Employee Response to Bobby Kotick, Additional Information on Cosby Suite

[Magical Mudcrab]

And Adjusted is largely accounted for in that men are encouraged to fight for increased salary early on while in women that's seen as a negative. Not saying that's right but that's where most the remaining gap comes from.

Discrepancies in pay increases, including negotiated starting salaries, are typically factored in when applicable and are used in determining the adjusted wage gap. If you have an actual study that demonstrates that what you are claiming is the case, feel free to post it; however, I've never seen a well-reviewed study that claims such.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah but you are speculating by ignoring evidence. The evidence is that the majority of people didn't know in 2013, Cosby was still getting shows planned in 2013, that the Blizzard devs took a public photo in the room with a picture of Cosby and that none of the private chats that were revealed showed any knowledge of Cosby being a rapist.

I said the majority of people didn't know because all evidence we have points to the majority of people not knowing until Hannibal pissed off a bunch of Philadelphians and they went to prove him wrong and found out he was right. Why was Wikipedia only able to find 2 articles pre 2014 and both were in Philadelphia? Why can't you find any proof otherwise?

Allegations against Cosby were public since before 2014, with public accusations being known as early as 2005 (which I believe is the Constand case, though you could likely find sources from before that point); however, it didn't help that some media outlets like ABCNews opted to lead their audiences by trying to make it appear as though investigators were trying to prove the sexual assault was actually consensual. It should be noted that the back-and-forth between Constand and Cosby was public and went on for over a year. In 2006, there were also publications like People magazine who published additional accounts of sexual assault from victims of Cosby, though at the time it was mostly Jane Does who did not want to come forward publicly. It's hard to believe that more people behind the scenes were simply completely and totally unaware of his behavior given the sheer number of allegations that would eventually come out against him from such a broad range of time, dozens of victims over the course of multiple decades, as well as the fact that these allegations even spilled over into the public. Further to that point, Hannibal Buress' joke wasn't even really a joke, he literally just told people to "Google 'Bill Cosby Rape'", so it's not like the information was even that well hidden from the public. The sad fact of the matter is that it's likely not that people were unaware behind the scenes, but more likely they either were more concerned about their own well being or simply didn't give a shit, such as in the case with people who knew a Weinstein.

Regarding how this relates to the Cosby Suite, it's possible that some people didn't know. Greg Street gave a plausible answer, as it's true that someone likely wouldn't publicly brag about something called the Cosby Suite if they knew about the allegations; however, it's a little uncanny how the Cosby Suite is tied to Afrasiabi, who was known to sexually abuse women at Blizzard. Even if some people did not know, the connection is a little too suspect to be give everyone a pass.

[zorkuus]

Allegations against Cosby were public since before 2014, with public accusations being known as early as 2005 (which I believe is the Constand case, though you could likely find sources from before that point); however, it didn't help that some media outlets like ABCNews opted to lead their audiences by trying to make it appear as though investigators were trying to prove the sexual assault was actually consensual. It should be noted that the back-and-forth between Constand and Cosby was public and went on for over a year. In 2006, there were also publications like People magazine who published additional accounts of sexual assault from victims of Cosby, though at the time it was mostly Jane Does who did not want to come forward publicly. It's hard to believe that more people behind the scenes were simply completely and totally unaware of his behavior given the sheer number of allegations that would eventually come out against him from such a broad range of time, dozens of victims over the course of multiple decades, as well as the fact that these allegations even spilled over into the public. Further to that point, Hannibal Buress' joke wasn't even really a joke, he literally just told people to "Google 'Bill Cosby Rape'", so it's not like the information was even that well hidden from the public. The sad fact of the matter is that it's likely not that people were unaware behind the scenes, but more likely they either were more concerned about their own well being or simply didn't give a shit, such as in the case with people who knew a Weinstein.

We're not talking about people behind the scenes being in the know, we're talking about the public.

[Magical Mudcrab]

We're not talking about people behind the scenes being in the know, we're talking about the public.

The part you quoted was addressed at the core of the disagreement that TheRevenantHero and qwerty123456 were having regarding the knowledge that someone in the entertainment industry would have regarding Cosby, which appears to stem from a post MoanaLisa made. Really, the core of the Cosby Suite argument they're having is "did someone in the group know about Cosby?" Well...
- The allegations are public and have gone back decades.
- The allegations were not hidden, and could easily be found via a Google search.
- Precedent exists that shows that people within their own industries have open secrets, such as the case of Weinstein.
- The individuals tied to the Coby suite all work within the entertainment industry.

If people want to argue whether people in the group knew, they should be arguing around the basis on points like the above. Arguments regarding whether it was known by 95% of people worldwide, or anything similar, is entirely irrelevant and just a means to distract from the point.

[LedZeppelin]

Where did I say they were not entitled to an attorney, a speedy trial, or presumed guilty. If found guilty of murder, then what do you call the people that support them? "Murder supporters".

We can play with words all day, but what does it matter? Did you make a point or did you just want me to know that you think the single word here, "supporter", is incorrect and I must adhere to your sense of vocabulary and justice in order to appease your even bigger sense of OCD? Maybe?

I am at a loss for what it is you need...

You ignored all context of my last statement. Defending clearly meant "Is a lawyer for"

[DingDongKing]

The part you quoted was addressed at the core of the disagreement that TheRevenantHero and qwerty123456 were having regarding the knowledge that someone in the entertainment industry would have regarding Cosby, which appears to stem from a post MoanaLisa made. Really, the core of the Cosby Suite argument they're having is "did someone in the group know about Cosby?" Well...
- The allegations are public and have gone back decades.
- The allegations were not hidden, and could easily be found via a Google search.
- Precedent exists that shows that people within their own industries have open secrets, such as the case of Weinstein.
- The individuals tied to the Coby suite all work within the entertainment industry.

If people want to argue whether people in the group knew, they should be arguing around the basis on points like the above. Arguments regarding whether it was known by 95% of people worldwide, or anything similar, is entirely irrelevant and just a means to distract from the point.

What’s also frustrating is that it’s highly unclear what the goal of the people going with the ‘no one knew Cosby was a creep’ statement is. Are you saying the naming of the Suite was innocent? Okay. Does that change the way Alex behaved all those years? No. Does it exonerate other people who went to the Cosby Suite? It does nothing. Nothing worse or better really.

Because even if the suite didn’t have such a contentious name, the chances are enough people knew he was a creep. And did nothing of note to stop it. That said, no one is implying Kosak actually ‘gathered chixx’ for the Suite. In fact Kosak has supported women in their claims against Alex. So yeah.

This is just one of those stupid round robin arguments. If anyone wants to die on the hill of ‘Eureka! Alex wasn’t a creep and the Cosby Suite naming paradox proves it!’ Then say so. Otherwise, this is just dumb.

[Kiwijello]

You ignored all context of my last statement. Defending clearly meant "Is a lawyer for"

If you can't convey your thoughts directly, without having to construe context, the problem is your communication skills. You clearly have NOTHING to say. Stop splitting hairs and using wordplay so that you have someone to talk to. It's coming off as desperate...

[solinari6]

Do you think this is a good time to apply for a job at Blizzard? I'm an average programmer at best, but if they are losing people left and right because of this, maybe I have a shot?

[Soon-TM]

Look folks, another gem from Blizzard, this time covered by IGN:

For the TLDR / lazy people, I am including the most important (to me, anyway) bits:

• Throughout that week, IGN has spoken to seven past and present Activision Blizzard employees, building a clearer picture not just of its deeply troubled working culture, but the immediate aftermath of that culture becoming public – and how those at the company have organised to try and effect positive change amid worldwide outrage.
• “It hurts to see it all written out,” one woman within Blizzard told IGN. “A lot of us have known about a lot of these instances, whether because we experienced them or we knew people who had. A lot of times the women within the company would start to band together at certain moments to protect each other.” Feelings like these are common among women at Activision Blizzard right now.
• Blizzard has tended to treat developers as special while the various support services have suffered the brunt of cutbacks and layoffs. This has put additional pressure on everyone, but especially marginalized groups.
• A Blizzard source points to the World of Warcraft team as an example of this dynamic at work. “WoW makes money, so the people at the top of WoW are untouchable, which means they get away with lots of shit (...)".
• Before finally being fired in the middle of 2020, Afrasiabi was known for engaging in “blatant sexual harassment with little to no repercussions,” with a source telling IGN that he was leading an incubation development team as late as May 2020.
• A source who has since departed Blizzard talked about how the room designated for breastfeeding didn’t have locks. “Men would walk into the breastfeeding room. There was no way to lock the door. They would just stare and I would have to scream at them to leave.” IGN understands that breastfeeding rooms have since been updated, with locks added to doors.
• Even outside of direct harassment or abuse, multiple women at all levels of Activision Blizzard described to me the ways in which they were evaluated differently from men — descriptions corroborated by the DFEH report. They described working overtime and fixing problems left behind after their male peers went home, or being dinged in their employee evaluations for “not getting along” with verbally abusive bosses. Women would be evaluated on their social and cultural skills while men would be reviewed based on their technical ability, even if they were in the same discipline.
• Seeing the memo [i.e. Frances Townsend's letter] had one source within Blizzard “laugh-crying in just pure disbelief.”. “Whatever [Bobby Kotick] says now, I don't think [it] matters as long as no one addresses the memo,” they said. “In my opinion whoever wrote that, if it wasn’t her… whoever approved that... that was just such a huge misstep.”
• Internally, leadership appears to be shifting its stance, and in the wake of Kotick backtracking from the original statement, one source said the “change is undeniable at this point." However, Activision Blizzard is retaining the services of WilmerHale, a law firm that has previously been used by Amazon to prevent unionization. Activision Blizzard has also reportedly canceled all-hands meetings, directing employees to in-house resources instead.
• At the regular employee level, this week has led to far more personal reckonings. It is already forcing many within Blizzard to question what it means to “bleed Blizzard blue.” More than one source talks about how they worked hard and endured a lot because they believed in the company, and now feel disillusioned not just with Blizzard, but with working in the games industry as a whole.

What a !@$%ed up company.

[Forogil]

What’s also frustrating is that it’s highly unclear what the goal of the people going with the ‘no one knew Cosby was a creep’ statement is. Are you saying the naming of the Suite was innocent? Okay. Does that change the way Alex behaved all those years? No. Does it exonerate other people who went to the Cosby Suite?

Exactly, if they didn't do anything it's not weird that they talked about a suite based on some old sweater joke or something! Now you get it!

If you think it's a room where people can relax and have a drink and it's as dated as Cosby (or the drink mix looks like his sweater or what-ever) - and there's even Cosby picture there it's perfectly normal to go there if you are a guy or a girl; and also to say that it's best to leave before people get too drunk (which is generally a good idea). That seems entirely consistent with what happened.

It would also imply that some of the governments case is based on hearsay and not as strong evidence as we thought. Perhaps JAB did more than give Alex a verbal "don't do that"; perhaps it was someone else who handled it instead, or perhaps the rest is actually true; we will see if it actually goes to trial. Obviously Alex is still a creep - no-one is denying that. Almost certainly others are as well, but who?

Now instead ask the question: what is the reason why some strongly claim that everyone knew about Cosby at Blizzard in 2013? Would it make sense that people at Blizzard knew, but some of the victims of Cosby's assault didn't know that he had assaulted others before 2014?

[Femininity]

Where did I say they were not entitled to an attorney, a speedy trial, or presumed guilty. If found guilty of murder, then what do you call the people that support them? "Murder supporters".

Who you quoted:

Like calling anyone who defended someone who was guilty of murder as a 'murder supporter'

Your response:

If they were GUILTY of murder, they would be murder supporters...

The right to assistance of counsel for defense is guaranteed. Does that make defense attorneys murder supporters, by your definition? What about representation during the appeal process?

We can play with words all day, but what does it matter? Did you make a point or did you just want me to know that you think the single word here, "supporter", is incorrect and I must adhere to your sense of vocabulary and justice in order to appease your even bigger sense of OCD? Maybe?

I am at a loss for what it is you need...

Not sure where your personal attack tangent came from. You good?

- - - Updated - - -

If you can't convey your thoughts directly, without having to construe context, the problem is your communication skills. You clearly have NOTHING to say. Stop splitting hairs and using wordplay so that you have someone to talk to. It's coming off as desperate...

You failed to adequately convey your position in our exchange, so attacking someone for attempting to divine it is pathetic.

[DingDongKing]

Exactly, if they didn't do anything it's not weird that they talked about a suite based on some old sweater joke or something! Now you get it!

If you think it's a room where people can relax and have a drink and it's as dated as Cosby (or the drink mix looks like his sweater or what-ever) - and there's even Cosby picture there it's perfectly normal to go there if you are a guy or a girl; and also to say that it's best to leave before people get too drunk (which is generally a good idea). That seems entirely consistent with what happened.

It would also imply that some of the governments case is based on hearsay and not as strong evidence as we thought. Perhaps JAB did more than give Alex a verbal "don't do that"; perhaps it was someone else who handled it instead, or perhaps the rest is actually true; we will see if it actually goes to trial. Obviously Alex is still a creep - no-one is denying that. Almost certainly others are as well, but who?

Now instead ask the question: what is the reason why some strongly claim that everyone knew about Cosby at Blizzard in 2013? Would it make sense that people at Blizzard knew, but some of the victims of Cosby's assault didn't know that he had assaulted others before 2014?

How about not taking what I said out of context? It’s a cheap tactic. What I’m saying is crystal clear. The Suite’s name is irrelevant. The Suite itself is also irrelevant really. Afrasiabi is still a predator and there are others too. The Suite changes nothing. As far as ‘who’? We will find out in due course I’m sure.

[Kiwijello]

pathetic.

Yes you are. Got anything else to parrot back at me? What a gnat...

[Forogil]

How about not taking what I said out of context? It’s a cheap tactic. What I’m saying is crystal clear. The Suite’s name is irrelevant.

How about being truthful?

You weren't talking about the name ("Cosby suite" - which is factually correct) - but about the naming (i.e. the process of giving the item the name - and which the law-suit implies that it was "Cosby suite because of the sexual assaults").

The latter would be problematic for all that were in on the reason for that naming.

[DingDongKing]

How about being truthful?

You weren't talking about the name ("Cosby suite" - which is factually correct) - but about the naming (i.e. the process of giving the item the name - and which the law-suit implies that it was "Cosby suite because of the sexual assaults").

The latter would be problematic for all that were in on the reason for that naming.

What am I lying about? I'm talking about the name. The name is irrelevant. The naming of it is also irrelevant. The fucking suite IS irrelevant.

Because Alex Afrasiabi didn't just harass women at the suite. Without it, there would still be a host of issues to solve.

And that's the thing. The court case doesn't live or die by the Cosby suite. But if you think it does, you keep doing that.

[Forogil]

Are you saying the naming of the Suite was innocent?

Exactly, if they didn't do anything it's not weird that they talked about a suite based on some old sweater joke or something! Now you get it!

The Suite’s name is irrelevant.

How about being truthful?

You weren't talking about the name ("Cosby suite" - which is factually correct) - but about the naming (i.e. the process of giving the item the name - and which the law-suit implies that it was "Cosby suite because of the sexual assaults").

The latter would be problematic for all that were in on the reason for that naming.

What am I lying about? I'm talking about the name. The name is irrelevant. The naming of it is also irrelevant. The fucking suite IS irrelevant.

It specifically named in the law-suit - including the alleged reason for naming it in that way, since the government understands that such a naming would be very bad.

Searching for "Crosby suite" blizzard gives thousands of web-sites as hits (even more for "Cosby suite"); and the alleged naming of it is a PR-nightmare for Blizzard and everyone pictured in it.

Why do you then insist that it is irrelevant?
Why do people insist that everyone knew about Cosby in 2013?

Because Alex Afrasiabi didn't just harass women at the suite. Without it, there would still be a host of issues to solve.

The law-suit isn't against Alex, but against Blizzard; and thus it's not only about Alex' misbehavior, but also about how accepted it was, and who else misbehaved (the latter is also relevant for other reasons). The naming of the suite is relevant for understanding that.

The law-suit is also to a large extent about gender discrimination in pay etc; and we haven't seen the evidence for that (except for the executives and head of HR and CEO isn't comparable, and frankly HR doesn't seem to deserve a higher salary based on the evidence). If parts of the law-suit is based on flimsy speculation we might want more evidence for the other parts as well, and not take the governments word for gospel.

[DingDongKing]

It specifically named in the law-suit - including the alleged reason for naming it in that way, since the government understands that such a naming would be very bad.

Searching for "Crosby suite" blizzard gives thousands of web-sites as hits (even more for "Cosby suite"); and the alleged naming of it is a PR-nightmare for Blizzard and everyone pictured in it.

Why do you then insist that it is irrelevant?
Why do people insist that everyone knew about Cosby in 2013?


The law-suit isn't against Alex, but against Blizzard; and thus it's not only about Alex' misbehavior, but also about how accepted it was, and who else misbehaved (the latter is also relevant for other reasons). The naming of the suite is relevant for understanding that.

The law-suit is also to a large extent about gender discrimination in pay etc; and we haven't seen the evidence for that (except for the executives and head of HR and CEO isn't comparable, and frankly HR doesn't seem to deserve a higher salary based on the evidence). If parts of the law-suit is based on flimsy speculation we might want more evidence for the other parts as well, and not take the governments word for gospel.

Again, TO ME the naming of the suite is irrelevant. How hard is that to understand?

Because the only named individual isn’t the suit so far is Alex. So that’s all we can go on.

As far as the rest of the suit is concerned, I think in my opinion - to me only and not as far as the facts are concerned, just me - it’ll be quite hard to prove the rest of the stuff they’re talking about.

So let’s see how it goes.

[Forogil]

Again, TO ME the naming of the suite is irrelevant. How hard is that to understand?

You started by saying that you didn't understand why the naming is important for others, but now it turns out that you simply don't care about that.

You are as clear as mud.

I have explained why the naming is important for the law-suit against Blizzard in terms of how systematic the sexual harassment was, and who else was involved - and the overall strength of the governments case; how much is it just speculation and how much is solid evidence.

[Femininity]

Reading comprehension fails you, meesa thinks. I understood what he meant just fine.

They never established their position on defense counsel, instead resorting to name-calling. The comprehension issue isn't mine.

What's with the warrantless rudeness in this thread?

[DingDongKing]

You started by saying that you didn't understand why the naming is important for others, but now it turns out that you simply don't care about that.

You are as clear as mud.

I have explained why the naming is important for the law-suit against Blizzard in terms of how systematic the sexual harassment was, and who else was involved - and the overall strength of the governments case; how much is it just speculation and how much is solid evidence.

Yeah, I don’t see it as important so I’m rhetorically questioning why anyone else would. I also have little interest in debating this further with you, because for me it’s simple. The harassment happened. How severe it is, we will find out in due course. Good day to you. I have dinner to go to.

[qwerty123456]

You know you are stating that the information was on Google, which, last I checked, was a readily available source of information for anyone that wanted to look anything up. It’s entirely possible that quite a few people knew, other than 1 comedian.
It’s been stated multiple times that it didn’t become mainstream before him. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t out there for people to know or find out.

So you are trying to say that Afrasiabi knew Cosby was a rapist so created a rape room in his honor then got all the guys to go along and take a public picture that the women at Blizzard somehow didn't see? And when the millions of fans at Blizzard saw it didn't call it out at the time because they all thought it was funny and secretly knew that Cosby was a rapist? Also see below response.

Discrepancies in pay increases, including negotiated starting salaries, are typically factored in when applicable and are used in determining the adjusted wage gap. If you have an actual study that demonstrates that what you are claiming is the case, feel free to post it; however, I've never seen a well-reviewed study that claims such.

- - - Updated - - -



Allegations against Cosby were public since before 2014, with public accusations being known as early as 2005 (which I believe is the Constand case, though you could likely find sources from before that point); however, it didn't help that some media outlets like ABCNews opted to lead their audiences by trying to make it appear as though investigators were trying to prove the sexual assault was actually consensual. It should be noted that the back-and-forth between Constand and Cosby was public and went on for over a year. In 2006, there were also publications like People magazine who published additional accounts of sexual assault from victims of Cosby, though at the time it was mostly Jane Does who did not want to come forward publicly. It's hard to believe that more people behind the scenes were simply completely and totally unaware of his behavior given the sheer number of allegations that would eventually come out against him from such a broad range of time, dozens of victims over the course of multiple decades, as well as the fact that these allegations even spilled over into the public. Further to that point, Hannibal Buress' joke wasn't even really a joke, he literally just told people to "Google 'Bill Cosby Rape'", so it's not like the information was even that well hidden from the public. The sad fact of the matter is that it's likely not that people were unaware behind the scenes, but more likely they either were more concerned about their own well being or simply didn't give a shit, such as in the case with people who knew a Weinstein.

Regarding how this relates to the Cosby Suite, it's possible that some people didn't know. Greg Street gave a plausible answer, as it's true that someone likely wouldn't publicly brag about something called the Cosby Suite if they knew about the allegations; however, it's a little uncanny how the Cosby Suite is tied to Afrasiabi, who was known to sexually abuse women at Blizzard. Even if some people did not know, the connection is a little too suspect to be give everyone a pass.

Yeah I've stated multiple times that some people knew but the majority didn't. Hannibal told people to google it after Philadelphians got pissed and didn't believe him since thats Cosby's hometown. He had been saying that bit about Cosby for 6 months with people thinking it was a just a joke. Half a year with not a peep until he pissed off Cosby's hometown.

He was trying to say that because Blizzard is in the "entertainment industry" that its likely they knew, decided to name it the Cosby Room cause they wanted to use it as a rape room, never talked about that fact in the private chats that were leaked and yet posted a public photo, and that even though the women were also part of the "entertainment industry" were somehow completely unaware of the name even after there was a public photo. There are thousands of Employees and Blizzard and they had millions of people see the photo and yet nobody called out Cosby being a rapist until a year later.

Whats more believable, that Afrasiabi was secretly googling rapists I can look up to and name a room after or that people are projecting future knowledge on an event in order to connect two unrelated events?