Madison reveals experiences working at LMG

[digitalscream]

3 minutes ago, Reclus said:

I look at this and see that management has noticed  or was notified of a problem, identified the cause, worked on a solution and implemented it. To do so they clearly investigated it since the points are addressing the issue and not some random stuff.

Hypothetically:

 

"Some people are saying that Madison had tried to make complaints before she left, did you hear anything about this?"
"No, what's that about? Never had any HR complaints."
"Hmmm, OK, perhaps we ought to make the HR report process clearer to everyone to make sure there aren't any banana skins in future."

"Sure, should probably be a company-wide presentation to make sure nobody misses it."

"Good idea!"
-> Meeting

 

No investigation required, and entirely consistent with everything Linus has said about how HR is managed at LMG.

[digitalscream]

1 minute ago, Reclus said:

I gave you my explanation. You either understand it and have counter arguments or you just scream louder. You are playing semantics, not the point of the argument. I won't argue with an angry mob.

Enjoy your riot.

 

No, you haven't once said how that contradiction can be resolved. An attempted dodge with added condescension isn't an answer.

[Reclus]

1 minute ago, digitalscream said:

Hypothetically:

 

"Some people are saying that Madison had tried to make complaints before she left, did you hear anything about this?"
"No, what's that about? Never had any HR complaints."
"Hmmm, OK, perhaps we ought to make the HR report process clearer to everyone to make sure there aren't any banana skins in future."

"Sure, should probably be a company-wide presentation to make sure nobody misses it."

"Good idea!"
-> Meeting

 

No investigation required, and entirely consistent with everything Linus has said about how HR is managed at LMG.

Correct 100%. Since this is your scenario it clearly says HR is unaware of the problem since nothing has been brought to their attention.

[dragonuck76]

Why are you all jumping on this;  it is an old stoy, only made more public by who ever brought it to social media attacking LMG again and specifically Linus.

As someone who has been treated in a poor way by someone, I first advised my supervisor, and we agreed as I was new, to speak with them, advising that I had spoken with my supervisor and that they are aware of the situation.  It is normal, civil way.  Its to work out differences you may have or miss-communication in feelings.  I mean the person might be speaking to you in a way you feel offensive, but in practice in the environment it has been ok, but not for you, so you speak with them.  IF that doesnt work, in time, For me it worked, and I got to understand the guy, but in time he left for personel reasons.   But what I have read, and what I heard on LTT audio, are 2 different things.  THere is no context to accuse anyone.  Could LMG done better, maybe, we dont know, we only know what Madision tells us.  Does that make it fully true, no not at all, it is just one side of a story.  Also is this of our concer, no it hell is not.  If it is, then you have a problem.  A major problem that makes you enjoy the attacks on people, and un-warranted attacks.  Just like you all did with the GN story with out reflecting and looking at it and thinking well thats your story what does LMG have to say and giving them time to respond.  As it turns out a lot from GN was not as it seemed.   I mean is this how you would like to be treated with the personal attacks - someone posts on social about you as Madison has, and you are being hated on their, yet you have not been allowed your say.  But hey just a minute why is something that does not relate to the general social media have to do with them of your personal business with your employer, becuase of unfounded speculation on their part towards you, with out you being allowed a say yet, but in the real terms of things it has nothing to do with the general publick or social media. It is personal between you the accuser and the employer.  SO yes this needs to fully stop.  The only reason there are posters on here against LMG is because you enjoy it and dont care; those who know better will read this and think wow; post there say and that is it.   Thats it, my piece, and I know I will get called out - and I will respond.  I just hope some willl understand that this is none of our business

[Reclus]

2 minutes ago, digitalscream said:

No, you haven't once said how that contradiction can be resolved. An attempted dodge with added condescension isn't an answer.

Treat it as you will.

I don't owe you any further explanations. The burden of proof is on you to prove the wrong doing not on me to prove the innocence. If you don't see that I am on the side of an unbiased approach to have a truthful outcome to this there really is no point to you asking me anything.

[digitalscream]

3 minutes ago, Reclus said:

Correct 100%. Since this is your scenario it clearly says HR is unaware of the problem since nothing has been brought to their attention.

Which has been my entire point from your first reply to me!

 

"The entire HR meeting was a result of the investigation made by HR  after her departure."

 

You treated your own assumption that there must have been an investigation as fact, which is patently not the case; as I illustrated, it's entirely possible for HR to have been vaguely aware that there was a problem, but no employees wanted to give them details, so they run a generic meeting explaining what should happen.

 

1 minute ago, Reclus said:

Treat it as you will.

I don't owe you any further explanations. The burden of proof is on you to prove the wrong doing not on me to prove the innocence. If you don't see that I am on the side of an unbiased approach to have a truthful outcome to this there really is no point to you asking me anything.

True, but if you're as experienced and knowledgeable as you make out, it should be trivial for you to actually back up your statement that there must've been an investigation (which you appear to have backtracked on with your last post). That's the only point that we disagree on, near as I can tell, but you're defending it like your life depends on it with obfuscation and condescension (misplaced, I might add), and I can't quite figure out why.

[Sho2048]

There is no workplace in the world where an employee being called a f____t and other slurs is normal and someone bigger and older than you with more power can call you a bitch. That is just not normal. It isn’t a “sensible gen Z” kind of issue, but a “no one told you you’re hot garbage human being” kind of issue, which would result in firing at any company, be it higher ups or management.

 

Unfortunately, if anyone comes forward, there’s plenty of people ready to silence them. 

[hmfaysal]

4 minutes ago, Sho2048 said:

There is no workplace in the world where an employee being called a f____t and other slurs is normal and someone bigger and older than you with more power can call you a bitch. That is just not normal. It isn’t a “sensible gen Z” kind of issue, but a “no one told you you’re hot garbage human being” kind of issue, which would result in firing at any company, be it higher ups or management.

 

Unfortunately, if anyone comes forward, there’s plenty of people ready to silence them. 

Who fires the higher ups? Lower downs?

[Reclus]

6 minutes ago, digitalscream said:

Which has been my entire point from your first reply to me!

 

"The entire HR meeting was a result of the investigation made by HR  after her departure."

 

You treated your own assumption that there must have been an investigation as fact, which is patently not the case; as I illustrated, it's entirely possible for HR to have been vaguely aware that there was a problem, but no employees wanted to give them details, so they run a generic meeting explaining what should happen.

 

True, but if you're as experienced and knowledgeable as you make out, it should be trivial for you to actually back up your statement that there must've been an investigation (which you appear to have backtracked on with your last post). That's the only point that we disagree on, near as I can tell, but you're defending it like your life depends on it with obfuscation and condescension (misplaced, I might add), and I can't quite figure out why.

. Thank you for being civil. Kind of rare here now with all the tension. If I was being condescending that was not my point and I retract that.

 

HR does not have (thank god for that) the ability or right to work on rumours or gossip. If HR has a reported issue they have to investigate it. Not doing so is grounds for legal actions. That is why my point from like 100 pages of forum is: Maddison should go to the police, not Twitter if she reported the issue to HR and nothing was done with it.

 

If you want to take my experience into account then again - you make these kind of briefs after you have finished an investigation. That is always the corporate process.

Incident - investigation - conclusions - disciplinary actions or corrections to procedures depending on the investigation - team briefing to ensure awareness. 

[Sho2048]

16 minutes ago, hmfaysal said:

Who fires the higher ups? Lower downs?

The owners at small companies. Big companies, if there is no one above the asshole, you walk off, and then it’s the company’s loss, not yours. Sometimes it’s also worthy of police, or unionizing.

 

All I wanted to say is there is no justification for abuse of power anywhere. We don't know if problems were known, fixed, or how they dealt with them, or if they happened at all for sure, until an investigation. What I say, is that there's no reason to blame young people for not wanting to be insulted. The "dogshit" work is not nice but also not unheard of, insults like "stop being a bitch" are likely to result in a firing or suspension at any other company, and most people would at least have a right to complain. Unfortunately, it also ends up that women rarely can silence toxic people like that.

[rudimedia]

Statistical Analysis of Deleted Comments

Hi, having read a multitude of comments claiming that comments regarding Madison are being deleted, I've decided to archive comments from the video "What do we do now" in timed succession. This way I was able to compare which comments were previously present and have since been removed. This is a VERY unscientific way to test this. I have not had the possibility to crawl the comments in a short enough time period to be sure that I wasn't "losing" comments because they were being removed faster than I was collecting them.

 

The data used for the following graph is based on three crawls over the course of about a day. The total amount of comments that were deleted between DATA2/DATA1 and DATA3/DATA2 were 729. That's not a lot compared to the total amount of comments (~60k) and I'm sure to have missed many. 

 

How was the data categorized?

I have read every single of those 729 comments and labeled them by content. The labels are not overlapping each other. "Positive" & "Negative" are comments which are not explicitly focused on one topic but are rather defined through their positive / negative view on the situation. "SPAM" contains comments which are, actually, Spam as well as those which I could not for the love of god categorize (e.g. single emojis). "NoIdea" classifies comments which ask about what is going on.

 

The frequency is shown on the X-axis while the color of the bars indicates the average length of the comments made. 

 

Why this data is not complete

I am aware that this data is not very relevant without a comparison to the distribution of "labels" in the rest of the comments. I have trained a ML model from the 729 labeled comments, but it is not accurate enough to warrant using it on a dataset and reading real information from it. I do not have the time to label 60.000 comments manually so this is all I got.

 

If you would like me to analyze the data in some specific way, feel free to message me and I'll see what I can do.

[digitalscream]

1 minute ago, Reclus said:

. Thank you for being civil. Kind of rare here now with all the tension. If I was being condescending that was not my point and I retract that.

 

HR does not have (thank god for that) the ability or right to work on rumours or gossip. If HR has a reported issue they have to investigate it. Not doing so is grounds for legal actions. That is why my point from like 100 pages of forum is: Maddison should go to the police, not Twitter if she reported the issue to HR and nothing was done with it.

 

If you want to take my experience into account then again - you make these kind of briefs after you have finished an investigation. That is always the corporate process.

Incident - investigation - conclusions - disciplinary actions or corrections to procedures depending on the investigation - team briefing to ensure awareness. 

Hey, I run a forum myself. I don't like dealing with spats that get personal, so I try not to do it on other folks' forums. As I mentioned elsewhere on here, though, I do have ND issues with communication, so I do appreciate that I can sometimes come across stronger than I intend

 

Anyway....I see where the root of your logic comes from now. The bit in bold assumes a properly-organised, experienced and dedicated HR department, and you're be 100% correct about what would happen in such a company; at the time, however, HR was only Yvonne (with no experience in HR, and wearing many other hats). The result of that is always going to be dysfunctional - and that's no slight on Yvonne at all, it's simply the reality of not having a dedicated HR function in a company of that many people. I strongly suspect that's exactly why Madison's complaints were poorly handled in the first place - Yvonne delegating the complaint to middle managers who'd probably never even read the company's HR guidelines, resulting in "just go on a coffee date".

 

But...equally, if the hypothetical scenario I posted above is what happened (and I genuinely can see that being the case), as you said there would be nothing to investigate because rumours post-resignation aren't enough to go on. Therefore all that can have resulted is a reiteration of the HR reporting process (The Meeting).

 

Remember, we're talking about a company that has a well-documented history of poor management structure and communication spanning every function (which is what triggered the whole thing in the first place). 

 

I do maintain, though, that a case like Madison's wouldn't be treated as a priority by the police relative to all the crimes they deal with which do have physical evidence (and are thus more likely to result in a successful prosecution), so we're back to the "wait a couple of years for them to get around to it, or just take your opportunity to force LMG's hand when they're already in a PR crisis" choice. If nothing else, it's absolutely forced them to dedicate resources to investigating what happened.

[Vexenar]

1 hour ago, NubCak said:

Telling your employees to go deal with their own bullshit is a fine way if you ask me. 

If it starts to affect your production at work, then i'd take issue. 

You don't need to be friends or friendly with everyone at work.

That is a terrible way to manage your company, what are you going to do when conflicting parties can't come to agreement and it starts dividing your entire workforce? Step in after the fact and waste even more time and resources?

A healthy workforce means a healthy company, this is exactly why HR should be doing it's job rather than just covering the company's ass. 

[RoseLuck462]

With the size of the company at the time Madison was there, there’s just no way neither Linus nor Ivan didn’t know what was going on…

[Cooldoe]

1 hour ago, hmfaysal said:

Well Madison should atleast have gotten the help of a PR firm. Thats what I think. Her twitter thread had a shock effect, which isn't long lasting though. It sounded like she wasn't qualified for the job, in her own words. The mental breakdown and physical harm part may have the shock value now, couple days, but isn't helping her cause of getting some money out of this. A PR firm would have done a much better job at presenting her issues and securing her a paycheck or something . 

Interesting comment on someone who used to be the one running LTT social media. Maybe that show how her performance on the job?

[hmfaysal]

3 minutes ago, Cooldoe said:

Interesting comment on someone who used to be the one running LTT social media. Maybe that show how her performance on the job?

Yeah, on point. 

[avg123]

Louis Rossmann on Linus SA

 

 

 

[Cooldoe]

15 minutes ago, digitalscream said:

Hey, I run a forum myself. I don't like dealing with spats that get personal, so I try not to do it on other folks' forums. As I mentioned elsewhere on here, though, I do have ND issues with communication, so I do appreciate that I can sometimes come across stronger than I intend

 

Anyway....I see where the root of your logic comes from now. The bit in bold assumes a properly-organised, experienced and dedicated HR department, and you're be 100% correct about what would happen in such a company; at the time, however, HR was only Yvonne (with no experience in HR, and wearing many other hats). The result of that is always going to be dysfunctional - and that's no slight on Yvonne at all, it's simply the reality of not having a dedicated HR function in a company of that many people. I strongly suspect that's exactly why Madison's complaints were poorly handled in the first place - Yvonne delegating the complaint to middle managers who'd probably never even read the company's HR guidelines, resulting in "just go on a coffee date".

 

But...equally, if the hypothetical scenario I posted above is what happened (and I genuinely can see that being the case), as you said there would be nothing to investigate because rumours post-resignation aren't enough to go on. Therefore all that can have resulted is a reiteration of the HR reporting process (The Meeting).

 

Remember, we're talking about a company that has a well-documented history of poor management structure and communication spanning every function (which is what triggered the whole thing in the first place). 

 

I do maintain, though, that a case like Madison's wouldn't be treated as a priority by the police relative to all the crimes they deal with which do have physical evidence (and are thus more likely to result in a successful prosecution), so we're back to the "wait a couple of years for them to get around to it, or just take your opportunity to force LMG's hand when they're already in a PR crisis" choice. If nothing else, it's absolutely forced them to dedicate resources to investigating what happened.

I agree with you that what her case would not be handled seriously by the police. First, it is a case of he said she said that the police hard to get evidence. And this case can be a bit of perspective.

Secondly the case does not meet the criteria of criminal sexual assault. At most this can be classified as harassment.

 

The best way for her is to go to canada labour board as they are the one who can investigate this issue

[hmfaysal]

34 minutes ago, Sho2048 said:

The owners at small companies. Big companies, if there is no one above the asshole, you walk off, and then it’s the company’s loss, not yours. Sometimes it’s also worthy of police, or unionizing.

 

All I wanted to say is there is no justification for abuse of power anywhere. We don't know if problems were known, fixed, or how they dealt with them, or if they happened at all for sure, until an investigation. What I say, is that there's no reason to blame young people for not wanting to be insulted. The "dogshit" work is not nice but also not unheard of, insults like "stop being a bitch" are likely to result in a firing or suspension at any other company, and most people would at least have a right to complain. Unfortunately, it also ends up that women rarely can silence toxic people like that.

I thought at least in the civilized part of the world, we workers have the right for resignation. The ultimate toolkit in a workers belt. There is no help needed for that. 

All I can hear is that she did not get enough airtime while at LTT, firehose workload, mirrors in workstations to see behind, complaints almost about everyone at every level, talking about how her previous twitch career is destroyed, talking about the sponsorship deals and money associated with it, talking about onlyfans (as she was forced to do it). The last point about OnlyFans is extremely disturbing, talking about men genitalia.

But I would rather stick to the fact, although she maintained all the social media of a 100 mill media company, she kinda dropped the ball of not hiring a PR firm to review her tweets before sending out. 

Also, lets ponder about the OnlyFans stuff, what she saw, and who made her see stuff. 

[Majestic12]

23 minutes ago, Vexenar said:

That is a terrible way to manage your company, what are you going to do when conflicting parties can't come to agreement and it starts dividing your entire workforce? Step in after the fact and waste even more time and resources?

A healthy workforce means a healthy company, this is exactly why HR should be doing it's job rather than just covering the company's ass. 

You do realize that going to HR often causes more harm than good, right? It's seen as a big step and a knife in the back among colleagues and the person who does this is seen as a snitch. In an ideal world where everything is butterflies & rainbows, sure. People still prefer if you TALK to them and tell them something bothers you. It worked often in the past and while I understand it can be daunting for some to do this, the alternative is to have this colleague permanently angry at you because someone being called to HR "because colleague X said you did Y" will NOT fix things. The times it happened with me, it made me hate that other person with a passion, especially because they had done for worse things to me in the past. Because yes, it may surprise you: there's no black & white. Madison may well have ruffled feathers herself without realizing - we all do that from time to time. Getting dragged to HR for it however ...

 

Of course if it involves really serious things, by all means. Someone who very clearly and consciously goes too far needs to be addressed.

[hmfaysal]

Hello guys/ girls, Can we just take 10 mins to discuss the OnlyFans stuff Madison mentioned?

Who made her do it? And what did she see? She talked about seeing Men genitalia and stuff. IDK. I think its pertinent to this. OnlyFans is the key to unlock the mystery. 

[hmfaysal]

132 pages long thread, no one is mentioning the OnlyFans stuff.  I want to talk about the OnlyFans stuff Madison was forced to do, as she complained on X

[Cooldoe]

1 minute ago, hmfaysal said:

Hello guys/ girls, Can we just take 10 mins to discuss the OnlyFans stuff Madison mentioned?

Who made her do it? And what did she see? She talked about seeing Men genitalia and stuff. IDK. I think its pertinent to this. OnlyFans is the key to unlock the mystery. 

Maybe she is referring to the april fool joke where LMG make onlyfans account as a joke.

Dunno. If she was there when LMG make that april fool joke though

[Cooldoe]

7 minutes ago, Majestic12 said:

You do realize that going to HR often causes more harm than good, right? It's seen as a big step and a knife in the back among colleagues and the person who does this is seen as a snitch. In an ideal world where everything is butterflies & rainbows, sure. People still prefer if you TALK to them and tell them something bothers you. It worked often in the past and while I understand it can be daunting for some to do this, the alternative is to have this colleague permanently angry at you because someone being called to HR "because colleague X said you did Y" will NOT fix things. The times it happened with me, it made me hate that other person with a passion, especially because they had done for worse things to me in the past. Because yes, it may surprise you: there's no black & white. Madison may well have ruffled feathers herself without realizing - we all do that from time to time. Getting dragged to HR for it however ...

 

Of course if it involves really serious things, by all means. Someone who very clearly and consciously goes too far needs to be addressed.

And what would external PR dl to resolve the issue?

A conflict resolution meeting where they ask both party to clearly state their problem with nicer ways

[Reclus]

14 minutes ago, digitalscream said:

Hey, I run a forum myself. I don't like dealing with spats that get personal, so I try not to do it on other folks' forums. As I mentioned elsewhere on here, though, I do have ND issues with communication, so I do appreciate that I can sometimes come across stronger than I intend

 

Anyway....I see where the root of your logic comes from now. The bit in bold assumes a properly-organised, experienced and dedicated HR department, and you're be 100% correct about what would happen in such a company; at the time, however, HR was only Yvonne (with no experience in HR, and wearing many other hats). The result of that is always going to be dysfunctional - and that's no slight on Yvonne at all, it's simply the reality of not having a dedicated HR function in a company of that many people. I strongly suspect that's exactly why Madison's complaints were poorly handled in the first place - Yvonne delegating the complaint to middle managers who'd probably never even read the company's HR guidelines, resulting in "just go on a coffee date".

 

But...equally, if the hypothetical scenario I posted above is what happened (and I genuinely can see that being the case), as you said there would be nothing to investigate because rumours post-resignation aren't enough to go on. Therefore all that can have resulted is a reiteration of the HR reporting process (The Meeting).

 

Remember, we're talking about a company that has a well-documented history of poor management structure and communication spanning every function (which is what triggered the whole thing in the first place). 

 

I do maintain, though, that a case like Madison's wouldn't be treated as a priority by the police relative to all the crimes they deal with which do have physical evidence (and are thus more likely to result in a successful prosecution), so we're back to the "wait a couple of years for them to get around to it, or just take your opportunity to force LMG's hand when they're already in a PR crisis" choice. If nothing else, it's absolutely forced them to dedicate resources to investigating what happened.

Well it really seems that we agree on the principle and just have different opinions on the approach. 

I'm not sure what knowledge we have on Yvonne's experience with HR. The tell there probably could be that a third party HR was hired. But again this is only an assumption as I am unsure of Canada's laws in that matter. Keeping in mind the size of the company and the responsibilities HR has I can only assume she has done some training and had to have some legal knowledge as it would literally be a requirement to the job. Also to be very clear. If this will be a failure to investigate a report - this will be entirely on Yvonne. As HR has to produce an outcome to what they are working on. Delegating to a manager still requires an outcome and there almost always is either a paper/email trail for this. If there isn't we would have to go back to the point of how HR was being run or was anything reported to begin with.

 

There are too many assumptions from my perspective in this case to clearly take a stand on one side or another. It may very well be that I have some bias towards not following legal advice and going to Twitter, but I have not seen Twitter being helpful in these situations and only making it worse. Also - corporations only understand money. Sueing or threatening to sue usually is enough for a corporation to very quickly behave reasonably and check what the law and practice should be.

But again that really requires a spine and being able to handle stress.