Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
BiG StroOnZ

Over a 150 Riot Games Employees Stage Walkout Over Forced Arbitration & Sexist Culture

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, comander said:

The 4-5% figure would be "provably false". It's a lower bound. It's like saying 4-5% of UFO sightings are provably false - the actual figure is likely to be higher. 


Looks like you used the Spohn's NIJ study, which I've read in its entirety. 
They're using probable cause as their baseline for guilt. 

Here's the paper she published. 
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237582.pdf

The Los Angeles District Attorney's office, which participated in the study, responded to it after that fact tearing it apart, essentially stating that the LADA was misrepresented and that Spohn came in with ideologically predetermined conclusions. Essentially that the data's collection and interpretation was biased. The LADA actually noted that after seeing Spohn's work they regret working with her as the "research" is counterproductive to society. 

To quote the LADA: "The perspective, conclusions and policy recommendations are inconsistent with American constitutional principles of justice, due process protections and the ethical obligations of prosecutors."

They go on for a bit. Bear in mind that the LADA is arguably one of the most prosecution-happy offices in the nation, in the state with some of the strictest laws. 

I was covering a range of studies, including Ferguson/Malouff, Lisak, Burman/Lovett/Kelly and the UK Ministry of Justice.  It varies, but the typical rate hovers in that region.  And I think we should focus on figures where the claims are demonstrably false, since cases can easily fall apart for reasons other than lying (they might be years old, the victim could be pressured into dropping the case, and so on).  Remember, #MeToo was spurred by women addressing ages-old behavior that they can't necessarily prove in court, but likely happened based on the sheer number of consistent stories.

 

Besides, while there's a chance the actual figure is higher, it's unlikely to change the core argument: that the clear majority of sexual assault allegations are sincere, and it's better to offer a degree of trust (with verification) than to be immediately skeptical.  The perpetrators of sexual assault depend on us exaggerating worries about false accusations; let's not give them what they want.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I was covering a range of studies, including Ferguson/Malouff, Lisak, Burman/Lovett/Kelly and the UK Ministry of Justice.  It varies, but the typical rate hovers in that region.  And I think we should focus on figures where the claims are demonstrably false, since cases can easily fall apart for reasons other than lying (they might be years old, the victim could be pressured into dropping the case, and so on).  Remember, #MeToo was spurred by women addressing ages-old behavior that they can't necessarily prove in court, but likely happened based on the sheer number of consistent stories.

  

Besides, while there's a chance the actual figure is higher, it's unlikely to change the core argument: that the clear majority of sexual assault allegations are sincere, and it's better to offer a degree of trust (with verification) than to be immediately skeptical.  The perpetrators of sexual assault depend on us exaggerating worries about false accusations; let's not give them what they want.

There certainly is poor behavior that needs to improve.

I don't doubt that the majority of accusations are valid or mostly valid. Many of the more recent studies are done by ideologues though. The presumed goal is to sweep up everyone who is accused whether or not there's merit - that is to validate a shotgun approach to justice where there is little concern for false positives.  

It's important that the notion of Fair Play is not removed from the legal system. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 4:03 AM, emosun said:

men are jerks , more at 11 

hqdefault.jpg

And they are not wearing any pants.

 

EDIT:

I'm no one here would get this reference.


I have Dyslexia, my posts will have spelling and grammar errors. I try me best, but I will still make mistakes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, comander said:

There certainly is poor behavior that needs to improve.

I don't doubt that the majority of accusations are valid or mostly valid. Many of the more recent studies are done by ideologues though. The presumed goal is to sweep up everyone who is accused whether or not there's merit - that is to validate a shotgun approach to justice where there is little concern for false positives.  

It's important that the notion of Fair Play is not removed from the legal system. 

Ah, but we're not necessarily talking about the legal system in every case, we're talking about the overall credulity of victims.  The courts need a strict standard for a conviction, of course -- but that doesn't mean you can't make reasonable assessments as an individual about guilt or innocents.  In the case of Riot, it's likely there's a systemic problem based on the number of consistent reports.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Commodus said:

Ah, but we're not necessarily talking about the legal system in every case, we're talking about the overall credulity of victims.  The courts need a strict standard for a conviction, of course -- but that doesn't mean you can't make reasonable assessments as an individual about guilt or innocents.  In the case of Riot, it's likely there's a systemic problem based on the number of consistent reports.

Context matters though. 
If you are talking about "is it a good idea to give support to purported victims?" the answer's probably a yes. 
If it's "should the accused be fired?" that depends and I'd error on the side of transferring one or both people away - do no harm. 
Then there's the whole Title IX thing. Low burden of proof(51% belief and the committees are generally filled with ideologues who are concerned about keeping their numbers up) and the likely result is expulsion. I'd argue that there should be a much higher burden for expulsion... but that it probably doesn't hurt to separate the two people in question - do no harm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, comander said:

Context matters though. 
If you are talking about "is it a good idea to give support to purported victims?" the answer's probably a yes. 
If it's "should the accused be fired?" that depends and I'd error on the side of transferring one or both people away - do no harm. 
Then there's the whole Title IX thing. Low burden of proof(51% belief and the committees are generally filled with ideologues who are concerned about keeping their numbers up) and the likely result is expulsion. I'd argue that there should be a much higher burden for expulsion... but that it probably doesn't hurt to separate the two people in question - do no harm. 

I don't think transferring people away really fixes the problem.  In Riot's case, for instance, there are men who allegedly downplayed female candidates or prevented women from getting promotions if they refused sexual advances.  If you simply move them to other positions, that's not a solution -- you're just moving the problem somewhere else.  You investigate the problems seriously, and if you find reasons to believe the claims are accurate (say, multiple reports or conversation records), you fire the accused people with enthusiasm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Commodus said:

I don't think transferring people away really fixes the problem.  In Riot's case, for instance, there are men who allegedly downplayed female candidates or prevented women from getting promotions if they refused sexual advances.  If you simply move them to other positions, that's not a solution -- you're just moving the problem somewhere else.  You investigate the problems seriously, and if you find reasons to believe the claims are accurate (say, multiple reports or conversation records), you fire the accused people with enthusiasm.

I agree those things are problems and that a light touch doesn't necessarily fix them. It's a tourniquet - additional actions probably need to be done. Those further actions, should they venture from "do no harm", need to be carefully weighed. If the misdeed in question was "Bob made jokes and Sally laughed, one day the jokes went too far" is FAR different from "Bob felt up Sally the day before she was to get married" and ought to be treated differently. Proportionality of action matters. 

 

The flip of it is - who pays the terrible price if the fixes are misapplied? Do you, Commodus, stand to suffer if someone who is innocent (or not entirely innocent but is disproportionately affected) ends up suffering wrongly? Most people calling for vengeance (revenge?), have no skin in the game and face no repercussions if things go wrong. That's not fair. I don't think you're evil. I believe you have the best of intentions... it's just really easy to not be worried about people in an out-group. In my case my in group would probably be socially awkward geeks who are well intended but sometimes oblivious and who respond well to being told "hey, cut it out". 


If taken to an extreme you end up in a situation where people are afraid, walking on egg shells and are unable to be their genuine selves at work. I'm in a position where I'm afraid to make jokes or speak up on certain issues that my female colleagues can make as I'm in a hyper-progressive "Which Ivy league university did you go to?" culture. Not everyone is readily offended but I'm not able to speak openly if there's more than 2-3 people around, lest a "warrior for justice" overhear and become offended on behalf of someone other than themselves. I'm defining speak openly as in "civil conversation, similar to this discussion".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×