Madison reveals experiences working at LMG

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Swaggless said:

B) If you see a person makes sexual jokes, and you therefore think it's okay to touch them sexually, you're bad at reading boundaries.

If you touch a person sexually without their explicit consent, you are also guilty of assault and should be charged as such.  

[Cosmic Emotion]

4 minutes ago, Kangar said:

Not that vid, I have seen it 12 times already before because I really loved the dynamic and how they talked there, I cannot watch LTT and it's on my recommendations as always, all this stuff makes me feel weird seeing them again, I'll wait

I had never seen Madison in a video before. I'm glad I did. She seems like a really smart person, even though she doesn't have a clue about what's going on in this one. Still, she was awesome. It's sad she was so mistreated.

[Someona]

57 minutes ago, digitalscream said:

That's a bit unfair - it's perfectly reasonable for @Reclus to say "I'm going to wait, because I don't have enough information to decide one way or the other". That's not the same as saying that both parties have equal evidence. In fact, nobody has actually produced any evidence at this point, and even more importantly there aren't actually any sides at all yet, because a) Madison hasn't named anybody, and b) LMG haven't disputed anything because they haven't got enough information to do so.

 

If his own personal experience dictates that it still looks like it could go either way, pushing him to pick a side is playground stuff and is essentially creating conflict for the sake of itself, which achieves nothing. This isn't a war with barbarians at the gates, there is no need to invent sides and force everyone to pick one.

 

Personally, I disagree with him in that I can see any number of likely scenarios in which Madison's claims are substantially true, and very few in which they're not. That disagreement doesn't mean that I'm imagining that there is no reason in his position, though.

 

I didn't say him saying "I'm going to wait, because I don't have enough information to decide one way or the other" is unreasonable,

I implied him saying that his position is the only position one that's reasonable and calling people who believe in the other side blind/fanboys" is unreasonable.

 

You see the difference?

 

And what do you mean by "you can see any scenario that is true", you mean you have evidence or your guts tells you they're true?

 

In my opinion "innocent, until proven guilty" is a solid concept and blindly trusting the words of unreliable/unstable people (slicing own leg to take a day off at work) without any evidence two years after the fact is unreasonable. (Among the other evidence, like posing in sexual positions at work/telling sex jokes to your boss (Tulips (two lips) on this nuts) for TikTok, but then complaining of sexual topics at work etc and etc)

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, Mutex01 said:

If you touch a person sexually without their explicit consent, you are also guilty of assault and should be charged as such.  

 

And that's where people tend to forget the difference between doing something intentionally/maliciously and misreading intent. It's very easy to smack someone in the chest or the butt without meaning to, especially people who tend to talk with their hands, and people who are just inherently clumsy. This is even a very obvious trope in fiction, where person intentionally runs into the subject of their affection to "meet" them. Once is mistake, multiple times is stalker behavior.

 

Anime fans also tend to misread intent a lot more because things like kabedon in anime, is seen as an affectionate move, but pulling that off in real life is far more likely be be read a threat (it's literately forcing someone against the wall.)

 

Which is why it's far easier right now to assume a more neutral position on the Madison vs unnamed individuals at LMG, because we don't know who, and we don't know why. We just know pieces far-after-the-fact from the aggrieved party that they chose to share. 

 

For all we know it was an escalation that started with one staffer and snowballed to making Madison feeling like she's being ganged up on.

 

[Taor13]

Just made an account, just because reading some of the replies in this thread made me really wonder whats going on in these peoples mind.

 

1. You are not a judge. Innocent until proven guilty applies to courts, not random people. A. because most people don't have the ability to conduct an in-depth investigation and B. whatever these people think, it doesn't have any legal consequences. I guarantee that everyone who says that holds some opinion that isn't entirely based on facts or evidence, its just a convenient excuse in this situation.

2. Insisting on getting evidence for something that is by its nature very hard to prove once its happened feels either stupid or malignant. If evidence comes out - great. Dismissing the accusations entirely based on evidence the accuser just cant provide if no one else speaks up or if they didnt film/tape whatever happens, feels like a convenient way to get out of all this.

3. Motive and opportunity matters. Even without concrete evidence, its entirely possible to say which version of events is more likely. SH is something that is incredibly commonplace in society. Sure, false accusations happen, but just comparing the numbers of true and false accusations, they are rare. Plus, it seems fairly unlikely that Madison fabricated this story over 2 years, just to wait for someone else to take a shot at LTT and then jump the wagon. Colin seems to confirm that her story hasn't changed since she was employed, she has written a Glassdoor review a year ago that fits with her story and there is fairly little to gain from speaking up now, unless you want to believe she planned this over 2 years to what - get more Twitch subs? Sure, that could be - it seems incredibly unlikely to me. Plus the whole doxxing and harassment she would face from certain parts of the LTT fanbase.

4. Certain people in this thread focus on specific accusations and disregard them without mentioning the other accusations. Saying "what if the sexual remarks where jokes" seems really tone-deaf when she mentions other things that fall in the same line, like being forced to administrate an Onlyfans account and all the comments and nude pictures on that account or being touched inappropriately. I won't even mention the numerous attempts to discredit her character based on bullshit.

[fan0m]

21 minutes ago, Taor13 said:

Just made an account, just because reading some of the replies in this thread made me really wonder whats going on in these peoples mind.

 

1. You are not a judge. Innocent until proven guilty applies to courts, not random people. A. because most people don't have the ability to conduct an in-depth investigation and B. whatever these people think, it doesn't have any legal consequences. I guarantee that everyone who says that holds some opinion that isn't entirely based on facts or evidence, its just a convenient excuse in this situation.

2. Insisting on getting evidence for something that is by its nature very hard to prove once its happened feels either stupid or malignant. If evidence comes out - great. Dismissing the accusations entirely based on evidence the accuser just cant provide if no one else speaks up or if they didnt film/tape whatever happens, feels like a convenient way to get out of all this.

3. Motive and opportunity matters. Even without concrete evidence, its entirely possible to say which version of events is more likely. SH is something that is incredibly commonplace in society. Sure, false accusations happen, but just comparing the numbers of true and false accusations, they are rare. Plus, it seems fairly unlikely that Madison fabricated this story over 2 years, just to wait for someone else to take a shot at LTT and then jump the wagon. Colin seems to confirm that her story hasn't changed since she was employed, she has written a Glassdoor review a year ago that fits with her story and there is fairly little to gain from speaking up now, unless you want to believe she planned this over 2 years to what - get more Twitch subs? Sure, that could be - it seems incredibly unlikely to me. Plus the whole doxxing and harassment she would face from certain parts of the LTT fanbase.

4. Certain people in this thread focus on specific accusations and disregard them without mentioning the other accusations. Saying "what if the sexual remarks where jokes" seems really tone-deaf when she mentions other things that fall in the same line, like being forced to administrate an Onlyfans account and all the comments and nude pictures on that account or being touched inappropriately. I won't even mention the numerous attempts to discredit her character based on bullshit.

I'm actually convinced some of the people here have not interacted with a live human being, ever.

[digitalscream]

12 minutes ago, Someona said:

I didn't say him saying "I'm going to wait, because I don't have enough information to decide one way or the other" is unreasonable,

I implied him saying that his position is the only position one that's reasonable and calling people who believe in the other side blind/fanboys" is unreasonable.

 

You see the difference?

Well, if that's what you meant, your statement under #15 came across as somewhat ambiguous, but fair enough.

 

15 minutes ago, Someona said:

And what do you mean by "you can see any scenario that is true", you mean you have evidence or your guts tells you they're true?

I didn't say that I can see any scenario that is true. My exact words were...

 

1 hour ago, digitalscream said:

...I can see any number of likely scenarios in which Madison's claims are substantially true, and very few in which they're not.

For explanation as to my meaning....

 

"I can see" == "I can imagine"

"any number" == "a lot"

"very few" == "not many, but not zero either"

"substantially" == "the substance of, perhaps not the exact details"

 

I already went through one of the "likely" scenarios with Reclus earlier in the thread - point is, I can imagine an awful lot of ways the spirit of her claims can have happened in a company like LMG, but not many in which none of it can possibly have happened. That's based purely on my experience in similar companies over the last 30 years, others' experiences are likely different.

 

As for "innocent until proven guilty", that works both ways at the moment:

 

- Nobody has been accused of these actions yet, so there isn't anybody to be innocent or guilty; a corporation, as an entity, cannot be guilty of any of these offences, so it comes down to when specific people are named.

- Many have accused Madison of lying, does she get the benefit of "innocent until proven guilty" on that too? It seems not.

 

As for the mentally unstable part...here's the thing: there are lots of conditions in which somebody has poor mental health and poor decision-making as a result which don't involve distortion of perception and memory (and the ones which do are usually not ones you can recover from without significant intervention). And, lest we forget, it's already been confirmed by a third party that none of her story has changed between then and now. If there was distortion of memory involved due to either the elapsed time or the poor mental health at the time (or both), it's highly unlikely that would be the case.

[Ferazam]

21 hours ago, Agall said:

It's an admission to the probability that their perception of reality can be skewed. It would be synonymous with how someone's admission of a relevant 'physical health issue' may warp their perception of how difficult it is to climb stairs relative to baseline. I see that as no different than how a stated 'mental health issues' may change someone's ability to properly understand/react the environment around them relative to baseline, hyperbole and all.

 

Noting that 'mental health issues' could be as broad as 'whatever someone self describes it to mean' to homicidal paranoid schizophrenia; just as 'physical health issues' could be anywhere from a sore knee to a quadriplegic with ALS and brain cancer. 

Your perspectives on mental health are incredibly misinformed. It appears you might be looking for reasons to overlook the situation because it challenges your beliefs. 

 

[castlev]

I posted quite a few replies in this thread a few days ago when people were commenting like rapid fire. Since then I've watched the same conversations that I was engaged in, play out here over and over in a loop, just with different participants. It's been really wild to watch, actually.

[Someona]

14 minutes ago, digitalscream said:

Well, if that's what you meant, your statement under #15 came across as somewhat ambiguous, but fair enough.

 

I didn't say that I can see any scenario that is true. My exact words were...

 

For explanation as to my meaning....

 

"I can see" == "I can imagine"

"any number" == "a lot"

"very few" == "not many, but not zero either"

"substantially" == "the substance of, perhaps not the exact details"

 

I already went through one of the "likely" scenarios with Reclus earlier in the thread - point is, I can imagine an awful lot of ways the spirit of her claims can have happened in a company like LMG, but not many in which none of it can possibly have happened. That's based purely on my experience in similar companies over the last 30 years, others' experiences are likely different.

 

As for "innocent until proven guilty", that works both ways at the moment:

 

- Nobody has been accused of these actions yet, so there isn't anybody to be innocent or guilty; a corporation, as an entity, cannot be guilty of any of these offences, so it comes down to when specific people are named.

- Many have accused Madison of lying, does she get the benefit of "innocent until proven guilty" on that too? It seems not.

 

As for the mentally unstable part...here's the thing: there are lots of conditions in which somebody has poor mental health and poor decision-making as a result which don't involve distortion of perception and memory (and the ones which do are usually not ones you can recover from without significant intervention). And, lest we forget, it's already been confirmed by a third party that none of her story has changed between then and now. If there was distortion of memory involved due to either the elapsed time or the poor mental health at the time (or both), it's highly unlikely that would be the case.

Gotcha, you're imagining from your own experiences, but that's pretty anecdotal.

 

For e.g I can share from experience that some of the younger guys at work were comfortable telling each other sex jokes and sex talk, but for example weren't comfortable with deeply intimate topics with the people they didn't see close (or liked) or a bit older ones, (even if the older guys wanted to talk on a similar topic). So the same topic was workplace banter in the first case but up to inappropriate talk in the second.

 

So how do we know what atmosphere was Madison in? We already have evidence she likes publicly talking about sex jokes (eating man's ass), and being confident to actually tell a sex joke to her unsuspecting boss (Two lips on these nuts/long boiiiii). So it's plausible that sex talk was on the repertoire for discussion and she might've not minded it until she did. And now she's talking how she was sexually harassed? Evidence doesn't point that way.

 

Quote

 Nobody has been accused of these actions yet, so there isn't anybody to be innocent or guilty; a corporation, as an entity, cannot be guilty of any of these offences, so it comes down to when specific people are named

 

I find that strange that she tells the story like she's mad at the company and not the person who actually allegedly harassed her. Why wouldn't she reveal them?

 

Quote

 - Many have accused Madison of lying, does she get the benefit of "innocent until proven guilty" on that too? It seems not.

 

Fair, hence why I share evidence above to point that she might be lying .

 

Quote

As for the mentally unstable part...here's the thing: there are lots of conditions in which somebody has poor mental health and poor decision-making as a result which don't involve distortion of perception and memory (and the ones which do are usually not ones you can recover from without significant intervention).

I'll just add to this, it's wiser to err on the side of caution when someone commit such thing and not to rationalize it like it's a normal thing to do.

[digitalscream]

10 minutes ago, Someona said:

Gotcha, you're imagining from your own experiences, but that's pretty anecdotal.

It's anecdotal, but it's not even evidence. It's simply relating things I've seen and done to the situation at hand, which is all anyone can do at this point since no evidence exists beyond a) confirmation that her claims have not changed since the original events, and b) The Big HR Meeting.

12 minutes ago, Someona said:

So how do we know what atmosphere was Madison in? We already have evidence she likes publicly talking about sex jokes (eating man's ass), and being confident to actually tell a sex joke to her unsuspecting boss (Two lips on these nuts/long boiiiii). So it's plausible that sex talk was on the repertoire for discussion and she might've not minded it until she did. And now she's talking how she was sexually harassed? Evidence doesn't point that way.

Point is that he wasn't her boss at the time - it was just an informal video. While Linus was in a work environment, she was not; that context is important, because it confers entirely different expectations as regards the interactions.

13 minutes ago, Someona said:

I find that strange that she tells the story like she's mad at the company and not the person who actually allegedly harassed her. Why wouldn't she reveal them?

Yes, she does - she's mad that the company didn't take her complaints seriously at the time, and rightly so. Regardless of whether the claims could have been substantiated, the company had an absolute responsibility to investigate and failed to do so. The circumstances of that failure are another point which needs to be clarified (by the new investigation) - was it a failure of HR itself (ie Yvonne, at the time), or was it a failure of middle-management to pass it up the chain? We don't know at this point.

16 minutes ago, Someona said:

I find that strange that she tells the story like she's mad at the company and not the person who actually allegedly harassed her. Why wouldn't she reveal them?

I don't know why she didn't, but if I was in her position then I wouldn't name any of the people in public either - that's a bell you can't un-ring, and to put that out there for the entire Internet to harass them...look at all the character assassination that's going on targeted at her. It's highly likely that there are many people involved in those claims, so I wouldn't want them and their families to have to endure that kind of thing regardless of how they treated me two years ago. And, apart from that, naming them in public could also be a criminal offence.

20 minutes ago, Someona said:

Fair, hence why I share evidence above to point that she might be lying .

That's not evidence, it's drawing a conclusion from circumstantial evidence not directly related to the claims. Somebody saying something in the context of the rig reboot video based on effectively winning a competition is not a workplace environment for them, and there are entirely different legal and ethical expectations when that person is an employee.

21 minutes ago, Someona said:

I'll just add to this, it's wiser to err on the side of caution when someone commit such thing and not to rationalize it like it's a normal thing to do.

I wasn't rationalising it at all - the whole point is that her mental state was affected enough by the events described in her claims that she was desperate enough to do something that is irrational to anybody not in that state; that's the core of her claims.

[Someona]

1 minute ago, digitalscream said:

Point is that he wasn't her boss at the time - it was just an informal video. While Linus was in a work environment, she was not; that context is important, because it confers entirely different expectations as regards the interactions.

No, the first joke is taken from the official TikTok account

 

So she told a sex joke to her unsuspecting boss.

 

Evidence that she's being comfortable with such topics at the workplace.

 

Quote

Yes, she does - she's mad that the company didn't take her complaints seriously at the time, and rightly so. Regardless of whether the claims could have been substantiated, the company had an absolute responsibility to investigate and failed to do so. The circumstances of that failure are another point which needs to be clarified (by the new investigation) - was it a failure of HR itself (ie Yvonne, at the time), or was it a failure of middle-management to pass it up the chain? We don't know at this point.

That's a criminal claim though, the authorities job is to investigate criminal activity, she could've reported it to them and leave the company aside. Why is she still mad at the company years later and not the person who actually allegedly did the vile things to her?

 

Quote

That's not evidence, it's drawing a conclusion from circumstantial evidence not directly related to the claims. Somebody saying something in the context of the rig reboot video based on effectively winning a competition is not a workplace environment for them, and there are entirely different legal and ethical expectations when that person is an employee.

I sourced you an official video from the workplace from TikTok above, so are you willing to change you mind?

 

 

[starsmine]

6 minutes ago, Someona said:

No, the first joke is taken from the official TikTok account

 

So she told a sex joke to her unsuspecting boss.

 

Evidence that she's being comfortable with such topics at the workplace.

OH NOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo a woman made sex jokes. that must mean we can sexually harrass them, they clearly consented to being sexually harrassed, THEY MADE A SEX JOKE

 

 

6 minutes ago, Someona said:

That's a criminal claim though, the authorities job is to investigate criminal activity, she could've reported it to them and leave the company aside. Why is she still mad at the company years later and not the person who actually allegedly did the vile things to her?

Because. it's TRAUMATIZING, That shit stays with you for decades, and when you have a massive influx of people dogging you with questions about something that still bothers you, people have a tendency to trauma dump. People want to heal, They might not want to force shit through criminal courts. 

 

 

[ProbablyNotFidel]

39 minutes ago, castlev said:

I posted quite a few replies in this thread a few days ago when people were commenting like rapid fire. Since then I've watched the same conversations that I was engaged in, play out here over and over in a loop, just with different participants. It's been really wild to watch, actually.

Yeah, I think at this point it just has to stay open as the place for people to talk about this. If they close it, another one/many will open. And then one/many about censoring this discussion. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Someona said:

So she told a sex joke to her unsuspecting boss.

 

Evidence that she's being comfortable with such topics at the workplace.

 

 

People on this forum really really need to understand that the people we see on YouTube, TikTok, Twitch, Instagram, etc. are characters these people play.   

 

To assume anything about their private or professional lives based on what we see in online videos is ridiculous.   

 

Most importantly, based on her claims she complained about the harassment multiple times, and nothing was done.   The harassment should have been stopped immediately once a concerns were raised.

[starsmine]

4 minutes ago, Mutex01 said:

People on this forum really really need to understand that the people we see on YouTube, TikTok, Twitch, Instagram, etc. are characters these people play.   

 

To assume anything about their private or professional lives based on what we see in online videos is ridiculous.   

 

Most importantly, based on her claims she complained about the harassment multiple times, and nothing was done.   The harassment should have been stopped immediately once a concerns were raised.

No, dont even dismiss it as a character. REAL people, REAL coworkers, not characters, just peers, are not consenting to sexual harassment or assault when they make a sexually charged joke. 

I understand you point, but it is misleading to just base it on being in character or not. 

Once someone, anyone, has expressed you are making them uncomfortable with comments or jokes, you pump the breaks and back off. You don't get to say, hey you made a sex joke first as a defense.

[Someona]

4 minutes ago, starsmine said:

No, dont even dismiss it as a character. REAL people, REAL coworkers, not characters, just peers, are not consenting to sexual harassment or assault when they make a sexually charged joke. 

I understand you point, but it is misleading to just base it on being in character or not. 

Once someone, anyone, has expressed you are making them uncomfortable with comments or jokes, you pump the breaks and back off. You don't get to say, hey you made a sex joke first as a defense.

That's the thing do, I don't think she was sexually harassed, you now see she was opening up with sex jokes at the work place. TO HER BOSS.

 

Chances are when you're comfortable with sex topics at the workplace you're gonna talk about the topic of sex, if then you somehow had a falling out with a coworker doesn't somehow made you or them sexually harass each other.

 

Until there's further evidence this is the most likely explanation of what happened.

[starsmine]

2 minutes ago, Someona said:

That's the thing do, I don't think she was sexually harassed, you now see she was opening up with sex jokes at the work place. TO HER BOSS.

 

Chances are when you're comfortable with sex topics at the workplace you're gonna talk about the topic of sex, if then you somehow had a falling out with a coworker doesn't somehow made you or them sexually harass each other.

 

Until there's further evidence this is the most likely explanation of what happened.

My man here doubling down on making a sex joke is consenting to sexual harassment. 
May god have mercy upon your soul.

One wonders what else he thinks (but doesn't in reality) constitutes as consent.

[Mertrodome]

Ah yeah, that good old time when you make a stupid "deez nuts" video clip for social media and so it becomes perfectly okay for people you work with to ask how you like to fuck, ask you to twerk for them and then, if you complain at all, get told it's sexual tension and you should go on a coffee date with them.

 

Y'all need to get a fucking grip, for real.

[Someona]

Yeah we have 0 evidence of those things happening, and yet we do have evidence that is she publicly telling jokes about eating man's ass, and similar nature, and above you see her telling sex jokes to her unsuspecting boss, and on another you see her taking a sexual pose at the workplace? (not sure if the workplace but it looks like it)

 

So you're ignoring all of this evidence, but you're totally on board in believing the claims that have 0 evidence.

 

 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, starsmine said:

No, dont even dismiss it as a character. REAL people, REAL coworkers, not characters, just peers, are not consenting to sexual harassment or assault when they make a sexually charged joke. 

I understand you point, but it is misleading to just base it on being in character or not. 

Once someone, anyone, has expressed you are making them uncomfortable with comments or jokes, you pump the breaks and back off. You don't get to say, hey you made a sex joke first as a defense.

Yes, you are absolutely correct.   When someone indicates they are uncomfortable, stop.   

Any previous behaviuor they exhibited is not an excuse for harassment

[starsmine]

4 minutes ago, Mertrodome said:

Ah yeah, that good old time when you make a stupid "deez nuts" video clip for social media and so it becomes perfectly okay for people you work with to ask how you like to fuck, ask you to twerk for them and then, if you complain at all, get told it's sexual tension and you should go on a coffee date with them.

 

Y'all need to get a fucking grip, for real.

Im not even going to say dont have fun at the workplace either. 
I will completely make similar comments to friends, and friendly coworkers. But as soon as someone shows discomfort and makes it apparent a line was crossed and the comments were not appreciated. Sincerely and profusely Apologize, Pivot, and most importantly Don't fucking do it again, and then friendly and gently discourage others from continuing across the line.

 

[Guest]

Just now, Someona said:

Yeah we have 0 evidence of those things happening, and yet we do have evidence that is she publicly telling jokes about eating man's ass, and similar nature, and above you see her telling sex jokes to her unsuspecting boss, and on another you see her taking a sexual pose at the workplace? (not sure if the workplace but it looks like it)

 

So you're ignoring all of this evidence, but you're totally on board in believing the claims that have 0 evidence.

 

 

She made off-colour jokes.  

 

Are you saying that excuses the behaviours she is complaining about?

[Sasha2D]

11 minutes ago, Someona said:

Yeah we have 0 evidence of those things happening, and yet we do have evidence that is she publicly telling jokes about eating man's ass, and similar nature, and above you see her telling sex jokes to her unsuspecting boss, and on another you see her taking a sexual pose at the workplace? (not sure if the workplace but it looks like it)

 

So you're ignoring all of this evidence, but you're totally on board in believing the claims that have 0 evidence.

 

 

 

we are ignoring evidence for what now?

[Someona]

She was comfortable with initiating sex jokes at work (to her boss), and taking pictures with sex poses at work (unconfirmed but seems like at work),

 

Evidence that she was comfortable with sex topics.

 

If you told sex jokes to a female coworker and she reported you, is that harassment?