VaranDragon wrote on Mar 18, 2021, 04:19:
Just found this juicy little tidbit:
"O'Donnel had another case in 2018 where she sued multiple film producers and was then counter-sued due to blackmail and libel."

There is a shit-ton of stuff here that hasn't hit the mainstream press.

I was just reading through the court filings. Some pretty serious stuff in there that did not come out at the time. And not the usual "blame the victim" stuff we sometimes see, actually it was some witness statements showing that she approached them about making false statements to support her. That's why it's good to wait for the facts instead of jumping to conclusions.

It's entirely possible that Laurent did not harass this woman yet did encourage or allow a culture of harassment to permeate under his watch. He would still be as just as responsible in my eyes. Anyways, I hope moving forward that Riot makes good on their claims to have a better internal culture, though I doubt that will happen without a leadership change.

"May 2019, over a hundred employees walked out in protest of the company. In December 2019, 1000 female employees settled a gender discrimination lawsuit. Riot Games paid $10 million to the female employees and promised to create a more inclusive environment."
Source
Source
,.,.,.,.,
"Cuomo's office (Governor's Office of Employee Relations) is conducting its own 'inquiry' of groping allegations"
Might i recommend they use Seyfarth, they have a proven track record of getting the results one desires.

Just found this juicy little tidbit:
"O'Donnel had another case in 2018 where she sued multiple film producers and was then counter-sued due to blackmail and libel."

There is a shit-ton of stuff here that hasn't hit the mainstream press.

RedEye9 wrote on Mar 17, 2021, 10:46:
Seyfarth anagrams to She farty.

That's quite uncouthed, sir.

Armengar wrote on Mar 17, 2021, 04:08:

Prez wrote on Mar 16, 2021, 22:24:
Not guilty doesn't mean the same as innocent. But it seems the investigation was somewhat legit since it was an outside investigation.

We have an option for "not proven" here in scotland. This is usually when the jury think the crume was committed but a technicality might render evidence inadmissable or not quite up to the bar.

And what is the different between "not proven" and "acquitted?" Can the government come back for a second trial in that case if new evidence comes to light?

Also, is "crume" the Scottish pronunciation of "crime?"

Evidence still matters. The best predators can hide their actions in such a way that there is not enough evidence to find them guilty. Of course, innocent people can appear innocent as well. There has been a fundamental change in the way we view allegations but not in the way legal justice is handled. "It is better than 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person go to jail" is the foundation of our justice system for a reason. This investigation found that one specific set of allegations against one individual lacks sufficient evidence to take action. Some here are acting as if this exonerates all of Riot of all the many allegations of sexual harassment. It doesn't. It doesn't even touch the fact that the culture that so many employees have reported on at Riot became the company's culture on this individual's watch. You really need to tread carefully with the thought that he is at least guilty of something so he must be guilty of everything. Cancel Culture may view things that way. Actual justice does not.

Links to some of the documents Riot have filed in court. It sheds some light on why they are backing their CEO and think they have a good case against the accuser.

Yifes wrote on Mar 17, 2021, 10:43:

RedEye9 wrote on Mar 17, 2021, 10:31:
The law firms maxim is beginning to make more sense:
"Hire us, we are as smarmy as they come. Your desired outcome is our only goal."

The "desired outcome" in this case is to protect the company's bottom line and preserve reputation, not to protect the CEO. If the best way to protect the company is to ditch the CEO, they will recommend that. Your perceived smarminess of the law firm has no relevance on their competence or the legitimacy of their investigation.

People are taking that out of context anyway. Many firms do that sort of work but that's not what they were brought in for here. They were brought in to perform an independent investigation on behalf of the board. They do not have any real conflict here and they get paid regardless of what their results are. People can read into that whatever they want I guess. I don't personally believe they would circle the wagons behind this guy given all of the negative publicity. That said, I also do not believe he promoted a good work culture there and should probably be sacked for that alone, regardless of if he personally harassed an employee or not. Many employees were harassed while he was in charge and that's inexcusable.

RedEye9 wrote on Mar 17, 2021, 10:46:
Seyfarth anagrams to She farty.
Very telling indeed.

Resorting to making fun of a law firm's name....
Very telling indeed

Seyfarth anagrams to She farty.
Very telling indeed.

VaranDragon wrote on Mar 17, 2021, 09:30:
Most companies have no compunction about throwing their employees (even CEOs) under the bus as soon as even a hint of an allegation of misconduct is brought up. Especially in today's Cancel culture, which seems to be so prevalent.

That Riot has taken these measures shows two things. Firstly, that they value their CEO and the business that he brings to the company very highly. Secondly, that they are willing to go the extra mile to ensure their reputability remains intact, without resorting to kneejerk reactions. I have no idea whether that lawsuit has merit or not, apparently Riot is now convinced it doesn't and will most probably fight it in court. Whatever the case, that they have acted in this manner is smart and commendable.

You're correct that we've seen big, high powered CEOs of major companies get tossed. In nearly all those cases, the company was publicly traded. Riot isn't. It's owned by Tencent.

And Nicolo has been CEO since 2009, so the company wasn't founded by him, but is de facto him in many ways. He definitely sets the cultural tone. I don't know if it's a cult of personality, like so many smaller companies, but it's also not publicly traded and the company and Nicolo aren't inseparable, but definitely hard to separate.

So yeah, I do think this is meaningful, but not the end of the story. But I'm also not a user of their services, nor an employee, so this isn't something I'd really give thought outside of these topics.

RedEye9 wrote on Mar 17, 2021, 10:31:
The law firms maxim is beginning to make more sense:
"Hire us, we are as smarmy as they come. Your desired outcome is our only goal."

The "desired outcome" in this case is to protect the company's bottom line and preserve reputation, not to protect the CEO. If the best way to protect the company is to ditch the CEO, they will recommend that. Your perceived smarminess of the law firm has no relevance on their competence or the legitimacy of their investigation.

Just because someone is accused of something doesn't mean they're guilty of anything. Yes, indeed, mere accusations are not evidence.

Beamer wrote on Mar 17, 2021, 09:22:
Of note, Seyfarth informs companies that its white collar internal investigations are designed to protect the bottom line and preserve reputation. Right down to how that URL has "false claims" in it.

At the same time, while Nicolo is an exceptionally important employee, he's not a founder and he's not Chairman of the board (I don't think he's even on the board), so he's also a candidate to throw to the wolves if they feel that's the best way to preserve reputation and bottom line.

The law firms maxim is beginning to make more sense:
"Hire us, we are as smarmy as they come. Your desired outcome is our only goal."

Most companies have no compunction about throwing their employees (even CEOs) under the bus as soon as even a hint of an allegation of misconduct is brought up. Especially in today's Cancel culture, which seems to be so prevalent.

That Riot has taken these measures shows two things. Firstly, that they value their CEO and the business that he brings to the company very highly. Secondly, that they are willing to go the extra mile to ensure their reputability remains intact, without resorting to kneejerk reactions. I have no idea whether that lawsuit has merit or not, apparently Riot is now convinced it doesn't and will most probably fight it in court. Whatever the case, that they have acted in this manner is smart and commendable.

Of note, Seyfarth informs companies that its white collar internal investigations are designed to protect the bottom line and preserve reputation. Right down to how that URL has "false claims" in it.

At the same time, while Nicolo is an exceptionally important employee, he's not a founder and he's not Chairman of the board (I don't think he's even on the board), so he's also a candidate to throw to the wolves if they feel that's the best way to preserve reputation and bottom line.

Jivaro wrote on Mar 16, 2021, 23:40:
There really isn't any way to know one way or the other without much harder effort than any of us are going to put in. It's definitely convenient that he is innocent, but if they brought in a reputable third party that's all you can really expect of them.

Yeah agreed. I don't know that he's truly "innocent" but the law firm they brought in is no joke and it was a large expense. I don't really buy the idea that they would give them a favorable verdict for future business, it looks like Riot has different representation and this was a one-shot thing.

That doesn't mean that Riot did not create a culture of toxicity and harassment, just that they couldn't find evidence of the CEO specifically harassing an individual.

It's interesting to watch the reactions and comments of everyone on this investigation vs the ubi investigation.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Mar 17, 2021, 06:26:

Cutter wrote on Mar 16, 2021, 21:40:
Score one for common sense. Always better for the world when an extremist left-wing witch hunt fails.

What an interesting alternate reality you live in. There's nothing "left-wing" about making or investigating an allegation of sexual harassment. Everything here seems perfectly reasonable - an allegation was made, it was investigated and no further action will be taken due to a lack of evidence, with the door left open should further evidence be made available.

The way you try to relate everything to politics is extremely toxic.

Your best bet is to put him on ignore like most of the posters here do as pretty much everything he says are false equivalents, wild hot takes, or just plain asinine.

Jonjonz wrote on Mar 17, 2021, 06:28:
Boards and CEOs have a special relationship, they watch each others backs.

Big surprise on the outcome.

"I say Dewey Cheatem and Howe, please do this investigation for us, but if you want our business in the future, you should know we really don't think he did anything wrong."

I'm not sure that you understand how this works exactly or why it was done in the first place. It was done to protect the company, not the employee under investigation. If the investigation had found anything incriminating, the company would have settled the lawsuit out of court and (very probably) fired the employee while being very public about it to protect it's image.

If they had, as you said, wanted to watch the employee's back they would not have even instigated an investigation of this kind, and would have settled the lawsuit very quietly out of court.