Mike Morhaime Response to Blizzard Lawsuit

[Triceron]

For ex, if I was Mike Morhaime I would've said, "I read the entire complaint against Activision Blizzard and it was extremely disturbing and difficult to read. At this time, I can't comment due to DFEH's ongoing investigation due to the pending litigation.

At Dreamhaven we are having ongoing internal discussions about how to promote diversity and inclusion, (continue to talk about what Dreamhaven is doing differently to make sure those problems can't exist)."

People that are going to be mad and blame you for what happened will still be mad and blame you. People on the fence might believe you could do things different at Dreamhaven, and people that think you didn't do it have nothing to suggest you might've known about it or been informed enough to put a stop to it.

It's pre-emptive damage control.

It's a dangerous game of poker where he probably knows a bluff isn't going to work, and it's probably due to this investigation by the state potentially having enough evidence to prove everything true. You generally take the 'can't comment' stance if there's any chance of getting away with deniability. I think the evidence is stacked against him given the amount of hearsay, the dwindling public trust in the company as a whole, and many more factors.

He may be put in a position where all he can do is admit to knowing something but failing to act in time of need. It's the best means of saving face, given that any deniability may just dig a deeper hole than admitting he knew and wasn't aware of how bad it got. His hand is already caught in the cookie jar, so to speak, considering his close personal ties to the accused, and how it's literally his responsibility for having kept them around. Shit like that can't stay secret, and 'no comment' is not going to help him publicly.

At least with his latest statement, and with support from tweets directly from Cher after talking with her, he's creating an image of deniability in the form of inaction, rather than ignorance. That is his best move right now, given that the evidence for what happened may already be too damning to deny.

I would probably be more convinced of a 'no comment' move if he weren't actively founder/CEO of a new startup that he needs to continue to build trust in. If he was just retired and didn't need to be in the public eye, then sure, he could just fall on deniability.

[Drindorai]

Him falling for the Star Citizen scam just means he's extremely guillible. It's a game that is released "next game for sure" for like the past 8-9 years, and you can buy in-game spaceships for thousands of IRL dollars. But in this case, it's just him ALWAYS siding with the accused, because he hates "feminist politics" - he's a MAGAboy which should explain everything.

Ah okay I see now, thank you for clarifying

Sad that the choice seems to be side with the harassers over side with the victims. I feel like the default should be the latter until evidence emerges to contradict that. I can't imagine the State of California would willynilly go after a billion+ dollar company with out compelling evidence.

[Osmeric]

I can't imagine the State of California would willynilly go after a billion+ dollar company with out compelling evidence.

In addition, the State there has gone in record in court filings. You don't want to lie in court filings. So, the mere fact that these things are now there in court means they have personally committed to them being true, beyond just saying things in public.

[Makabreska]

with everthing going on i'll say it i can see blizzcon being cancelled till 2023 if not longer or untill all of this is taken care of

Nah, they will continue with online only events, w/o boooing and uncomfortable questions from the audience.

[ClassicPeon]

how do you ask if I've having trouble understanding what you wrote, when you're literally ignoring what I said.

Your "example" was saying "well lobbies are always toxic". To which I pointed out you could even have a normal lobby that just freaks out the moment they hear a female voice.

Again, sticking your head in the sand about it doesn't change that.



Because obviously it was still ongoing if one of the biggest culprits was still there.



Except what was typed was literally right under a quote of Video Games.

Although a bit ironic considering the situation that you would somehow try to make it about you.

I'm not saying there arent cases of this happening. I'm saying its being blown out of proportion.

Not jumping to conclusions != sticking my head in the sand. Its something you could do with learning.

You have to be kidding me with your last remark. It was obviously about me

- - - Updated - - -

What are you even talking about?

Feel free to go back and read the entire conversation if you have trouble understanding the context of the post. I am not hired or payed to pamper you

- - - Updated - - -

Well a number of my guild mates have already unsubbed in disgust, and we’re a pretty casual guild. So I wouldn’t underestimate the rage and disgust out there.

People love to tell others how offended they get. This is gonna blow over and those very same people will resub

[Mojo03]

Ah okay I see now, thank you for clarifying

Sad that the choice seems to be side with the harassers over side with the victims. I feel like the default should be the latter until evidence emerges to contradict that. I can't imagine the State of California would willynilly go after a billion+ dollar company with out compelling evidence.

There’s a video on this thread with an unbiased lawyer on YouTube going over it. I’d suggest watching it or at least the conclusion.

There’s a lot of weird and dishonesty in the California stuff. So much that it can make you think - Why are they lying and being manipulative if they supposedly have legit proof and are trying to do something good?

They also actually can really easily can go after them. From my understanding, This will NEVER go to trial. The reason being, if it does it will last for years and the state will have a ticket to go through all the companies files and data, which will cause a host of new problems for them. So even if it’s a losing case for the state, they can bring it to trial and drag it for years and cause a slew or headaches for Activision, which is why some people are saying it’s blackmail.

These companies always settle for this reason and stuff like the media headlines recently puts more pressure on them to do that sooner.

If California loses, oh well it’s tax payer money. On to the next case.

As for the media headlines. They were mostly pulled from the Bloomberg article that broke the story. If you read the Bloomberg article and the court documents, it’s clear the article was intentionally worded in a dishonest and misleading way to shine the worse light possible on all of it. Which again can make one think - Why are they being dishonest and manipulative about it if they have legit proof and are trying to do a good thing?

[Wekko]

Ah okay I see now, thank you for clarifying

Sad that the choice seems to be side with the harassers over side with the victims. I feel like the default should be the latter until evidence emerges to contradict that. I can't imagine the State of California would willynilly go after a billion+ dollar company with out compelling evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty, but if you feel you've seen enough evidence to assume guilt, by all means do so. Why wait for the legal courts who ask the same question to a handful of people like you.

[Ivarr]

From Reddit:

Not gonna say it but i joined a certain company where recently a bunch of stuff came to light. I joined as a lead of a fairly small team about a year ago.

I will be honest i have not personally seen anything like the systematic issues, described. I will also say i would have not joined this company if I knew those things.

In the last week i have had more then one "friend"/"connection", write me long messages pretty much telling me they do not feel comfortable being in anyway friends or connected with me.

The entire thing just makes me confused, and feel like i am an idiot. The internal communication/messaging from higher up, leaves me even more confused. I don't really know what i should be doing.

Originally i planned to just keep my head down and just do my job, and pretend that none of this is happening, but i feel this would be a huge slap to employees, which leaves me unsure of what i am even allowed/should be doing.

____

Ah okay I see now, thank you for clarifying

Sad that the choice seems to be side with the harassers over side with the victims. I feel like the default should be the latter until evidence emerges to contradict that. I can't imagine the State of California would willynilly go after a billion+ dollar company with out compelling evidence.

Siding with the 'victims' over the 'harassers' by default is equally toxic as it gives people the means to wipe out any whom they get get along with or hierarchical competition within the company.

Morhaime's problem is that a chief executive doesn't get to plead ignorance on this. It's his job to secure avenues in which people can take their concerns within a company to him without fear of reprisal. Of course he's not required to preside over every kerfuffle, he's got a whole HR department to make sure of that. But the fact that he claims no red flags were being raised throughout all this is exactly as damning as him admitting he knew all about it. In his position, ignorance of a toxic culture is identical to condoning a toxic culture.

[Super Dickmann]

If California loses, oh well it’s tax payer money. On to the next case.

This is the point that makes me laugh each time someone brings up how the state spent two years going into this so they can't be okay with losing the case. The state is the one actor unlike the company or those allegedly harassed who has zero to lose no matter the outcome. You will never get fired for wasting the taxpayer's money but you may get fired for spending two years without any material.

That said, given how Blizzard dicked over Quinton Flynn and Swifty over unproven, bandwagoned allegations it's appropriate they get screwed over by the same with an extra helping from the state.

[Saltysquidoon]

"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don't have a dog." Normally such arguments would seem to cancel each other on their face, however, legally "even if" and "anyway" clauses need not be argued; mutually exclusive defenses can be advanced without excuses for their relationship to each other. Of course jurists might be influenced by dual defenses such as "my dog was tied up" and "I don't have a dog", but this must be weighed against the fact that defenses may not be allowed if they are introduced too late.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_pleading

While her statement can be considered too antagonistic, I feel like the correct answer is "I can't comment due to an active investigation."

It's a little more complicated than that (because it always is with the law).

The defence of "I don't have a dog" is not going to be allowed if the fact you have a dog is not in dispute. That is more than a matter to be weighed by a jury and the judge will prevent you from advancing a defence that on its face conflicts with facts in evidence or not in dispute.

Also, as you pointed even legitimate alternative defences can be weighed for veracity so given that it's generally best to go for the funnel approach (wide/complete to narrow/partial):
1. You didn't get bitten (There was no damage);
2. In the alternative I don't have a dog (I could not have damaged you in the manner alleged);
3. In the alternative my dog was tied up (I did not have the opportunity to damage you); or;
4. In the alternative my dog doesn't bite (I would not damage you).

[Ivarr]

Normally such arguments would seem to cancel each other on their face, however, legally "even if" and "anyway" clauses need not be argued; mutually exclusive defenses can be advanced without excuses for their relationship to each other.

How does that work if the defense is taking both positions while under oath? Wouldn't that prove perjury?

[Mojo03]

This is the point that makes me laugh each time someone brings up how the state spent two years going into this so they can't be okay with losing the case. The state is the one actor unlike the company or those allegedly harassed who has zero to lose no matter the outcome. You will never get fired for wasting the taxpayer's money but you may get fired for spending two years without any material.

That said, given how Blizzard dicked over Quinton Flynn and Swifty over unproven, bandwagoned allegations it's appropriate they get screwed over by the same with an extra helping from the state.

For sure. Even though California is doing some dirty shit with this case, Im enjoying seeing Blizzard get their karma and the inevitable purging of their upper management in the near future that’s been toxic as fuck for the player base and the staff.

[Ivarr]

The only way for upper management to get replaced is if the pay-outs of this lawsuit are going to put a serious dent in the company's revenue. A few million dollars won't cut it.

[Farora]

And the internet goes wild. It's disturbing how everyone feels to need to be their own personal judge. A lawsuit is happening, that's the only thing that matters, the laws. But everyone is going crazy with virtue signalling. Oh well, I hope all the twitter people have a few minutes of feeling good about themselves, but in the end it doesn't relate to them and they should probably focus on improving their own lives.

[Saltysquidoon]

There’s a video on this thread with an unbiased lawyer on YouTube going over it. I’d suggest watching it or at least the conclusion.

There’s a lot of weird and dishonesty in the California stuff. So much that it can make you think - Why are they lying and being manipulative if they supposedly have legit proof and are trying to do something good?

What I find weird and dishonest is that you keep trying to associate your personal view of the matter with the lawyer's to give everything you just wrote more weight.

His primary criticism of the filing (which I agree with) is the weird fluffy appeal to emotion at the start is frivolous and largely immaterial (which I simply put down to being an american case). This is in of itself largely immaterial because any judge with any serious amount of bench time is going the skip straight to the procedural sections to find out what's actually in dispute, judges don't have time to scrutinise every SoC in the obscene detail being done in this thread.
Beyond that people are pretending like any defect in a SoC in history has ever had a meaningful impact on a case. Here's a free peek behind the curtain, this document (and blizzard's response) essentially 'don't matter' because as numerous people have pointed out anyone can write whatever they want in a SoC and response.

As to why the document is "lying" or manipulative. You always write a legal document with an eye to supporting the highest possible argument it is still reasonable to shoot for, every lawyer on earth does this it's the nature of the game.

Which brings me to this point

They also actually can really easily can go after them. From my understanding, This will NEVER go to trial. The reason being, if it does it will last for years and the state will have a ticket to go through all the companies files and data, which will cause a host of new problems for them. So even if it’s a losing case for the state, they can bring it to trial and drag it for years and cause a slew or headaches for Activision, which is why some people are saying it’s blackmail.

These companies always settle for this reason and stuff like the media headlines recently puts more pressure on them to do that soon

1. Companies are notorious for dragging cases out for years and winning unjustly through out-spending their opponent, now we're meant to believe big bad evil California has the funds to outspend poor tiny just getting by Activision publishing? Take your bullshit Reganomics argument and jam it.
2. If blizzard rolls over during discovery it's because they're harpooned and they have inculpatory evidence on their servers and/or they gave something up during the investigation that has the state sitting pretty. Stop perpetuating this conspiracy theory that blizzard will be forced to settle because the state will steal their super amazing patch 9.3 cinematics.

[ClassicPeon]

And the internet goes wild. It's disturbing how everyone feels to need to be their own personal judge. A lawsuit is happening, that's the only thing that matters, the laws. But everyone is going crazy with virtue signalling. Oh well, I hope all the twitter people have a few minutes of feeling good about themselves, but in the end it doesn't relate to them and they should probably focus on improving their own lives.

This has literally been my point in this entire thread.

But people are like "BUT BUT - WITNESS STATEMENTS - BUT BUT INVESTIGATION POINTS TOO"

how about - letting someone - who is far more involved in the case - actually judge the evidence - before you start pointing your virtuous fingers at every person who you can put in a box that you arent in.

[Farora]

This has literally been my point in this entire thread.

But people are like "BUT BUT - WITNESS STATEMENTS - BUT BUT INVESTIGATION POINTS TOO"

how about - letting someone - who is far more involved in the case - actually judge the evidence - before you start pointing your virtuous fingers at every person who you can put in a box that you arent in.

Preach it brotha!

[Grimalkin of Old]

Josh Allen's hypocritical response to that is a new low even for him.

[Progenitor Aquarius]

Jumping to conclusions over a two year long investigation result? And nothing in my post there was judging anyone specifically, just stating that it's literally on record that an employee committed suicide, so to take some weird victim complex as to "WELL WHAT ABOUT MEN?!" is just disrespectful.

Wait really? Someone who has been harassed there committed suicide? This is terrible. If that’s true then Shadowlands is probably the last expansion.

[Nachtigal]

Yo if if theres any girls out there... im virtue signalling so hard for yall rn, please love me