the IGDA last year, said it best:
“Sorry for not doing a better job of roping in all the snipers from the sidelines. Turns out you are all pretty damn good at bitching and complaining and being critical. But then you don’t actually do anything about it and you don’t get involved. Sorry for not bringing critics under the tent and getting them to work at improving things.”
