Madison reveals experiences working at LMG

[HesCalledTheStig]

1 minute ago, Booch121 said:

He says that's what he "heard" when they were colleagues. Could also mean it didn't come directly from Madison. I think this makes more sense due to the fact that Madison and Collin would of been in completely different departments.

Exactly.  He really didn't confirm anything.  People are just twisting it to fit narratives.  His reply was quite vague and probably purposely so.  No one wants to get pulled into this nightmare.

[RatKnight]

 

1 minute ago, Booch121 said:

He says that's what he "heard" when they were colleagues. Could also mean it didn't come directly from Madison. I think this makes more sense due to the fact that Madison and Collin would of been in completely different departments.

 

Fair point, I just want to make sure that we are distinguishing between corroboration (ie I saw and/or experienced this myself) and confirmation (This is consistent with what I have heard / was told happened)

[Booch121]

6 minutes ago, HesCalledTheStig said:

Exactly.  He really didn't confirm anything.  People are just twisting it to fit narratives.  His reply was quite vague and probably purposely so.  No one wants to get pulled into this nightmare.

The only thing he confirmed was the fact Madison has stuck with the same story. Nothing else has been confirmed, and i doubt anything will be for a long time.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Booch121
im stupid af

[NoWayOut]

The new CEO has to either leave this mess or turn LTT inside out like a dirty sock going in the washer. First Ivonne and Linus need to step aside, at this point they can't be directly involved. Especially Ivonne, having the owner being the head of HR was a very bad idea. It's ok when it's just a handful of employees, but at this size it's bad and it looks even worse from the outside. Linus is completely out of touch at this point, he needs to step aside if he cares about the future of LTT. All the mid management have to go. You can't have that type of "frat boys" cloture in a company. What a shitshow!

[HesCalledTheStig]

1 minute ago, Booch121 said:

The sexual allegations and the fact she was belittled by people in her workspace are important to note.

Yes, the belittling was an issue as well.  I'll agree to that.  But it's not as major as the sexual accusations.  Belittling is an easy fix with the person at fault being reprimanded and dismissed from their position.  The SA issue, not so easily fixed.

[Booch121]

Just now, HesCalledTheStig said:

Yes, the belittling was an issue as well.  I'll agree to that.  But it's not as major as the sexual accusations.  Belittling is an easy fix with the person at fault being reprimanded and dismissed from their position.  The SA issue, not so easily fixed.

Agreed. The SA is most likely whats going to result in MAJOR changes for LTT. Weirdly enough, when's the last time we saw Sarah in a main channel video? Or really any women in a side or main channel video? I remember Sarah being the occasional host for ShortCirtuit.

[HesCalledTheStig]

Just now, Booch121 said:

Agreed. The SA is most likely whats going to result in MAJOR changes for LTT. Weirdly enough, when's the last time we saw Sarah in a main channel video? Or really any women in a side or main channel video? I remember Sarah being the occasional host for ShortCirtuit.

last time any women were featured was in the company interview like 4 months ago.  But we dont know the reasoning.  It's possible none of them are wanting to be in front of the camera.  I'm not going to assume anything.  I AM interested in whether Emily will get as much camera time as ANTHONY did.

[Agall]

14 hours ago, Ferazam said:

This is not the military, nor she was working with confidential national security material, judging people by that standard in our daily life is ridiculous. 

You suggested schizophrenia as an example to doubt her since people with mental health cannot be “trusted”(grain of salt if I remember correctly). Not me. You seem to be aware of mental health problems but have a highly distorted view of the capacity of people with it. 

 

And what ulterior political motives does she have that would make you only consider her if she pursues legal action? 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not judging people by a military standard buddy, its merely a counter for your accusation of, "I don't think you understand how broad the term "mental health" is vast, and by the way"

 

"There is a massive chance that you or someone close to you either have an undiagnosed mental health issue or will have it during your lifetime." I know several, including immediate family members who experienced some of the worst sides that a military career can provide. People have various levels of stress conditioning; some people can be crippled by an abnormally higher amount of stress relative to baseline brought on by a series of trivial problems and others that can flourish in the same scenario. 

 

Some people let political differences get to their head and causes them to act irrationally, sometimes it's just a particular person's presence that'll do it. Her referencing the fact that she's a woman as a modifier for how we're supposed to perceive the situation and in her reply to Linus' response of "but, I don't know what I expect from someone who would mock others for not knowing who they were" gives me the suspicion that there's some politics involved. Linus' response simply referencing the entirely legal legitimate avenue for her to use versus blasting it all on Twitter.

 

I don't think anyone should be trusted simply on their word, having self-proclaimed mental health problems and political messaging makes me less likely to trust the source. Especially with serious allegations which should be investigated either way. 

 

People however will simply draw a premature conclusion which I believe is driven by their politics and/or past experiences. I for one will wait till anything official happens to draw a conclusion, until then, the burden of proof is on the accuser. 

[Uttamattamakin]

3 minutes ago, RatKnight said:

 

To be clear, the only thing that Colin states he remembers is that what she says in her thread is what she told him about.  He does not claim remembering to actually witness, or experience any of these things.  If I am wrong, I would love a link to where he says he has, because the picture, and the reddit / twitter links I have seen have only showed him confirming that her story is what he remembers her telling him.

To be even more clear.  He says

 

What he remembers hearing... not just from her.  It is indicative that she didn't just pull this out of thin air yesterday.  That's what matters from this. 

[tightg]

1 hour ago, GitGudDandy said:

Combing their personal files to corroborate the allegations, when Madison states that company policy was to just talk it over as friends.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, etc.

 

Be interesting to see what comes of this. If it's downplayed in any way or any kind of character assassination of the alleged victim occurs, I'll never watch LMG content ever again.

For the sake of everyone, I do hope that the investigation doesn't turn up some of these allegations (especially the really problematic ones) as being exaggerated or untrue. Because if there is contradictory evidence, then she is never going to live it down, deserved or otherwise. It would rightfully nuke her career (as it should for anyone who would invent something like that), but also her life generally because of the internet mob mentality.

[HesCalledTheStig]

1 minute ago, Uttamattamakin said:

To be even more clear.  He says

 

What he remembers hearing... not just from her.  It is indicative that she didn't just pull this out of thin air yesterday.  That's what matters from this. 

he doesn't mention anyone else.  Its all assumption.

[RatKnight]

7 minutes ago, HesCalledTheStig said:

Yes, the belittling was an issue as well.  I'll agree to that.  But it's not as major as the sexual accusations.  Belittling is an easy fix with the person at fault being reprimanded and dismissed from their position.  The SA issue, not so easily fixed.

Yeah, the SA issue assuming that is what it is (I read her thread yesterday, I need to re read it because I don't recall if she explicitly said that, or if people have implied it) points to a systemic issue of not only abuse, but also of an unwillingness or inability of others to report or step in and stop it.  Assuming everything as stated is true, accurate, the only valid response by LMG upon proving it is the removal of anyone directly involved in doing it, and a policy change mandating reporting of events to their independent, 3rd party HR firm.  This has to be followed up with changes in management as needed to ensure these things are being implemented properly.

 

I had a job where a C suite level person was harassing people for years.  Someone finally went directly to the CEO, who went to the head of HR... who immediately found out that lower level employees were actively hiding and covering up the misconduct.  

 

What followed was the CEO (to his credit) cleaning fucking house.  3 C-Suite people "retired" and half of the HR department lost their jobs, or were transferred out.  A couple of directors in the following months also "retired" after there were replacements.  New policies were implemented mandating reporting and providing a 1800 number that could be called anonymously to file a complaint.  The number was handled by a 3rd party company that anonymized the information, and the reports went to the CEO as well as HR, to ensure stuff was actually getting handled.

[Beid132444]

20 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.

I mean your comment is just factually untrue. As what the lay person may consider defamation to be, I would somewhat agree. 

 

However since we are referencing law, under Canadian law a defamation action must prove 3 thing to be successful:

 

"That it lowers the person's reputation in the eyes of the "right-thinking" person.

 

It must be proved that the material refers to the claimant...

 

It must be proved that the material is communicated to or published for someone other than the actually defamed."

 

So let's play out that hypothetical:

 

In Madison's case all three things are true. You may note that it actually makes no reference to whether the defamatory information needs to be true or not. Even true information can be considered defamatory if it meets those three criterion and the defence is not considered 'true enough' to sway a magistrates ruling. 

 

However, there are a number of defences to having committed defamation. Though I dare say the only viable one for Madison in this hypothetical (assuming this all plays out in Canadian courts) would be the defence of Justification IE the defamation can proven (by Madison in this case) to be substantially based on true facts. Unfortunately her word against their word would be very unlikely to meet that criterion. (Quebec is slightly different, but the difference in this case would work in LTT's favour) 

 

Again this is all assuming she resides in Canada, if she doesn't there probably isn't much hot water for unless they do it, win, and she decides to return to the country, or is somehow extradited. 

[HesCalledTheStig]

1 minute ago, RatKnight said:

Yeah, the SA issue assuming that is what it is (I read her thread yesterday, I need to re read it because I don't recall if she explicitly said that, or if people have implied it) points to a systemic issue of not only abuse, but also of an unwillingness or inability of others to report or step in and stop it.  Assuming everything as stated is true, accurate, the only valid response by LMG upon proving it is the removal of anyone directly involved in doing it, and a policy change mandating reporting of events to their independent, 3rd party HR firm.  This has to be followed up with changes in management as needed to ensure these things are being implemented properly.

 

I had a job where a C suite level person was harassing people for years.  Someone finally went directly to the CEO, who went to the head of HR... who immediately found out that lower level employees were actively hiding and covering up the misconduct.  

 

What followed was the CEO (to his credit) cleaning fucking house.  3 C-Suite people "retired" and half of the HR department lost their jobs, or were transferred out.  A couple of directors in the following months also "retired" after there were replacements.  New policies were implemented mandating reporting and providing a 1800 number that could be called anonymously to file a complaint.  The number was handled by a 3rd party company that anonymized the information, and the reports went to the CEO as well as HR, to ensure stuff was actually getting handled.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.  I'm giving both sides the benefit of the doubt at this point.  I hope regardless of the outcome, LMG can fix the issue and come back from all of this.

[sc3liu]

5 hours ago, ProbablyNotFidel said:

That's completely misunderstanding a third party investigation. 

When an investigation is sponsored by one of the two involved parties it is not a third-party investigation. Same as sponsored product reviews.

[ProbablyNotFidel]

1 minute ago, HesCalledTheStig said:

Yes, the belittling was an issue as well.  I'll agree to that.  But it's not as major as the sexual accusations.  Belittling is an easy fix with the person at fault being reprimanded and dismissed from their position.  The SA issue, not so easily fixed.

Though I agree SA/SH is more severe, the belittling can actually be a hard fix and not involve just one person. Especially if she was called what she says by management.

 

If a direct report is seeming incompetent, it's on management to make sure they have been given all the tools to succeed. If they can't get up to speed because of skill or whatever, then the company needs a new candidate and hopefully said direct report and we can leave on as amicable terms possible.

 

If it was a manager saying those things to her, that manager needs a check on their attitude, and then the next manager up, too. That attitude can come from top down, or it can just be a "rogue" manager. But everyone needs to really check each other and themselves. And it's tough. 

[Booch121]

1 minute ago, HesCalledTheStig said:

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.  I'm giving both sides the benefit of the doubt at this point.  I hope regardless of the outcome, LMG can fix the issue and come back from all of this.

If Madison's statements are true, then LMG might come back from this, but Linus himself for sure will NOT. I would not be suprised if the company completely renames and removes Linus as a figure head if its all true. Terren will most likely end up buying Linus's shares, and will take full control of the corporation. This is if Terren even WANTS to be affiliated with LTT after this.

[HesCalledTheStig]

1 minute ago, sc3liu said:

When an investigation is sponsored by one of the two involved parties it is not a third-party investigation. Same as sponsored product reviews.

No.  They have hired an unbiased 3rd party to perform the investigation so it IS NOT a conflict of interest.  Otherwise, nothing would be valid if it went to court.  The court isn't going to want biased info.

[castlev]

Just now, sc3liu said:

When an investigation is sponsored by one of the two involved parties it is not a third-party investigation. Same as sponsored product reviews.

If I hired an independent auditor for a crisis like this, and their report said "everything good bro, no problems" I would feel like I had just been swindled out of my money. I mean, did you even interview a single person from my staff? Or did you take the money and run?

[RatKnight]

1 minute ago, sc3liu said:

When an investigation is sponsored by one of the two involved parties it is not a third-party investigation. Same as sponsored product reviews.

These companies that do these types of investigations have reputations that they have to maintain.  If they never found anything, they would be entirely unreliable, and hiring them would do you no good since no one would trust the report.  These companies get paid, no matter what the findings.  It is also unlikely they will ever be hired by the same company again regardless, so they have a vested interest in finding the truth.

[HesCalledTheStig]

Just now, Booch121 said:

If Madison's statements are true, then LMG might come back from this, but Linus himself for sure will NOT. I would not be suprised if the company completely renames and removes Linus as a figure head if its all true. Terren will most likely end up buying Linus's shares, and will take full control of the corporation. This is if Terren even WANTS to be affiliated with LTT after this.

But LMG is more than just Linus.  We dont know that Linus really had anything to do with the more serious allegations.  Right new we only KNOW that he was in the middle of the GN drama.

[Uttamattamakin]

9 minutes ago, Booch121 said:

It definitely could. Who knows at this point.

Nah.  The cutting would not work against her.  A Jury would not be made up of tech bros, and the people who watch them.  A jury would be made up of older women who were 20 once and men who have daughters who are 20ish.  People who know how crazy the 20's to early 30's can be.  People who know that maturity is a sliding scale and an uneven field.  

Everyone over the age of 40 has known a young woman who cut themself or harmed themself in some way.   Either cutting, or drugs, or something.  That is unless they were that person themself once.  A lot of young women just internalize everything.  Young men too.  Young men, on average, turn to harming others.  Young women turn to harming themselves.  (LGBT youth might do all of this to various degrees)  

People on the Jury will know this.  They'll also know that if she has issues that just makes her a more likely target either for a single predator or to be picked at by 50 awkward dudes.  (I am thinking this was more the 50 awkward dudes doing 50 awkward dude things that added up to a bad situation, with at least one dude laying on hands and not acting right about getting a hard no.). 

 

6 minutes ago, HesCalledTheStig said:

he doesn't mention anyone else.  Its all assumption.

He doesn't say that he heard it from her that's all assumption.   

It's also irrelevant to the point.  He affirms that this is not something invented for clout or whatever in the last week.   Now, that there were issues is not proof there was legal harassment.  What she describes does not sound like a grey area of mixed signals.  It does not sound like ... boy meets girl, girl likes boy but not that much or maybe she does.  It sounds like girl goes to sausage fest, and too much sausage is offered when she's made it clear she's doesn't want it at work. 

 

 

[ProbablyNotFidel]

1 minute ago, sc3liu said:

When an investigation is sponsored by one of the two involved parties it is not a third-party investigation. Same as sponsored product reviews.

You're assuming third party investigators don't need to uphold credibility in order to stay in business. If their findings are unbelievable, what's the point of hiring them?

 

Its akin to business audits. We and/or our customers pay the auditor to come in and audit our processes. They have to work with us professionally, but their job is to find deficiencies and give guidance on what needs to change. If they just give you a check mark and then someone else comes in and says our systems are junk. How does that reflect on the first auditor? 

[HesCalledTheStig]

1 minute ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Nah.  The cutting would not work against her.  A Jury would not be made up of tech bros, and the people who watch them.  A jury would be made up of older women who were 20 once and men who have daughters who are 20ish.  People who know how crazy the 20's to early 30's can be.  People who know that maturity is a sliding scale and an uneven field.  

Everyone over the age of 40 has known a young woman who cut themself or harmed themself in some way.   Either cutting, or drugs, or something.  That is unless they were that person themself once.  A lot of young women just internalize everything.  Young men too.  Young men, on average, turn to harming others.  Young women turn to harming themselves.  (LGBT youth might do all of this to various degrees)  

People on the Jury will know this.  They'll also know that if she has issues that just makes her a more likely target either for a single predator or to be picked at by 50 awkward dudes.  (I am thinking this was more the 50 awkward dudes doing 50 awkward dude things that added up to a bad situation, with at least one dude laying on hands and not acting right about getting a hard no.). 

 

He doesn't say that he heard it from her that's all assumption.   

It's also irrelevant to the point.  He affirms that this is not something invented for clout or whatever in the last week.   Now, that there were issues is not proof there was legal harassment.  What she describes does not sound like a grey area of mixed signals.  It does not sound like ... boy meets girl, girl likes boy but not that much or maybe she does.  It sounds like girl goes to sausage fest, and too much sausage is offered when she's made it clear she's doesn't want it at work. 

 

 

 

You make a lot of assumptions.  Just out for blood before all the facts are revealed.  Good luck with that.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, sc3liu said:

When an investigation is sponsored by one of the two involved parties it is not a third-party investigation. Same as sponsored product reviews.

Before we all go around discrediting any independent external review before it has even happened or the results published I would suggest waiting.

 

Also if this is handled the way I have seen these get done the company, LMG, consults a company who offers this service and they enter in to a contract. As part of this each has a legal firm representing them and the money is paid in advance in to the trust account of the legal firm of LMG. Once the review has been completed but not released to LMG the legal firm of LMG will transfer the payment of services to the external company legal firm trust account. Then the reported findings is given to LMG to review and agree that the contracted services has been completed.

 

This means that whatever is in the report whether they like the results of it have no impact on payment nor will influence the external review. Any objections to the contracted services and denial of release of funds would have to be very specific i.e. rarely ever happens. This is much like how property sales work in fact.

 

So please have an open mind and at least give the review a chance to happen and the findings to be known.