Theres a big difference between hes a liar I dismiss this whole allegation and we should probably entertain the possibility the allegation isnt true as we await more info. but ok.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
An important statement from Naughty Dog
- Thread starter Kenzodielocke
- Start date
Theres a big difference between hes a liar I dismiss this whole allegation and we should probably entertain the possibility the allegation isnt true as we await more info. but ok.
If someone doesn't report an assault, from the company's compliance perspective it doesn't exist. Reporting this kind of stuff is very difficult for many people to do: it's embarrassing, it can lead to retaliation, etc. I guarantee you a lot of of corporate offices have the vast majority of harassment incidents go unreported.
As someone said earlier, this is likely a case where both people can be telling the truth. The ex-employee could have likely been assaulted and he could have likely never reported a thing so from Naught Dog's perspective it didn't exist. When we're talking about sexual abuse/harassment, you really need details to be able to prove/disprove claims and that's hard to do.
As someone said earlier, this is likely a case where both people can be telling the truth. The ex-employee could have likely been assaulted and he could have likely never reported a thing so from Naught Dog's perspective it didn't exist. When we're talking about sexual abuse/harassment, you really need details to be able to prove/disprove claims and that's hard to do.
semiconscious
Member
enough of this! 'other notable sexual assault cases'? we're talking about a tweet by someone who gives no details/names. which's a far cry from a sexual assault case, period, never mind a notable one...
what the fuck ever happened to holding off judgment, & stopping & thinking for a minute? trial by twitter? smh...
FairFriend
Member
I don't understand people who question why someone would believe in Ballard without further evidence.
There are many more victims who don't accuse their aggressors than false accusations. At the very least there is, I believe, a compelling statistical argument to be made.
There are many more victims who don't accuse their aggressors than false accusations. At the very least there is, I believe, a compelling statistical argument to be made.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
Are you serious? I'm still waiting for more information to decide what's really going on here but this comment is unbelievable. What small, innocent, isolated village do you live in?
I do believe Ballard, but I also don't think there is anything wrong from a corporate point of view with NDs statement.
Nor do I think everyone should believe him unequivocally without evidence.
Yeah that person must have absolutely no knowledge of that Columbia mattress student or the Duke lacrosse team's allegations.
When dealing with sexual assault you have to be so incredibly careful to protect the alleged victim of the case but also have to be vigilant that the claims have merit. These cases can be dangerous to both sides especially if investigated improperly.
semiconscious
Member
right. then, of course, there's the explaining of the 'validity' of those compelling statistics to the genuinely falsely-accused, who're then left dangling in the wind...
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
What am I seeing in this thread? We do NOT have enough evidence to suggest either parties are lying or telling the truth. Wait for more information.
ShemhazaiX
Member
What is this even trying to say. Male apologists? We don't even know if the perpetrator is a guy. It could be a woman. We literally know nothing about what actually happened and Ballard isn't giving any more info (and he shouldn't, twitter is not the place to make a sexual harassment claim).
CannonFodder52
Member
I think it's a triple whammy effect here. The victim who came out is, a guy, is perceived as attacking the darling studio and didn't provide evidence.
That wasn't really directed at you. Also, there may never be more evidence, he may have simply wanted to let out his experiences. It's up to people's own prerogative to listen and believe what he said.
Amen. Im a duke alum and was a student at the time of the lacrosse incident. You know, the one where the DA inappropriately declared a sexual assault definitely occurred and then long story short it turns out the whole thing was fabricated and he tried to hide exonerating evidence and was ultimately disbarred. The whole thing was eye opening and influenced how I will forever look at situations where people are so sure something happened when in reality theres no evidence or proof. I encourage everyone to watch the ESPN 30 for 30 on the whole scandal.
Which, once again (and it feels so silly needing to repeat this), does NOT mean Im saying hes a liar and no assault occurred. Its just saying we need more time and info before making that determination.
Some of you seem unable to see the difference between asking for more time / info vs. calling him a liar and saying nothing happened.
so you're telling me that there is no instances of people lying about sexual harassment for financial gain?
as i said, i'm not saying that is what he's doing. but to pretend that isn't a possibility is certainly laughable. it happened here in the UK surrounding operation yewtree. some people saw a witch hunt and saw it as a chance to make some money and so they lied.
but you're right, it is people accusing men/women of lying that makes it hard to come out and and admit it. but sadly we live in a world where men and women DO lie about it to make a quick buck. hence the need for evidence...of which there is non so far in regards to this case.
I understand that corroboration is necessary to make the legal case but the excess of apologizing on behalf of the companies involved in the reaction phase of this is unfortunate. You can't speak empathetically in support on one side of your mouth and then on the other be apologetic for your favorite studio and ask victims to just believe in the system when those systems fail to protect victims in the first place. These people are useless to discourse on sexual assault and do no more than provide free smokescreens to companies and entities whose interests are to protect themselves and not victims.
I'm also not naive. There have been lies and wild goose chases involving despicable and greedy individuals who want to use a raw climate of speaking out about sexual assault to their own ends. But these are not normal and seem like more of an easy bogeyman argument than anything systemic.
Someone said it in the earlier thread but Off-Topic and gaming side are like night and day on sexual assault scandals. I should really know better.
I saw that post as more of a response to the people who claim that ND is lying with this statement and has covered everything up.
Is that seriously an issue for people? Anyone who intends to harass the man would have been able to google his name in less than 5 seconds.
Like, are people also complaining that Polygon etc. mention his name in their articles?
https://www.polygon.com/2017/10/15/16478672/naughty-dog-sex-harrassment-allegations
This is the most ridiculous thing to hold against ND.
Holy shit dude, THERE IS NO LAWSUIT OR INVOLVEMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM SO THERE IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF ON EITHER SIDE. Burden of proof is not a relevant concept at this stage. You are constantly throwing around legal terms that do not apply to the current situation.
The problem is that if they actually took this matter seriously, they would investigate more seriously than the time frame makes plausible, and instead of a blanket dismissal simply say "we are looking into it" until such an investigation is complete. Do they have a *legal obligation* to do a real investigation that goes beyond checking their HR records? Probably not! But that doesn't matter -- people can and should make moral judgements on actions that not illegal. This is a concept you do not seem to understand.
ShemhazaiX
Member
You're reading what you want to read. The systems are like they are for a reason. You cannot have a justice system that uses hearsay as evidence. I assume you've heard of the witch trials? Where all someone had to do was say that a woman looked like a witch and that was all that was needed. That is what you're asking for.
Very few people in this thread have said they flat out don't believe him. Most are happy to accept that he's likely telling the truth. The problem is that there is nothing that any party can do about it without evidence. If you think that is the sign of a broken system so be it, but the alternative is way worse.
Feel free to tell use exactly what they should be doing to investigate whether he raised a formal complaint that takes longer than 24 hours.
1. I took that from twitter, as I said.
2. It's probably better for ND to not specifically name the person so they can't be accused later on of causing a witch hunt, which wouldn't be accurate considering how easy it is to find out who the person is, as you said. It's just a good way to cover themselves from that.
Pretty sure that's all they were getting at by including the (no name) suggestion.
Just because there is no lawsuit at this time does not mean this isn't a legal matter. Do you think ND won't have consulted with lawyers? You can talk about morality all you want but at the end of the day it is their job to make sure they don't prejudice themselves, their employees or the company. Every action will be taken with potential legal proceedings in mind. Morality, sadly doesn't come into it. That's just how the world works.
semiconscious
Member
seriously: wtf are you saying here? that false accusations aren't 'systemic' enough to warrant consideration in situations like this? & that, because of this, when it comes to someone charging someone with sexual assault, it's therefore a matter of the charged being guilty till proven innocent?...
Obviously all parties need to be extremely mindful of implications for future legal action. I never implied otherwise. That does not mean an organization cannot enact an internal investigation to establish whether, e.g., proper HR protocol occurred with the incident in question, look at internal emails to see if there were complaints that didn't make it into an HR report, talk to the supervisor, etc. The idea that these steps are totally impossible or would somehow amount to an admission of guilt are baffling to me. If your company can't mount an internal investigation about this sort of issue then your company is a ticking time bomb.
semiconscious
Member
what if your company is only going to mount an internal investigation if the situation warrants it? & what if your company doesn't consider a former employee making unsubstantiated charges in a tweet a situation warranting it? because that's all that's happening here...
there's no bomb ticking here. there's only a response in kind. more substantial charges/accusations? more substantial internal investigation...
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
What do you expect them to do? It doesn't take long to bring up files on the computer and see if they have any record of this. I'm not saying that the abuse didn't happen, in fact I believe Ballard is being honest, but Naughty Dog aren't going to go out of their way to investigate something that their HR records say never happened.
thepenguin55
Member
NaughtyDog said:
Unfortunately this isn't going to go anywhere unless others come forward (assuming that there are others to come forward). My department at my job is dealing with some way smaller scale HR issues and we're doing this weird "what's it mean to be a team" sort of sessions and they're randomly interviewing people. Unfortunately without having a smoking gun or some kind of unequivocal evidence of who did what they have to dance around things with every question they ask which doesn't get anywhere.
This is a really weird and honestly misleading statement. It doesn't counter or contradict the allegations, it just makes it look that way.
The accusation was that he was fired a day after going to HR with the complaint because "the company was moving in a different reaction." If that is true, it's quite obvious there is a connection here. However, obviously Sony HR wouldn't have written down the firing as "fired him because he complained about sexual harassement and we can't have that shit".
Basically, David Ballard says that Sony/ND swept his complaint about sexual harassement under the rug, ignored it and fired him and Sony/ND answered that they didn't find a complaint...which was the point David made on Twitter in the first place. It's a weak fucking statement because it puts a finality to the situation while a proper investigation would be in order. Not a hastily written statement written on a weekend trying to smother any and all allegations and discussions in the first place.
The accusation was that he was fired a day after going to HR with the complaint because "the company was moving in a different reaction." If that is true, it's quite obvious there is a connection here. However, obviously Sony HR wouldn't have written down the firing as "fired him because he complained about sexual harassement and we can't have that shit".
Basically, David Ballard says that Sony/ND swept his complaint about sexual harassement under the rug, ignored it and fired him and Sony/ND answered that they didn't find a complaint...which was the point David made on Twitter in the first place. It's a weak fucking statement because it puts a finality to the situation while a proper investigation would be in order. Not a hastily written statement written on a weekend trying to smother any and all allegations and discussions in the first place.
Wasnt one of the first replies to the Twitter thread of Ballard that she got harassed by someone at ND, too?
Hmm yeah witch trials, okay. I wonder where I heard about that recently. Oh yeah.
tbf that doesn't really answer his point. The fact that Woody Allen used the same (very popular and quite topical) terminology doesn't mean it's false by association. Although I think the person you are replying to is being a little over-zealous and it's a far more nuanced discussion than "innocent until proven guilty".
I don't think we should ever dismiss a sexual assault claim unless we are 100% sure it is false, but likewise we can't assume it's 100% fact without some kind of corroborating evidence. In Weinstein's case, there is overwhelming evidence as more and more reputable people come forward with corroborating stories (not to mention audio tapes). Same with Woody Allen.
This situation with Naughty Dog is more tricky. There is no actual evidence, but there is also no reason to believe the is lying. The main take away here is that society needs to seriously open up this discussion into how we solve this sort of thing going forward. It's easy to say "show me the evidence or it's not true", but in reality that closes the door in many abuse victims faces - which, frankly, cannot be the way forward for us as a society.
I just want to point out that the Columbia case wasn't proved to be a lie. Just not enough evidence to find him guilty. As for the text messages... when someone is in the relationship, they may try to normalise abuse to avoid having to cope with the devastating realisation that someone they cared for and trusted could do that to them.
But yes, those kinds of text messages will (rightfully) cast enough doubt that the accused will be found not responsible, so it's pretty important that everyone gets taught not to contact the person directly afterward.
I don't think it's really that hard. Juries are asked all the time to suspend judgment until the very end a trial. It's very possible for people to hold two competing claims in their mind without deciding one to be false.
The prospect of lying about sexual misconduct for financial gain should NOT be brought up at all (at least until there is any evidence of that.) It's an old canard and more often dismisses legitimate claims than describes the facts.
There are many possibilities other than "they're lying": either it did happen as described, or it did happen but they misidentified the perp, or it happened but the perp wasn't aware that it was unwanted, or it did happen but the victim misinterpreted the events as more threatening than they were intended to be.
In short, it's pretty easy to believe both parties in a sexual misconduct case are telling their personal truth until more evidence comes out.
ShemhazaiX
Member
Are you going to refute the argument or you just gonna strawman? Do you have an argument in defence of blindly punishing people with no evidence, or you just gonna deflect?Hmm yeah witch trials, okay. I wonder where I heard about that recently. Oh yeah.
He's the zealous one dude. He's been throwing around claims that every one who wants evidence before punishment is a "male apologist" and other stupid comments like that.
I'm glad some people are paying attention to the details on this.
I'm not mad at those who are doubtful, but I do get mad reading posts talking about 'abuse' or 'assault' when what is being discussed is 'harassment'. Pissed me off in the Ben Affleck thread too when people started throwing around the word 'rape'. These are all serious things and aren't mutually exclusive, but vary wildly by degree and shouldn't be used interchangeably at all.
To be fair, you're strawmanning right now. Marcel clearly claimed, "I understand that corroboration is necessary to make the legal case". So characterising their argument as a "defence of blindly punishing people with no evidence" and such is very uncharitable and disingenuous.
Brotherhood93
Member
Small nitpick here but the accusation doesn't say he went to HR at all but they went to him after his "mental breakdown". It's why I believe there may be no record of his harassment allegations because that seemingly wasn't the focus of dialogue between himself and HR. All we can do is speculate based on what we know but perhaps he was going to be let go either way and HR conveniently left out that he mentioned being harassed so they wouldn't have to deal with it. It would also mean both Naughty Dog and David Ballard's claims are equally true but it would raise serious questions over Sony's HR department.
Gai Murakumo
Member
Until true substantial evidence comes to light both parties could be telling the truth or one or both parties are lying. We do not know. It is best to let lawyers and courts handle this instead of taking our pitchforks and screaming for bloodshed.
BumblebeeCody
Member
Trust a company?
Yes this is what I believe happened. But I also want to add that I don't think HR can investigate a harassment claim unless the victim decides to file a formal complaint. I think it would be very inappropriate to even mention any harassment allegation that was brought up without a filing of a formal complaint.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
What a dismissive statement, made in such a hurry, too. Not even a promise to look into things further.
ShemhazaiX
Member
That is the part I was responding to. I was pointing out that even if the system isn't perfect, it's better than any alternative. His mindset is that people are using a lack of evidence as a reason to stan for their "favourite studio".
He's equating not passing instant judgment with fanboyism.
autoduelist
Member
A good friend of mine [that is no longer a friend at all, sadly] went through a mental breakdown. He absolutely lost it - went into work one day, screamed at everyone and quit [they, by his own account, did nothing... he was just 'done']. He told everyone he knew off for one reason or another, got some godawful ink [and I love tattoos], got into heavy drugs/drink and [very] loose sex. Like, it's weird typing this because it sounds so judgemental and odd if you don't know that I don't give a hoot about sex, [most] drugs, ink... but he was purely the definition of intentionally 'self-destructive' - it felt like suicide by f'ing up on purpose. Our group of friends had two interventions and then he just cut us off. I got a phone call about a year later from him apologizing... where, after the 'apology', he went on to basically blame everyone but himself.
I'm not really sure where I'm going here... but just kind of saying, if he -did- have a mental breakdown... like the legit, true, 'mental breakdown' I've seen in real life, then I have trust issues with anything he says. This does not mean he's lying, and of course, it's also possible the issue -caused- the mental breakdown... but it's also possible he had a breakdown for other reasons and just wants to see the world burn. I've seen it with my own eyes.
What you [and many others] are missing here is that pretty much -everyone- who leaves a position like that is offered a severance package which includes various clauses like this. It's standard operating procedure. So while he claims they did it to shut him up, that's just a twisted interpretation... no, they offered him severance after he was let go, which is standard. It does not prove his point in any way, shape, or form. It's not 'hush money' when many leaving a big company get it. He's twisting a standard policy, calling it hush money, and many people here are repeating it, not understanding that he'd have gotten that same $20k severance package no matter what the situation is. It is a red herring in this case, because it provides no evidence one way or the other.
Then you also likely know that severance packages also come with nice long contracts to sign that include various clauses including stuff like non-disparage, agreeing to never sue for any reason regarding employment, sometimes an NDA about what you worked on, why you were let go, etc.
Since you're clearly on team 'they're hiding something', can you please at least be forthright and let everyone know how referring to what is likely a standard severance package as hush money is twisting facts to a biased interpretation?
For example, this post [among many]:
------
EDIT: To be clear, I think the most likely scenario is that he experienced harassment, told no one about it, then suffered a mental breakdown due to stress [and harassment], then did something at work due to breakdown that got him fired. He then, at some point, told someone about the harassment but due to the previous breakdown and already being let go the accusation was problematic. There was never an actual, formal complaint made. Normal company policy took over, and he was offered a standard severance package, which he didn't understand and considered hush money [or, is intentionally repositioning it now as hush money to make his case sound better]. I think there is also a slight possibility he is angry about being let go and is lashing back - knowing the time is right due to current events and that a settlement is possible even if he's lying. I think the first option is more likely, but we have zero evidence at this point so no 'official' opinion.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Not is not happening here.
I didn't interpret it like that. Marcel was talking about the "excess of apologizing on behalf of the companies", emphasis added, and pointing out a perceived contradiction in what people are expressing here, as well as in how they approach other cases.
I don't entirely agree, but I think it's incredibly inappropriate for anyone here to be talking about the possibility that he is lying for money. I'd concede that is "useless to discourse on sexual assault" and does "no more than provide free smokescreens to companies and entities whose interests are to protect themselves and not victims", as Marcel said.
Hmm, unfortunately in cases like these, the truth is not as easy to come by. Ex-employee (maybe even disgruntled) claims wrongdoing by former employer (who seek to protect its interest).
I just find the timing very odd for these allegations to come to the surface, because of all the Weinstein scandal. It either reinforces the validity or its just the flavor of the month for publicity.
I just find the timing very odd for these allegations to come to the surface, because of all the Weinstein scandal. It either reinforces the validity or its just the flavor of the month for publicity.
CannonFodder52
Member
Flavor of the month
Also it's not that odd timing. Usually, it seems, people feel encouraged or more comfortable sharing their experiences after someone else comes has just come out.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
This has history all over it too! Sharing your experience after others have shared theirs is very comforting.
Inspectah_Deck
Member
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Did David say that? Or is that what you are interpreting him saying?
thepenguin55
Member
Possibly as I'm a little out of touch as to what has been going on with this.
autoduelist
Member
Absolutely, but it also brings out the 'crazies'. You see it across the board - from banal stuff like haircuts to insane stuff like bomb threats,copycat killers, and strings of suicide.
While something like the current scandal certainly helps people come forward due to the obvious cultural support, the fact that it's in the spotlight also brings out the worst in some people. Especially if someone thinks they can eek out a bit of fame or money. Which is why some people here are very cautious, even if that seems callous. It's no more callous than immediately assuming that a group of individuals are simply covering up a scandal rather than admitting there is a possibility there is nothing to cover up.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
There are two allegations at play here.
1) That Ballard was sexually harassed.
2) That Sony ignored his complaint to HR, fired him immediately afterward, and offered him hush money
Sony's response, importantly, does not say that #1 didn't happen, but that #2 definitely did not happen. Without a name dropped in the original allegation, Sony/ND's best recourse is now telling their hundreds of other employees that they do not tolerate that kind of behavior, and that all sexual harassment claims are taken seriously.
I probably sound like a broken record, but a "proper investigation" is going to be "did you talk with employee X on this date. Okay, where is the meeting log. Okay, where is the email chain." If those things don't exist, there is nothing else the higher ups can do, and they wouldn't have released such a declarative statement so soon if their was any correspondence he might have saved. Without a named person to narrow their inquiry, there are potentially dozens of managers, male and female, who would fall under suspicion, you can't just fire them all because of a string of tweets. If he did have a meltdown at work, Sony definitely isn't going to release the content of that without his permission (it would seem malicious). The ball is in Ballard's court if he wants this to move forward.