• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Kotaku: Stardock Said She Ruined Elemental, But Only After She Sued The Boss...

GhaleonQ said:
No, she's destructive because she failed to adjust after he declined on the less enforcable requests.

1. If the casual, teasing workplace culture is positive (as he says everyone thinks it is and she says everyone thinks it's not), then it's her prerogative to assimilate.

2. Uh, yeah, sorry. Respect isn't owed to him, of course. That said, do you think people told *insert CEO of choice* to be nicer, stop swearing, run better meetings, be more generous with employee compensation, or whatever with the expectation (rather than the hope) that the requests are followed?

Better question: do you think this is a realistic or common way for ambitious businesses to run?

I mean, yeah, bad bosses suck. They're still bosses.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between what you're describing there and sexual harassment. No boss has the onus to listen to and adopt every single idea that an employee brings before them, but they do possess the duty to refrain from discriminatory or harassing conduct towards their employees, especially based on the unequal power relationship that is recognised at law.

Where are you getting these sworn statements? Are they on the scribd from the kotaku article?
 
By the way, Kotaku's wording is excellent: no real (direct) bias to one side or the other; they're merely reporting the court record, interviewing a few sources, and letting people draw their own conclusions. There isn't a hint of the usual blog-style opinion journalism they're mostly known for - this is a professional article. Kudos to Kate Cox.
 
plagiarize said:
well see, that's the key difference. if these people were on record saying they asked her to stop behaving a certain way and she refused to, we'd have a song and dance, but there's nothing in the sworn statements saying that any of those workers felt harassed.

talking about sex != harassment.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not at the point of saying she's full of shit or anything. But, things start feeling a little fishy when you have so many people there saying she is the one who acted that way, not him. They all also say she spoke of wanting more money often, with one of them saying she had stated she was motivated by money before.

And to be clear for those not clicking the link, all those quotes I posted were just the tip of the iceberg, there are way more people saying the same stuff over and over.
 
GhaleonQ said:
No, she's destructive because she failed to adjust after he declined on the less enforcable requests.

1. If the casual, teasing workplace culture is positive (as he says everyone thinks it is and she says everyone thinks it's not), then it's her prerogative to assimilate.

2. Uh, yeah, sorry. Respect isn't owed to him, of course. That said, do you think people told *insert CEO of choice* to be nicer, stop swearing, run better meetings, be more generous with employee compensation, or whatever with the expectation (rather than the hope) that the requests are followed?

Better question: do you think this is a realistic or common way for ambitious businesses to run?

I mean, yeah, bad bosses suck. They're still bosses.
Click to expand...
That's incorrect. It's his job to be the boss, not a comedian. Other people may not be offended, that doesn't mean it isn't offensive; other people may be scared to point out that they are offended--after all, he's suing her for $1,000,000.
 
Hero_of_the_Day said:
Yeah, I'm not at the point of saying she's full of shit or anything. But, things start feeling a little fishy when you have so many people there saying she is the one who acted that way, not him. They all also say she spoke of wanting more money often, with one of them saying she had stated she was motivated by money before.

And to be clear for those not clicking the link, all those quotes I posted were just the tip of the iceberg, there are way more people saying the same stuff over and over.
Click to expand...

Wardell doesn't deny that he makes sexist jokes around the office though... so...
 
plagiarize said:
Wardell doesn't deny that he makes sexist jokes around the office though... so...
Click to expand...

Yeah, at the very least he is a fucking idiot who was opening himself up as any easy target for a sexual harassment case. Which is why jokes of a sexual nature just don't belong at work, whether that's the "family guy atmosphere" he was going for or not.
 
Hero_of_the_Day said:
Yeah, I'm not at the point of saying she's full of shit or anything. But, things start feeling a little fishy when you have so many people there saying she is the one who acted that way, not him. They all also say she spoke of wanting more money often, with one of them saying she had stated she was motivated by money before.

And to be clear for those not clicking the link, all those quotes I posted were just the tip of the iceberg, there are way more people saying the same stuff over and over.
Click to expand...

Could you link me to the witness statements please? I want to have a look at some of this myself.
 
Jintor said:
Could you link me to the witness statements please? I want to have a look at some of this myself.
Click to expand...

It's in the Kotaku link posted in the OP. Here is a direct link to the legal papers though. It's a lot of shit. Scroll through a good amount to get to the statements.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/105112455?access_key=key-tbzvghs07e9a39tmcqo

EDIT: I guess that's the defenses motion for dismissal. Here is the original filing. I haven't looked at it at all.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/105042009?access_key=key-9h2wiaou5lo18fk2gea
 
Jintor said:
There's a difference between what you're describing there and sexual harassment. No boss has the onus to listen to and adopt every single idea that an employee brings before them, but they do possess the duty to refrain from discriminatory or harassing conduct towards their employees, especially based on the unequal power relationship that is recognised at law.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong.

Jintor said:
Hey dude

Duty of care would like to talk to you. Turns out you possess liability bro.

Get back to me.

Sincerely, the law
Click to expand...

is right. Hence, the part of my post blaming him for putting himself in tenuous legal safety. If he was going to risk legitimate legal action by hiring a bad cultural fit, he should own it.

That said, I hope that you recognize that the line between business best practices (that is, his aim) and destructive business behavior is a blurry one and that flawed leaders (crass, letting off steam about personal issues) may be, on the whole, good for the company/art/whatever. I mean, this forum wouldn't exist without Yamauchi being a total douche in his business life. EDIT: A good employee contributes to the well-being of the company's mission to the extent that he/she is able.

*laughs* That said, we ARE talking about Elemental, so perhaps the lawsuit is a joke and Wardell's just trying to preserve the "common culture leads to quality product" principle in his own mind.
 
Hero_of_the_Day said:
It's in the Kotaku link posted in the OP. Here is a direct link to the legal papers though. It's a lot of shit. Scroll through a good amount to get to the statements.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/105112455?access_key=key-tbzvghs07e9a39tmcqo

EDIT: I guess that's the defenses motion for dismissal. Here is the original filing. I haven't looked at it at all.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/105042009?access_key=key-9h2wiaou5lo18fk2gea
Click to expand...


Ok, we're not seeing the full picture. As you noted, the witness statements you're drawing from are all from the Defence's motion for dismissal

That said, I hope that you recognize that the line between business best practices (that is, his aim) and destructive business behavior is a blurry one and that flawed leaders (crass, letting off steam about personal issues) may be, on the whole, good for the company/art/whatever. I mean, this forum wouldn't exist without Yamauchi being a total douche in his business life.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge the link, and I realise you're saying 'destructive' in the sense of bad for business (in sheer profit/loss terms); but I think it just may be possible to run a company without having to be an asshole.
 
Hero_of_the_Day said:
It's in the Kotaku link posted in the OP. Here is a direct link to the legal papers though. It's a lot of shit. Scroll through a good amount to get to the statements.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/105112455?access_key=key-tbzvghs07e9a39tmcqo

EDIT: I guess that's the defenses motion for dismissal. Here is the original filing. I haven't looked at it at all.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/105042009?access_key=key-9h2wiaou5lo18fk2gea
Click to expand...

it's a terrible request for dismissal. it says she never complained while she was under employment, and yet contains the very same e-mails in which she DOES complain and Wardell's response.
 
These aren't even witness statements, they're affidavits. There's been no opportunity to cross-examine - obviously, because the case hasn't gone to trial yet.
 
Jintor said:
Ok, we're not seeing the full picture. As you noted, the witness statements you're drawing from are all from the Defence's motion for dismissal.
Click to expand...

If she has no evidence and has to rely on testimony, those defense statements are going to be very damning. The defense only has to demonstrate that she was ok with(and actively engaged in) the culture one minute, and then switched positions the second she knew she had another job waiting.

With evidence of harassment (not just testimony) this is a no-win situation for Wardell (he would have settled already in my opinion). Without evidence it's going to get sketchy fast and chances are if it comes down to he said/she said, she'll lose.

plagiarize said:
it's a terrible request for dismissal. it says she never complained while she was under employment, and yet contains the very same e-mails in which she DOES complain and Wardell's response.
Click to expand...

I think that's because technically the courts will only look at her email to him as a request, not a formal complaint. Had she followed the proper channels (HR) then it probably would have been labelled a complaint.
 
Jintor said:
I acknowledge the link, and I realise you're saying 'destructive' in the sense of bad for business (in sheer profit/loss terms); but I think it just may be possible to run a company without having to be an asshole.
Click to expand...

If only! (In my experience, douchey behavior and its costs relative to benefits are all relative. Hence, my emphasis on "incompatibility.")

I mean, I'm not, but I bet 1/2 of the people here are browsing on Apple products. SHAME.

Anyway, that's the only thing that I wanted to write before tens of LOL LIBERTARIAN posts appeared. I'll defer to your more important point, now.
 
GhaleonQ said:
That said, I hope that you recognize that the line between business best practices (that is, his aim) and destructive business behavior is a blurry one and that flawed leaders (crass, letting off steam about personal issues) may be, on the whole, good for the company/art/whatever. I mean, this forum wouldn't exist without Yamauchi being a total douche in his business life. EDIT: A good employee contributes to the well-being of the company's mission to the extent that he/she is able.
Click to expand...
I completely get the point that common culture, in-jokes etc helps strengthen the group. It's worked for armies for thousands of years -- we know it works.

In-group loyalty doesn't always have to harm or oppress people, but it certainly has the potential to. That is where modern society quite rightly draws the line. Corporate lingo and team-building exercises/recreational activities are fine because they strengthen the group without causing harm -- sexism and a frat boy attitude are not.
 
pvpness said:
I think that's because technically the courts will only look at her email to him as a request, not a formal complaint. Had she followed the proper channels (HR) then it probably would have been labelled a complaint.
Click to expand...

He forwarded the email, with his response, to someone named Angie (HR person I would assume?) to have her put them in Miseta's file so that there was an official record of her "request". He also mentions that is should be kept on the down low, so I'd imagine most people never knew about it. And Miseta quit soon after.

EDIT: Yeah, Kotaku article says Angie is an HR manager.
 
GhaleonQ said:
No, she's destructive because she failed to adjust after he declined on the less enforcable requests.

1. If the casual, teasing workplace culture is positive (as he says everyone thinks it is and she says everyone thinks it's not), then it's her prerogative to assimilate.

2. Uh, yeah, sorry. Respect isn't owed to him, of course. That said, do you think people told *insert CEO of choice* to be nicer, stop swearing, run better meetings, be more generous with employee compensation, or whatever with the expectation (rather than the hope) that the requests are followed?

Better question: do you think this is a realistic or common way for ambitious businesses to run?

I mean, yeah, bad bosses suck. They're still bosses.
Click to expand...

A boss who refuses to stop telling an employee jokes which are "inappropriate, sexist, vulgar and very embarrassing" is not declining on an unenforceable request. Especially when his reason for refusing is that he is an inappropriate, sexist, vulgar person.

That is nothing at all like asking a CEO to run better meetings or pay more, and it's not acceptable to write it off as a casual, teasing workplace culture. That kind of rationale is the entire reason sexual harassment laws exist.
 
Hero_of_the_Day said:
He forwarded the email, with his response, to someone named Angie (HR person I would assume?) to have her put them in Miseta's file so that there was an official record of her "request". He also mentions that is should be kept on the down low, so I'd imagine most people never knew about it. And Miseta quit soon after.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, that's interesting. Not sure about the legal ramifications as I'd have to do more research. I don't think that gets her off the hook as far as her failing to evoke the proper, legally recognized channels. Which they most certainly will question in court, "Why didn't you file a formal complaint with HR the first time this happened?" Like I said though, this scenario (him filing hr pages as opposed to her) just outside my legal understanding so I could be completely off on that point.

For the record, I personally think it's pretty uncool to tell someone their nipples look good on tv. Kinda creepy. This makes for interesting legal discussion though.

Edit: And Angie is his sister right? Yeesh. I'm really curious now how that works.

jcm said:
A boss who refuses to stop telling an employee jokes which are "inappropriate, sexist, vulgar and very embarrassing" is not declining on an unenforceable request. Especially when his reason for refusing is that he is an inappropriate, sexist, vulgar person.
Click to expand...

But the courts are going to draw a distinction between him telling her jokes specifically (which he agreed to stop doing, and apologized for) and him telling jokes to the entire office.
 
pvpness said:
If she has no evidence and has to rely on testimony, those defense statements are going to be very damning. The defense only has to demonstrate that she was ok with(and actively engaged in) the culture one minute, and then switched positions the second she knew she had another job waiting.

With evidence of harassment (not just testimony) this is a no-win situation for Wardell (he would have settled already in my opinion). Without evidence it's going to get sketchy fast and chances are if it comes down to he said/she said, she'll lose.
Click to expand...

I presume she's leading more evidence, because that single email is not much to go on. However, the notion to dismiss seems far too heavily evidence-based for a judge to simply throw the case out, so that's probably why the case is proceeding to trial.

The way that I see it, her behaviour prior to the email is at odds with the affidavits in the defence filing (apparently she filed a number of complaints stemming from a single 'chain' email), but Defence leads no evidence to contradict anything after her email to Wardell was sent.
 
As someone who played through the various betas of elemental and still has his collector's edition sitting unopened on a shelf along with the Demigod collector's edition as a reminder to be more cautious about throwing money Stardock's way, I find the part about how she contributed to the game being "ruined" a little hard to believe. I still remember the posts in the beta forums asking Stardock not to release the game as it was a very unpolished and unfinished state, but in the end, Stardock (most likely, Wardell)'s insistence that the game be released on time without delaying it to work on some serous problems with the game, I think, contributed more to it being received so poorly, rather than any alleged misdeed she might have done to "sabotage" it.
 
pvpness said:
Edit: And Angie is his sister right? Yeesh. I'm really curious now how that works.

But the courts are going to draw a distinction between him telling her jokes specifically (which he agreed to stop doing, and apologized for) and him telling jokes to the entire office.
Click to expand...

In-law. The Kotaku article says there are more emails from him also, but the only one I'm finding is that last one. He sounds like he for sure doesn't have a grasp on work appropriateness, though.
 
Jintor said:
I presume she's leading more evidence, because that single email is not much to go on. However, the notion to dismiss seems far too heavily evidence-based for a judge to simply throw the case out, so that's probably why the case is proceeding to trial.

The way that I see it, her behaviour prior to the email is at odds with the affidavits in the defence filing (apparently she filed a number of complaints stemming from a single 'chain' email), but Defence leads no evidence to contradict anything after her email to Wardell was sent.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed. The lack of a dismissal is what drew me to the topic in the first place honestly. There must be something that we aren't privy to.

Did something else occur after she sent that email to Wardell? I really want to build a timeline. I'm bored today. Lol.

Hero_of_the_Day said:
In-law. The Kotaku article says there are more emails from him also, but the only one I'm finding is that last one. He sounds like he for sure doesn't have a grasp on work appropriateness, though.
Click to expand...

Lol! That's for sure. Any company I've ever worked for would recoil in horror at even that email he sent. He runs shit at Stardock though, so as long as he doesn't break any actual laws, "appropriateness" is kinda up to him. Which is what makes it interesting in this case I think.
 
pvpness said:
But the courts are going to draw a distinction between him telling her jokes specifically (which he agreed to stop doing, and apologized for) and him telling jokes to the entire office.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't agree to stop telling jokes, or apologize for it.. He agreed to not touch her, and to stop talking about her fiance. He refused to stop telling jokes.

Here is a link to his actual email, since I can't copy/paste the relevant text.
 
plagiarize said:
well see, that's the key difference. if these people were on record saying they asked her to stop behaving a certain way and she refused to, we'd have a song and dance, but there's nothing in the sworn statements saying that any of those workers felt harassed.

talking about sex != harassment.

refusing to stop talking about sex after being asked to by people it upset = harassment.
Click to expand...

i dont understand what are you trying to say - that it is ok if she talked about sex, but it wasnt ok if Brad talked about sex? She felt harrased by Brad but didnt feel as if she harassed the others by doing the same thing.

Small software companies are often run as family business, with no hint of typicall corporate culture, meaning there are always jokes going around.

It seems pretty obvious to me that she wants to get some money... I mean she already found another job before the alledged inappropriate behaviour took place. Putting that into context explains everything.
 
Those emails are surely going to be all it takes to fuck him, right? Found the one with the sex quiz and his request that she responds back with her score and the youtube video. Link doesn't seem to exist any more but I'm guessing with a title like POV: Really Hot Girl, it probably wasn't appropriate to send to an employee.

Q7PHH.png
 
jcm said:
No, he didn't agree to stop telling jokes, or apologize for it.. He agreed to not touch her, and to stop talking about her fiance. He refused to stop telling jokes.

Here is a link to his actual email, since I can't copy/paste the relevant text.
Click to expand...

Ah, than I misunderstood. (I can't check that link) I was under the impression that he said he would cease all behavior specifically directed at her, that she deemed inappropriate (as in, I won't tell you the jokes when we're alone kinda thing). Wasn't Jintor talking about a complaint against a chain email though? That's what I was thinking.
 
pvpness said:
Yes, agreed. The lack of a dismissal is what drew me to the topic in the first place honestly. There must be something that we aren't privy to.

Did something else occur after she sent that email to Wardell? I really want to build a timeline. I'm bored today. Lol.



Lol! That's for sure. Any company I've ever worked for would recoil in horror at even that email he sent. He runs shit at Stardock though, so as long as he doesn't break any actual laws, "appropriateness" is kinda up to him. Which is what makes it interesting in this case I think.
Click to expand...
what i'm trying to understand is how Stardock are trying to portray her. they try and portray her as money oriented, but that doesn't explain why she would have done something like sabotaging the company (again, going by Stardock's version of events). so if she's only suing for moneys, why the sabotage? doesn't that seem like the actions of someone who felt wronged in some way?

doesn't the e-mail which Wardell admits sending give us plenty of evidence for WHY she may have been pissed off enough to sabotage them?

that's the part i can't make add up, and that's a big part of why i don't believe Wardell's version of events.

spwolf said:
i dont understand what are you trying to say - that it is ok if she talked about sex, but it wasnt ok if Brad talked about sex? She felt harrased by Brad but didnt feel as if she harassed the others by doing the same thing.

Small software companies are often run as family business, with no hint of typicall corporate culture, meaning there are always jokes going around.

It seems pretty obvious to me that she wants to get some money... I mean she already found another job before the alledged inappropriate behaviour took place. Putting that into context explains everything.
Click to expand...
harassment is creating a hostile work environment. it isn't the subject of your speech, but the effect it has on other workers that determines if it is harassment. that's why generally speaking, you won't get in trouble for talking about a specific topic the first time that it causes offence. once you KNOW it causes offence, that's when you have to stop. that's when your 'i didn't know' defence runs out. Wardell refused to stop... so he's basically guilty.

that's what makes it not okay. not that anyone talked about sex, but that Wardell was told he was causing offence and that he refused to stop doing it.

harassment HAS to be done knowingly, legally speaking... and that e-mail from Wardell is enough to hang him, basically.
 
pvpness said:
Ah, than I misunderstood. (I can't check that link) I was under the impression that he said he would cease all behavior specifically directed at her, that she deemed inappropriate (as in, I won't tell you the jokes when we're alone kinda thing). Wasn't Jintor talking about a complaint against a chain email though? That's what I was thinking.
Click to expand...

Can you see these images?

18-859deca6e3.jpg


19-6d63c0089f.jpg


spwolf said:
I mean she already found another job before the alledged inappropriate behaviour took place. Putting that into context explains everything.
Click to expand...

This isn't true. She sent the email to him on June 6, he replied to her the same day telling her she should deal with it or quit, and she applied for her new job on June 21, interviewed on July 9, and received an offer July 20.
 
Hero_of_the_Day said:
Those emails are surely going to be all it takes to fuck him, right? Found the one with the sex quiz and his request that she responds back with her score and the youtube video. Link doesn't seem to exist any more but I'm guessing with a title like POV: Really Hot Girl, it probably wasn't appropriate to send to an employee.
Click to expand...

I really depends (about the emails) and what's in them. This one that you've posted is a good example.

At my company, sending that email would be inappropriate because our policy says it's inappropriate. Stardock seemingly doesn't have that policy so I assume it's deemed appropriate for the company's culture. Now, had he said, "Check this out! I think you two would look super hott while fucking each other!" That would violate law.
 
pvpness said:
I really depends (about the emails) and what's in them. This one that you've posted is a good example.

At my company, sending that email would be inappropriate because our policy says it's inappropriate. Stardock seemingly doesn't have that policy so I assume it's deemed appropriate for the company's culture. Now, had he said, "Check this out! I think you two would look super hott while fucking each other!" That would violate law.
Click to expand...

I believe that it was allegedly porn he was linking her to. Which I assume is a bad idea.

EDIT: Found the video on google, it's a college humor video, not porn. My bad.
 
Check it: Planitiff's answer to an interrogatories

Notably, she claims to have complained to Angela Marshall (HR manager and Wardell's sister-in-law) as well as three others, Emily Fraley, Besty DeJonge and Kristen White. She further claims that Fraley and DeJonge had been subject to Wardell's 'unlawful behaviour' as well, and that DeJonge and Plaintiff had a meeting with Marshall about it, while she confided in White I think during the media tour.

She also claims a lot of stuff about specific incidents which is denied in the affidavits though (including one instance of crying in front of the whole staff). Notably Fraley's affadavit denies these claims, Marshall's deny these claims, White's denies these claims, and I can't find "Besty DeJonge"'s affidavit if there is one. So this is definitely going to go to the evidence.

I finished skimming the motion to dismiss by the way. That's a lotta pages. Admittedly the fact that the affidavits were almost all the same made a lot of it easier.
 
plagiarize said:
what i'm trying to understand is how Stardock are trying to portray her. they try and portray her as money oriented, but that doesn't explain why she would have done something like sabotaging the company (again, going by Stardock's version of events). so if she's only suing for moneys, why the sabotage? doesn't that seem like the actions of someone who felt wronged in some way?

doesn't the e-mail which Wardell admits sending give us plenty of evidence for WHY she may have been pissed off enough to sabotage them?

that's the part i can't make add up, and that's a big part of why i don't believe Wardell's version of events.
Click to expand...

I dunno man, I don't usually try to sort out motivations for a civil case. I usually just want to look at the evidence and facts and go from there. I could speculate any number of scenarios for why she would sabotage the company or why the company would try to file a retaliation case against her (painting her as a vindictive, money seeker), but that doesn't mean that they'd give anyone any actual insight. It's a tough one for sure. Really we've got to sit back and wait for more information to hit the public record before we really know what's going on.

jcm said:
Can you see these images?
Click to expand...
No, sadly. Are they emails? I'm heading out for the day, so I'll have to rejoin this discussion from home. I'll be able to look over all the stuff there, so I'll be better informed.
 
pvpness said:
I dunno man, I don't usually try to sort out motivations for a civil case. I usually just want to look at the evidence and facts and go from there. I could speculate any number of scenarios for why she would sabotage the company or why the company would try to file a retaliation case against her (painting her as a vindictive, money seeker), but that doesn't mean that they'd give anyone any actual insight. It's a tough one for sure. Really we've got to sit back and wait for more information to hit the public record before we really know what's going on.
Click to expand...

what more evidence do you need than the e-mail Wardell doesn't deny sending in which he refuses to change his behaviour, and asserts his position over her as the owner of the company?

whatever else she may or may not have done... that is pretty cut and dry.

i'm just saying that it doesn't make sense for them to portray her lawsuit against them as being 'for the money' when they are also trying to portray her as having done something vindictive and damaging to them. wouldn't it make more sense to characterise BOTH the lawsuit AND the alleged deletion of marketing materials as the act of someone vindictive?
 
Of all the reasons I came up for why Elemental shipped in the state it did I have to admit that sexual harassment never made the list.
 
pvpness said:
Ah, than I misunderstood. (I can't check that link) I was under the impression that he said he would cease all behavior specifically directed at her, that she deemed inappropriate (as in, I won't tell you the jokes when we're alone kinda thing). Wasn't Jintor talking about a complaint against a chain email though? That's what I was thinking.
Click to expand...

We're talking at cross purposes here and about two seperate emails. I've linked the chain email. (which is actually a link to an online quiz/list). Notably, the email is only sent to Alexandria in the evidence, but Defence claims it was sent to the entire office - it's possible the CC list is sent out, or multiple persons were individually sent the email, etc.

How come the links don't work for you?
 
Jintor said:
We're talking at cross purposes here and about two seperate emails. I've linked the chain email. (which is actually a link to an online quiz/list). Notably, the email is only sent to Alexandria in the evidence, but Defence claims it was sent to the entire office - it's possible the CC list is sent out, or multiple persons were individually sent the email, etc.

How come the links don't work for you?
Click to expand...

Brad's wife is on the CC. So he thought it was appropiate to send to his wife.


My opinion on this mess, as someone who been a fan of Stardock for a long time: I want to believe Brad. That said, given the rampany misogyny in the industry, stuff like this has to be taken seriously. One of the things I liked about Stardock was that it seemed a female-friendly, happy place, that didn't abuse their employees.

If Brad is guilty of this, I doubt I could buy future Stardock products. That said, given how I feel and following Stardock over the past many years, he's going to get every reasonable benefit of the doubt from me, even if the rest of the internet says otherwise.
 
alstein said:
Brad's wife is on the CC. So he thought it was appropiate to send to his wife.
Click to expand...

Different email - that's the Collegehumour video, not the chain email I linked.

/edit looks like Wardell individually sent the quiz email around because there's an email to Fraley with the same link in there.
 
The sexual harrassment stuff is bad enough on it's face, whether he's found liable for it or not though the fact that he's engaging in a retalitory lawsuit over the deletions is enough for me to boycott their products, no way any money of mine is going to help fund action such as that.

Not just a vulgar bigot, but a smallminded, petty and vindictive vulgar bigot, nice.
 
plagiarize said:
what more evidence do you need than the e-mail Wardell doesn't deny sending in which he refuses to change his behaviour, and asserts his position over her as the owner of the company?

whatever else she may or may not have done... that is pretty cut and dry.
Click to expand...

do you even know what were this jokes about or are you just supporting someone without having any clue as to what actually this behaviour was?


does she have anyone else supporting her claims?
 
alstein said:
Brad's wife is on the CC. So he thought it was appropiate to send to his wife.


My opinion on this mess, as someone who been a fan of Stardock for a long time: I want to believe Brad. That said, given the rampany misogyny in the industry, stuff like this has to be taken seriously. One of the things I liked about Stardock was that it seemed a female-friendly, happy place, that didn't abuse their employees.

If Brad is guilty of this, I doubt I could buy future Stardock products. That said, given how I feel and following Stardock over the past many years, he's going to get every reasonable benefit of the doubt from me, even if the rest of the internet says otherwise.
Click to expand...

This is so odd to me. You're connecting Wardell's actions as a person to your enjoyment of his games, and then letting that influence your perception of him as a person. If your enjoyment of Stardock games wasn't at stake, would you find it easier to pass judgment on Wardell?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

81-year-old grandma playing Minecraft for Cancer Charity gets Swatted, but she calls it “fun”
12
198
Evil Calvin replied
SHE (Seraphim Helix Experiment) (Akira and Metal Gear-inspired survival horror game) | Teaser Trailer
1
52
Germuso replied
Were Nintendo fans actually sincere when they said Nintendo only needed Nintendo games?
2 3
114
370
LordOcidax replied
Halo's Kiki Wolfkill Reveals She's Left Microsoft After 28 Years
43
541
Reaseru replied
Does your spouse also game? What does he she they think about gaming?
2 3
115
1K
Bondo replied
Top Bottom