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
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
2 hours ago, comander said:

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".

Of course I think it's important to make sure the fixes are right.  But it sounds like you're more concerned about the theoreticals than the situation on the ground.  If there's a systemic problem with sexual assault or harassment, you investigate and you find probable cause that they've done this and will do it again, then you're not harming an innocent person or using excessive punishment.

 

Also, I don't entirely buy the claim that you're living in a climate of fear.  It sounds a lot like those men who say they're afraid to talk to women coworkers or go on dates because 'anything' could be considered harassment... if you're really as reasonable as you think you are, you shouldn't be in trouble.  Women are not setting out traps to get you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Commodus said:

Of course I think it's important to make sure the fixes are right.  But it sounds like you're more concerned about the theoreticals than the situation on the ground.  If there's a systemic problem with sexual assault or harassment, you investigate and you find probable cause that they've done this and will do it again, then you're not harming an innocent person or using excessive punishment.

  

Also, I don't entirely buy the claim that you're living in a climate of fear.  It sounds a lot like those men who say they're afraid to talk to women coworkers or go on dates because 'anything' could be considered harassment... if you're really as reasonable as you think you are, you shouldn't be in trouble.  Women are not setting out traps to get you.

People being wrongly accused isn't a theoretical. It's been something that has existed for all of human history. 
This is a systemic and institutionalized problem. There's institutionalized sexism within the legal code that's a direct result of overzealous activists with nothing to lose if things go wrong. 


Most women are perfectly reasonable. If you, however, deal with 1000 women over the course of a 20 year career, the odds of all 1000 being perfectly reasonable are near 0. It's morally wrong to treat each as though they're a risk but it's practical to be at least a bit cautious. 


I wouldn't say I'm in a climate of fear so much as concern. It only takes on bad apple... 

As stated, I know people who have both been victims and wrongly accused, both who had evidence. Both got raw deals.

The greater harm is punishing those who did no wrong though. That's basic morality and to say anything else would imply poor ethics. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2019 at 10:52 PM, Results45 said:

Yeah based on the title alone I searched "masculinity" throughout that article. Hits all over the place. Along with searches for "white" and "masculinity"

 

I wish I could go back and respond sooner to let people know that the article will be filled with mental gymnastics, sexism, racism, and complete and total intellectual dishonesty.

 

Basically your bog standard SJW shitshow. A lot of faux intellectualism, written by the usual sort of self hating white male SJW that colleges seem to produce these days.

 

The person who wrote that article, is a symptom of the very toxicity facing our society today, and a part of the reason for the resurgence of the extreme right.

 

Hate, begets hate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Yeah based on the title alone I searched "masculinity" throughout that article. Hits all over the place. Along with searches for "white" and "masculinity"

 

I wish I could go back and respond sooner to let people know that the article will be filled with mental gymnastics, sexism, racism, and complete and total intellectual dishonesty.

  

Basically your bog standard SJW shitshow. A lot of faux intellectualism, written by the usual sort of self hating white male SJW that colleges seem to produce these days.

 

The person who wrote that article, is a symptom of the very toxicity facing our society today, and a part of the reason for the resurgence of the extreme right.

 

Hate, begets hate.


How to get into an elite undergraduate institution, law school or MBA program
1. Have "good enough" raw stats (GPA, SAT, LSAT, GMAT, GRE, etc.)
2. Have extracurriculars related to either being a "victim" OR an advocate for "victims"
3. ????
4. Profit. 

It's literally a formula for filtering out "icky" people who hold different values (basically whatever was trendy among the elites 30 years ago). 

Of the people I've met at game companies in strategic roles - 3 from UChicago Booth, 2 from Yale SOM, 1 from Northwestern-Kellogg, 1 who hustled during undergrad to get into Microsoft and then bounced to Activision/Riot/EA/Sony, 2 who hustled into a major studio (former roommates - both URMs neither who had a vindictive agenda)

There are a LOT of activist types who are being elevated to roles of influence. At some companies, like Google, you actually have "diversity, inclusion and equity" as a criteria for your performance evaluation. If you think the wrong way, you won't get promoted because you "aren't inclusive enough" or have a different opinion on what constitutes fairness (e.g. thinking that the immigrant from China or India faces higher struggles than the URM from the US). I don't mind people who are URMs or immigrants - it's usually the white people who are trying to label themselves as "heroes" as a means of climbing the social ladder (which DOES work and it works best in the upper classes). It's a mix of narcissism as selfish ladder climbing - anything for a promotion. 

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


How to get into an elite undergraduate institution, law school or MBA program
1. Have "good enough" raw stats (GPA, SAT, LSAT, GMAT, GRE, etc.)
2. Have extracurriculars related to either being a "victim" OR an advocate for "victims"
3. ????
4. Profit. 

It's literally a formula for filtering out "icky" people who hold different values (basically whatever was trendy among the elites 30 years ago). 

Of the people I've met at game companies in strategic roles - 3 from UChicago Booth, 2 from Yale SOM, 1 from Northwestern-Kellogg, 1 who hustled during undergrad to get into Microsoft and then bounced to Activision/Riot/EA

There are a LOT of activist types who are being elevated to roles of influence. At some companies, like Google, you actually have "diversity, inclusion and equity" as a criteria for your performance evaluation. If you think the wrong way, you won't get promoted because you "aren't inclusive enough" or have a different opinion on what constitutes fairness (e.g. thinking that the immigrant from China or India faces higher struggles than the URM from the US). 

What's tragically hilarious is that the SAT's are now going to include an "adversity score". Because that's obviously not another method for the extreme left to exclude a specific race and gender they don't like.

 

"Inclusivity" my ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Trik'Stari said:

What's tragically hilarious is that the SAT's are now going to include an "adversity score". Because that's obviously not another method for the extreme left to exclude a specific race and gender they don't like.

  

"Inclusivity" my ass.

I'm actually FOR this. It doesn't include an individual's race. It does include income and demographic data. As a white dude who lived out of his car for the sake of affording tuition, I'm sick of the assumption that how you look is all that matters. 

The main concern I do have is that it might hollow out the middle class - donors's kids still get in, poor kids get in, the middle class gets shanked. It could also be gamed but the net of that might be better economic integration.  

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

I'm actually FOR this. It doesn't include an individual's race. It does include income and demographic data. As a white dude who lived out of his car for the sake of affording tuition, I'm sick of the assumption that how you look is all that matters. 

The main concern I do have is that it might hollow out the middle class - donors's kids still get in, poor kids get in, the middle class gets shanked. It could also be gamed but the net of that might be better economic integration.  

While I agree that might be beneficial, there's no way in hell I am going to believe they will see "white/male and poor" and put that ahead of "not white and not male".

 

I have zero trust in that system. AT ALL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

While I agree that might be beneficial, there's no way in hell I am going to believe they will see "white/male and poor" and put that ahead of "not white and not male".

  

I have zero trust in that system. AT ALL.


The current approach is:
Ideal applicant = Black guy with a posh accent who went to a $50k a year HS, who interned at a fortune 500 company, who has a Harvard JD as a father who is head of legal at a Fortune 500 company... the same F500 company that the kid interned at. 

I met that guy for what it's worth we were in the same group as interns. He's not a bad person, but there are other people who are just as smart and did a better job of using what resources they had available to themselves. 

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


The current approach is:
Ideal applicant = Black guy with a posh accent who went to a $50k a year HS, who interned at a fortune 500 company, who has a Harvard JD as a father who is head of legal at a Fortune 500 company... the same F500 company that the kid interned at. 

I met that guy for what it's worth we were in the same group as interns. He's not a bad person, but there are other people who are just as smart and did a better job of using what resources they had available to themselves. 

50k a yeah HS? Who pays for HS?

 

Also, welcome to the working world. My dad has spent the last 35 years in the shopping cart manufacturing and refurbishing industry. He knows how to run a plant, and every time a company has decided to kick him out over their own mistakes, an replace him with some college educated moron, you know what happens?

 

A year or two later, the customers leave that company en-masse to switch to whatever company picked him up. Because they know he will work his ass off to get them the best deal and the best service imaginable.

 

It's been proof to me that anyone with a "business degree" is a complete fucking moron who prioritizes immediate quarterly profits over long-term viability as a company.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

50k a yeah HS? Who pays for HS?

  

Also, welcome to the working world. My dad has spent the last 35 years in the shopping cart manufacturing and refurbishing industry. He knows how to run a plant, and every time a company has decided to kick him out over their own mistakes, an replace him with some college educated moron, you know what happens?

  

A year or two later, the customers leave that company en-masse to switch to whatever company picked him up. Because they know he will work his ass off to get them the best deal and the best service imaginable.

 

It's been proof to me that anyone with a "business degree" is a complete fucking moron who prioritizes immediate quarterly profits over long-term viability as a company.

In that case his father. Places like Andover and Exeter are expensive. Hell, going to a HS like that usually matters MORE than what college you go to. 

If you count my HS/college job, I've been in the working world for well over a decade. I actually haven't had anything particularly bad happen to me, have gotten promotions every other year or so and currently work with a lot of awesome people doing stuff I enjoy and being paid generously for it (low to mid 6 figures). 

I would disagree that "business degree" = moron. As a rule of thumb I have a lot of respect for people with a STEM undergrad/grad degree as well as an MBA from a top school. They tend to be very well rounded, my first boss fit that mark. Then again the Harvard MBA I worked with was surprised that gender non-binaries/decline to state only made up something like 0.2% of the dataset I was working with... "you worked at McKinsey?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

150 People of Riot Games is what? 1%? 5%??

That's not that many...

 

And if a small amount of your people cause Trouble, maybe its a good time to get rid of them?


"Hell is full of good meanings, but Heaven is full of good works"

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

150 People of Riot Games is what? 1%? 5%??

That's not that many...

 

And if a small amount of your people cause Trouble, maybe its a good time to get rid of them?

They had 2,500 employees as of 2018, so that's 6 percent of their staff.

 

I hope you mean that it's a good time to get rid of the sexists causing problems, not the people protesting sexism...

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

I hope you mean that it's a good time to get rid of the sexists causing problems, not the people protesting sexism...

No, I mean the people who are up to no good and only do bad stuff, have the mindset of a Daenerys Tagerian and are total egomaniacs...


"Hell is full of good meanings, but Heaven is full of good works"

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 9:37 AM, Stefan Payne said:

No, I mean the people who are up to no good and only do bad stuff, have the mindset of a Daenerys Tagerian and are total egomaniacs...

Sounds exactly like sexist assholes who are taking advantage of other people and making it worse for all other employees.


For Sale - iPhone SE 32GB - Unlocked - Rose GoldSold

Spoiler

 

 

* Intel i7-4770K * ASRock Z97 Anniversary * 16GB RAM * 750w Seasonic Modular PSU *

* Crucial M4 128GB SSD (Primary) * Hitachi 500GB HDD (Secondary) *

* Gigabyte HD 7950 WF3 * SATA Blu-Ray Writer * Logitech g710+ * Windows 10 Pro x64 *

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Riot Games had an executive that was suspended without pay after reports of him nut slapping, grabbing the butts and farting in the faces of his subordinates. There has been some weird stuff to come out of the Riot Games studio that makes this walkout seem pretty legitimate. This occured in December of 2018.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 6:18 AM, Commodus said:

They had 2,500 employees as of 2018, so that's 6 percent of their staff.

 

I hope you mean that it's a good time to get rid of the sexists causing problems, not the people protesting sexism...

You could make the argument that these people care more about making a point (or vying for social approval among their in-group) than they do about the reputation of the company among the external population. 

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of toxic stuff in the game industry at large. HOW you address it matters though. If you had cancer, you could try targeted surgery OR you could do chemotherapy. Targeted approaches generally are better from a "not killing yourself" perspective. The analogy holds as well, many innocuous cells also die.

 

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

You could make the argument that these people care more about making a point (or vying for social approval among their in-group) than they do about the reputation of the company among the external population. 

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of toxic stuff in the game industry at large. HOW you address it matters though. If you had cancer, you could try targeted surgery OR you could do chemotherapy. Targeted approaches generally are better from a "not killing yourself" perspective. The analogy holds as well, many innocuous cells also die.

 

What's wrong with trying to make a point?  If you see clear patterns of sexism in a company, the only acceptable option is to fight it in whatever ways you can.  If the leadership isn't budging on reasonable requests for change, you look into options like walkouts.

 

And frankly: screw the perception of the company until it sets things right.  It had multiple chances to make amends and refused them; it's not entitled to look good after that.

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

What's wrong with trying to make a point?  If you see clear patterns of sexism in a company, the only acceptable option is to fight it in whatever ways you can.  If the leadership isn't budging on reasonable requests for change, you look into options like walkouts.

 

And frankly: screw the perception of the company until it sets things right.  It had multiple chances to make amends and refused them; it's not entitled to look good after that.

If an activist type protests, and the company (or even on project) shuts down, REAL PEOPLE pay the price for that person's selfishness, aggrandized sense of self-worth and myopia. The desire to mold everything to one's will is outright narcissism and shows a lack of humility. 

Revolutionary activity has a history of bad consequences... which are paid for by someone else. 

Think radical leftists bringing forth the French revolution... or the Russian revolution or... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, comander said:

If an activist type protests, and the company (or even on project) shuts down, REAL PEOPLE pay the price for that person's selfishness, aggrandized sense of self-worth and myopia. The desire to mold everything to one's will is outright narcissism and shows a lack of humility. 

Do you suggest that if a company is violating ethics, it should continue to do so unfettered? The alternative to "just quit" won't solve the problem. There are too many software devs that need work that you quitting won't solve the problem, because someone else will just put up with a situation that ethically you shouldn't have to.

1 minute ago, comander said:

Revolutionary activity has a history of bad consequences... which are paid for by someone else. 

Think radical leftists bringing forth the French revolution... or the Russian revolution or... 

This part is getting quite off topic.


For Sale - iPhone SE 32GB - Unlocked - Rose GoldSold

Spoiler

 

 

* Intel i7-4770K * ASRock Z97 Anniversary * 16GB RAM * 750w Seasonic Modular PSU *

* Crucial M4 128GB SSD (Primary) * Hitachi 500GB HDD (Secondary) *

* Gigabyte HD 7950 WF3 * SATA Blu-Ray Writer * Logitech g710+ * Windows 10 Pro x64 *

 

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

Buy VPN

×