Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Sounds like, judging by your second paragraph, you actually would be surprised if he was actually sexually harassed, since you're so convinced of his not-innocence in all of this.
-
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.
Kotaku: Former and current ND employees about the allegations
- Thread starter Kenzodielocke
- Start date
Sounds like, judging by your second paragraph, you actually would be surprised if he was actually sexually harassed, since you're so convinced of his not-innocence in all of this.
It's not a small price for the accused
Terbinator
Member
Why would he do that, though?
Kotaku have shown they're not scared of rustling industry jimmies and so there would be more glory in Schrier in actually implicating the Lead and 'cover up culture' - in this supposed case.
Sad Affleck
Member
It's pretty shocking how these situations have been normalized. The games development industry needs to unionize immediately.
It is. Whether in court or in public statements the go-to strategy in situations like these is to compromise the integrity of the witness or victim. Once you cast doubt on the person's personality and motives it is much easier to dismiss everything he or she says.
Mental health issues are generally being treated with respect on this forum, it's a shame that the involvement of a beloved games studio causes some people to step over the line.
So this is your conclusion. What about the second person who responded to Ballard's tweets saying he or she was harassed by a Naughty Dog employee who now works at Niantic?
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Who was accused?
deltacanuckian
Member
Not that I'm saying Ballard made it up, but was that second claim ever verified?
EDIT: Found the tweet, correcting a mistake I made.
No-one at the moment but because of internet culture if they were ever name dropped they'd get harrased a fuckton before proven guilty.
Khalifa Jayy
Banned
So "Jump to Conclusions!" was the wrong course of action, as per usual. Whodathunkit?
Faxanadu 2: Breadaloo
Neo Member
I posted in the original thread, but my post was largely ignored. I apologize if this comes off snooty or pretentious, but I am an attorney who works on these type of cases regularly and I have worked on both sides of them - representing plaintiffs and defendants. Simply put - there are likely two, three or four individuals that know exactly what happened here. Speculations, accusations, assumptions, and all the chaos that has gone on in the numerous threads about this is foolish. My job often requires me to speculate on fact patterns like this - and trust me it is incredibly difficult/nearly impossible to do so accurately. None of us know what happened here. This also does not mean that anyone is lying as there are numerous situations where every single thing said about this matter on both sides is actually the truth.
For example - everything David Ballard said happened might have indeed happened - he may have been harassed in a completely inappropriate manner, complained about it, been terminated shortly thereafter, and contemporaneously with his termination he may have been presented with a proposed severance/release form, and is justified in his feelings that the termination was the result of his complaints. On the flip side - Naughty Dog/Sony may have had other employment related issues with Mr. Ballard for some time, been considering terminating him, then when on the eve of doing so received notice from him that he was harassed by a co-worker, conducted an inconclusive investigation about this, decided based on the prior employment issues they wanted to terminate Mr. Ballard, and then decided that due to his allegations the termination was going to look ill-willed (even if it was potentially not), was a "high-risk" termination, and thus their attorneys advised them to offer a severance to potentially resolve things before they led to litigation. If you think this sounds far-fetched, similar scenarios occur all-the-time at tons of companies (and if you want to boycott all of these companies, good luck to you).
Or, what actually happened might be totally different, and we have no idea what the truth is. The above is a speculation - which as I said before is foolish (and yes I understand the hypocrisy in then laying out a hypothetical explanation, but that was to illustrate my point).
Now, of course it is reasonable to post something like "well, if what Mr. Ballard said occurred actually happened, that is horrible and I feel for him" but people desperately need to keep themselves in check here - on both sides. And if the mental breakdown stuff now being tossed out is true - do you really want to be on a message board denigrating someone suffering from something like that? I would hope not.
For example - everything David Ballard said happened might have indeed happened - he may have been harassed in a completely inappropriate manner, complained about it, been terminated shortly thereafter, and contemporaneously with his termination he may have been presented with a proposed severance/release form, and is justified in his feelings that the termination was the result of his complaints. On the flip side - Naughty Dog/Sony may have had other employment related issues with Mr. Ballard for some time, been considering terminating him, then when on the eve of doing so received notice from him that he was harassed by a co-worker, conducted an inconclusive investigation about this, decided based on the prior employment issues they wanted to terminate Mr. Ballard, and then decided that due to his allegations the termination was going to look ill-willed (even if it was potentially not), was a "high-risk" termination, and thus their attorneys advised them to offer a severance to potentially resolve things before they led to litigation. If you think this sounds far-fetched, similar scenarios occur all-the-time at tons of companies (and if you want to boycott all of these companies, good luck to you).
Or, what actually happened might be totally different, and we have no idea what the truth is. The above is a speculation - which as I said before is foolish (and yes I understand the hypocrisy in then laying out a hypothetical explanation, but that was to illustrate my point).
Now, of course it is reasonable to post something like "well, if what Mr. Ballard said occurred actually happened, that is horrible and I feel for him" but people desperately need to keep themselves in check here - on both sides. And if the mental breakdown stuff now being tossed out is true - do you really want to be on a message board denigrating someone suffering from something like that? I would hope not.
How about for the alleged harasser who'd have their name dragged through the mud? Is it a small price for them?
Not surprised very few people were aware of this fact, and the fact that he was struggling and had a outburst just lends more credibility to his claim, honestly.
There's a disconnect you make when you are working with people in a position of power over you, you don't want to believe the worst of them, and so you brush off minor red flags as "just jokes", and convince yourself "such and such is actually a good person, just makes some awkward jokes sometimes" because you don't want to consider the possibility that they aren't jokes, as a self defense mechanism. You don't want to feel unsafe, and if nothing solid or concrete happened to you personally, it's easier to dismiss it as just that.
The fact a few people in the company do believe that he was harassed means that maybe people are starting to piece together that "oh, maybe that wasn't just a joke" and it's a slow dawning realization that hey, this might actually be a thing.
I will always believe someone who claims they have been sexually harassed/assaulted until it is proven they weren't, because so many times these claims aren't taken seriously and ignored, when it really was a serious issue, just the public would rather sweep it under the rug, rather than address the elephant in the room.
I have known a handful of people in office environments and other work environments that have been sexually harassed by their bosses, and when I asked them if everything was okay, they'd just tell me, "oh it's fine, s/he's not being serious!" because they didn't want to rock the boat and possibly lose their job, or face the reality that things were not in fact okay, and that something horrible was being done to them. (fortunately they no longer work in those places and are in much healthier environments, but it was so fucking painful to watch people you care about put up with this BS for years)
Also, I fully believe that many employees may not have been aware of the fact at all -- that's how many predators get away with it, they put on a shining beacon personality, and come off as charismatic and charming as to cast off all suspicion. If allegations come to light, then everyone will say, "Oh but s/he seemed so nice! I could never imagine them doing that!" because it makes it harder to believe they could be capable of doing anything heinous, and if they were particularly gross, they could make up lies and cast further suspicion and doubt on their victims, causing the victim themselves to doubt whether what they experienced was actually harassment/assault, or if it was something they imagined in their own minds. The victim might think, "maybe it was my fault, maybe I lead them on, maybe I interpreted this wrong, maybe this maybe that"
It's not a fun place to be in, and it's 100% not something easy to talk about. I really hope something concrete comes to light to remove all doubt from the situation, but things like this are incredibly hard to prove unless someone is a cartoonish creep with 0 awareness, but you don't really get into positions of power by not being a bit socially aware and charismatic at the very least. It's murky waters, because we don't know the details of the situation or what the harassment entailed, and the victim themselves may be second guessing themselves at this point, especially with how this all blew up. Were it me, I'd stay silent too, because when all you want to do is get something off your chest and then it turns into a huge deal, that's terrifying.
Ballard may have firmly believed he was harassed in the past, but with all these people bringing arguments out against him, he might start thinking, "Maybe it really was just the intense work hours, maybe it really was just this, maybe it really was just that" and that will make it even harder to discuss as you start to internalize that it was something YOU did wrong, rather than the abuser. That YOU are overreacting, and your abuser was in the clear.
That people at the company admit they were unaware, but believe him, speaks volumes. I will fully believe that people were unaware of what was happening, as you can't always know the intimate details of all your coworkers lives, but the fact they believe that something was going on, and that there have been other claims of sexual harassment at ND (at least one I saw) further concretes that something actually did happen, especially because, there is nothing for Ballard to gain by lying about something like this.
I just hope the dude is okay, this is already a very heavy thing to have to deal with on your own, and then having the scrutiny of the internet laser focused on you and dissecting your entire life to fish out details and prove you right or wrong is incredibly intense. People who want to believe he's a liar will be digging through his past and looking for excuses and things to discredit him, while people who want to believe he was telling the truth can pull out innocuous things and take things out of context that aren't related to prove "oh gosh look at the way he typed here, clearly something was wrong!"
I'll just say, props to the dude for having the courage to come out and say this stuff, it's so fucking difficult to actually admit, much less talk about, especially about a company held in such high regard as ND, and damn I feel bad that this blew up the way it did. He probably intended for that tweet to be cathartic, to get it off his chest and feel a little bit better about something horrible he endured, and then it turned into a full on investigation of ND, and I can't imagine how that feels.
There's a disconnect you make when you are working with people in a position of power over you, you don't want to believe the worst of them, and so you brush off minor red flags as "just jokes", and convince yourself "such and such is actually a good person, just makes some awkward jokes sometimes" because you don't want to consider the possibility that they aren't jokes, as a self defense mechanism. You don't want to feel unsafe, and if nothing solid or concrete happened to you personally, it's easier to dismiss it as just that.
The fact a few people in the company do believe that he was harassed means that maybe people are starting to piece together that "oh, maybe that wasn't just a joke" and it's a slow dawning realization that hey, this might actually be a thing.
I will always believe someone who claims they have been sexually harassed/assaulted until it is proven they weren't, because so many times these claims aren't taken seriously and ignored, when it really was a serious issue, just the public would rather sweep it under the rug, rather than address the elephant in the room.
I have known a handful of people in office environments and other work environments that have been sexually harassed by their bosses, and when I asked them if everything was okay, they'd just tell me, "oh it's fine, s/he's not being serious!" because they didn't want to rock the boat and possibly lose their job, or face the reality that things were not in fact okay, and that something horrible was being done to them. (fortunately they no longer work in those places and are in much healthier environments, but it was so fucking painful to watch people you care about put up with this BS for years)
Also, I fully believe that many employees may not have been aware of the fact at all -- that's how many predators get away with it, they put on a shining beacon personality, and come off as charismatic and charming as to cast off all suspicion. If allegations come to light, then everyone will say, "Oh but s/he seemed so nice! I could never imagine them doing that!" because it makes it harder to believe they could be capable of doing anything heinous, and if they were particularly gross, they could make up lies and cast further suspicion and doubt on their victims, causing the victim themselves to doubt whether what they experienced was actually harassment/assault, or if it was something they imagined in their own minds. The victim might think, "maybe it was my fault, maybe I lead them on, maybe I interpreted this wrong, maybe this maybe that"
It's not a fun place to be in, and it's 100% not something easy to talk about. I really hope something concrete comes to light to remove all doubt from the situation, but things like this are incredibly hard to prove unless someone is a cartoonish creep with 0 awareness, but you don't really get into positions of power by not being a bit socially aware and charismatic at the very least. It's murky waters, because we don't know the details of the situation or what the harassment entailed, and the victim themselves may be second guessing themselves at this point, especially with how this all blew up. Were it me, I'd stay silent too, because when all you want to do is get something off your chest and then it turns into a huge deal, that's terrifying.
Ballard may have firmly believed he was harassed in the past, but with all these people bringing arguments out against him, he might start thinking, "Maybe it really was just the intense work hours, maybe it really was just this, maybe it really was just that" and that will make it even harder to discuss as you start to internalize that it was something YOU did wrong, rather than the abuser. That YOU are overreacting, and your abuser was in the clear.
That people at the company admit they were unaware, but believe him, speaks volumes. I will fully believe that people were unaware of what was happening, as you can't always know the intimate details of all your coworkers lives, but the fact they believe that something was going on, and that there have been other claims of sexual harassment at ND (at least one I saw) further concretes that something actually did happen, especially because, there is nothing for Ballard to gain by lying about something like this.
I just hope the dude is okay, this is already a very heavy thing to have to deal with on your own, and then having the scrutiny of the internet laser focused on you and dissecting your entire life to fish out details and prove you right or wrong is incredibly intense. People who want to believe he's a liar will be digging through his past and looking for excuses and things to discredit him, while people who want to believe he was telling the truth can pull out innocuous things and take things out of context that aren't related to prove "oh gosh look at the way he typed here, clearly something was wrong!"
I'll just say, props to the dude for having the courage to come out and say this stuff, it's so fucking difficult to actually admit, much less talk about, especially about a company held in such high regard as ND, and damn I feel bad that this blew up the way it did. He probably intended for that tweet to be cathartic, to get it off his chest and feel a little bit better about something horrible he endured, and then it turned into a full on investigation of ND, and I can't imagine how that feels.
Carbon copy (left over term from when people used paper & carbon paper to make document copies) BCC is blind carbon copy and used when you want to add someone but not tell the rest of the distribution list.
In an email its the field below to and if youre CCd in a mail or letter it means its of interest to you but you dont have to be involved in any actions in the message.
FingerBang
Member
I agree with you, but it won't happen. Honestly, reading some people comments it feels like there's no possible position between attacking Nauhgty Dog or condoning sexual harassment.
I believe both and I am sure there are investigations happening at the moment. I am sure the person who harassed Ballard will be fired if found guilty, since allowing this person to keep harassing employees would be suicide for both Sony and ND's image.
Cuningas de Häme
Member
If the guy was visible upset for a few months one would think that the incident may have happened at some point before he got upset...
And of course you don't see the sexual harassment if you are not part of it in any way. Most of those people are pretty good at what they are doing.
And how big ND is? How many of them were his closest working buddies? Or were those interviewed some random employees?
This and the other thread prove how hard it is for men to tell about this kind of harassment. No wonder everyone only speaks about harassment towards women. I am really happy that Terry Crews started that thread in Twitter. It gave a lot of people courage to come forth and tell about their experiences.
I wish all the best to that Ballard (?).
And of course you don't see the sexual harassment if you are not part of it in any way. Most of those people are pretty good at what they are doing.
And how big ND is? How many of them were his closest working buddies? Or were those interviewed some random employees?
This and the other thread prove how hard it is for men to tell about this kind of harassment. No wonder everyone only speaks about harassment towards women. I am really happy that Terry Crews started that thread in Twitter. It gave a lot of people courage to come forth and tell about their experiences.
I wish all the best to that Ballard (?).
What a terrible article. The reaction is EXACTLY what a powerful company would want. This is EXACTLY the type of shit that keep victims from coming forward.
Just because 4 random employees say they didn't know or witness him being assaulted doesn't mean it didn't happen. It means they didn't personally see it.
But they DID notice him appearing emotionally distressed- perhaps the result of the assault. And their story does jive with his claim that the workplace became toxic after the incident. Shame on anyone who thinks this hit peice let's ND off the hook.
Edit: I'm not saying kotaku intentionally hit Ballard. I'm saying that a severe lack of professionalism and empathy with how it was written was naturally going to work against the victim.
Just because 4 random employees say they didn't know or witness him being assaulted doesn't mean it didn't happen. It means they didn't personally see it.
But they DID notice him appearing emotionally distressed- perhaps the result of the assault. And their story does jive with his claim that the workplace became toxic after the incident. Shame on anyone who thinks this hit peice let's ND off the hook.
Edit: I'm not saying kotaku intentionally hit Ballard. I'm saying that a severe lack of professionalism and empathy with how it was written was naturally going to work against the victim.
It does put doubt on the claim that he was fired for reporting the sexual harassment as he might have been fired for writing that email.
Did that person also say that ND covered it up?
Brotherhood93
Member
You seem to have totally missed the point. The issue isn't just about whether he was assaulted (he wasn't, he claims he was harassed) but whether there is a widespread issue within the company and a culture of ignoring inappropriate behaviour. It doesn't for one moment suggest the harassment never took place and one of the employees even says they believe Ballard's claims so it makes it a pretty poor hit piece if that was the intention but I think it's pretty clear to any rational person that it wasn't a hit piece. I'm sure Jason also did his due diligence on the accounts he was given, they might be unnamed in the article but I doubt they're just "random employees".
I didn't miss the point. The 'point' isn't nearly as important as the impact.
I don't think Jason intended to to any damage. Im sure he did his due dilligence with collecting info. He did a bad job writing the article. Im certainly not irrational, I just know how hard it is for victims to come forward because they know their credibility and mental state will be questioned- and all this peice did, intentionally or not, was throw the victims credibility into question and provide a defense for the accused party.
When I say 'random employees' I'm speaking to the fact that, at best, they were not directly involved in the harrasment or its aftermath, so their take on it is irrelevant.
I think Jason cared more about getting an article out quickly, than he did about getting presenting information that would bring clarity around the situation.
Also, harrassment can be assault. certainly if it lead to lasting mental harm.
Primethius
Banned
Jason provided a new perspective on Ballards termination. That's important information.
I agree with this. I think Jason has very nice sources and its a very good journo BUT this time he wanted to put out something quickly and his sources are totally irrelevant to this subject, he just wanted to get on the click train.
What perspective? He asked his sources and they didn't know about the issue.
Turin Turambar
Member
I like how they seem to be accustomed at this point to one or two mental breakdowns once in a while, because hey, it's the most normal thing in the world with their long hours and high-pressure culture!
Primethius
Banned
That he sent out a company wide hostile email blasting a tech artist?
Brotherhood93
Member
Jason is investigating the story. It's his job to present the facts of the matter and that's what he did to the best he could. Sadly, David's mental state is relevant to the story and it would seem even he thinks so because he was the one who first mentioned the mental breakdown himself. If you take that fact away you would question why an employee was fired for no reason, if you include the fact he sent a hostile email to the entire company it is not a stretch to believe nobody really questioned why he was let go. That is not to say sexual harassment didn't take place but it adds credibility to the idea Naughty Dog were unaware of it rather than takes away credibility of it never happening. The story also seems to confirm a change in Ballard's behaviour around the time he claims the harassment started which would indicate that he is telling the truth.
I'm just confused how you can expect a journalist to reveal the truth of what happened if he ignores certain facts about the situation. I have full sympathy for David having it play out like this publicly but we can't just pretend certain things didn't happen when they are part of what went down. If David's issues were unrelated to his allegations I would understand.
And what do you mean by that? Does that invalidate his sexual harassment claim? Jesus.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
And yet we have multiple people in here already claiming that he's not to be trusted due to the article.
Unfortunate.
GHG
Member
No. The point is that's what he got terminated for. That was part of his "mental breakdown" at work.
Brotherhood93
Member
Yep, doesn't mean it was in anyway the intention of Jason or the people he spoke to though. There were already people claiming David couldn't be trusted before the article too. There's no accounting for people reading what they want into a situation.
GHG
Member
The point of this piece of investigative journalism by Kotaku is to shed further light on this story, not solve the friggen case or make the guy look better/worse.
They are simply sharing the additional information they were able to gather.
If you read Ballard tweets you can see that he got made redundant the day after they spoke to him about his mental breakdown. It was at that point he told them about the sexual harrasment but it's likely a decision was already made to fire him at that stage.
If you send an email out to the whole company criticising somebody, you're gonna get fired.
They are simply sharing the additional information they were able to gather.
If you read Ballard tweets you can see that he got made redundant the day after they spoke to him about his mental breakdown. It was at that point he told them about the sexual harrasment but it's likely a decision was already made to fire him at that stage.
If you send an email out to the whole company criticising somebody, you're gonna get fired.
Primethius
Banned
No? I never said it did. In fact, I believe his claim.
But his tweets mentioned that he took his claim to Sony HR and was fired as a result. This perspective brings a different possible reason for that firing.
There's multiple issues here. The sexual harassment is the core but since his tweets also alleged what was essentially some sort of cover-up by ND/Sony, the hostile email is an important element.
Jason's article doesn't invalidate his claim for sexual harassment. But it does show a perspective in which: people didn't know about the issue at ND, and most peoples latest interaction with Ballard was in the form of a company wide hostile email to a tech artist. Which could also have been a reason for the termination. That perspective would directly rebut part of his accusations.
That doesn't mean that I don't believe his sexual harassment claim, I do, but given the Kotaku article, it also doesn't seem like ND/HR were trying to silence him like he alleged.
How the hostile email is an important element? He might be for his "official" termination reason, but not for the sexual harassment issue.
The fact that the issue is being deviated to the reasons for him to quit/being fired is lame to be honest.
I agree that I dont think this is all intentional from Jason but he must have known the reactions that would come from this article, which are questioning the mental health and honesty of the victim.
Feels very much like you guys trying to invalidate the claim because anyway he was already getting fired, which is hypothesis as well .
theindieboy
Member
Good post Thanks
To be honest unless he decideds to take Legal Action I doubt we will get to be bottom of this and even then is a tricky thing to prove/disprove. Was going to say if he says it never happened then would be and end also but that could be as the result of pressure/job or money offers etc.
I have no idea and don't really want to speculate but agree that both statements could be true and nobody lied, the ND statement will have gone through Legal so doubt they made false statements there but could have worded it carefully to be misleading. Only a few people know the truth and doubt any are going to talk.
GHG
Member
A key part of the allegations is that he feels he was fired because of telling them about the sexual harrasment and that they tried to give him hush money. This isn't a question of whether the sexual harrasment happened or not, it's more a question of whether he got fired for saying something about it.
Primethius
Banned
I'm sorry dude. It is an important element. Ballard alleged it in his initial tweets.
It would be a deviation to ignore a substantial part of his allegations.
GHG
Member
Both can be true. I've mentioned this at length in previous threads on this case but it's not at all uncommon that companies offer severance packages after making somebody redundant (which is the official reason they gave him for him being fired - see his tweets). A standard part of accepting a severance package is that you need to sign a waiver stating you will not sue or badmouth the company for anything after parting ways.
Based on the circumstances he might have seen the severance package offer as "they are trying to shut me up" when in fact there is the possibility that he was going to be offered it regardless and that it was not meant in that way.
QuackkAttack
Member
Well, Ballard's tweet suggests he was fired for bringing up his sexual harassment case to HR. And that the $20k offered was hush money directly related to sexual harassment. It is also equally, if not more, likely that Sony/ND decided to terminate David after the "mental breakdown" and during his exit interview he reported his sexual harassment. Sony probably already opted to offer him severance pay before he reported anything.
I'm sorry if it's lame to you that Jason is providing more info about the entire situation. This is a huge component to journalism and arguably the reason there are journalists.
I very much believe Ballard was harassed. But a lot of the response has been "Sony covered it up and offered hush money! Fuck Sony!". Which again, could be the case, but accurate reporting(I believe Jason is being accurate, he had three sources) and more information does not hurt this situation.
ronaldthump
Member
what a ridiculous post.
No one would jump to the off kilter idea that anything else was un-towards and that it was sexual harrasment. People just dont look any deeper and you can't tell.
Some of you posting ITT should be embarrased.
ronaldthump
Member
also, you can sling out accusations but when asked to follow up - you don't?
come on.
come on.
Guessing you've never worked at a place that offers severance when letting people go.
Bits N Pieces
Member
No he didn't. Four anonymous ND employees didn't know about the sexual harassment claims, but why would they? Oh, he looked stressed and sent a snarky email to the whole company. That tells us fuck all about anything.
Yearsoflurking
Member
I don't think jason intended to do any damage but this comes off as a bro culture victim blaming article. This is why men don't come out, anonymous scared sources slandering his name before he even has a chance to tell his story
ronaldthump
Member
actually it tells us two things:
It tells us that no one has heard about this sexual harrassment story.
and that DB sent an email to everyone which probably made him look bad.
JS was looking to tell DB's story. But he was ignored. So I don't know where you got that from - that its a victim blaming article.
Primethius
Banned
Snarky email? It's a hostile email directed at one individual CC'd to the entire company. Yes, that tells us quite a bit. As in, a potential reason for his termination.
It gives a new reason for why he might have been fired. How is that not important information when one of his claims was that he was fired for reporting the harassment?
ronaldthump
Member
That' 17month thing is not exactly true as he worked in a different studio after ND.
either way. Some things about DB's story don't add up
Yearsoflurking
Member
You can't tell someone's story without them being apart of the story, this is 3rd party employees whom he may not even know. All we got wss 4 random sources on serious events they have no clue about. Did these workers even directly work with him?
Similar threads
- Locked