Activision-Blizzard Sued By California

[Necromantic]

That's literally what you were defending. Guys making repeated unsolicited romantic overtures to a woman is, definitively, sexual harassment.

I honestly do not know how you misconstrued this. And I'm a very objective person.

Pretty sure the company's gonna have some pretty clear "no fraternization" policies that their actions clearly violate, then. So yeah; not the lady's fault, there. In any way whatsoever.

If that's the company's policy, that's the policy. That's not the policy everywhere else. Again, people meeting and starting to date at work is not uncommon in the world.

If they don't have such a policy, then it wouldn't have ever gone to HR. Unless it went beyond that. Which is sorta the point I'm making.

Not always. If the person feels like someone crossed the line, a good HR will look into it and say "yes you did" or "no, they did nothing wrong".

[wunksta]

If that's the company's policy, that's the policy. That's not the policy everywhere else. Again, people meeting and starting to date at work is not uncommon in the world.

Not always. If the person feels like someone crossed the line, a good HR will look into it and say "yes you did" or "no, they did nothing wrong".

Which is why asking someone out to dinner is simply not enough reason to have an HR counseling. Please stop acting like you know how HR works.

[Elegiac]

I am not spinning anything other than clearly stating that we should wait to read or hear about the evidence that corresponds to the complaint.

Which is not the only incident attesting to the toxicity of Blizzard's workplace culture in the past, regardless of whether or not this specific incident has merit. They have had a long and troubled relationship towards inclusivity in the workplace and in their gaming communities.

Or were y'all seriously operating under the assumption that everything was fine until now?

[Necromantic]

The point I'm more or less trying to make is we haven't seen the evidence that makes up the complaint. The complaint is a summary document without the supporting evidence and we're rushing to judgement off a summary statement.

If it's true, there's plenty of time for the actual evidence to come out of what happened. That's why there's no need to rush and why it's important to be willing to listen to both sides.

I know. What I do for a living is all about evidence, so I hear you loud and clear!

I'm only skeptical about these people here who want to slam the gavel right now. They seem to have everything all figured out and want to jump right to sentencing.

"Well see they benefit in this really nebulous way I can't define ergo it actually is profitable" is a dumb argument.

Again: the notion that fake harassment claims are a gravy train is something pushed by those wanting to avoid actual harassment claims being taken seriously. Good on you for helping maintain the culture. *slow clap*

Wow, talk about an extreme case of "out of context."

So, the State of California?

It's very clear y'all are trying to spin this into another #metoo case when the really is this proceeding is the result of two years of investigation by state level agencies.

This isn't an HR dispute. It's the equivalent of a drug bust; that's why "benefit of the doubt" is silly unless y'all are insinuating the state is just making shit up for reasons.

Nobody is spinning anything. We're only saying "let the court decide." But some of you want to pretend you are the court.

Nobody here is insinuating anything. The state is a middle-man. They're creating a complaint from complaints. We still have time (as stated) for any evidence of or of the contrary to come forth. We still have cross examinations.

I think you're misconstruing anyone here saying that someone in this case is lying.

[Necromantic]

Which is why asking someone out to dinner is simply not enough reason to have an HR counseling. Please stop acting like you know how HR works.

I do know how HR works. If you accuse someone, HR will look into it. They will question it. They will get both sides of the story and then say "there is a problem" or "no there isn't."

To expand on it... the story given, the man just asked her out to dinner. He had NO idea she was one of those people who believed that asking someone to dinner was not sexual harassment. Her complaint to HR leaves out that little detail.

[Edge-]

I do know how HR works. If you accuse someone, HR will look into it. They will question it. They will get both sides of the story and then say "there is a problem" or "no there isn't."

That's how it's supposed to work. But HR isn't in the business of protecting employees, it's in the business of protecting the company they work for. Which is why you see so many former/current employees coming out and talking about how their concerns were repeatedly dismissed by HR. Which is very similar to what we've seen in the reporting on Ubisoft's multi-year internal harassment issues around the world.

[Elegiac]

Nobody is spinning anything. We're only saying "let the court decide." But some of you want to pretend you are the court.

Once again: this is not a "he said, she said" situation. This is a state agency charging a company with noncompliance based on nearly two years of investigation.

Nobody here is insinuating anything. The state is a middle-man. They're creating a complaint from complaints. We still have time (as stated) for any evidence of or of the contrary to come forth. We still have cross examinations.

If these would reveal anything exculpatory then why wasn't that evidence noted in prior investigation. Lol.

I think you're misconstruing anyone here saying that someone in this case is lying.

Not really, I understand perfectly how people's parasocial relationships with their brands work.

[Endus]

So a guy could be sued for something, found not guilty (and he is actually not guilty) but you would still find him guilty because it suits you ? Nice "having a mind of my own".

Not only me, but that's explicitly and deliberately how the court systems work.

This is why OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" on murder charges, because the standard of evidence was "beyond a reasonable doubt", but a "wrongful death" civil suit found him liable based on the exact same evidence, because the evidence was beyond the "preponderance of the evidence" standard that civil courts operate with.

Just understanding the different standards of evidence would've been enough to inform you that your position was garbage nonsense that doesn't even work in the courts, let alone apply to public opinion in general.

In many jurisdictions something similar have relevance - as the public "discussion" might be seen as defamation of the alleged perpetrator if the statements are untrue. (In some jurisdictions it can be seen as defamation regardless of the facts.)

Typically not, if there's any reasonable possibility they might be guilty. Courts do not declare people innocent; a "not guilty" verdict does not mean anyone claiming they were responsible for the crime in question is engaging in defamation. That would depend on the specifics of the case.

It's only "defamation" if there's clearly no justifiable reason to believe the accusation could be true.

Note that kotaku writes "... alleges has led to years of harassment and abuse targeting the women in its workforce" - giving it a guise of presumption of innocence, and most news organizations don't name Alex Afrasiabi (ars technica states that Brack gave him a slap on the wrist without naming him; although polygon names him).

Journalists have a duty of ethics they're beholden to which requires certain standards from them. That's not the same thing as what I was talking about.

If that's the company's policy, that's the policy. That's not the policy everywhere else. Again, people meeting and starting to date at work is not uncommon in the world.

Dude, I met my ex-wife at work. I'm aware. And a girlfriend before that. Somehow, I never got sent to HR. Maybe because I wasn't a creepy-ass dude pursuing women who had no interest.

That's not what you were describing. You were describing repeated unwanted romantic pursuit. Because "she was asking for it".

[Necromantic]

I've asked you multiple times for sources of any other alleged incidents and you have not provided me with any information.

As I stated, I only know of the Diablo Immortal phones incident and Blitzchung. If you have other information, please provide it.

I'm unaware of any other complaint against Blizzard.

I don't think (s)he's getting it.

There are a lot of rumors and hearsay about Blizzard. Some of it is or very well may be true and some of it are fake. This type of thing is not exclusive to Blizzard.

Just because a bunch of rumors exist and have for a long time does not automatically mean they're true.

I know that Blizzard has problems as I've mentioned I know someone who works there. However, anything they tell me or I repeat is hearsay.

[Elegiac]

I've asked you multiple times for sources of any other alleged incidents and you have not provided me with any information.

As I stated, I only know of the Diablo Immortal phones incident and Blitzchung. If you have other information, please provide it.

I'm unaware of any other complaint against Blizzard.

Considering a lot of them have to do with forbidden topics and I'd rather not derail the thread further in that regard, do it yourself.

If you're that legitimately interested in hearing both sides then you won't mind the extra effort, will you?

[wunksta]

I do know how HR works. If you accuse someone, HR will look into it. They will question it. They will get both sides of the story and then say "there is a problem" or "no there isn't."

To expand on it... the story given, the man just asked her out to dinner. He had NO idea she was one of those people who believed that asking someone to dinner was not sexual harassment. Her complaint to HR leaves out that little detail.

Under most circumstances, asking someone out to dinner or a date is not considered sexual harassment. HR should drop it once they get the complaint, but document it in case there's repeated harassment. It is not enough to warrant a HR sit down as you originally implied. I don't know where you heard this story but it's extremely far fetched or lacking context/details.

Here's some further information
https://klinglerlaw.com/faq/asked-da...al-harassment/

[Specialka]

Not only me, but that's explicitly and deliberately how the court systems work.

This is why OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" on murder charges, because the standard of evidence was "beyond a reasonable doubt", but a "wrongful death" civil suit found him liable based on the exact same evidence, because the evidence was beyond the "preponderance of the evidence" standard that civil courts operate with.

Just understanding the different standards of evidence would've been enough to inform you that your position was garbage nonsense that doesn't even work in the courts, let alone apply to public opinion in general.



Typically not, if there's any reasonable possibility they might be guilty. Courts do not declare people innocent; a "not guilty" verdict does not mean anyone claiming they were responsible for the crime in question is engaging in defamation. That would depend on the specifics of the case.

It's only "defamation" if there's clearly no justifiable reason to believe the accusation could be true.



Journalists have a duty of ethics they're beholden to which requires certain standards from them. That's not the same thing as what I was talking about.



Dude, I met my ex-wife at work. I'm aware. And a girlfriend before that. Somehow, I never got sent to HR. Maybe because I wasn't a creepy-ass dude pursuing women who had no interest.

That's not what you were describing. You were describing repeated unwanted romantic pursuit. Because "she was asking for it".

Way to not answer the point. As usual.

[Necromantic]

at work. I'm aware. And a girlfriend before that. Somehow, I never got sent to HR. Maybe because I wasn't a creepy-ass dude pursuing women who had no interest.

That's not what you were describing. You were describing repeated unwanted romantic pursuit. Because "she was asking for it".

That's awesome you found love in the work place.

You didn't get sent to HR because the women you pursued were not the types I'm describing. I'm describing those types who are either actually trying to get men in trouble by baiting them or are just confused about what sexual harassment is.

And no, that's not what I was describing. Again, I don't know how you misconstrued that from what I said.

I gave a scenario that I actually witnessed (HR was never involved). That was someone doing just what I described.

[Endus]

I do know how HR works. If you accuse someone, HR will look into it. They will question it. They will get both sides of the story and then say "there is a problem" or "no there isn't."

Not always. Like Edge- said; HR exists to protect the company from liability, and for basically no other reason.

To expand on it... the story given, the man just asked her out to dinner. He had NO idea she was one of those people who believed that asking someone to dinner was not sexual harassment. Her complaint to HR leaves out that little detail.

I really don't know why I should take the account you're giving seriously. We're not getting her complaint with all the detail it may contain. It may even be entirely fictional, for all I know.

I have never heard of an instance where a male co-worker just casually asked a female colleague to dinner and was called into HR about it, not unless there was a "no dating co-workers" policy at least. There was always supplemental details, like it not being the first time he'd asked and she'd said no, or that he was her supervisor, or that there was casual touching involved, or he was staring at her chest, or any of a dozen other things.

[Necromantic]

Under most circumstances, asking someone out to dinner or a date is not considered sexual harassment. HR should drop it once they get the complaint, but document it in case there's repeated harassment. It is not enough to warrant a HR sit down as you originally implied. I don't know where you heard this story but it's extremely far fetched or lacking context/details.

Here's some further information
https://klinglerlaw.com/faq/asked-da...al-harassment/

You keep missing what I said.

When that hypothetical woman goes to HR, her complaint was not "he asked me to dinner". She conveniently leaves out that little detail. That's why HR will hear both sides and once they determine that's all that happened, that's when they drop it. Understand now?

[Elegiac]

I'm describing those types who are either actually trying to get men in trouble by baiting them or are just confused about what sexual harassment is.

Why are you even mentioning them if you're repeatedly having to disclaim that this particular case isn't one of those, exactly.

[Endus]

Way to not answer the point. As usual.

You didn't have a point.

You asked if I'd think a guy was responsible for something even if a criminal court found him "not guilty".

I pointed out that civil courts do so all the time, and cited a specific famous example. And that the public are held to far less of a standard than the courts.

That answers your nonsense "point" in every way it deserves. Just not in the way you wanted me to, but I'm not playing a stupid gotcha game.

[Specialka]

You didn't have a point.

You asked if I'd think a guy was responsible for something even if a criminal court found him "not guilty".

I pointed out that civil courts do so all the time, and cited a specific famous example. And that the public are held to far less of a standard than the courts.

That answers your nonsense "point" in every way it deserves. Just not in the way you wanted me to, but I'm not playing a stupid gotcha game.

You did not want to see the point, this is the difference. As usual, you make your own rules. Must be fun to work with you.

[Elegiac]

Technically, at this phase of the trial, it is a he said, she said situation. That's specifically what a court case is. The State of CA is saying "Blizzard violated these policies." Blizzard's lawyers are saying "we worked with and complied with the DEFH for the last 2 years".

The way you don't see Blizzard's lawyers are admitting that there was a problem that necessitated working with DEFH in the first place. Fucking lol.

[Necromantic]

Not always. Like Edge- said; HR exists to protect the company from liability, and for basically no other reason.

That's one of their functions. Our has multiple functions.

I really don't know why I should take the account you're giving seriously. We're not getting her complaint with all the detail it may contain. It may even be entirely fictional, for all I know.

I have never heard of an instance where a male co-worker just casually asked a female colleague to dinner and was called into HR about it, not unless there was a "no dating co-workers" policy at least. There was always supplemental details, like it not being the first time he'd asked and she'd said no, or that he was her supervisor, or that there was casual touching involved, or he was staring at her chest, or any of a dozen other things.

And I've never heard of scenarios like the ones in this complaint but that does not mean they don't exist. I've seen this happen more than once. One was a very young girl who had to be 18 or 19. The other was a middle-aged woman.

I've seen people reported for all kinds of frivolous things. Frivolous reporting is not uncommon. I moderate one of the biggest subreddits and people will submit reports just because they disagree and pretend to be offended.