I think it's okay for Riot to fire someone who insults their customer base and makes them look unprofessional, yes. But your attempt to misrepresent what I said has been noted. I would like to have a productive and civil discourse on this, but I feel that the moderation policy on this forum stifles a lot of real discussion, as opinions going against the prevailing wind are silenced and shunned from the forums. This is then followed by people bleating 'the GGers win again!' at each other, like preaching to the choir, because they already threw away their chance to change someone's mind and instead just pushed them away for disagreeing. With that said, I'll take the risk and share my full thoughts on the issue. Should I catch a ban for it, it will only serve to prove my point. Making this forum a safe space for people who only agree with each other will never result in a change amongst the majority of people who do not frequent this forum. I feel that the event itself had good intentions (increasing female/NB representation in the industry) but bad execution. If Riot wanted to make an panel that was open only to women/NB, specifically for women/NB, there would be no problem at all. The initial uproar stems from the fact that men attending PAX, who paid the same ticket price and should have the same access as everyone else, were losing access to presentations that they would be interested in. If you want to show the content to everyone, but have a specific room where women/NB can raise their concerns and receive feedback on resumes, hear women/NB oriented talks, then fine. But the list of talks on the women/NB only timeslot was in fact fairly generalised. The negative work environment within Riot was uncovered, and Riot responded by withdrawing access from men who had nothing to do with the internal structure or environment of Riot. Understandably in my opinion, these men felt that this was unfair (but according to a lot of people on this forum, it's okay because they're men and men already dominate the industry, so this was just a way of somewhat tipping the scales in the other direction, even if the specific men who were losing out from this action had nothing to do with the imbalance anyway.) As for what DZK said. I think it's pretty mild and I have thick skin so even as a man who disagrees, I'm not offended by it. But I think the point still stands - you represent your company and you can't insult your customers like he did. That's all there is to it. I think trying to represent who disagrees as a 'misogynist' or a 'GGer' is disingenuous and the 'if you're not with us, you're against us' mentality on this forum is stronger than George W Bush.