Under normal circumstances I wouldn’t be interested in writing about this sort of topic, but I can’t stand the dishonesty by omission we’re seeing from so many big players in the games press (and beyond). So without further ado, it is my great displeasure to address the Alison Rapp debacle.

Kotaku’s messy, updated article will get you up to speed on many of the pertinent points of the case. Alison Rapp, employed for over two years by Nintendo of America’s famous Treehouse localization and marketing department, has been fired after enduring several months of vocal disagreement, criticism, vitriol, and harassment from a wide variety of sources on Twitter. Kotaku had previously reported on the controversy surrounding the localization of Fire Emblem: Fates, of which Rapp also found herself in the center.

I want to say up front: I don’t judge Alison Rapp for having extreme views. There are no value judgements on Rapp’s opinions in the following thoughts.

Time out: can we talk about how silly it is that Rapp would be a target in the Fates controversy? You’d think if anyone would be cool with scantily clad young people and sexually suggestive mini-games in a game marketed to tweens and young teens, it’d be Alison “it’s alright to sexualize teenagers” Rapp. I mean, she’s so in favor of it, it’s already her nickname!

But back to the matter at hand, Rapp’s firing. While Kotaku originally cited the upwelling of criticism and harassment against Rapp as the probable reason for her firing, I have serious doubts that this is the case. Indeed, Kotaku was forced to update their article multiple times as Nintendo addressed the situation and provided insight into the real reasoning behind the termination; but before we get to that, let’s think about all the possible reasons Rapp could’ve been fired.

Reason 1: Controversial Opinions

Alison Rapp has ‘em, and she isn’t afraid to say them out loud on her public Twitter account. Now under normal circumstances, I’d be opposed to somebody losing their job merely for expressing an opinion, even if it is controversial or unpopular. I think that sucks, and I think it sucks for people to advocate for it – on both sides of the Gamergate aisle.

But.

When you are a marketing person, and a public-facing one at that, and you promote yourself as an employee of a certain well-loved and recognizable family-oriented company, I think it’s safe to assume that your Twitter account isn’t exactly a “safe space.” Here’s a case where the old XKCD rule of free speech comes into play: you’re guaranteed the right to free speech, but not from the consequences of speech.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not exactly promoting this perspective on speech. In a perfect world, we would be free of the consequences of expressing an unpopular fact or opinion in good faith for good reasons (which I think Rapp is doing!). But at the same time, I can’t blame Nintendo if Rapp’s commitment to her taboo beliefs about children and sexuality was a factor in her dismissal. If it’s her job to be a public face for the company, then she’s responsible to represent the company’s values, in this case the value of “not being creepy”.

My honest hope is that with all the attention and buzz, Rapp will be able to create a new career that will allow her to express her opinions without limitation. For better or worse, Patreon is the friend of the Twitter hate mob target.

I also think it pertinent to note that perhaps Rapp’s loudest and most fervent criticism came not from Gamergate or any other such scandalous movement, but instead from Jamie Walton, president of The Wayne Foundation, a nonprofit fighting against child sexual exploitation and trafficking. In February 2016 she became aware of Rapp’s publicly stated opinions and her position in Nintendo of America’s marketing division, and took swift action.

I’m not going to state that Walton’s right, and that Rapp should’ve been fired for her comments; on the other hand, Walton’s background, experiences and lifetime of advocacy give her voice considerable weight.

It’s interesting that Kotaku’s article on Rapp’s firing failed to mention Walton, even after two updates to address Nintendo’s official response and to add context about Rapp’s controversial statements. Writer Patrick Klepek did reach out to Walton in his first piece, on the Fire Emblem: Fates controversy, so obviously he knew that she was a player in this case, and a major advocate for Rapp’s dismissal. Make of this omission what you will.

Reason 2: Controversial Pictures

Alison Rapp has ‘em, and she isn’t afraid to post them on her public Twitter account. Now under normal circumstances, I’d be opposed to somebody losing their job merely for posting such a picture, even if it is controversial or arguably inappropriate. I think that sucks, because what do I care about the personal life of some rando employee at some rando company?

But.

When you are a marketing person, and a public-facing one at that, and you promote yourself as an employee of a certain well-loved and recognizable family-oriented company, I think it’s safe to assume that your Twitter account isn’t exactly a “safe space.”

In all seriousness, though: this is a fairly major aspect of the case that Kotaku has failed to mention altogether. I’m not going to link to the pictures here; they’re close enough to NSFW to make me feel creepy about the whole thing. Rapp has posted many scantily-clad pictures of herself on Twitter, in some of which she poses with Nintendo systems.

To clarify: Rapp has the right to do this, and you’ll hear no moral judgements from me on the matter. She has no personal ethical obligation to hold the same values as the corporation that is Nintendo. But as a public-facing marketing employee of that family-oriented company, she had a professional responsibility to respect those values in the public sphere. As far as I’m concerned, her behavior was extremely unprofessional at best, and is absolutely grounds for dismissal.

Reason 3: Hate Campaign

Since when has Nintendo ever given into pressure on just about anything? If Nintendo fired Rapp because a small, vitriolic minority had her in their sights, then we’d better get ready for Nintendo to go multi-platform, throw out the Zelda formula completely, make a new Metroid Prime with Platinum Games, and condemn all the motion controls they’ve ever employed.

And Nintendo of America has to know that giving in to Rapp’s aggressors would put them on the “wrong side” of the culture war gripping the gaming community, in direct opposition to Kotaku, Tim Schafer, Polygon, Anita Sarkeesian, the AV Club, that guy who played Wesley on Star Trek TNG, the hordes of NeoGAF, and just about everyone you can imagine.

Not to say it couldn’t happen. It totally could. But I find it unlikely.

***

So what’s Nintendo’s reasoning? Moonlighting.

That’s about as much detail as Nintendo is willing to go into. As they told IGN, they apparently became aware of Rapp’s second job, which they deemed to be “in conflict with Nintendo’s corporate culture.” I’m not going to speculate as to what that job was, but Rapp doesn’t deny it.

In sum total, then, we have four potential reasons for Rapp to be fired: voicing taboo opinions on a public professional social network account, posting extraordinarily unprofessional pictures on said social network account, being the target of a hate mob on said social account, and questionable moonlighting in real life. Of these, I believe three are completely plausible and completely justifiable reasons for a marketing professional to lose his or her job. One would be a bullshit reason, but honestly isn’t that plausible.

And yet, here’s an article on CNNMoney which fails to mention anything but the hate mob and the moonlighting. It ends with an implicit call to action by promoting this tweet, which only mentions the hate mob. Here’s one on The Verge, emphasizing the hate mob, mentioning the moonlighting and brushing off the controversial opinions, all while failing to mention her highly questionable Twitter activity. Kotaku’s article continues to fail to tell the whole story, even after several updates to include and discuss Nintendo’s statement and provide detailed context on Rapp’s controversial views. None of these three articles mention Jamie Walton or The Wayne Foundation whatsoever.

Looking around the internet, this is pretty much what you’re going to get on this story. The hate mob is the real reason, imply the journalists, as they position the moonlighting and taboo public expressions as mere excuses and completely ignore her brazenly unprofessional Twitter pictures. No, they say, this is simply a case of yet another corporation in the gaming sphere choosing Gamergate over the lives of women.

In case you didn’t pick up on that, I think it’s bullshit.

It really sucks to be Alison Rapp right now, and I genuinely regret that she found herself in the crosshairs of the angry internet hordes. I wish her all the best going forward. But it’s not Gamergate’s fault she got fired, nor Nintendo’s.

The best reasons for her dismissal are completely her own. She chose to get a second job, and apparently chose it poorly. She chose, as a marketing person for a family-oriented company, to repeatedly declare her highly taboo beliefs. She chose to post decidedly sexual images of herself ­posing with said family-oriented employer’s products. Heck, she chose to promote her position at Nintendo on her Twitter account, so as to remove any semblance of ambiguity that she represents the company.

Still, I have the strangest feeling that this is going to haunt Nintendo for a long time coming. Eventually the major players in the gaming press will drop it; as the real reasons for Rapp’s firing slowly leak into common knowledge, they won’t be able to push the anti-Nintendo narrative as explicitly. But regardless, I’d be on the lookout for that subconscious “Nintendo hates all women” vibe in the press for the foreseeable future.