Disturbing Blizzard Activision

General Discussion
22

These are not comparable situations.

Quinton Flynn was uncredibly accused by one person of sexual assault with no evidence.
If he was guilty, he’d go to jail and his life would be destroyed.

This lawsuit against Acti/Blizz is the result of a 2-year long investigation that itself was a follow-up to numerous allegations of workplace harassment and discrimination. These are not frivolous accusations.
Acti/Blizz is not an individual whose life will be destroyed if the judge rules against them. If Acti/Blizz is found culpable here, the company will pay fines.

None of Acti/Blizz’s employees or execs are being criminally charged. No one will have their life ruined (even if they deserved it) if the court rules against them.

23

I thought courts were just formalities?

1 Like
24

accused but with no evidence… what makes you sure, if the bigger case has evidence and not only accusations or allegations?

True, but still this accusations might also be false. The story that the investigation holds 2 years could be based on a lie as well, even though it seems unlikely.

But the damage will be done against the company and we already see the sh-tstorm on Twitter from many streamers like Alliestrasza.

2 Likes
25

All this tells me is that you have not actually read up on the news of the lawsuit and simply do not want to do the research necessary to form an opinion.

Again, this lawsuit is the result of a 2-year investigation. The DFEH does not simply decide to filed suits on a whim. They spent two years collecting and compiling personal accounts, financial records, and likely internal documents before bringing their findings to a court.

Stop acting like this is a frivolous lawsuit. That is dishonest and misleading.

Merriam Webster says you’re wrong.

Definition of formality

1 : compliance with formal or conventional rules : ceremony

2 : the quality or state of being formal

3 : an established form or procedure that is required or conventional

Sure, but that’s irrelevant because this is not one of those cases.

Alright then, next time you feel someone is threatening your physical health or life, make sure you don’t fight back or try to escape, because that would be presuming they are guilty of attempting to harm you.

Who knows, maybe they had a perfectly good reason to just so happen to swing their fist right where your face just so happened to be.

Yes, hence the quotes I used.

1 Like
26

To be honest, I feel like some things are taken out of context. Like mentioned above, take it as a grain of salt and wait it out as innocence until proven guilty. The allegation of the inappropriate jokes isn’t good and the allegation of unfair delegation on the women isn’t. Still, I think the male employees outnumber the female employees by a margin. Potentially, there could be more hard working guys while a few male slouches among the men making them look bad.

In all my years, I’ve always seen Blizzard as a lean back company that strives on creativity and fun while being lenient on their Devs. It shows in the conventions, events and parties that Blizzard threw reflected that. The easter-eggs they put in the game and jokes they love to tell to the community along with their humour tells me what the company comes across.

As for the allegations, I can imagine it sounds like more of a disgruntled employee. The writing of the article sounds exhaggerated. I mean I can imagine the Devs play-testing HOTS and WC 3 but also enjoying it at the same time, Then the disgruntled employee be like “omg they’re playing games again”.

The frat party sounds pretty fun too. I’d imagine it as a typical American party with the beer in the red cups and things. OP sounds mad that he didn’t get invited to any social gatherings or parties with the red cups.

1 Like
27

Because this is a big case, and the accusing party does have something on the line.

The DFEH is a regulatory organization. They have to split their attention between many investigations and choose which ones are worth pursuing.

Whereas Flynn’s accuser wasn’t even publicly named-and-shamed (to my knowledge), nor did she finance the criminal case, the DFEH is both paying for this case out of their own purse and has their reputation on the line.
That last bit is actually the most important part, because if courts begin to suspect they can’t trust this agency, the agency will lose legal credibility and standing and its directors will likely be fired and replaced or they may have their funding cut.

Even if they don’t get the outcome they’re hoping for they need to at least show that they did their work and took the case seriously.

Some of the many accusations may be false, sure, but it is *highly unlikely that all of them are considering the sheer number of accusations and how consistent they have been, both over time and with each other.

As for the length of the investigation being a lie, that is so implausible as to be effectively impossible.
FDEH would have had to document almost every aspect of their investigation, from its funding to its length to how many people are working on it to how many interviews they’ve conducted (and likely with whom) to what documents they’ve requested from Acti/Blizz and other financial agencies, etc, etc, etc.
It would be impossible for them to not be caught in this lie if it were a lie, and they know that. It would take a colossal moron to not foresee the amount of damage they would be inflicting upon themselves if they lied like that.

Acti/Blizz has seen worse.

Remember the scandal over that pro Hearthstone player and the “free Hong Kong” stunt he pulled?
No lawsuit, let alone legal ruling, there, but Blizz’ reputation still took a big hit. They got over it though, which is part of why I have no sympathy for them.

Hell, Coca Cola is still going strong even after it was revealed they had been hiring assassins to murder activists and labor unionists in Central and South America.

These things happen. It doesn’t really change much, though. Stock prices drop for a bit, then rise again and the company continues as if nothing really happened.

If there were actual serious consequences on the line for these companies, and if they had good reputations beforehand, I’d actually be more hesitant to believe these kinds of allegations.
A well-behaved company with a stellar reputation at risk of going out of business due to a lawsuit like this? I’d have some sympathy and be a bit more willing to reserve judgement.

But Acti/Blizz has shown us time and time again that they will not act in a morally and ethically responsible manner, largely because they can just shrug off the consequences when they don’t, so I’m not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

1 Like
28

Most government issued lawsuits are the result of a long investigation.

Guess what? Even in a civil case, they still have to go to court.

Why? Why don’t we just assume that the suit is itself evidence of wrongdoing?

…

Think about it…

…

Keep going, you’ll get there…

No, it doesn’t.

1: compliance with formal or conventional rules : CEREMONY
2: the quality or state of being formal
3: an established form or procedure that is required or conventional
"the interview was just a formality"

Learn to read.

Again, court cases are not, vis-à-vis your own example, “just a formality”.

It’s perfectly relevant, as the state has only recently filed suit. We don’t know how - or in what manner - it will be decided.

I thought you did “thorough research”?

No, it wouldn’t. Taking action in response to evidence of a possible attack =/= ex post facto judgement of guilt or culpability in absence of evidence.

And again, since you seem to have missed this point and only want to argue, allegations and accusations are not evidence.

All of what you have written tells me that you have not actually thought about your position, and are simply embarrassed that you were wrong on a public internet forum. And make no mistake, what you have written is wrong, both in substance and in detail.

3 Likes
29

Because they need to go through the formalities of a court if they want to secure any punishment.

If you cherrypick your definitions, you can misrepresent what anyone says.

Courts are procedural ceremonies to weed out chaff from substance in legal disputes and to make sure that individual rights are protected. They are “established procedure that is require or conventional” and are “compliance with formal or conventional rules.” They are formalities.

We don’t need the courts to know if someone did something wrong, like you seem to keep circling back to. The court doesn’t decide what happened, only what (if anything) will be done about it.

Quit acting like the courts are the end-all-be-all arbiters of truth, and that nothing can be known except what the court decrees.

  1. Juries are made up of peers.

    Acti/Blizz does not have peers. It is a large, publicly-traded corporate organization, not an individual or small group of individuals.
    If there are no peers, you can’t have a jury of peers. If you don’t have a jury of peers, you don’t have a jury.

  2. Civil cases with the potential for broad societal impact, especially ones that may produce what is called “Case Law,” do not receive juries due to the potential ease of the juries being biased or manipulated. This is one of those cases.

  3. Highly technical cases like this require a fine degree of legal knowledge, the likes of which would only be held by legal experts such as the lawyers or the judge. Some rando off the streets would likely get lost trying to follow along.

It would be completely ridiculous to assume that this case would be heard by a jury.

Please do not project your own ignorance onto others.

Again, that is not all this lawsuit is based on.

You are, again, misrepresenting what is going on here. That is disingenuous, and it makes it increasingly difficult to believe you’re actually interested in the truth.

I’m going to go one step further and demand that you explain to us how Bill Cosby, who was convicted almost solely on the numerous individual allegations of the women he drugged and assaulted, is somehow innocent.
After all, you don’t think firsthand accounts by victims counts as evidence, right?

Yeah, this is about what I expected.

You are emotionally attached to your misconceptions, and will attempt to bend and twist words and reality in whatever way you possibly can to support them.
That is sad, but not surprising.

If you do decide to actually educate yourself on this issue and want to engage in an honest discussion about this topic, I’d be happy to continue.
If not, then I’m not going to waste more time on you.

2 Likes
30

You are aware they are being sued by a governmental department right?

This isn’t some bunch of women allegations anymore.

This went beyond that to a governmental level on a corporation.

Innocent till gutity seems like a cut line at this point when the government starts sueing.

3 Likes
31

I vaguly recalll hearing something that was also trying to get traction in the U.S court system I think it was a few monthes ago, it’s slipping my memory what exactly it was.

It had something like a couple hudred people ready to sign sworn affidavits that something was up but I was being told that they all must be lying.

I just can’t put my finger on what that event could be.

Just saying, sheer volume apparently means F all in these sorts of things,
Depending on your bias that is :woman_shrugging:

1 Like
32

Okay, first off you can’t just say, “I seem to remember, but I’m not sure…” and then act like that thing you think you might remember certainly happened. You especially can’t use that as evidence or a counterpoint to something concrete that certainly happened.

Second, I’m pretty sure you’re making an insinuation about this political fiasco, and dredging politics up on the forums is generally frowned upon.

Third, those signed affidavits were dismissed when they actually landed in front of a judge because they did not hold up, not because signed affidavits and personal testimony can’t be used as evidence.
Some were inconsistent with others, many were third-hand hearsay rather than first-hand personal accounts, most described completely normal things that the signer simply didn’t understand, and some were absolutely outlandish and were obviously false.

Y’know, it really isn’t a good look to compare women trying to escape workplace harassment and discrimination to nutjobs trying to undermine an election.

4 Likes
33

Anyone using this phrase, well I’d say I lose respect but that implies I respected you in the first place.

Anyway since I know how this level of condesecnion brings out the worst in me I’m gonna mute this thread now, have a wonderful night Maximus

1 Like
34

OOF.

He really didn’t like being called out like that. :skull:

35

It’s already beyond this when the government is now involved in this investigation, what part of this you people don’t understand?

You people are aware that this is the same department that went after Riot games for the same exact thing that Blizzard is being after now?

1 Like
36

Even if you’re right Sami. What is the problem with being cautious and telling people they should not judge too early…? It’s not like people were always honest and all criminals were always guilty.

1 Like
37

Because we are beyond cautious when the a government who got Riot fined is now fining Blizzard in a similar situation.

And if you read the whole essay the government released it makes actually more sense why I’m not in cautious anymore, because I vomitted.

1 Like
38

If that’s so clear as you say, then the court will have an easy task and the case is closed before it begun? And Activision Blizzard will hopefully gets the punishment they deserved. And only corrupted court and lawyers could save them from their guilt, but we hope this won’t be the case.

4 Likes
39

I understand enough that it’s still an investigation. If there is sufficient proof and evidence of the few bad eggs in Blizzard that did the allegations, then the people responsible for it will be brought to justice. Potentially the recent lay-offs might’ve been the reason why they wanted to make the changes in the department. If so that was the case, then the potential penalty might be less harsh because of Blizzard wanting to take action in the first place. See how easy I can create a speculation too?

I’m not a fan of defamation, and I’ve seen a lot of lies change and twist the image of a person or a business when that’s not really who they are or about.

2 Likes
40

Unfortunately, I believe this kind of behavior extends outside of Activision blizzard. The whole gaming and tech industry is guilty of this. My wife is friends with two female employees in the industry and both have expressed complaints about these issues.

2 Likes
41

As Sami mentioned, Riot’s already been busted for very similar offenses. I’d be surprised if EA doesn’t end up on the chopping block at some point, at least if they don’t shape up after this case.