Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-25247233-20160513080632/@comment-26018514-20160523160340

Kyuubi10 wrote: The Devil&#039;s Advocate WP wrote: All this "It's just business talk" doesn't persuade me at all, because I have seen so much horrible behavior justified on the grounds of it being "just business" that it seems more like an empty excuse than a rational argument. Business is exactly what you make of it and not every business is run or has to run the same as another business, especially when you are in the business of creating artistic works. This...

The Devil's Advocate in his past 3 posts summarised all that which I have been trying to say.

The discussion is not about whether the business acted like a business or not...

It's about whether the action was ethically correct or not. Whether Monty is truly being honoured or not with the direction RWBY is going, not only plotwise but also as a project.

...

It's not about whether it is business or not, but about whether the business is acting acceptably according with current ethical grounds.

Except no-one was saying it was "just business" we were saying there are business reasons to do x, y, and z. There is a huge difference.

Shane's letter can tell us what RT did, but it cannot tell us why. even in those situations he might know 100% and has told us are far too emotionally colored.

None of RT's staff or anyone involved with the letter were unaffected by Monty's death, we cannot begin to hope to understand the POV of all parties involved, but we can understand how Shane handled it and much of his own POV.

in other words: the only set of ethics we can truly question based off of the letter are Shane's. We just don't know why RT did what it did.