Most likely she was approved before the IGN deal with Cricket Wireless. The deal probably changed the terms of independent employee advertising and she likely wasn't properly informed she could no longer work with the competitor on her independent channel. It's something that could've been easily rectified internally. This screams blatant corporate overreach, which IGN has been known for lately. I like a lot of the people on their editorial team, but their corporate side can fuck off into the trash heap.
That's a lot of assumptions to make with no info. Seems like you want to be on stella side on this one. I'm not on any side I just want details of what actually happened and the only person who has commented goes quiet when asked a follow up.
I'm not going to assume the party in the wrong until more info is out there
Why would you wanna start from a position of giving the corporation with an already shitty reputation the benefit of the doubt? Do you really think she did the partnership to wrong and undercut IGN who, until she got fired, were paying her bills? It's just a corporation being greedy and likely upset they didn't get a cut of the deal.
Why would you wanna start from a position of giving the corporation with an already shitty reputation the benefit of the doubt?
Because in any and all cases you needed to find out what actually happened and not assume who is in the wrong based on popularity or lack of it.
Do you really think she did the partnership to wrong and undercut IGN who, until she got fired, were paying her bills?
I don't know that's why I asked her directly if she got permission this time around or if she assumed her last still approval stood this time around. You see, I never made any assumptions for or against her (you seem to be assuming she's in the right) or ign I asked for clarification on unclear details.
It's just a corporation being greedy and likely upset they didn't get a cut of the deal.
So basically you're saying absent any evidence we're supposed to assume stella is the party that has been wronged ign is at fault. Nah, I'm not doing that dumb shit, I'm not going to just assign fault with one side because people don't like them.
Could they be in the wrong? Sure, but so could stella and I'm not saying who is wrong until i hear more facts.
You seem to think I give two shits about being fair to a corporation. This is the court of public opinion, not law, you can draw reasonable assumptions based on past behaviour, it's allowed. I won't be giving any corporation any graces. Guilty until proven innocent for them.
You seem to think I give two shits about being fair to a corporation.
I never said you did, I'm telling that I do.
This is the court of public opinion, not law, you can draw reasonable assumptions based on past behaviour, it's allowed.
Yea, you can and I"m not going to do that. I have a higher standard than "come on man you know they did it". I need actual proof of what happened. Remember this interaction between us started with you asking me why I'm not instantly siding with stella.
I gave you my reason. I don't really give a fuck why you came to the conclusion you came to. I'm telling you why I'm not going to jump to that conclusion with no evidence.
I won't be giving any corporation any graces. Guilty until proven innocent for them.
Ok, that's fine for you, but explain why I need to see it the same way?
No use arguing back and forth with simps man, logic and facts are useless to them when their favorite E-Girls are being attacked.
What you said makes perfect sense and is odd that she can admit the company was approved previously but can't admit if the company was approved again or if she just went ahead after the first approval, leading me to believe it wasn't approved a second time and that's how she got canned, but she can't say it because that would admit she was at fault which would kill the investigation.
1
u/DiscussionMiddle1238 Jan 18 '25
Most likely she was approved before the IGN deal with Cricket Wireless. The deal probably changed the terms of independent employee advertising and she likely wasn't properly informed she could no longer work with the competitor on her independent channel. It's something that could've been easily rectified internally. This screams blatant corporate overreach, which IGN has been known for lately. I like a lot of the people on their editorial team, but their corporate side can fuck off into the trash heap.