Toxic Actiblizz scandal and lawsuit

Wishing you the strength and endurance to follow that path to its appropriate conclusion.

Had my say, shall be on my way.

Edit: wow. That's a bigger repercussion than I expected. Guess this really was a huge deal. Good.

Edit 2: The word "gamergate" was first used in 1983. Fascinating.

"

kaijyuu2 wrote:

Some of us are a tad worried this will be gamergate 2.0 where the sexists/MRAs/incels/etc come out of the woodwork and shit all over everything while pretending they're respectable. So I understand peeps being twitchy.

Not likely to happen since Acti-Bliz has been "woke" for quite a few years now so the "sexist/MRA/incels/ect" would in fact be on the side against Acti-Bliz.

Overall it's a bad show on Blizzard's half by blaming the victims, California and it's player base over the past few days. I'm inclined to believe the allegations to be true.

Quite a few Big names in the WoW scene are distancing themself from blizzard entirely though, BLIZZ IS A PRODUCER. The customer is the way to stop them.

Preach and Madseason being on the more famous side for WoW content creators.

The discontent is rising, and with content creators openly speaking out against Acti/blizz and following through by distancing from WoW/blizz content the fallout might be noticable soon enough.

Many people play WoW for the social aspects, more often than not they could just play whatsapp instead, it is a brittle and quite possibly sinking ship

"

Toaru_Majutsu_no_Index wrote:

The customer is the way to stop them.

You have fun with that. As far as I'm concerned, however, last time I checked I wasn't a prosecutor. If I was a prosecutor, it would be my job to have people found guilty, and to seek maximum penalty against them. But I'm not paid to do that, so it isn't my job to do those things. If Product A is made by complete jerks and Product B is made by the sweetest grandma on earth, that doesn't mean I have to buy Product B. If, on the other hand, I consider Product B to be a higher quality product than Product A, well then I'm buying Product B.

I pay my taxes. Those taxes go towards paying the salaries of prosecutors. I already contribute to a system that punishes people for things society deems immoral, and through a system much more fair than the court of public opinion. Because believe it or not, there are effective punishments that don't involve boycotts. Things like multimillion dollar lawsuits.

But you go on and work on one monthly subscription at a time. Fun.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Toaru_Majutsu_no_Index wrote:

The customer is the way to stop them.

You have fun with that. As far as I'm concerned, however, last time I checked I wasn't a prosecutor. If I was a prosecutor, it would be my job to have people found guilty, and to seek maximum penalty against them. But I'm not paid to do that, so it isn't my job to do those things. If Product A is made by complete jerks and Product B is made by the sweetest grandma on earth, that doesn't mean I have to buy Product B. If, on the other hand, I consider Product B to be a higher quality product than Product A, well then I'm buying Product B.

I pay my taxes. Those taxes go towards paying the salaries of prosecutors. I already contribute to a system that punishes people for things society deems immoral, and through a system much more fair than the court of public opinion. Because believe it or not, there are effective punishments that don't involve boycotts. Things like multimillion dollar lawsuits.

But you go on and work on one monthly subscription at a time. Fun.

OH? I'd rather see Activision Blizzard stock price crash. It cost Blizzard billions in market value as oppose to millions in lawsuit. Blizzard will survive… probably.

"

awesome999 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Toaru_Majutsu_no_Index wrote:

The customer is the way to stop them.

You have fun with that. As far as I'm concerned, however, last time I checked I wasn't a prosecutor. If I was a prosecutor, it would be my job to have people found guilty, and to seek maximum penalty against them. But I'm not paid to do that, so it isn't my job to do those things. If Product A is made by complete jerks and Product B is made by the sweetest grandma on earth, that doesn't mean I have to buy Product B. If, on the other hand, I consider Product B to be a higher quality product than Product A, well then I'm buying Product B.

I pay my taxes. Those taxes go towards paying the salaries of prosecutors. I already contribute to a system that punishes people for things society deems immoral, and through a system much more fair than the court of public opinion. Because believe it or not, there are effective punishments that don't involve boycotts. Things like multimillion dollar lawsuits.

But you go on and work on one monthly subscription at a time. Fun.

OH? I'd rather see Activision Blizzard stock price crash. It cost Blizzard billions in market value as oppose to millions in lawsuit. Blizzard will survive… probably.

You sound disappointed. As if you had woken up all bloodthirsty, eagerly anticipating a show at the guillotine, only to not witness a decapitation. Disgusting.

Let's imagine that ActiBlizz is, in fact, found liable on at least one count. Here's what I think they should pay for punitive damages:
A÷P×2-A-B
Where
A = the actual damages caused. For instance, costs for psychologist appointments for life for each woman involved. If victims didn't spend or won't spend on treatment, it doesn't count for this.
P = the estimated probability ActiBlizz would have been caught. We know they did, but what were the odds? Because 1≥P>0, A÷P≥A. This is the trickiest part of the calculation because it's subjective.
Then we double it. (Are we allowed to make Jay Wilson jokes still?) Then we subtract the actual damages done this time — this means punitive damages would at least equal actual damages, if P=1, but P almost certainly <1.
Then lastly we subtract
B = all the financial damages caused to, or would be caused to, Blizzard as a result of bad press or woke activism. If B≥A÷P×2-A, the just punitive damages should be zero, because Blizzard would have already suffered enough.

Now if you are wondering why this formula, it's based off risk assessment. Except we arbitrarily made it double the cost necessary to make it a borderline risk to allow such behavior to continue, therefore firmly in the "bad risk" category. No company that 1) has any risk assessment skill whatsoever and 2) likes money, would ever allow this to happen again with a punishment this severe. Not at Blizzard, and not at any game developer doing business in California.

Because that's all I want out of a punishment — deterrence. Not necessarily bankruptcy or fortunes ruined, not scorched earth. I might not be against such things, if they are necessary for deterrence, but I'm always hopeful it doesn't need to go that far.

Just out of curiosity, is the death penalty for non-murderous crimes polling well now? I wonder. I, for one, am no fan of draconian punishments. I don't get gleeful imagining lives ruined, families torn apart by financial loss, and retirement funds disappeared. Let us not pretend everyone at ActiBlizz is a rich executive.

Just in case you've lost the plot, remember that this is a lawsuit against a corporation, and not a criminal proceeding. If the behavior of — just picking a random name out of a hat here — Alex Afrasiabi has you hot and bothered, let is remember that the only way THIS lawsuit hurts him is indirectly by his stock holdings, if any, in the company. Blizzard already fired him for sexual misconduct, they can't fire him anymore than they already have.

Oh, unless the reason you want to see Blizzard crash is that you shorted it through a stockbroker. In which case, the moral of the whole GME thing, if there was one, is that shorts are a fool's position, putting you at risk of potentially infinite losses as the result of something as insipid as a meme squeeze.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Oh, unless the reason you want to see Blizzard crash is that you shorted it through a stockbroker. In which case, the moral of the whole GME thing, if there was one, is that shorts are a fool's position, putting you at risk of potentially infinite losses as the result of something as insipid as a meme squeeze.

Depending on whether you see Light Yagami as a villian or an anti-hero. The cost to instill change could be greater than the cost of resistance. That cost is neither fair nor balanced but necessary and required to instill that change. To move or to try to move something resistance to changes by pushing forcefully, you need a greater force. You want changes and results not fairness or justice. That is Light Yagami's perspective on justice and express that willingness to do whatever it takes. Punishments that is Cruel and vicious can be more effective than what is fairness or justice. That might be a difficult concept for some people to grasp.

Losses for Blizzard cost me nothing, I have no investment there, in fact it doesn't involve my partipation. It cost you nothing to ignore what Blizzard is doing either. I see Financial losses as capital losses, a minor threat to Blizzard not equivalent to decapitation. I am more sure they wouldn't collapse from such losses. If you ask if they suffer enough to never repeat that mistake again as a consequence of their wrong doing. I will say human beings make multiple mistakes and sometimes we even repeat that again and again. You would have expected GameStop stock price to decline after the GME saga. Temporary approach rather than permanent solution.

"

Alex Afrasiabi has you hot and bothered, let is remember that the only way THIS lawsuit hurts him is indirectly by his stock holdings, if any, in the company. Blizzard already fired him for sexual misconduct, they can't fire him anymore than they already have.

Alex Afrasiabi been accused of sexually assaulting women for decades. More surpising Blizzard take that long to fired him for sexual misconduct. Was it mitigation for DFEH lawsuit where they are under investigation of harassment and discrimination within the company?

"

awesome999 wrote:

Depending on whether you see Light Yagami as a villian or an anti-hero.

The obvious moral of the end of Death Note is that antiheroes aren't heroes, they're villains. So if you see yourself as an antihero a la Kira, then
you
are
evil.

"

awesome999 wrote:

That might be a difficult concept for some people to grasp.

It depends on what you mean by "difficult." We are hardwired neurologically to prefer that which is emotionally easier, even if it is intellectually more challenging. This is why the first two episodes of Death Note begin by
1. using fiction tropes to set Light as protagonist, and
2. explain the process by which Light rationalizes his murders to himself
PRIOR TO the introduction of L. It's a trick played on the audience to get them to rationalize evil even if the face of a hero denouncing it as such. If that introduction was reversed — we begin with the camera following behind L exclusively, we are introduced to how L rationalizes his unusual behaviors to himself, then in the second episode we introduced Kira — then there would be no ambiguity as to who was good and evil.

But by the end, when Nate River says

"

You're just a murderer, Light Yagami. And this notebook is the deadliest weapon of mass murder in the history of mankind. You yielded to the power of the Shinigami and the notebook, and have confused yourself with a god. In the end, you're nothing more than a crazy serial killer. That's all you are. Nothing more and nothing less.

he is speaking for the author. The author is telling you they've taken you on this ride, shown you the madness, explained how evil rationalizes itself and thus permits itself to be.

Point being, it can indeed be quite difficult to follow all the mental gymnastics, the cerebral twists and turns. That's one of the other reasons Death Note works so well — Light, L and the audience all get to flex their cognitive abilities following the path of these rationalizations. But the thing about rationalizations is: they're lies. The truth is simple: Light is a serial killer. But the emotionally simple can still be more difficult ([bane]For You™[/bane]) than the cerebrally complicated.

So please, spare me these rationalizations on how being cruel and vicious can be a good thing. The only justifiable reason to be cruel is in targeting that cruelty so as to prevent more cruelty than is caused. Anything more is bad, and when that badness is made deliberate through rationalizations on how it's good, that's when it is evil. The only reason to follow the rationalizations any deeper than that is to understand evil, not to agree with it.

"

awesome999 wrote:

a minor threat to Blizzard not equivalent to decapitation. I am more sure they wouldn't collapse from such losses.

"

awesome999 wrote:

Blizzard will survive… probably.

Seems pretty contradictory to me. Are you sure or only "more sure"?

"

awesome999 wrote:

You would have expected GameStop stock price to decline after the GME saga. Temporary approach rather than permanent solution.

It has declined some. But for it to revert completely back to its 2020 price would presume that those shorting the stock were 100% correct in their assumptions, and that those buying GME were 0% correct in their assessment that it was undervalued. This simply isn't the case. Part of the reason why things happened the way they did was that WSB correctly identified the stock as undervalued. Indeed, there were more shorted shares of GME than existing shares. Since a short is a promise to buy a share back later in exchange for money now, that meant that the short market had overextended itself at the time, and that demand for shares exceeded supply. All it took was people to see it.

Although I admit I was just joking about the meme thing. I still think shorting is a bad investment though.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

But by the end, when Nate River says

"

You're just a murderer, Light Yagami. And this notebook is the deadliest weapon of mass murder in the history of mankind. You yielded to the power of the Shinigami and the notebook, and have confused yourself with a god. In the end, you're nothing more than a crazy serial killer. That's all you are. Nothing more and nothing less.

he is speaking for the author. The author is telling you they've taken you on this ride, shown you the madness, explained how evil rationalizes itself and thus permits itself to be.

Point being, it can indeed be quite difficult to follow all the mental gymnastics, the cerebral twists and turns. That's one of the other reasons Death Note works so well — Light, L and the audience all get to flex their cognitive abilities following the path of these rationalizations. But the thing about rationalizations is: they're lies. The truth is simple: Light is a serial killer. But the emotionally simple can still be more difficult ([bane]For You™[/bane]) than the cerebrally complicated.

So please, spare me these rationalizations on how being cruel and vicious can be a good thing. The only justifiable reason to be cruel is in targeting that cruelty so as to prevent more cruelty than is caused. Anything more is bad, and when that badness is made deliberate through rationalizations on how it's good, that's when it is evil. The only reason to follow the rationalizations any deeper than that is to understand evil, not to agree with it.

That was never a simple story. The Last episode is full of spoilers.

Nate River (Near) was never better than L nor Light Yagami. When he realise that, he used underhanded methods to beat Light Yagami, that is how he won. Nate River is also a murderer. Similar to Light Yagami, their means justify the end. Nate hide it better, many reader didn't realise that truth.

The irony and lies within is Nate used the very murder weapon Light Yagami used to beat him. People didn't understand that profound implication. That is the madness. How do you know Near used the notebook to kill Mikami? That is the difference between understanding the truth or being under Nate's Mere Pretense of Justice.