Activision Blizzard Shareholder SOC Letter, Diablo II: Resurrected Early Access

[Triceron]

All of the possible things are not "She was a token promotion". Why only accept that she was a token and not that the way everything went down made it feel that way to her when she was genuinely picked to be a co-leader? There are a lot of different possibilities from the non-detailed stuff that has been released from the involved parties.

I never said it was all the possibilities, I said it was a possibility and for some reason you are taking sides on a he-said she-said argument.
Is there any particular reason you are taking Ybarra's statement as fact while disregarding Jen's statements as moot? You're in no position to make that judgement call, are you?

You seem to be operating on one sided information here, and it's really curious why you're even being biased towards Ybarra's statement when we really have nothing to suggest his 'testimony' is any more valid than Jen's in this whole case. It sounds like you want to side with information that brushes off the situation as being a case of an overblown hissy-fit, but that's clearly only one side of the story here and doesn't even regard anything about her still possibly being tokenized and chosen to fill a status quo. Ybarra's statement is not empirical evidence that somehow denies everything Jen said here, it's just his side of the story.

At this point, neither side's information can be taken at face value as being true, so I'm quite curious why you seem to regard Ybarra's statements as being any more true when we can't really verify the truth in either statement. Do we know for a fact how their contracts rolled out? Unless you can actually prove Ybarra's statement, /i see no reason to operate under his words as being any more or less valid than Jen's. We don't know the real situation here.

[procne]

So being offered a contract, the same as the other co-leader, for equal pay is being a token employee? We've seen information that clearly indicates her remarks were a PR spin on things. She knew a contract was being worked out and talks about being told of new offers in the works. It was a negotitation that she clearly didn't like. Of course she is going to spin it her way.

I don't treat the contract thing as the proof for being a token, those are separate things for me.

But at no point is did I say:

You did not. But suggesting that what she said wasn't true, and that what she said is a PR spin implies that. If those allegations by her are not true then why is she saying that, if not to seek attention, for some purpose? What agenda could she have? I can think of many reasons, all of them bad. If she was hired to deal with sexism and harassment aftermath and then starts such games then who is she if not "entitled, self-centered bimbo".

The very woman who was hired partially to combat sexism and harassment leaves the company after 3 months saying she was tokenized.
It really is that simple - either you believe her story, or you are accusing her of dirty games and bad faith.

[rhorle]

The very woman who was hired partially to combat sexism and harassment leaves the company after 3 months saying she was tokenized.
It really is that simple - either you believe her story, or you are accusing her of dirty games and bad faith.

Except I am not. You even said I did not but keep trying to interject your idea of what I've said into this. I said she wasn't a token. Meaning that ABK didn't just promote her because they needed to fill a spot with a woman. That has nothing to do with her feelings and how she felt given how everything played out. I haven't said her allegations are not true only that they are worded carefully (I even said some words have a PR spin and not all) and people are interjecting things into that might not be there. Just like you keep trying to interject your own version of things I say even though I haven't said them.

Remember she already had a new job when she resigned. Things were in the works for a while which means any offer Blizzard made could have been rejected at that point. I'm also confident to say that her being promoted had nothing to do with her stopping harassment and sexism but had everything to do with her being a competent person. She was already the head of a long-time Activision studio and made a VP of development at Blizzard when that studio was transferred to Blizzard from Activision. Any leader of an Activision Blizzard company would be expected to stop harassment and sexism which might be harder then it seems since it is present in more then just Blizzard. (google the 1-800 number signature and Activision if you haven't seen it already).

[procne]

Remember she already had a new job when she resigned. Things were in the works for a while which means any offer Blizzard made could have been rejected at that point.

According to her it was Blizzard rejecting her requests.
She said:

When Mike and I were placed in the same co-lead role, we went into the role with our previous compensation, which was not equivalent. It remained that way for some time well after we made multiple rejected requests to change it to parity

[rhorle]

According to her it was Blizzard rejecting her requests.

Right. They couldn't agree on a contract. That still doesn't mean that she wasn't talking to other interested parties since you know as soon as her "resignation" was announced she already had a new job and ABK gave a $1 million grant to her new company. It still means that any offer at that point could have been denied so it coming after her resignation is "PR spin". Because the offer might not have changed because of the resignation or would have been accepted at that point.

[procne]

So she was lying, or at the very least, misleading?

[rhorle]

So she was lying, or at the very least, misleading?

Lying? No. Misleading? Possibly. How do you know that she wasn't misleading even if it was just a little bit? Do you have any proof that Blizzard changed the offer just because she resigned? It is still bad that they screwed up the contract negotiations over equal pay given their current situation regardless.

[procne]

Lying? No. Misleading? Possibly. How do you know that she wasn't misleading even if it was just a little bit? Do you have any proof that Blizzard changed the offer just because she resigned? It is still bad that they screwed up the contract negotiations over equal pay given their current situation regardless.

I don't know, I'm open to all the possibilities. And so far I can see those:
1. She can be believed and Blizzard tokenized her
2. She cannot be believed and is playing her own agenda, which means Blizzard has chosen poorly, and by that she's also actively undermining efforts of making Blizzard a better place for women and painting women in bad light. First woman in leadership position in company? Stirs up trouble, badmouths the company, does nothing for other women and quickly leaves for greener pastures.
3. A combination of both: Blizzard indeed tried to tokenize her, she played along for a bit until she found something better, and after that blamed it on blizzard to save face

I would prefer to believe the first one. After all so many people were convincing me that she was a good choice.

[Llj]

no words for this

[paydayloansM]

It seems to me that companies are better off focusing on game development, rather than on scandals, which are already postponing the release of games once again.