Because though it is likely an open and shut case, it still has to go through thr proper channels. Needs a rubber stamp on the whole thing, so they can actually get it on paper everything they’re guilty of. It’s a formality.
Again so much strawmanning going on.
1 Like
That’s because he’s white knighting. The two go hand in hand.
no u sexist they dont. stop mansplaining u sexist horrible garbage pig.
(btw I approve of your message, my post is sarcasm and preemptive satire of the droves that will come in saying variations of this very message)
It is also “a fair number of verified former employees confirmed it” and “AA (who was specifically named) left in the midst of it and was scrubbed from the company info” and “Blizzard’s own response”.
1 Like
Why do we have courts?
Because nothing we discuss here affects the outcome of the court. We can hang people on this forum (figurately speaking). We can find them guilty, innocent, both at the same time. Doesn’t matter.
The court is for this very reason. They are able to present the evidence that we do not have, and an impartial party or parties make decisions based on the law. We don’t have restrictions here, so we run our mouths and make up our minds based on conjecture, emotion, and a need to watch towers crumble down to dust.
An actual response from a different thread on the topic
And there are more like it
Now tell me again I am strawmanning
I don’t but I also think that his fifth amendment rights were violated. And those rights are for everyone, not just the people we like. We cannot encourage a legal system that is willing to abridge those rights if they feel like it since next time, the person in the hot seat won’t be Bill Cosby.
Which means I find the allegations significantly more likely than not. I don’t think that the OP thinks that Blizzard is a clean as the driven snow, I just think that they’re not willing to race to the finish line regardless of how much it seems like the result is a foregone conclusion, something I agree with. Until this shakes out I have my opinion, but I’m not willing to pass judgement as an unrelated layman at this stage.
I don’t think the OP is being cognitively dissonant because I don’t think they’ve assumed a position yet. I think defending the idea of protections for defendants is more important than making sure that Blizzard becomes a pariah today rather than tomorrow.
1 Like
Because “allegations are more likely than not to be true” is not the argument you made in your strawman? Glad we could have this talk.
The courts will decide, not you, Ever occur to you that CA has a substantial financial interest in finding fault with Blizzard after investing in a 2 year investigation? Where do you think those hundred million dollar fines go? Not to the “victims.”
i already did earlier, that’s why i said i wouldn’t be surprised
1 Like
Generally speaking, civil actions or other similar cases use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, i.e. more likely to have happened than not. Beyond reasonable doubt means 100% sure, preponderance of the evidence means 50.1% sure.
Still, there are specific things that need proved utilizing those burdens of proof, which will be laid out in the statutes/regulations.
2 Likes
Virtue signalling Twitter heads all of them. I sincerely hope they do all quit WoW over this, it will be a better community without them.
Correct.
In fact I would say that Bliz is probably guilty of SOMETHING if not MOST of the things they are accused of.
But as I said “major accusations require major proof”
So I will say “Bliz seems to be in some deep water here” but I dont agree and felt the need to state about how people should not rush to auto condemn based on an accusation where the defense has yet been able to…defend.
People saying “cancel wow subs!” and “Bliz is horrible!” and the like are spreading a bad mindset…that we should condemn people based on the severity of the accusation instead of the evidence and point/counterpoint discussions.
And for the 100th time I am no Bliz fanboy and find this whole thing quite humorous (not because of the serious issues brought up in the case but because Bliz has been trying to go woke for a while and then this hits)
1 Like
But it is up to use to decide. The courts will only find if there is enough evidence to show that they broke the law and are liable for civil penalty. It will not find if they are innocent. That is for each of us to decide.
A lot of innocent black men have went to prison exactly for that type of thinking. Way to be part of the problem.
Ok
I mean I could keep going but I think a quick browse could prove this to yourself.
This is sentiment is pretty much what I am calling out here
This isn’t a he-said, she-said on Twitter. This is a major state investigation into discriminatory labor practices at a large, public company. They will have all of the salary figures, HR records, and sworn statements from current and former employees. The question isn’t whether it’s true; it’s how big the settlement will be.
Unfortunately it probably won’t change much at Activision. The stock price dropped a bit, but apparently institutional shareholders don’t think it will be a big enough fine to impact the company’s bottom line.
No it’s not. Innocent is not a subjective thing. If they are prove. Guilty then they are guilty. If they are not, then they are not. Your opinion doesn’t matter at all and won’t change a thing,
Federal prosecutors have over a 95% conviction rate because of that same blind faith in authority figures.
1 Like