Update to allegations from last year

[GoStormPlays]

1 hour ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

And you remember how deep they dug that hole before finally admitting fault?

 

There's a feeling of being untouchable emanating from LTT.

So they didn't learn their lesson there? Wouldn't you think that they admitting fault in previous times would show that they've learned their lesson?

 

59 minutes ago, Kaine_ver.1.22474487139 said:

anyone they questioned to fess up then everything she accused someone of doing is "unfounded" to them.

There are other ways to find the truth besides someone fessing up. One way of doing this would be to find other people who encountered the same situation.

44 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

She could get her day in court. From LMG's statement they have proof of no wrong doing and they could sue her for defamation of character.

 

The fact that she didnt sue or file a complaint with the government makes me think she was not telling the whole truth.

Linus at Court, sponsored by Dbrand! I would love to see Twitch Chat on this one.

 

[Lurking]

2 hours ago, Dominik W said:

How? Police didn't bring charges, and neither did Madison. Hiring a firm is the most objective way possible when no lawsuits exist. It will always look shady, but unfortunately, that is how it is everywhere. At this point, we as a community need to ensure we always hold LMG to a high standard. And that's about it. 

Wait, there never were any charges? What was this then about?

 

Did she complain to some labor board or whatever official place there is in Canada? 

 

If she didn't make an official complaint to an authority, was that just the "court of social media outrage"? Who forced them to do that investigation (and pay for it, I assume)? 

[Rocketdog2112]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

She could get her day in court. From LMG's statement they have proof of no wrong doing and they could sue her for defamation of character.

 

The fact that she didnt sue or file a complaint with the government makes me think she was not telling the whole truth.

Some people just don't understand when they should consult with a lawyer. They basically live and die by hoping social media will vindicate them.

[starsmine]

18 minutes ago, Lurking said:

Wait, there never were any charges? What was this then about?

 

Did she complain to some labor board or whatever official place there is in Canada? 

 

If she didn't make an official complaint to an authority, was that just the "court of social media outrage"? Who forced them to do that investigation (and pay for it, I assume)? 

You do an investigation whenever there is a complaint you don't have to get anything legal involved ever.

That is the only way you can have a healthy company culture. You do NOT wait for the authorities to become invovled to only THEN fix a cosby room. 

[Rocketdog2112]

34 minutes ago, GoStormPlays said:

So they didn't learn their lesson there? Wouldn't you think that they admitting fault in previous times would show that they've learned their lesson?

 

 

Sure they admitted their mistake... after it was practically dragged out of them by all the negative social media bombardment.

[Rocketdog2112]

4 minutes ago, starsmine said:

You do an investigation whenever there is a complaint you don't have to get anything legal involved ever.

That is the only way you can have a healthy company culture. You do NOT wait for the authorities to become invovled to only THEN fix a cosby room. 

And in that way, they also control the narrative.... and the outcome.

[Lurking]

2 minutes ago, starsmine said:

You do an investigation whenever there is a complaint you don't have to get anything legal involved ever.

That is the only way you can have a healthy company culture. You do NOT wait for the authorities to become invovled to only THEN fix a cosby room. 

So this was just a complaint to HR? And they decided to hire an external investigator?  If that is the case, that still would be normal.

 

But how did it become public and discussed here before the end of the investigation? The employer wouldn't publish anything still under investigation. And an employee normally also would await the result (or go to authorities if they are not happy and think there is a legal case).

[starsmine]

7 minutes ago, Lurking said:

So this was just a complaint to HR? And they decided to hire an external investigator?  If that is the case, that still would be normal.

 

But how did it become public and discussed here before the end of the investigation? The employer wouldn't publish anything still under investigation. And an employee normally also would await the result (or go to authorities if they are not happy and think there is a legal case).

No? this was more then just a complaint to HR. The complaint came out after the employee and LTT parted ways. That employee was mostly quite about it until a new round of harassment went their way. 

 

10 minutes ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

And in that way, they also control the narrative.... and the outcome.

Sure. Look nothing in LTT's response disproves the complaints either as such. Shit fell through the cracks, shit could have been handled better, Stuff happened, it was misrepresented and not addressed as best as it could have to remedy it until after the fact. The way the complaint was made was not fully kosher, but it did force the investigation, and in the process, put in fixes to the processes to hopefully limit such an outcome happening again.

There are no villains here. Just people being messy. 

[SansVarnic]

This is one of those damned if you do damned if don't situations.

 

Had LMG not hired a 3rd party firm to perform the investigation folks would be calling for justice and even though they did (because who else would have), some folks are still going call it a cover up.

 

This is and will always be a no win scenario. Haters will hate regardless of the outcome. 

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

An investigation paid for by the accused?

 

I'd still take them to court and let a jury decide.

Jury trials are exceptionally rare for anything that wouldn't result in jailtime.

 

Like it's funny how Americans seem to get so many jury notices that they are trying to dodge them twice a year, meanwhile I only ever received one Jury duty notice in my entire lifetime here in BC. And it was filled before they even got to my name.

 

The reality is that "a single person was responsible for this drama, and the signs were there when they were being hired." Is the take away from the tweet.

 

You have to realize that if there was substance behind the claim, there would have been more people coming forward, past and present.

 

That said, LMG's on-camera content lacks gender and race diversity and that might penalize them in public perception that they don't give equal opportunities to be in front of the camera. People are entitled to their opinions, but if they are trying to grow their content they need to have content that involves more of the staff on camera.

[Lurking]

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Jury trials are exceptionally rare for anything that wouldn't result in jailtime.

 

Like it's funny how Americans seem to get so many jury notices that they are trying to dodge them twice a year, meanwhile I only ever received one Jury duty notice in my entire lifetime here in BC. And it was filled before they even got to my name.

 

The reality is that "a single person was responsible for this drama, and the signs were there when they were being hired." Is the take away from the tweet.

 

You have to realize that if there was substance behind the claim, there would have been more people coming forward, past and present.

 

That said, LMG's on-camera content lacks gender and race diversity and that might penalize them in public perception that they don't give equal opportunities to be in front of the camera. People are entitled to their opinions, but if they are trying to grow their content they need to have content that involves more of the staff on camera.

If you serve are on a County/State jury, they don't call you for 10 years. Maybe a federal court could call you before 10 years. But there is no way twice a year is a thing. If you serve 3 times in your life, you already are a minority. 

 

You also can postpone your duty for some months for personal or professional reasons. And they select 13 jurors from a pool of 30 or even more. And the judge is lenient to excuse people (like if they don't find daycare etc ). Plus you always could say something offending that makes the DA or defense exclude you. And convicted people don't get to serve. If you don't want to serve, and can't get out of jury duty, you must be very slow ...

 

I googled about the case at hand. So this was about offending jokes, and something with use of sick days due to mental health. Really hard to say and definitely not newsworthy. And then the (alleged) grabbing. That could be a serious thing depending on who grabbed where. But it seems it isn't substantiated if this happened, or happened in a concerning way. Hard to tell what to believe. I'm sure the fact LTT is famous and not just a random local Plumbing company had a lot to do with the fact they had to hire that investigator. 

[Kisai]

5 minutes ago, Lurking said:

If you serve are on a County/State jury, they don't call you for 10 years. Maybe a federal court could call you before 10 years. But there is no way twice a year is a thing. If you serve 3 times in your life, you already are a minority. 

I think it's just how many times they've been sent jury notices, I don't know if that's how many times they served. They were living in California I think.

 

5 minutes ago, Lurking said:

 

I googled about the case at hand. So this was about offending jokes, and something with use of sick days due to mental health. Really hard to say and definitely not newsworthy. And then the (alleged) grabbing. That could be a serious thing depending on who grabbed where. But it seems it isn't substantiated if this happened, or happened in a concerning way. Hard to tell what to believe. I'm sure the fact LTT is famous and not just a random local Plumbing company had a lot to do with the fact they had to hire that investigator. 

You also have to realize that "guys" tend to do a lot of things, physical comedy, and such that might come off as inappropriate when there are people not cool with it in the room.

 

One of the problems a lot of workplaces have in the last 20 years is that men are left in the position of having to defend unfounded claims from "anonymous" people on staff, and even if the claim is a lie. Who's going to be believed? 

 

When women are in workplaces that are majority-men, and not in equal positions (eg women are just doing bookkeeping), sexual harassment claims will show up because of that power dynamic discourages speaking up.

 

[DeerDK]

5 hours ago, Dominik W said:

LTT on Twitter posted an update to the allegations from last year.

 

https://x.com/LinusTech/status/1793428629378208057

 

Interesting findings. We'll see what the community reaction is.

Its also posted on Youtube.

I have my hopes that if the investigator dug something up, LMG would also act on it, but im certain that some people are just not accepting it. I can't see how it could have been done differently, though. Maybe the critics can crowdfund their own investigater and as long as they hire a reputable one, LMG will cooperate, but as I say, I have a feeling that some people will not accept any outcome that doesn't result in some sort of public display/fireing.

[wanderingfool2]

Has there been the official summary/statement by Roper Greyell.

 

Context and knowing what was presented to the 3rd party is important to figure out how conclusive a statement can be made.

 

e.g. The whole Dream stuff where he took what the Astrophysicist said and twisted it where Dream also provided incorrect information.

 

That is why a statement from the firm itself, not LMG, would be more relevant.  Knowing a detail like, was Madison involved, can be important.

 

The reason as well is because of statements like this

Quote

There was no evidence of “abuse of power” or retaliation. The individual involved may not have agreed with our decisions or performance feedback, but our actions were for legitimate work-related purposes, and our business reasons were valid.

As the above, based on the original claim there technically wouldn't be evidence of such a thing.

[DeerDK]

6 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Has there been the official summary/statement by Roper Greyell.

 

Context and knowing what was presented to the 3rd party is important to figure out how conclusive a statement can be made.

 

e.g. The whole Dream stuff where he took what the Astrophysicist said and twisted it where Dream also provided incorrect information.

 

That is why a statement from the firm itself, not LMG, would be more relevant.  Knowing a detail like, was Madison involved, can be important.

 

The reason as well is because of statements like this

As the above, based on the original claim there technically wouldn't be evidence of such a thing.

I agree, and also hope they release the full documentation (with personal information redacted).

Misrepresenting the findings would be a rather big scandal, and im sure it would surface sooner or later if done, so i REALLY hope that is not the case.

 

Regarding the last bit. Isn't there often a papertrail? Old e-mails and legal documents for hirering/fireing ect. Its a very different story if the investigator could see a logical thread through the paper trail and reach their conclusion as opposed to, if there were no documents to investigate? 

I dunno, Im not a work environment legal expert, but one can hope that the report would specify these things.

[wanderingfool2]

11 minutes ago, DeerDK said:

Regarding the last bit. Isn't there often a papertrail? Old e-mails and legal documents for hirering/fireing ect. Its a very different story if the investigator could see a logical thread through the paper trail and reach their conclusion as opposed to, if there were no documents to investigate? 

I dunno, Im not a work environment legal expert, but one can hope that the report would specify these things.

That would be a whole lot of "it depends".  iirc one of the accusations was phrased that the "abuse of power" was done in a way that wasn't documented.

 

While I cannot say what happened at LMG, I know from working in some of the corporate environments before there would be times where "we" would be told things in a closed room with "suggestions" from management.

 

It's ironic actually at a former work, right after a whole "we can't do this" [taking "gifts" from vendors etc] type of mandatory written test because we were a publicly traded company; followed by a manager talking to a vendor to get them to buy the "Christmas lunch" for his staff.

 

Sometimes what happens on paper doesn't translate to what actually happens [not saying it is the case here]...but a statement of no evidence doesn't mean something didn't necessarily happen...just that there might not be proof it happened.  What one would have to investigate is interview and trying to judge which statements line up and whether it matches with what documents they do have.

[DeerDK]

3 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

That would be a whole lot of "it depends".  iirc one of the accusations was phrased that the "abuse of power" was done in a way that wasn't documented.

 

While I cannot say what happened at LMG, I know from working in some of the corporate environments before there would be times where "we" would be told things in a closed room with "suggestions" from management.

 

It's ironic actually at a former work, right after a whole "we can't do this" [taking "gifts" from vendors etc] type of mandatory written test because we were a publicly traded company; followed by a manager talking to a vendor to get them to buy the "Christmas lunch" for his staff.

 

Sometimes what happens on paper doesn't translate to what actually happens [not saying it is the case here]...but a statement of no evidence doesn't mean something didn't necessarily happen...just that there might not be proof it happened.  What one would have to investigate is interview and trying to judge which statements line up and whether it matches with what documents they do have.

Yeah, and as I said, we can't even tell what exactly was uncovered unless a full report is released. I work in in a company with around 500 employees and a very flat hieracial structure, but I also doesn't live in North America, so milage may vary quite a bit. 

 

In terms of the repercussions part, they may have been able to prove connections to other things, or maybe orders coming from above, so that its not the accused middle manager who made a call that was interpreted like a personal vendetta - just an example - again I don't know any specifics.

I really do hope that the investigator worked with Madison and followed up on her information.

But im not sure we are going to see much more. 

Maybe they can present the complete report to GN or something, with an NDA to protect individuals, but to have them see the evidence uncovered and used as grounds for the conclusion.

[avg boywithuke fan]

6 hours ago, GoStormPlays said:

At this point, I want to hear from Madison. Assuming she did make this up, I'm very interested to hear about why she would want to make this up. I mean even during those allegations, she still did affirm LMG to some extent...

 

I guess the allegations from Madison could be false as no one else has spoken up (and when you have 200+ employees, I doubt you could keep people being treated poorly quiet for long).

i would agree it always seemed like supicious timing to me a small streamer that seperated from a well paying job unhappily making an accusation just after a reputable source pointed out problems seems slightly like a nugget of truth being turned into a publicity stunt

[Avocado Diaboli]

58 minutes ago, avg boywithuke fan said:

i would agree it always seemed like supicious timing to me a small streamer that seperated from a well paying job unhappily making an accusation just after a reputable source pointed out problems seems slightly like a nugget of truth being turned into a publicity stunt

She didn't only make remarks about her apparently troublesome time at LMG after the Gamer's Nexus video. I distinctly remember a thread on here where people linked to examples where she alluded to certain events. Unfortunately, that thread seems to have been privated. I found the link to it in this thread.

 

https://linustechtips.com/topic/1395054-madison-suop-aka-the-girl-behind-the-tweets-is-leaving-lmg/

 

I can't really remember what exactly was expressed there, but I just want to clarify that Madison wasn't just riding the wave with no prior public comments.

[LogicalDrm]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Has there been the official summary/statement by Roper Greyell.

I don't think they will release anything more on this. It's still private company. They have no obligations towards general public. Only their own employees, government officials and maybe other third parties that have made official complaints. The law firm will not release anything. Releasing something would break customer confidentiality.

 

Without going into speculation, if any current employee of LMG thinks investigation was botched or the findings crossed the line, they will resign on their own. Like said, the general public has mostly made their mind and nothing LMG does will change that. It's the core of cancel culture.

[Gege-Brazorf]

I am confused about the post. Wouldn’t it be better post directly the conclusions of the law firm? Those are just ‘ your opinion’, your summary, it’s not from a third party, so not objective. 
 

 

[saintlouisbagels]

26 minutes ago, Gege-Brazorf said:

I am confused about the post. Wouldn’t it be better post directly the conclusions of the law firm? Those are just ‘ your opinion’, your summary, it’s not from a third party, so not objective. 

They likely received a giant stack of papers written in very dry legalese.

No one's going to read that and everyone is just going to rely on other people's summaries and misinterpretations of results.

[Giganthrax]

9 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

What's stopping her from filling a lawsuit?

The fact she made it all up and therefore can't prove a thing? 

 

Keep in mind that this is Canada. If there had been any evidence of actual sexual harassment in the workplace, their police would've been all over it from the get go.

[TetraSky]

10 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

What's stopping her from filling a lawsuit?

Not having proof of anything would do that. All she did was fling accusations around without giving anything substantial, riding the coattail of the Gamers Nexus controversy against LMG.

 

Even assuming what happened to her was as bad as what she portrayed it out to be and not misinterpretation on her part... It's her words against theirs.

Now that they've have completed an investigation by a third party that found nothing was out of the ordinary + the fact she has nothing(that we know of) = Case gets thrown out of court. It would be a waste of time and money.

 

8 hours ago, Lurking said:

Wait, there never were any charges? What was this then about?

Just accusations on twitter. LMG took it seriously and did an investigation to be sure through a reputation third party. They found nothing substantial. If she keeps making these accusations without bringing anything new to the table other than "believe me!", they would sue her for defamation. Though I doubt Linus would go that far since he has said in the past he would rather not go that far. Even after getting scammed by a manufacturer on their screwdrivers.

[avg boywithuke fan]

3 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

She didn't only make remarks about her apparently troublesome time at LMG after the Gamer's Nexus video. I distinctly remember a thread on here where people linked to examples where she alluded to certain events. Unfortunately, that thread seems to have been privated. I found the link to it in this thread.

 

https://linustechtips.com/topic/1395054-madison-suop-aka-the-girl-behind-the-tweets-is-leaving-lmg/

 

I can't really remember what exactly was expressed there, but I just want to clarify that Madison wasn't just riding the wave with no prior public comments.

alr thx for telling me