Last edited by Orby; 2021-07-22 at 05:59 PM.
I love Warcraft, I dislike WoW
Unsubbed since January 2021, now a Warcraft fan from a distance
Yes, we know it's biased. That's why whinging about people perjuring themselves is ridiculous since there is actually not a lot of profit to be made in fake harassment or rape claims.
Do you know who does want you to believe that it's profitable therefore anyone who brings suit against a company is suspect? Hint: It's the same folks who want you to think that suing you for keeping your coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns is "frivolous".
Y'all are part of the problem. And yeah:
They're forking out millions to a legion of HR drones and lawyers to do this for them and you do it for free. Some perspective.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
Well, not quite. Brack is mentioned in that he knew about the incidents with Afrasiabi and only gave him a slap of the wrist for all of it. I expect there will be a lot surfacing over the next few weeks or months. There are many, many people that are going to come forward and I rather expect that quite a few of the old-timers and founders in management are going to have to deal with the "We knew, but stayed silent" thing. Silence is complicity. Simply setting up diversity panels and the like isn't enough. There needs to be follow-through and then consequences. We don't know much about the follow-through part of this although there are many reports that many stayed silent as it would hurt their future prospects to raise the issue. We also can read that the HR department was at best reluctant to go after management figures.
There's no secret whatsoever that male and female employees were treated differently in day-to-day office settings. It's an ugly thing.
I too hope that Metzen doesn't get called out and I don't expect that he in any way acted as Afrasiabi has been described. But again, did he know? Did he just shake his head and stayed quiet when he did know of office incidents. Was he tolerant of the office culture? We'll have to see. All of that is going to be examined for all of these guys from Morhaime on down. It's frankly unbelievable that Morhaime didn't know what his office culture was like. For whatever reason, he tolerated it for a decade at least. Those are the kinds of questions that need to be answered.
Last edited by MoanaLisa; 2021-07-22 at 06:06 PM.
"...money's most powerful ability is to allow bad people to continue doing bad things at the expense of those who don't have it."
Who is "we?" Got a mouse in your pocket?
And "profit" doesn't always come directly. It sometimes comes after. Once someone is found guilty in that sense, lawyers have turned around and collected damages... mental anguish for some.
I'm sorry you feel that way, I really am.Y'all are part of the problem. And yeah:
Cool
"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*
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
That's literally what you were defending. Guys making repeated unsolicited romantic overtures to a woman is, definitively, sexual harassment.
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.I'm talking about women who flirt with men, heavily come onto them and when they say "would you like to go to dinner?" find themselves sitting in HR.
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.
It's called "having a mind of my own". Kudos for being outraged that I think for myself rather than blindly agreeing with whatever a court decrees.
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.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
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.)
However, I doubt that anyone care enough about this forum to make a point about it - but the risk of defamation mean that many others operate under some form of presumption of innocence.
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).