Madison reveals experiences working at LMG

[Tanks]

17 minutes ago, Emperor Anime said:

Yeah, a small number. Which means at least 90 percent of allegations have truth behind them.

 

It's quite simply that on the balance of probability there is more likely merit to her allegations than the chance it's completely meritless. It doesn't mean every single person at LMG is "guilty" so not sure where you're getting that from. 

 

A lot of sexual harassment goes unreported and just the act of coming out with allegations at all like that takes a lot of balls. It's enough for me to believe that there's a serious problem at LMG that will hopefully be addressed through this investigation they're doing. 

FBI statistics show that 5-10% of sexual assault cases reported to the police are false. The percentage of false claims made publicly or to friends is unknown but may be higher. Some studies suggest a significantly greater percentage of unauthenticated, non-police claims are made publically (via social media or to news) or to friends/family. Applying police report statistics to random internet claims is an incorrect use of the data, though it's uncertain if this is applicable in the given situation.

[Reclus]

1 minute ago, digitalscream said:

Except...the bulk of her complaint is nothing to to with MeToo, and is really a workplace dispute. That's going to be treated as extremely low priority by the police, if they even deal with it at all. Not to mention that even if they did investigate it, it would then have to get through the prioritisation at the Crown Attorney Office to even have a chance at prosecution. Then, if it makes it through that, you get dragged through it all over again in a public trial maybe in a couple of years' time.

 

Alternatively, put it on Twitter at the most opportune time, and the company will immediately begin an investigation because they're already under a microscope and can't afford any missteps.

 

The result in both options is that the actions of the people who did you dirty are put under a microscope, and they'll face consequences...except that the chances are somewhere between 0 and 20% for the first option (best case, given how many filters it has to get through) and a timeline of years, or near 100% in the second with a timeline of days to weeks.

 

Which option are you going to choose?

The Twitter solution guarantees only a lot of noise and the outcome is very unpredictable and very public.

I will ask again. What will happen if her allegations are disproven AFTER the investigation?

Considering the potential damage to reputation why wouldn't Linus just sue her into oblivion for defamation? 

Why are you having such a low level of trust that the police would do their job on this?

[Tanks]

1 minute ago, Emperor Anime said:

2 percent of something is a small number dude lol. It means the overwhelming majority of allegations are true. 

An overwhelming number of allegations to the police specifically. 
This number does not apply to twitter allegations nor to friends/family. 

I am not defending anyone specifically here but regardless of the numbers it's callous to simply use general crime stats to handwave away the legitimate possibility of innocence there are plenty of statistical minority cases that prove to be false all the time 

[Tanks]

1 minute ago, Emperor Anime said:

It's enough data to know that in general, false allegations sexual assault are rare. Whether initially unsubstantiated when reported to the police or made publicly, the same principle would likely apply.

 

This was seen during MeeToo when the vast majority of allegations made publically (that were not necessarily reported immediately or to the police) were true. 

And many of them were found to be false too ... it does not get rid of the harm caused by the false accusations just because they are in the minority. 

[starsmine]

2 minutes ago, Reclus said:

The Twitter solution guarantees only a lot of noise and the outcome is very unpredictable and very public.

I will ask again. What will happen if her allegations are disproven AFTER the investigation?

Considering the potential damage to reputation why wouldn't Linus just sue her into oblivion for defamation? 

Why are you having such a low level of trust that the police would do their job on this?

if you think the twitter outcome will be unpredictable, you are right, its more unpredictable then the police report outcome which we can predict as... nothing. Absolutely no outcome.

[f222]

13 minutes ago, yoc said:

 

Thank you, this is what I thought.

[Gordon_4]

11 minutes ago, digitalscream said:

Except...the bulk of her complaint is nothing to to with MeToo, and is mostly a workplace bullying dispute. That's going to be treated as extremely low priority by the police, if they even deal with it at all. Not to mention that even if they did investigate it, it would then have to get through the prioritisation at the Crown Attorney Office to even have a chance at prosecution. Then, if it makes it through that, you get dragged through it all over again in a public trial maybe in a couple of years' time.

 

Alternatively, put it on Twitter at the most opportune time, and the company will immediately begin an investigation because they're already under a microscope and can't afford any missteps.

 

The result in both options is that the actions of the people who did you dirty are put under a microscope, and they'll face consequences...except that the chances are somewhere between 0 and 20% for the first option (best case, given how many filters it has to get through) and a timeline of years, or near 100% in the second with a timeline of days to weeks.

 

Which option are you going to choose?

The instant someone touches you without your consent, it moves beyond HR.  It was something I found baffling but depressingly unsurprising about the nonsense over at Blizzard: what was alleged there was not merely unprofessional behavior, it was serious criminal conduct.  At that point you don't both with the smile and nods from HR, you pick up the telephone and you contact the police.

[Reclus]

5 minutes ago, Emperor Anime said:

2 percent of something is a small number dude lol. It means the overwhelming majority of allegations are true. 

So is 10 but somehow u forgot that one despite it being clearly said 2-10.

This still means for each 100 cases 2 till 10 will be false.

Innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt guilty is the absolute staple of society. You treat is so lightly, like it's just some meme.

I really hope you never have to find out how important that rule is.

[imreloadin]

9 hours ago, bombaglad said:

This whole thread makes me sick. What a bunch of fanboys misogynists.

Fixed it for you...

[ProbablyNotFidel]

3 hours ago, sc3liu said:

That’s a very idealistic (and naïve) point of view. Of course we would hope these investigators care about their reputation too much to be biased on their verdicts. In reality if you were accused of a problematic behaviour what kind of investigators are you going to hire? The ones that are known to spell the truth regardless whether it hurts their paying client, or the ones that protect their customers’ interests? You’re right that this is similar to business audits, and look at how many scandals we’ve seen from the Big Four? External investigators are in a race to the bottom, until someone gets caught red-handed.

Obviously neither of us will budge. In my work experience, the most naive are the ones who judge a process before it's complete, and especially judge before the scope has even been laid out.

 

Here's I think where we may differ. Perhaps you dealt with more financial audits? Which, 100%, I have little to do with aside from answering some questions each year - so perhaps those are different. My experience is in standards and processes, which processes are going to be a large part of this in finding HR deficiencies. Of that, all evidence from my, I guess, "network" of contacts is third party investigations and third party audits are thorough and don't pull punches in their final outcomes. It's how the business then reacts, or doesn't react, which makes the whole process worthless. 

 

The proof/damnation is going to be as the investigating party and scope are decided and defined. If LMG actually holds up their end of the bargain, we will get to see if who they pick have a tainted reputation. We will be able to see if the scope should be adequate to not only find out what happened to Madison, but to ensure this and anything else in the future is mitigated to industry best practices.

 

Until we get to that point, I'll hold judgment. 

[Reclus]

4 minutes ago, starsmine said:

if you think the twitter outcome will be unpredictable, you are right, its more unpredictable then the police report outcome which we can predict as... nothing. Absolutely no outcome.

Oh. Then you live in an anarchy. If you can't apply any reason to this issue I can only wish you well and hope you never have to find out what it means to be publicly accused of misconduct on Twitter where everyone will just take the allegations for truth and completely dismiss your case. I wonder would you then run to the police or trust the mob to figure it out.

[digitalscream]

Just now, Reclus said:

The Twitter solution guarantees only a lot of noise and the outcome is very unpredictable and very public.

I will ask again. What will happen if her allegations are disproven AFTER the investigation?

Considering the potential damage to reputation why wouldn't Linus just sue her into oblivion for defamation? 

Why are you having such a low level of trust that the police would do their job on this?

Yes, a lot of noise - which has caused the company to investigate, which they didn't do when she originally made the complaints through the proper channels. That's a win, is it not? The Twitter thread has forced them to do the thing that she's accused them of not doing in the first place, which is what led directly to her quitting her "dream job".

 

As far as I can tell, Canadian law provides criminal statutes regarding threats and violence in the workplace, but guidance is to go through standard HR or union procedures for disputes like the ones Madison listed. It's not a matter of trust in the police, it's a matter of their own guidelines and prioritisation relative to all of the other crimes they have to deal with; even if they took this on, it'd be low priority. That's basically a summary of all the oblique references to the process I've found on the Canadian government sites; the fact that it's so difficult to find actual concrete information on this speaks volumes about how they'd prioritise it (or how sleep-deprived I am, if you want to go and look for yourself).

 

And yes, if LMG was 100% sure that there's actual proof that these things didn't happen, or 100% sure that no proof or witnesses will ever pop up corroborating even one of her claims, they could definitely sue her into oblivion. There would be almost nothing to gain from it, though - taking her to court and winning will de-facto mean she's unemployable so there's no chance of any financial reparations, and if the only goal is to get her to take down the Twitter thread then there are much, much cheaper ways to do it which don't constitute anywhere near as much of a PR own goal.

[Tanks]

2 minutes ago, Emperor Anime said:

No. It's the staple of criminal law and only criminal law. Not society. Even civil law operates under a "balance of probabilities" framework.

 

And I've been criminally charged before when I was young and dumb so I know that lol. The courts can exonerate someone, but public opinion has no such obligation and that's not how the world works. I mean look at fucking OJ Simpson lol.

 

Broader society and private citizens have no obligation to follow the "reasonable doubt" principle in all cases.

But even in civil law "balance of the probabilities" is only within the scope of the specifics of THAT case. 

They very specifically try to exclude all data that is not related to this specific incident for the same reason that it can lead to false conclusions not based on the evidence presented here but just general bias. 

You are right they are not obligated to follow "reasonable doubt" but they would be well served to consider it some of the time. 

[buttpoop]

37 minutes ago, Reclus said:

Go. To. The. Police. 

Her allegations point out that she has been done wrong, in an unlawful way. The police is the first step. They will give you multiple forms of advice and steps to take.

Also in todays age of "Mee Too" the amount of information online how to get help is beyond overwhelming. And not a single one of them will say to go to Twitter.

Okay, let's talk about what that looks like.

 

She goes to the police with no physical evidence. The police will not charge them. Nothing happens. 

 

Then what?

Edit:

9 minutes ago, Reclus said:

Oh. Then you live in an anarchy. If you can't apply any reason to this issue I can only wish you well and hope you never have to find out what it means to be publicly accused of misconduct on Twitter where everyone will just take the allegations for truth and completely dismiss your case. I wonder would you then run to the police or trust the mob to figure it out.

What will the police do? Google what happens if an assault occurs with no evidence.

[digitalscream]

6 minutes ago, Gordon_4 said:

The instant someone touches you without your consent, it moves beyond HR.  It was something I found baffling but depressingly unsurprising about the nonsense over at Blizzard: what was alleged there was not merely unprofessional behavior, it was serious criminal conduct.  At that point you don't both with the smile and nods from HR, you pick up the telephone and you contact the police.

And if it's just a hand on the shoulder or arm? How high a priority do you think that's going to be for the police and Crown Attorney Office when they're dealing with thefts, murders and corruption cases?

 

I'm not saying it's irrelevant; I'm just saying that this is the real world, where people have to make value judgements about a) prioritisation, b) public interest and c) the chance of a successful conviction. When a case is going to be decided solely on witness testimony in front of a jury, the best case scenario is a coin-flip result, so it will fail on the latter relative to any case where there's physical or documentary evidence.

 

That's what I mean by all this - I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's the reality of criminal cases when there are scarce resources to prosecute them.

 

As I said...there's all of that, or there's the Twitter option which was guaranteed to get the right reaction because LMG couldn't afford not to. And for all those saying it's not predictable...well, I predicted it back in the first 5-10 pages of this thread, and that's exactly what's come to pass. So...it was at least a bit predictable

[Tajl3r]

we still on this i give it two weeks until it all dies down 

bandwagon is a weird thing

[digitalscream]

Just now, Tajl3r said:

we still on this i give it two weeks until it all dies down 

bandwagon is a weird thing

Stop it. Some of us like arguments

[Tajl3r]

 i rather watch some movie tv show

gl hf

[Gordon_4]

4 minutes ago, digitalscream said:

And if it's just a hand on the shoulder or arm? How high a priority do you think that's going to be for the police and Crown Attorney Office when they're dealing with thefts, murders and corruption cases?

 

I'm not saying it's irrelevant; I'm just saying that this is the real world, where people have to make value judgements about a) prioritisation, b) public interest and c) the chance of a successful conviction. When a case is going to be decided solely on witness testimony in front of a jury, the best case scenario is a coin-flip result, so it will fail on the latter relative to any case where there's physical or documentary evidence.

 

That's what I mean by all this - I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's the reality of criminal cases when there are scarce resources to prosecute them.

 

As I said...there's all of that, or there's the Twitter option which was guaranteed to get the right reaction because LMG couldn't afford not to. And for all those saying it's not predictable...well, I predicted it back in the first 5-10 pages of this thread, and that's exactly what's come to pass. So...it was at least a bit predictable

 

I think as a whole, we need to remember how to say "Fuck off" to someone.  Someone puts their hand on my shoulder without being my friend or family, those two words fly out of my mouth on reflex.  Most sane people kind of jump back and throw their hands up when you do that loud enough.  And if that doesn't work, give them a good, firm shove.

 

EDIT: However this does not absolve total shitbirds who failed to take onboard the lesson of 'keeping your hands to yourself' that most people get through their heads by age seven. 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Gordon_4
Additional clarity

[digitalscream]

1 minute ago, Gordon_4 said:

 

I think as a whole, we need to remember how to say "Fuck off" to someone.  Someone puts their hand on my shoulder without being my friend or family, those two words fly out of my mouth on reflex.  Most sane people kind of jump back and throw their hands up when you do that loud enough. 

I probably mentioned that I'm autistic earlier in the thread - I have an extreme reaction to uninvited contact, it feels very much like an electric shock. My reaction usually scares people so much that they never, ever do it again.

 

Ergo...I have no experience with that.

[Reclus]

3 minutes ago, Emperor Anime said:

No. It's the staple of criminal law and only criminal law. Not society. Even civil law operates under a "balance of probabilities" framework.

 

And I've been criminally charged before when I was young and dumb so I know that lol. The courts can exonerate someone, but public opinion has no such obligation and that's not how the world works. I mean look at fucking OJ Simpson lol.

 

Broader society and private citizens have no obligation to follow the "reasonable doubt" principle in all cases.

I'm not sure what your argument here is. Court. Law. Verdict. You gave experienced it so the system does work. I don't want to get into if her allegations are criminal or civil. The law literally says it can be both.

OJ Simpson is an example of the same percentages that people here don't take into account. A small but real number that things are not what they appear to be.

Also a better example would be Amber Heard. Went from everyone believed her to a literal meme. 

 

[Electricity Taster]

 

On 8/16/2023 at 9:14 AM, iAxX said:

Might be too late for that. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the CEO just quit. 

 

• Conflicts of interest with ASUS/Noctua
• Linus lying about his interactions with Billet
• Linus being completely tone deaf in his response and turning the YT tech community against him
• The labs team apparently being incompetent and losing all credibility
• Ignored workplace sexual harassment and bullying

And it's only Wednesday. 

 

On paper, yes. But we've "known" Linus for years. He's always been a decent person and I think what has happened is just a matter of boundaries slowly being pushed and him not noticing.

I'm going to make some predictions based on wise experience. This is not what I want to happen, but what I believe will happen assuming no more fires break out:

-The Madison allegations will be investigated and the people responsible will be fired. Yvonne will be the one to explain this on camera.
-LMG will offer to buy out Billet.
-The WAN show becomes separate from LTT/Floatplane. The LMG CEO will write a weekly newsletter that gets posted on the forums and read on the WAN show.
-New procedures will be designed to enable blind testing at the LTT labs.
-The turd-shaped, brown Noctua screwdriver gets cancelled.
-A new video gets uploaded to Linus Cat Tips in exactly 9 days.
-The storm will blow over in under a month (back to school amnesia). LTT store revenue will drop 33% during this period and then return to normal.
-In the coming years, LMG will hire 40% more women (this is what Hollywood did after #MeToo).

Edited August 17, 2023 by Electricity Taster
ghrammar

[Kisai]

21 minutes ago, Emperor Anime said:

Nah, on principle I don't see a distinction to the veracity of reports whether it's done to police or publicly. In some ways, it can be argued that airing it publicly takes a lot more courage and opens you up to a lot more risk (like harassment, etc.) A lot of the women who did this in the past years were ultimately vindicated. 

The only advantage to putting it out there publicly, is it puts the person/company being accused on the defensive. So if it's a known problem *coughUbisoft*cough*Activision*cough* then the media will do the rest of the investigation if they smell blood.

 

Going back to the G*merG*te, there was even more of this stuff coming out of the woodwork, and the #metoo was the following year.

 

I'd say that the majority of the complaints held water when it was "older man, younger women" situation. Less so when it was same-sex, or politically motivated.

 

That also gets into the weeds about AI deepfakes. It is now possible to "fake" evidence if you really want to ruin someone, and without everyone having alibies for claims, it's now easy to destroy people who are single or work alone.

 

21 minutes ago, Emperor Anime said:

I'm not handwaving anything away. I'm saying that with the statistics we have, false reports are a rare occurrence overall.

 

It's why the narrative has shifted to "believing women" because overall, there's merit to most allegations.

 

There's always merit to an accusation if the accusation is is against someone that had direct power over the person.

 

Usually the meritless claims are those that occur from OUTSIDE the company, eg at conventions or business events, where maybe photos exist, but it's impossible to get them because they're on someone's phone of a competitor or something.

[yoc]

2 minutes ago, Reclus said:

I'm not sure what your argument here is. Court. Law. Verdict. You gave experienced it so the system does work. I don't want to get into if her allegations are criminal or civil. The law literally says it can be both.

OJ Simpson is an example of the same percentages that people here don't take into account. A small but real number that things are not what they appear to be.

Also a better example would be Amber Heard. Went from everyone believed her to a literal meme. 

 

I'm no judge or court so I don't have (and rightfully so) to follow their standards. That's the meat of it imo.

[Reclus]

17 minutes ago, digitalscream said:

Yes, a lot of noise - which has caused the company to investigate, which they didn't do when she originally made the complaints through the proper channels. That's a win, is it not? The Twitter thread has forced them to do the thing that she's accused them of not doing in the first place, which is what led directly to her quitting her "dream job".

 

As far as I can tell, Canadian law provides criminal statutes regarding threats and violence in the workplace, but guidance is to go through standard HR or union procedures for disputes like the ones Madison listed. It's not a matter of trust in the police, it's a matter of their own guidelines and prioritisation relative to all of the other crimes they have to deal with; even if they took this on, it'd be low priority. That's basically a summary of all the oblique references to the process I've found on the Canadian government sites; the fact that it's so difficult to find actual concrete information on this speaks volumes about how they'd prioritise it (or how sleep-deprived I am, if you want to go and look for yourself).

 

And yes, if LMG was 100% sure that there's actual proof that these things didn't happen, or 100% sure that no proof or witnesses will ever pop up corroborating even one of her claims, they could definitely sue her into oblivion. There would be almost nothing to gain from it, though - taking her to court and winning will de-facto mean she's unemployable so there's no chance of any financial reparations, and if the only goal is to get her to take down the Twitter thread then there are much, much cheaper ways to do it which don't constitute anywhere near as much of a PR own goal.

Yes. They did investigate.. FFS don't make me defend them. The entire HR meeting was a result of the investigation made by HR  after her departure. 

Also you have found the information even when it's based on this thread. The entire point here is that there needs to be evidence. Not just your or LMG or Maddie's words.

The point of suing for defamation is to prove to your stake holders and investors that you are clean beyond any doubt and you will not allow anyone to just throw accusations at you. This isn't just about the money you can win in court. This is money that you might loose due to investors literally asking why haven't you sued this person if you are innocent?