On November 17 2021 09:31 dr0pship wrote: I'm just here to jump on the same bandwagon as the rest of the hashtag heroes in this thread. I'd like to jump on this trending subject, spit out a cliché that shows I am on the right side of the issue on social media, feel proud, and proclaim myself a hero but accomplish nothing. Thankfully due to cancel culture I can safely ignore the collateral damage—context, reason, due process, and nuance.
Phew. That was a lot of work! Now that I've satisfied my dopamine-driven desire for social validation on my favorite virtual soapbox for virtue-signaling, it's time to get back to binge-watching Netflix.
Interesting how you simultaneously can look into the souls of critical people and ascertain it’s all for social brownie points, but if it comes to Kotick’s ActiBlizz, well context, nuance etc are all needed.
Due process is axiomatic in our justice system in situations involving serious criminal allegations against a person. It is probably safe to assume that none of the "souls of critical people" posting about ActiBlizz topic on the internet fit into this category of person (i.e. a defendant). Also, the scientific community has reached a consensus on the neuropsychology of motivation in the context of social media that is indisputable. If you think the complex interactions between the human brain and predatory social media algorithms can be reduced to "social brownie points", you probably shouldn't be using the internet in the first place.
On November 17 2021 09:31 dr0pship wrote: I'm just here to jump on the same bandwagon as the rest of the hashtag heroes in this thread. I'd like to jump on this trending subject, spit out a cliché that shows I am on the right side of the issue on social media, feel proud, and proclaim myself a hero but accomplish nothing. Thankfully due to cancel culture I can safely ignore the collateral damage—context, reason, due process, and nuance.
Phew. That was a lot of work! Now that I've satisfied my dopamine-driven desire for social validation on my favorite virtual soapbox for virtue-signaling, it's time to get back to binge-watching Netflix.
Interesting how you simultaneously can look into the souls of critical people and ascertain it’s all for social brownie points, but if it comes to Kotick’s ActiBlizz, well context, nuance etc are all needed.
Due process is axiomatic in our justice system in situations involving serious criminal allegations against a person. It is probably safe to assume that none of the "souls of critical people" posting about ActiBlizz topic on the internet fit into this category of person (i.e. a defendant). Also, the scientific community has reached a consensus on the neuropsychology of motivation in the context of social media that is indisputable. If you think the complex interactions between the human brain and predatory social media algorithms can be reduced to "social brownie points", you probably shouldn't be using the internet in the first place.
But also, it's kinda like, we can have opinions about stuff, and post those opinions on an internet forum without doing it to virtue signal, or without adhering to due process. Maybe we can just think certain things? And maybe we're allowed to think that it's bad news when bad people do bad things? But sure, you've scored 1 Edge Point for today. Maybe there'll be another waiting for you tomorrow.
Let due process run its course. We are. But also we can post that he's obviously a shit dude who's done a ton of shit things, and that we think this is a shit situation for Blizzard, the people who work for Blizzard, and the people who loved their work. I'm not gonna mince words about this, if you wanna dunk on people for having opinions on world events, you can kindly fuck off.
On November 17 2021 09:31 dr0pship wrote: I'm just here to jump on the same bandwagon as the rest of the hashtag heroes in this thread. I'd like to jump on this trending subject, spit out a cliché that shows I am on the right side of the issue on social media, feel proud, and proclaim myself a hero but accomplish nothing. Thankfully due to cancel culture I can safely ignore the collateral damage—context, reason, due process, and nuance.
Phew. That was a lot of work! Now that I've satisfied my dopamine-driven desire for social validation on my favorite virtual soapbox for virtue-signaling, it's time to get back to binge-watching Netflix.
Interesting how you simultaneously can look into the souls of critical people and ascertain it’s all for social brownie points, but if it comes to Kotick’s ActiBlizz, well context, nuance etc are all needed.
Due process is axiomatic in our justice system in situations involving serious criminal allegations against a person. It is probably safe to assume that none of the "souls of critical people" posting about ActiBlizz topic on the internet fit into this category of person (i.e. a defendant). Also, the scientific community has reached a consensus on the neuropsychology of motivation in the context of social media that is indisputable. If you think the complex interactions between the human brain and predatory social media algorithms can be reduced to "social brownie points", you probably shouldn't be using the internet in the first place.
TL. net is not a court of law, lol. If youre unable to make the distinction between the court of public opinion and a literal court then its probably best that you not use the internet.
On November 17 2021 12:12 Zambrah wrote: TL. net is not a court of law, lol. If youre unable to make the distinction between the court of public opinion and a literal court then its probably best that you not use the internet.
An often used reasoning used to come spew filth with no consequence. That isn't to say you can't/shouldn't have/share an opinion. It's just to say that this kind of reasoning is justifying irrationalism.
Bobby Kotick threatened to have a woman killed (he doesn’t deny this, the spokesperson confirms it happened)
The board of directors stands by him.
But right, people on a StarCraft forum saying Mr Death Threats is a problem are the real issue, lol. Woe is poor Bobby “threatened to have someone killed,” Kotick. However will he survive with his billions of ill gotten dollars? We TLers must remember that our words carry the weight of God, and should exercise caution when discussing confessed death threat slinging CEOs of corporations with extensive cultures of sexual harassment lest Bobby Kotick get he fee fees huwt.
On November 17 2021 15:14 Zambrah wrote: Speaking of spewing filth without consequence,
Bobby Kotick threatened to have a woman killed (he doesn’t deny this, the spokesperson confirms it happened)
The board of directors stands by him.
But right, people on a StarCraft forum saying Mr Death Threats is a problem are the real issue, lol. Woe is poor Bobby “threatened to have someone killed,” Kotick. However will he survive with his billions of ill gotten dollars? We TLers must remember that our words carry the weight of God, and should exercise caution when discussing confessed death threat slinging CEOs of corporations with extensive cultures of sexual harassment lest Bobby Kotick get he fee fees huwt.
Just because he admitted it, doesn't matter, you can't talk about it. It hasn't been proven in a court of law, you're ignoring due process. I call Cancel Culture on this.
idk about this court thingy. that dude (kotick) settled cases. with admittance of guilt (threatening to have someone murdered). don't really need more than that, do you?
on a related note, I haven't seen anyone in this thread being subpoenaed because of their posting in this thread. hence we should be careful of decrying their posts as false. nothing of what they said has been proven wrong as of now.
On November 17 2021 09:31 dr0pship wrote: I'm just here to jump on the same bandwagon as the rest of the hashtag heroes in this thread. I'd like to jump on this trending subject, spit out a cliché that shows I am on the right side of the issue on social media, feel proud, and proclaim myself a hero but accomplish nothing. Thankfully due to cancel culture I can safely ignore the collateral damage—context, reason, due process, and nuance.
Phew. That was a lot of work! Now that I've satisfied my dopamine-driven desire for social validation on my favorite virtual soapbox for virtue-signaling, it's time to get back to binge-watching Netflix.
Interesting how you simultaneously can look into the souls of critical people and ascertain it’s all for social brownie points, but if it comes to Kotick’s ActiBlizz, well context, nuance etc are all needed.
Due process is axiomatic in our justice system in situations involving serious criminal allegations against a person. It is probably safe to assume that none of the "souls of critical people" posting about ActiBlizz topic on the internet fit into this category of person (i.e. a defendant). Also, the scientific community has reached a consensus on the neuropsychology of motivation in the context of social media that is indisputable. If you think the complex interactions between the human brain and predatory social media algorithms can be reduced to "social brownie points", you probably shouldn't be using the internet in the first place.
You can’t simultaneously say it’s a series of complex interactions, but also have a very myopic personal reading of it. Positioning oneself as the above the fray, due process contrarian guy is indeed itself a carving of a niche of identity, I should know having largely been that bloke on the internet forever.
I think you absolutely have a point in a wider sense, if you had framed it as a concern in this and many other cases as a wider phenomenon, rather than directly accusing every poster in this thread of being motivated by jumping on the bandwagon for kudos, then I’d have 100% agreed with you.
I can’t speak for others, I personally like discussing such issues on TL where it’s an old school forum and we’re mostly anonymous, and we can (relatively) soberly unpack issued precisely because I don’t like discussing these issues on social platforms for the exact reasons you outlined.
On November 17 2021 12:12 Zambrah wrote: TL. net is not a court of law, lol. If youre unable to make the distinction between the court of public opinion and a literal court then its probably best that you not use the internet.
An often used reasoning used to come spew filth with no consequence. That isn't to say you can't/shouldn't have/share an opinion. It's just to say that this kind of reasoning is justifying irrationalism.
It can be, alternatively it can just legitimately be a rationale for using information that isn’t necessarily admissible in a court of law to form opinions, rather than being tethered to the law.
Exhibit A, a person has settled sexual harassment claims to keep them out of court. Said person is top dog at a company with a litany of credible claims about a culture of harassment at their company. Said person admitted to threatening a woman over the phone. Said person had a company-wide email sent out that was so bad in acknowledging problems that it prompted a walk-out, and he even stuck another woman’s name on it to boot
Is said person likely to be a remotely good choice to steer the company away from the controversy and elicit the cultural reform needed?
Based on what’s out there it’s a pretty big no from me, best case for Kotick he’s not shown a sensitivity and adeptness in this domain, worst case he was an active participant.
Being an asshole isn’t a criminal offence though, and I would apply different standards to if I were judging criminality, or in a jury or whatever.
The kryptonite of any CEO...? Said group doesn't hold that many shares but still.
A day after Activision Blizzard employees staged a walkout and called for the resignation of CEO Bobby Kotick and several other executives, a group of Activision Blizzard shareholders with a total of 4.8 million shares is similarly asking for the company CEO’s resignation in a letter to the company’s board of directors. The walkout and the letter from shareholders follows a Wall Street Journal report that Kotick was aware of sexual misconduct allegations at the firm but did not inform his board of directors.
“In contrast to past company statements, CEO Bobby Kotick was aware of many incidents of sexual harassment, sexual assault and gender discrimination at Activision Blizzard, but failed either to ensure that the executives and managers responsible were terminated or to recognize and address the systematic nature of the company’s hostile workplace culture,” the shareholders, led by the Strategic Organizing Center (SOC) Investment Group wrote in a joint letter addressed to the company’s board of directors and shared with The Washington Post.
In addition to asking Kotick to resign, the group of shareholders is calling for the board’s two longest serving directors, Brian Kelly and Robert Morgado, to retire by December 31. Kelly is chairman of the Activision Blizzard board of directors and Morgado serves as lead independent director. The Activision Blizzard board of directors responded to the Journal’s article Tuesday, saying it remained “confident in Bobby Kotick’s leadership.”
Shareholders said in the letter that if Kotick, Kelly and Morgado don’t step down, they would not vote for the reelection of the current directors on the board at the next annual shareholder meeting in June, and would urge other shareholders to follow. The SOC chose to call for Kelly and Morgado’s resignations as they are the two longest standing members of the board, it told The Post, with Kelly serving since 1995, and Morgado since 1997.
Over 100 Activision Blizzard employees stage walkout, demand CEO step down
“After the new revelations, it’s clear that the current leadership repeatedly failed to uphold a safe workplace — a basic function of their job,” SOC executive director Dieter Waizenegger said in an interview. “Activision Blizzard needs a new CEO, board chair, and lead independent director with the expertise, skill set and conviction to truly change the company’s culture. We need to really have a reset button on the board.”
Activision Blizzard did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Waizenegger said the SOC would like to see Kelly and Morgado replaced with diverse directors, and at least one of those seats to go to an Activision Blizzard employee that is not an executive.
The letter was also signed by Australian retail fund Future Super, Canada groups NEI Investments and Shareholder Association for Research & Education (SHARE) and an Australian fund for women, Verve Super. SHARE and Verve Super did not return inquiries about how many Activision Blizzard shares they own. The Washington, D.C.-based SOC Investment Group communicates with companies on behalf of union pension funds; in this case, those funds own about 3.8 million shares in Activision Blizzard, a small fraction of the firm’s total shares, roughly 779 million. These shareholders are dwarfed by the company’s top investors. Investment management company Vanguard holds over 64 million shares and BlackRock holds 58 million.
NEI Investments said it had decreased the number of shares it manages after the company was sued in July by a California state agency, alleging sexual harassment, gender-based harassment and pay inequality in the workplace.
“We have materially reduced our exposure to Activision since the story broke this summer. We now have a remnant position in two funds for a collective position that is less than 100,000 shares. But the exposure allows us to demand change through these types of coalitions,” NEI Investments said in a statement to The Post.
SHARE does not hold and shares in Activision Blizzard but said it signed the letter because the investment service is “concerned about the developing story at Activision Blizzard, and have been working with other investors and investor representatives to prod reform.” A statement from Future Super said it discussed with the Communications Workers of America, a major media labor union, about how best to support Activision Blizzard workers and decided to sign the SOC letter.
On Tuesday, over 110 employees walked out and protested at the Irvine, California, campus of major Activision Blizzard subsidiary Blizzard Entertainment after Kotick dismissed the Wall Street Journal report as misleading in a video message distributed to employees. It was the second employee walkout the company has seen in the past four months following the July lawsuit from the California state agency.
The SOC Investment Group, which represents a coalition of U.S. labor unions, has a track record of calling for executive compensation reform. In 2021, the group campaigned against hefty bonuses for executives at both Activision Blizzard and Electronic Arts. Organized labor has been keenly interested in Activision Blizzard since the filing of the July suit. In October, a group of Activision Blizzard employees asked Kotick to “voluntarily recognize a union” at the company. Activision Blizzard, like most American video game publishers and developers, is not unionized.
Over the past several months, Activision Blizzard has come under fire from many directions. In addition to the lawsuit from California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing, it is also under investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and is being sued in an August class-action suit from shareholders alleging violation of securities laws. (The SOC Investment Group is not a part of that class-action lawsuit from shareholders.) Additionally, there is an unfair labor practice complaint against the company, filed by workers and the Communications Workers of America.
“Votes against directors are very rare. Investors rarely take this step. You need to have a clear governance failure,” Waizenegger said. “And now we believe, we can point to not only an overpaid CEO, but we have very clear implications for recruiting talent at the company, and potential legal ramifications, with regulators like the California agency and the Securities and Exchange Commission … that’s an indication that something went very wrong.”
Sony Group Corp.’s PlayStation chief Jim Ryan criticized Activision Blizzard Inc. Wednesday for the game publisher’s inadequate response to an explosive news article alleging that Chief Executive Officer Bobby Kotick was aware of sexual misconduct and harassment allegations for years and that he had also mistreated women.
In an email to employees reviewed by Bloomberg, Ryan linked to the Wall Street Journal’s Tuesday report. He wrote that he and his leadership were “disheartened and frankly stunned to read” that Activision “has not done enough to address a deep-seated culture of discrimination and harassment.”
“We outreached to Activision immediately after the article was published to express our deep concern and to ask how they plan to address the claims made in the article,” he wrote. “We do not believe their statements of response properly address the situation.”
As one of the video game industry’s biggest console manufacturers, PlayStation has long had a close relationship with Activision, which produces hits like Call of Duty and World of Warcraft.
Activision Blizzard employees walked out Tuesday and called for Kotick’s resignation. The board issued a statement standing by Kotick.
Microsoft Corp.’s head of Xbox said he’s “evaluating all aspects of our relationship with Activision Blizzard and making ongoing proactive adjustments,” in light of the recent revelations at the video game publisher.
In an email to staff seen by Bloomberg News, Phil Spencer said he and the gaming leadership team are “disturbed and deeply troubled by the horrific events and actions” at Activision Blizzard Inc.
I honestly think Kotick would rather see the company go bankrupt than release control, also learned something today about him and the board:
Luke, you are VASTLY misstating Peter Nolan’s direct connections.
Peter Nolan worked with the guy that found Bobby and Brian the money for the ASAC II special acquisition venture that bought Activision back from Vivendi.
Peter Nolan got his board seat because he’s part of Leonard Green Partners. His seat was inherited from Nolan Wynn (no relation to Peter,) who yes, is directly related to casino mogul Steve Wynn. Yeah. That one. Nolan Wynn got his seat because he was directly involved in helping Bobby and Brian run the ASAC II scam.
And he got that seat even though it was completely against LGP policy, because Bobby Limpdick threw a hissy fit and threatened to destroy Activision if Uncle Steve’s (no, seriously, Bobby calls Steve Wynn that) kid didn’t get a board seat.
In other words, it all ties back to the scam Bobby and Brian ran on Vivendi to seize control of Activision back at a bargain basement price with other people’s money. There isn’t a single person on the board who cannot be directly linked to that scam.
My pleasure, and believe me, if you dig into the whole Vivendi/Activision ‘spinoff’?
Holy. Shit.
In fact, look up In re ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION, Delaware Court of Chancery CA No 8885-VCL 2015. This case is a wild fucking ride.
Firstly, the court found that the entire spinout deal was basically rife with deliberate misrepresentation and fraud by Bobby Kotick and Brian Kelly personally, and awarded the largest settlement agreement in history.
It also draws you a very nice convenient road map of every scumbag and pedophile that Bobby and Brian are directly connected to, and who aided and abetted the deal. As well as Bobby and Brian’s routine of creating shell companies in the Cayman Islands and similar jurisdictions that they jointly control but pretend not to control.
Not coincidentally it also paints a very clear picture that Bobby demanded and received absolute dictatorial control over not only ActiBlizz, but the composition of the board, and insisted on knowing about absolutely everything going on within the company.
The blatant shitbaggery going on in that whole debacle got it quite literally into legal textbooks in 2013.
Some wonderful quotes:
“Wynn was a longtime friend of Kotick whose personal relationship with Kotick rose to the level of an immediate family member.” Nepotism, big check. “Steve Wynn viewed Kotick as a ‘potential son-in-law’ and protege.”
“Kotick arranged for Nolan and Elaine Wynn to join the Board. As noted, Nolan was the Managing Partner of Leonard Green, whom Kotick and Kelly had approached privately about their bid and who had backed their original offer to Vivendi. Leonard Green invested in ASAC.”
“The Committee tried to cap Kotick and Kelly’s voting power at 19.9%, but Kotick and Kelly refused. Lead Counsel had argued that Kotick and Kelly’s block of 24.9%, coupled with the sizeable stakes owned by ASAC limited partners, gave them working control”.
EPT
