Madison reveals experiences working at LMG

[mikaelus]

4 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

It would be nice if the choir of people screeching "defamation lawsuit" and "Madison is in legal trouble now" could stop. Spreading misinformation trying to scare people speaking up is despicable.

As is lying about someone else for publicity.

[tinverse]

I just don't know what to say. It seems like Madison was only with LTT for a very short time and I thought she would be up there with Linus, Brandon, and Anthony (Emily?) as one of my favorite hosts in time. I really want to believe Linus will make sure this is right because I do think he has a good track record of fixing mistakes as they happen. I don't know if there is a way for LMG to make this right, and I feel bad for Madison because I think she's telling the truth about her experience.

 

Also, some of you all are so caught up on a lawsuit it's dumb. Most things never go to a lawsuit and it doesn't look like Madison is pursuing a lawsuit, which means there won't be a lawsuit period.

[Booch121]

27 minutes ago, castlev said:

Exactly, she didn't even attempt to call out, she went straight for the knife.

she literally said she didn't attempt to because she would be harassed about why. ur so weird

[RatKnight]

5 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

What a bunch of condescending BS! You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

It's laughable what people come up with to "protect Madison from herself".

Madison has the right to express her thoughts, feelings and experiences without an legal implications.

 

 

Defamation is something completely different. It requires a false assertion of fact. And good luck proving that in court.

 

It would be nice if the choir of people screeching "defamation lawsuit" and "Madison is in legal trouble now" could stop. Spreading misinformation trying to scare people speaking up is despicable.

Canadian law differs.

 

It is up to the defendant to prove that their statements were true: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-298.html  https://kellywarnerlaw.com/chart-differences-between-united-states-and-canadian-defamation-law

 

My intent is not to be condescending, it is simply to express that I hope she is getting the help she needs both for her obvious and stated mental health issues, and the amount of shit that will be flying her way from people who don't care about anything except defending their favorite creator.

 

Basing your opinions on American law, and then accusing others of spreading misinformation is definitely an interesting tactic.  

[VoidX]

This corporate behavior usually goes hand in hand with forcing overworking. When the GN video dropped, I was stupid enough to support both of their views, but now it's clear that LMG has huge problems. I'm naive enough to think that this can change, but I've seen enough small to medium companies to know it's unlikely.

[Kiwamu]

12 minutes ago, castlev said:

Then you quit and hire a lawyer (there are lawyers who will take the fee from a judgement if they are confident in your case, instead of an upfront fee), you don't slice your leg open.

I'm beyond believe by comments akin to yours that don't show a thread of empathy or think that because your reaction is the sensible one to you, everybody should act that way. Humans are different and have different reactions. Some can brush stuff off and go through (your sanctioned) channels to remedy a situation; others have a far more harsher reaction as they see no way out.

 

12 minutes ago, castlev said:

Then you quit [...]

Sure, and what is she doing inbetween with bills? It's not all black and white. Litigation can even be costly and lenghty. Though assuming she would have no ligitation costs what would she do going to court with her living expenses? 

 

12 minutes ago, castlev said:

[...] hire a lawyer (there are lawyers who will take the fee from a judgement if they are confident in your case, instead of an upfront fee), [...]

So she not only has to find a lawyer willing to take her case, she also has to find a lawyer working pro bono for the time being, meaning she would need to ask every lawyer if they would be willing to work for free, then unpack the case and if they decline do so again, relieving her alleged abuse. Those lawyers need to pref. live in the area of the incident where it probably will go to trial. 

 

So your simple quit and get a free lawyer sounds nice on paper but that's all.

[R3L__1990]

2 hours ago, dago_mcj said:

Well, to the best of my knowledge it was jimbo. But let me make clear, just because he's said the phrase once on camera, doesn't necessarily mean he was the person who told Madison to do the same. But odds are odds.  I like his demeanor on camera, but I'm afraid I've also opened pandora's box. Maybe don't fire him? How about a demotion and make Riley head writer instead? Please? Don't ruin a career just because I brought up internet drama.

Not going to lie thats who I was thinking as well.

 

I never actually used to like him just didnt like his ego but as time went on it actually grew on me and now I like him.

[Booch121]

7 minutes ago, mikaelus said:

So, basically, he said she told him the same story. Waw... talk about evidence, lol.

It means that she hasn't added anything to the story, and has stuck with it for years. Adds credibility.

 

Most people who lie about things like this always add more and more to the lie as they go on

Edited August 17, 2023 by Booch121

[RatKnight]

1 minute ago, Booch121 said:

It means that she hasn't added anything to the story, and has stuck with it for years. Adds credibility.

 

Most people who lie about things like this always add more and more to the lie as they go on

Absolutely!

 

The important part, however, is for people to not confuse his statement supporting that her statements have remained consistent with corroboration.  He very clearly did not say that he had witnessed, or experienced the things she posted about.  That doesn't mean he hasn't, but he didn't say he had, and there is a very clear difference there.

[Cosmic Emotion]

3 minutes ago, Booch121 said:

It means that she hasn't added anything to the story, and has stuck with it for years. Adds credibility.

 

Most people who lie about things like this always add more and more to the lie as they go on

Is there any chance she didn't lie?

[HenrySalayne]

1 minute ago, RatKnight said:

Canadian law differs.

 

It is up to the defendant to prove that their statements were true: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-298.html  https://kellywarnerlaw.com/chart-differences-between-united-states-and-canadian-defamation-law

 

My intent is not to be condescending, it is simply to express that I hope she is getting the help she needs both for her obvious and stated mental health issues, and the amount of shit that will be flying her way from people who don't care about anything except defending their favorite creator.

 

Basing your opinions on American law, and then accusing others of spreading misinformation is definitely an interesting tactic.  

 

Quote

298 (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any PERSON by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.

She defamed which persons exactly? Pro Tip: You only need zero hands to count this number with your fingers.

[Booch121]

1 minute ago, RatKnight said:

Absolutely!

 

The important part, however, is for people to not confuse his statement supporting that her statements have remained consistent with corroboration.  He very clearly did not say that he had witnessed, or experienced the things she posted about.  That doesn't mean he hasn't, but he didn't say he had, and there is a very clear difference there.

Neither former-employees also even tried defending LTT at all, which i think says something.

[RatKnight]

1 minute ago, HenrySalayne said:

 

She defamed which persons exactly? Pro Tip: You only need zero hands to count this number with your fingers.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/corporation-law#:~:text=The Nature of a Corporation,-A corporation has&text=A corporation has separate legal,manner as a natural person.

 

aka corporations are people.

 

I am not saying she defamed anyone, if her statements are provable and true, there is 0 chance of defamation (and to be clear, I think it would be stupid for LMG to sue her, I am merely stating it is a possiblity)

Edited August 17, 2023 by RatKnight
Added some context

[HesCalledTheStig]

1 minute ago, Cosmic Emotion said:

Is there any chance she didn't lie?

At this point no one knows the full truth so both sides SHOULD be given the benefit of the doubt.

[LETSGOCHAMP]

the nonsense people believe is magical in the West. So LTT is in the heat and VERY conveniently, she speak out about toxic work environment(always the excuse for weak links in a company), and then pulls the sexual harassment card. Not sus at all

[Kisai]

38 minutes ago, HesCalledTheStig said:

Character assassination works both ways. She could just as easily be to blame. We don’t know. I’m sure there won’t be any attempt from LMG to slander or assassinate her  character. They have too much at stake and the backlash would be career ending. 

 

It will depend on who and when.

 

Like if it was Linus, personally doing it, that's BAD. If it was someone else (take a look at the team page) that we never see on camera, that's probably worse, because there will be no recorded evidence.

 

There is 89 people ( https://linusmediagroup.com/our-team ), maybe 10 are women. By any gender diversity argument alone, that is an extremely poor ratio, and likely why any complaints got dismissed. Now if you go look at the roles of the women, other than Yvonne (who we've rarely seen on camera), have we seen anyone else regularly? No.

 

Which means there is some kind of company culture problem of either not hiring or bean-counting reasons not to have the female staff on screen for some reason. This results in a lot of under-communication, clearly.

 

And when a company runs in the other direction (eg high F to M ratio) usually the problem is over-communication, where a lot of meetings and contacts are done to plan things, but then nothing actually gets done because the meetings and instant messages/emails take time and attention away from doing the work that actually makes money for the company.

 

You need to decide at some point to do something about correcting a gender imbalance once you have more than 10 staff, because you can't be having mandatory all-hands meetings of 100 staff, nor can you have everyone off working in their little corner unsupervised without anyone to report to.

 

When someone is unwilling to report things, it's either because they know it will accomplish nothing, or because they fear something, or both.

 

[HesCalledTheStig]

1 minute ago, Booch121 said:

Neither former-employees also even tried defending LTT at all, which i think says something.

Or it means nothing and you are assuming?

[castlev]

9 minutes ago, Booch121 said:

she literally said she didn't attempt to because she would be harassed about why. ur so weird

She literally claims that she cut her leg open because of a reaction she *anticipated*, but never actually attempted to call out. She just went straight for the knife. "They MIGHT deny my sick day, but I don't know that for sure, I didn't attempt to call out. Where is my knife? I need to do something extreme." It makes no sense.

[Booch121]

1 minute ago, Cosmic Emotion said:

Is there any chance she didn't lie?

Honestly, i think 60% chance she's telling the truth and 40% chance she isn't. 

LTT is obviously morally bankrupt, and Linus himself is an absolute narcissist. There's so many cases of abuse of women in the gaming and tech industry that its not even out of this world to say that Madison gotted treated that badly.

[HesCalledTheStig]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

 

It will depend on who and when.

 

Like if it was Linus, personally doing it, that's BAD. If it was someone else (take a look at the team page) that we never see on camera, that's probably worse, because there will be no recorded evidence.

 

There is 89 people ( https://linusmediagroup.com/our-team ), maybe 10 are women. By any gender diversity argument alone, that is an extremely poor ratio, and likely why any complaints got dismissed. Now if you go look at the roles of the women, other than Yvonne (who we've rarely seen on camera), have we seen anyone else regularly? No.

 

Which means there is some kind of company culture problem of either not hiring or bean-counting reasons not to have the female staff on screen for some reason. This results in a lot of under-communication, clearly.

 

And when a company runs in the other direction (eg high F to M ratio) usually the problem is over-communication, where a lot of meetings and contacts are done to plan things, but then nothing actually gets done because the meetings and instant messages/emails take time and attention away from doing the work that actually makes money for the company.

 

You need to decide at some point to do something about correcting a gender imbalance once you have more than 10 staff, because you can't be having mandatory all-hands meetings of 100 staff, nor can you have everyone off working in their little corner unsupervised without anyone to report to.

 

When someone is unwilling to report things, it's either because they know it will accomplish nothing, or because they fear something, or both.

 

Is it gender imbalance or just hiring the best person for the job though?  

[Booch121]

1 minute ago, castlev said:

She literally claims that cut her leg open because of a reaction she *anticipated*, but never actually attempted to call out. She just went straight for the knife. "They MIGHT deny my sick day, but I don't know that for sure, I didn't attempt to call out. Where is my knife? I need to do something extreme." It makes no sense.

She never said they would deny her sick day. She said that all of her other sick days resulted in her getting harassed about why.

[itshurleytime]

1 hour ago, Arika said:

I've read their statement a few times about the Madison stuff and now in this answer...I wonder if they contacted Madison to ask her "hey, we're doing a full investigation into what happened, would you be ok if we publish the findings publicly?"

They don't need her permission unless they publish PII or descriptions of specific events regarding her.

[Uttamattamakin]

2 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

What a bunch of condescending BS! You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

It's laughable what people come up with to "protect Madison from herself".

Madison has the right to express her thoughts, feelings and experiences without an legal implications.

 

100% agree.   People saying that her having had issues means she must be lying is very ... "You were asking for it by wearing that low cut dress".   You know what I mean?   It is people projecting the experiences they've had with women onto Madison.   Standard late adolescent/young adult angst at wondering if anyone will like them, or for being judged for who / what they like.   Maybe tinged with some mental issues on both sides.  This is not that.   

 

2 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

Defamation is something completely different. It requires a false assertion of fact. And good luck proving that in court.

Especially since now another former LMG employee has come forward saying he remembers her, and what she dealt with.   That this broke at 5 ish AM US Eastern time.

 

Collin DUBMFG on Twitter. 

 That someone else remembers this pretty much shows that the broad strokes of it are true.  For legal reasons IF she made it very clear that she was not down with the activities going on then LMG is in the wrong. 

 

2 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

 

It would be nice if the choir of people screeching "defamation lawsuit" and "Madison is in legal trouble now" could stop. Spreading misinformation trying to scare people speaking up is despicable.

 

[HesCalledTheStig]

2 minutes ago, castlev said:

She literally claims that cut her leg open because of a reaction she *anticipated*, but never actually attempted to call out. She just went straight for the knife. "They MIGHT deny my sick day, but I don't know that for sure, I didn't attempt to call out. Where is my knife? I need to do something extreme." It makes no sense.

its weird because she says she cut herself to get the day off.  Why?  So she could sit in the hospital getting stitched all day?  That doesn't seem like a great day off to me.  I think there is more to the story.  Could be in her favor, could be in LMG's.  We may never know.

[BigFatTeddy]

11 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

It's laughable what people come up with to "protect Madison from herself".

Madison has the right to express her thoughts, feelings and experiences without an legal implications.

 

Defamation is something completely different. It requires a false assertion of fact. And good luck proving that in court.

 

It would be nice if the choir of people screeching "defamation lawsuit" and "Madison is in legal trouble now" could stop. Spreading misinformation trying to scare people speaking up is despicable.

 

It ever occurred to you that legal implications are not the only consequence Madison might face over her posts? She is basically connecting her social media presence to LTT and LMG permanently with this. If she was annoyed by the level of comments and messages she got before the post - what do you think will happen now?

 

She has all the rights to express her feelings, her thoughts, and of course also the claims that she posted. Actually I'm glad she did, because I like to live in a world where this is possible.

 

But considering the stuff she wrote, especially her mental health, how she struggled coping with the situation at time and afterwards, how she is struggling with it now - I doubt that it was wise for her own sake to do what she did.

 

The internet is the internet, we're all in it for the story. Next week the next thing will happen, and in two weeks, the thing of next week will be old news, and in three weeks, the things of this week will only be relevant for the people involved. But it will be in her timeline forever, the LTT-mob will treat her even more as an enemy in the time to come. Unless she has a very very good plan what to make out of this, I doubt she did herself a favor.

 

Steve just decided he wants to be the moral judge of tech, so this is just attention for him. More traffic. More subscribers. That is perfectly fine, in dubio pro reo, he probably has the level of integrity and professionalism he claims he has and his site will do well. That's just traffic.

 

But for Madison. I don't know, man, I don't know. For someone who by herself claims to struggle with mental health and well-being, this might just be an unwise move. It shouldn't be. But it might be. Because we don't live in the world of shoulds.