Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit

Game writer Chris Avellone has filed a libel lawsuit over sexual misconduct allegations that surfaced against him one year ago (thanks D.M. Schmeyer via Gamasutra). Just yesterday we mentioned a few posts by Chris addressing the situation, and clearly these were related to the lawsuit. The defendants are listed as Karissa Barrows, Kelly Bristol, and 100 Jane Does, and the complaint includes a demand for jury trial. Part of it alleges conspiratorial behavior:
Avellone is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, each unnamed Defendant was the agent of the other named Defendant(s) herein, and at all times were and are acting within the purpose and scope of such agency, and with the permission and consent of his/her/its named co-Defendant(s) with knowledge, authorization, permission, consent, and/or subsequent ratification and approval of each co-Defendant. Avellone is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each named and unnamed Defendant knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to deprive Avellone of his rights and to cause the damages described herein.
View : : :
144 Replies. 8 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Older
124.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 11:22
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 11:22
Jul 2, 2021, 11:22
 
Sepharo wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 11:08:
jdreyer wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 22:57:
Members of protected groups (based on gender, race, orientation, religion, etc.) cannot be fired for being a member of said group. If FB decides to fire such a person, and that person decides to sue for wrongful termination, they had better have their ducks in a row: multiple poor performance reviews, multiple chances at rehabilitation, etc.
AFAIK, "Blamed for Sexual Predation" is not a protected group.

Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 02:49:
Wait what? So when a white straight male is fired, they don't need a reason or performance documentations, but when someone from a "protected group" is fired they do?
A straight white male is part of a "protected group", where are you getting from jdreyer's quoted post that it isn't? Also understanding what a "protected group" is, as provided in his link, means this question doesn't make any sense.

Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 02:49:
So one group is less protected than another?
No.

Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 02:49:
Doesn't that reek discrimination to you?
No.

Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 02:49:
In The Netherlands everyone is considered equal, and as a result straight white males are protected just as much as any other person.
Yes, same here.

Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 02:49:
And I'm not saying "protected groups" should have less protection. I'm saying the same protection should apply to every person.
They do.

roguebanshee wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 05:06:
Sounds like you misread the post.
That does seem like the case (at this point in the thread).

Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 05:18:
The way you describe this does not at all represent the posts with all their context I replied to. So I highly doubt I misread anything and hope your version is the correct one.
The version that roguebanshee described is the same version that jdreyer described, and if you didn't think so, then you misread.
But that's good that you understood it from roguebanshee and hope that's how it is, because it is.

Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 08:43:
I'm not confused regarding the term "protected group".[...]
Explain to me why you think it's fair that the employer has to have "their ducks in a row" if they fire a member of a protected group, but don't need to if they fire someone outside of that group?
Nobody has claimed that, how could they explain something to you that isn't true, wasn't said, isn't the case?
It still seems like you don't understand what that means because nobody is outside "that group". They have a race, they have an age, they have a gender... they can't be fired for those things, those things fall under a "protected group".

Quinn wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 04:03:
Do you understand that your approach to this subject puts you at odds with jdryer?
It doesn't, you can read what he wrote again and again... it says the same thing that roguebanshee and I also said, as does the wikipedia article, as does the law, as does Dutch law, regarding discrimination.

While I appreciate the time you put into this, you are preaching to the choir at this point. It's true that initially, due to the context of the discussion, I went about the "protected group" aspect clumsily. But we're past that. Been past that for a while now. I'll say it again: I understand and have always understood that white people are a race and that male is a gender.

But let's forget it. You choose not to consider the context regarding the discussion from comment 79 and up. That's fine. I've been foolish to let go of the theory -- pragmatist that I am -- and focus more on in which context the "protected group" part was injected. Again, the context was this in a very tiny nutshell: Man gets fired. That's ok, we don't need a reason in Californian law. So if a black man gets fired for the same non-reasons, that's ok? No, [inject protected group reference here].

Hope that tiny nutshell explains how shit got derailed. 🤷
123.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 11:08
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 11:08
Jul 2, 2021, 11:08
 
jdreyer wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 22:57:
Members of protected groups (based on gender, race, orientation, religion, etc.) cannot be fired for being a member of said group. If FB decides to fire such a person, and that person decides to sue for wrongful termination, they had better have their ducks in a row: multiple poor performance reviews, multiple chances at rehabilitation, etc.
AFAIK, "Blamed for Sexual Predation" is not a protected group.

Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 02:49:
Wait what? So when a white straight male is fired, they don't need a reason or performance documentations, but when someone from a "protected group" is fired they do?
A straight white male is part of a "protected group", where are you getting from jdreyer's quoted post that it isn't? Also understanding what a "protected group" is, as provided in his link, means this question doesn't make any sense.

Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 02:49:
So one group is less protected than another?
No.

Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 02:49:
Doesn't that reek discrimination to you?
No.

Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 02:49:
In The Netherlands everyone is considered equal, and as a result straight white males are protected just as much as any other person.
Yes, same here.

Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 02:49:
And I'm not saying "protected groups" should have less protection. I'm saying the same protection should apply to every person.
They do.

roguebanshee wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 05:06:
Sounds like you misread the post.
That does seem like the case (at this point in the thread).

Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 05:18:
The way you describe this does not at all represent the posts with all their context I replied to. So I highly doubt I misread anything and hope your version is the correct one.
The version that roguebanshee described is the same version that jdreyer described, and if you didn't think so, then you misread.
But that's good that you understood it from roguebanshee and hope that's how it is, because it is.

Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 08:43:
I'm not confused regarding the term "protected group".[...]
Explain to me why you think it's fair that the employer has to have "their ducks in a row" if they fire a member of a protected group, but don't need to if they fire someone outside of that group?
Nobody has claimed that, how could they explain something to you that isn't true, wasn't said, isn't the case?
It still seems like you don't understand what that means because nobody is outside "that group". They have a race, they have an age, they have a gender... they can't be fired for those things, those things fall under a "protected group".

Quinn wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 04:03:
Do you understand that your approach to this subject puts you at odds with jdryer?
It doesn't, you can read what he wrote again and again... it says the same thing that roguebanshee and I also said, as does the wikipedia article, as does the law, as does Dutch law, regarding discrimination.
Avatar 17249
122.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 09:31
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 09:31
Jul 2, 2021, 09:31
 
Come on Mr Tact, you've got to admit he's got some sick burns. lol
The basement references are straight out of internet trolling 101.
Once again this is just another example where he misunderstood the discussion/subject matter and was schooled, as is so often the case.
“We’ve arranged a society on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology, and this combustible mixture of ignorance and power sooner or later is going to blow up in our faces." Carl Sagan
Avatar 58135
121.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 09:11
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 09:11
Jul 2, 2021, 09:11
 
Quinn wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 09:04:
Caught a whiff of fresh air yet, buddy? They say prolonged exposure to cellar mold is very bad for the brain. 🥴

Are you implying Rudy Giuliani and Joe Rogan would not be good representation? Huh.
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
120.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 09:04
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 09:04
Jul 2, 2021, 09:04
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 08:29:
Mr. Tact wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 08:24:
Chris Avellone should have Joe Rogan be his lawyer.
Add one or two from this thread as co-counsel.
I'm sure Rudy Giuliani is available for special consulting.

Caught a whiff of fresh air yet, buddy? They say prolonged exposure to cellar mold is very bad for the brain. 🥴
119.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 08:29
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 08:29
Jul 2, 2021, 08:29
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 08:24:
Chris Avellone should have Joe Rogan be his lawyer.
Add one or two from this thread as co-counsel.
I'm sure Rudy Giuliani is available for special consulting.
“We’ve arranged a society on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology, and this combustible mixture of ignorance and power sooner or later is going to blow up in our faces." Carl Sagan
Avatar 58135
118.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 08:24
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 08:24
Jul 2, 2021, 08:24
 
Chris Avellone should have Joe Rogan be his lawyer.
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
117.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 07:40
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 07:40
Jul 2, 2021, 07:40
 
Sepharo wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 04:56:
Quinn wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 04:03:

4.) Do you understand that your approach to this subject puts you at odds with jdryer? After all, he replied to the question "Can they just fire a black person" with the "protected groups" comment. So, from where I see it, you're calling both of us confused.

No it doesn't, you just keep misunderstanding as evidenced by your replies.

wrlwnd wrote:
Really? So if Facebook wants to fire a black or gay employee, just because, that's okay? And if they don't provide a reason, they can just say because? And nobody will have a problem with it?

jdreyer wrote:
Members of protected groups (based on gender, race, orientation, religion, etc.) cannot be fired for being a member of said group. If FB decides to fire such a person, and that person decides to sue for wrongful termination, they had better have their ducks in a row: multiple poor performance reviews, multiple chances at rehabilitation, etc.
AFAIK, "Blamed for Sexual Predation" is not a protected group.

In America, even with at-will employment... you cannot be fired for being a member of a protected group.
You can't be fired for being white. You can't be fired for being male.
If that happens, even in an at-will state you can sue...
And yes the employer at that time will have to mount a defense to the fired employee's claims... although they were not required to give cause to the employee in this at-will paradigm at the time of the firing... they'll have to have "their ducks in a row" for court when being sued, like the examples given by jdreyer.

Quinn wrote:
if they fire a member of a protected group, but don't need to if they fire someone outside of that group?
This is the really telling part... how I knew you still weren't getting it.
EVERYONE is part of a protected group. Everyone has a race, a gender, an age, etc. etc.

I swear you dig in on the stupidest shit, it's okay to be wrong man. Learn something new everyday, it's good for you.



I know that "white" and "male" are part of a "race" and "gender". My, is that a surprise.

We all know that if literally everone belongs in a protected group, there's no reason to call it a group. You would just call it "rights" or you name it. Hell, there are a handful or more people right on this forum who strongly believe there's no such thing as racism or discrimination toward whites (just the race, not incl. pregnacy, orientation etc) because we're the majority already bla bla bla. So I'm skipping past the theory (ie "yes, white is a race and male is gender therefore the are equally protected as a protected group"). This is why I asked you these 4 questions that you selectively ignored. Context matters. The context of what was spoken about in this thread and which I reacted to. The context in which the "protective group" was refered to. The context which was the discussion between MrDevinoch vs Orogogus and wrlwnd. If you read comment 79 and up between those folks, well, that's why I chimed in when I did.

So again, sure straight white males are part of the protective group -- and yes, sorry for referring to them as "outside" of that protective group -- but my mind was attuned to reality more than its theory at the time -- and either MrDevinoch or jdryer had their mind tuned in a similar fashion, otherwise the discussion derailed into bad arguments before I entered.
116.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 05:41
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 05:41
Jul 2, 2021, 05:41
 
MrDevinoch wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 04:14:
Orogogus wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 19:16:
As someone who follows VR, I thought that ZDNet article was garbage (as was Zenimax's case). Carmack and Iribe didn't get fired, despite being under just as much pressure from Zenimax -- Carmack was accused of wiping a hard drive to destroy evidence and stealing code. Iribe was a co-founder alongside Luckey, part of the same decisions with a higher title, and the court decision had him pay more out of pocket.

Then maybe you didn't pay anywhere near as much attention as you think you did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZeniMax_v._Oculus
https://www.polygon.com/2017/2/1/14474198/oculus-lawsuit-verdict
https://www.vg247.com/2018/12/12/zenimax-facebook-oculus-settlement/

They're all in violation of the NDA, and of copyright infringement. If you think Zenimax's case is garbage, then I'm not sure how you're supporting the $250mil in payouts that came from them, 100 mil of which came from Facebook. Oculus pushed to try and have it dismissed multiple times. It never was. In the end, they settled. I wish I lived in your world where you think losing $100 mil of your employer's money isn't grounds for termination.

I didn't say I supported the payouts; I think Zenimax should have lost. I think they got an expert to lie on the stand about Carmack destroying the data on his hard drive, and about "non-literal" copying of data. They tried to get an injunction to stop Oculus from selling headsets, implying that those sales would hurt sales of a Zenimax VR headset, which they claimed to have spent tens of millions of dollars on in development -- I think that's a load of horseshit coming from a software company that hasn't remotely suggested coming out with any VR headset five years after the supposed IP theft. They said they hated to go to litigation, which I also think is a blatant falsehood.

In the original verdict, $300M came from Facebook; plus $50M from Luckey and $150 from Iribe. All that was cut in half (assumedly in the same ratio?), and then they settled. So if Carmack, Luckey and Iribe were all in violation, how come only one of them got fired? Supposedly the verdict proved that Carmack did some pretty heinous things (again, I don't agree). All three of them were there for the NDA. If anything the original payouts suggested that Iribe was more at fault, and he was the CEO.
115.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 05:39
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 05:39
Jul 2, 2021, 05:39
 
Sepharo wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 05:31:
Here is your equivalent Dutch employment laws:

https://iclg.com/practice-areas/employment-and-labour-laws-and-regulations/netherlands

It won't let me copy and paste from there, but see 3.1 and 3.2.
3.2 actually sounds even more sensitive than U.S. protections.
Such things might come up in the court case here, but it's not specifically codified as "indirect distinctions" as done there, as far as I know.
I was able to copy by killing Javascript on the page using UBlock:

3.1 Are employees protected against discrimination? If so, on what grounds is discrimination prohibited?

The Act on Equal Treatment is one of the main sources for the enforcement of discrimination prohibitions and equal treatment in the Netherlands. This Act prohibits discrimination on grounds such as race, religion and belief, political affiliations, gender, pregnancy, sexual orientation, nationality and civil/marital status.

The Dutch Civil Act obligates employers to ensure a working environment free of discrimination. In principal, distinctions based on the aforementioned grounds are prohibited and would only be permitted when underlined by an objective justification.

3.2 What types of discrimination are unlawful and in what circumstances?

Dutch law differentiates between direct and indirect distinctions.

Direct distinction is based on the ‘suspected’ trait (such as gender, religion, race). Discrimination by employers by direct distinction is always unlawful, unless there is an objective justification or the law prescribes otherwise.

Indirect distinctions are based on a trait that is theoretically neutral but would practically coincide with a certain population group. Indirect distinctions are lawful when based on an objective justification. The distinction would need to serve a legitimate aim, reached by proportionate and necessary measures.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
114.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 05:36
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 05:36
Jul 2, 2021, 05:36
 
Sepharo wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 05:33:
jdreyer wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 05:28:
Sepharo wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 05:35:
In case you're still confused:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
Which I actually linked to in my original post.

I did eventually see that, didn't notice at first.
Also the very first reply to him essentially covered the same things I did...
I suspect that because he wants to steer this into "what do you expect?" maybe it's finally settling in though and now we're just being treated to performative denseness.

Thanks for all the explanation and work you did there. It was clear and concise.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
113.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 05:33
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 05:33
Jul 2, 2021, 05:33
 
jdreyer wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 05:28:
Sepharo wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 05:35:
In case you're still confused:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
Which I actually linked to in my original post.

I did eventually see that, didn't notice at first.
Also the very first reply to him essentially covered the same things I did...
I suspect that because he wants to steer this into "what do you expect?" maybe it's finally settling in though and now we're just being treated to performative denseness.
Avatar 17249
112.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 05:31
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 05:31
Jul 2, 2021, 05:31
 
Here is your equivalent Dutch employment laws:

https://iclg.com/practice-areas/employment-and-labour-laws-and-regulations/netherlands

It won't let me copy and paste from there, but see 3.1 and 3.2.
3.2 actually sounds even more sensitive than U.S. protections.
Such things might come up in the court case here, but it's not specifically codified as "indirect distinctions" as done there, as far as I know.
Avatar 17249
111.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 05:28
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 05:28
Jul 2, 2021, 05:28
 
Sepharo wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 05:35:
In case you're still confused:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
Which I actually linked to in my original post.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
110.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 04:56
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 04:56
Jul 2, 2021, 04:56
 
Quinn wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 04:03:

4.) Do you understand that your approach to this subject puts you at odds with jdryer? After all, he replied to the question "Can they just fire a black person" with the "protected groups" comment. So, from where I see it, you're calling both of us confused.

No it doesn't, you just keep misunderstanding as evidenced by your replies.

wrlwnd wrote:
Really? So if Facebook wants to fire a black or gay employee, just because, that's okay? And if they don't provide a reason, they can just say because? And nobody will have a problem with it?

jdreyer wrote:
Members of protected groups (based on gender, race, orientation, religion, etc.) cannot be fired for being a member of said group. If FB decides to fire such a person, and that person decides to sue for wrongful termination, they had better have their ducks in a row: multiple poor performance reviews, multiple chances at rehabilitation, etc.
AFAIK, "Blamed for Sexual Predation" is not a protected group.

In America, even with at-will employment... you cannot be fired for being a member of a protected group.
You can't be fired for being white. You can't be fired for being male.
If that happens, even in an at-will state you can sue...
And yes the employer at that time will have to mount a defense to the fired employee's claims... although they were not required to give cause to the employee in this at-will paradigm at the time of the firing... they'll have to have "their ducks in a row" for court when being sued, like the examples given by jdreyer.

Quinn wrote:
if they fire a member of a protected group, but don't need to if they fire someone outside of that group?
This is the really telling part... how I knew you still weren't getting it.
EVERYONE is part of a protected group. Everyone has a race, a gender, an age, etc. etc.

I swear you dig in on the stupidest shit, it's okay to be wrong man. Learn something new everyday, it's good for you.

Avatar 17249
109.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 04:14
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 04:14
Jul 2, 2021, 04:14
 
Orogogus wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 19:16:
As someone who follows VR, I thought that ZDNet article was garbage (as was Zenimax's case). Carmack and Iribe didn't get fired, despite being under just as much pressure from Zenimax -- Carmack was accused of wiping a hard drive to destroy evidence and stealing code. Iribe was a co-founder alongside Luckey, part of the same decisions with a higher title, and the court decision had him pay more out of pocket.

Then maybe you didn't pay anywhere near as much attention as you think you did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZeniMax_v._Oculus
https://www.polygon.com/2017/2/1/14474198/oculus-lawsuit-verdict
https://www.vg247.com/2018/12/12/zenimax-facebook-oculus-settlement/

They're all in violation of the NDA, and of copyright infringement. If you think Zenimax's case is garbage, then I'm not sure how you're supporting the $250mil in payouts that came from them, 100 mil of which came from Facebook. Oculus pushed to try and have it dismissed multiple times. It never was. In the end, they settled. I wish I lived in your world where you think losing $100 mil of your employer's money isn't grounds for termination.
108.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 04:03
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 04:03
Jul 2, 2021, 04:03
 
Sepharo wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 19:32:
Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 08:43:
Sepharo wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 05:35:
In case you're still confused:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
Explain to me why you think it's fair that the employer has to have "their ducks in a row" if they fire a member of a protected group, but don't need to if they fire someone outside of that group?

You still don't know what it means though...
because if you did you would realize that "white" and "male" are also both protected groups.


*sigh* Right. Let's approach this differently then.

1.) Can or cannot an employer under Californian law fire someone without reason?
2.) Can a white, straight male expect a win when he sues for unlawful termination due to discrimination?
3.) Whether the answer to #2 is Yes or No, does a person from any other group than white, straight male have a better chance of said win?
4.) Do you understand that your approach to this subject puts you at odds with jdryer? After all, he replied to the question "Can they just fire a black person" with the "protected groups" comment. So, from where I see it, you're calling both of us confused.
107.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 1, 2021, 19:59
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 1, 2021, 19:59
Jul 1, 2021, 19:59
 
Acleacius wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 01:25:
Additionally bizarre, anytime a guy gets caught or found guilty in court. Maleople in this forum pretend like they are innocent *despite*
evidence and guilt from jury or judge (crosby, weinstein).
No one thinks Cosby is innocent besides, maybe, Cosby. The PA SC found the prosecutors violated the law in their presentations.
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
106.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 1, 2021, 19:32
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 1, 2021, 19:32
Jul 1, 2021, 19:32
 
Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 08:43:
Sepharo wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 05:35:
In case you're still confused:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
Explain to me why you think it's fair that the employer has to have "their ducks in a row" if they fire a member of a protected group, but don't need to if they fire someone outside of that group?

You still don't know what it means though...
because if you did you would realize that "white" and "male" are also both protected groups.
Avatar 17249
105.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 1, 2021, 19:16
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 1, 2021, 19:16
Jul 1, 2021, 19:16
 
MrDevinoch wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 17:28:
Luckey's held fund raisers for Ted Cruz, who has, among other things:
  • voted against public health care
  • voted against gay marriage
  • voted against a woman's right to choose
  • voted against net neutrality

So, when you're in the tech industry, choosing to be against the very people you work with having basic human rights seems like, well, that can lead to most of the companies refusing to work with you. There's a pretty fundamental difference between calling something "a political view" and saying "I believe you do not deserve basic human rights." And we aren't talking customers, we're talking other companies, which seems to be the thing you aren't grasping. This isn't like a handful of people refusing to use Facebook because they don't like Palmer Luckey. This is dozens of multimillion dollar corporations looking at possible VR development partners and going, "Yeah, we're going to go with the company that doesn't employ someone who says I'm less of a person than he is."

But, even more relevant to the issue at hand, that STILL isn't likely the reason Palmer Luckey was let go from Facebook. The most likely reason he was fired from Facebook has something to do with the fact that Zenimax won a $500 million dollar lawsuit over Oculus for stealing proprietary information. You're welcome to read about that here: https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-real-reason-palmer-luckey-was-fired-from-facebook/ Guess who the loser of that $500 mil was? You guessed it -- Facebook, who owns Oculus.

Luckey can claim whatever reason he wants to that he was fired, but half a billion dollars speaks pretty loudly. It's also entirely possible that Luckey had a clause guaranteeing him indemnity from any past business dealings, which is why he got the $100mil payout, but the WSJ article jumps to the conclusion it wants to without supporting evidence, because none of the parties have said anything post the settlement, which is normal for the settlement. The WSJ article uses, and I'd argue speciously, the argument that since the lawyer said that in public before hand it was political, it must've been, since he got a settlement. Which is nonsense, and fundamentally misunderstands how legal settlements work, something I find rather suspect coming from the WSJ.

As for Colin Kaepernick, I am glad to see you're willing to concede that point, and thank you. According to the stats, Kaepernick was one of the top 10 QBs in the NFL, and when he was let go from the 49ers, nobody else picked up his contract, specifically for political reasons.
I'm not "conceding" the Kaepernick point, that's what I believe. But to flip it around, if you believe that firing Palmer for supporting Trump or Cruz wouldn't be political, then how can Kaepernick be a protected political view? According to federal law Black Lives Matter isn't a political group, letting it avoid restrictions on political expression -- you can wear BLM pins in places where you wouldn't be allowed to wear a MAGA hat, like an election polling site. But that should also mean it doesn't get the non-discrimination protections.

There's a pretty fundamental difference between calling something "a political view" and saying "I believe you do not deserve basic human rights."
I think so too, but I'm not sure what you think the difference is. As I see it, when Gina Carano shared an Instagram post comparing the treatment of conservatives to the Holocaust, that's on her. Fair game. But when Luckey attends a fundraiser for Cruz or Trump, that's political. According to the law, not the touchie-feelies. If you want to nail him for being a bigot then you have to have a quote of him saying or doing something directly bigoted. What do you think California law protects, otherwise? Is it that you think it only protects liberals and liberal causes? If you can say, "This guy's a Republican, and I believe Republicans are bad, so I'm firing this guy for being bad, not for being a Republican," then that's no protection at all.

And to get back to my point about losing elections, I think this paints all Republicans with a broad brush -- you're saying in so many words that people who'd vote for Cruz are against human rights and should be fired for it. I think tons of people, half the electorate, would be happy to be doing all the things you hate Luckey for, and take attitudes like yours personally.

As someone who follows VR, I thought that ZDNet article was garbage (as was Zenimax's case). Carmack and Iribe didn't get fired, despite being under just as much pressure from Zenimax -- Carmack was accused of wiping a hard drive to destroy evidence and stealing code. Iribe was a co-founder alongside Luckey, part of the same decisions with a higher title, and the court decision had him pay more out of pocket. The Wikipedia article says that the WSJ piece claims to have seen internal Facebook emails describing Zuckerberg violating the California laws in pressuring Luckey on his politics. The ZDNet piece has nothing.
144 Replies. 8 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Older