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

Nick Robinson (Polygon) involved in sexual harassment allegations [Suspended]

Status
Not open for further replies.
@originalpoe the phrase originates from Whitney Houston saying she wanted to see the reciepts when interviewed by Diane Sawyer about her drug use/purchasing allegations

96d2f7f1aa8250b3a1925521d3ae70fa.gif

nGeP77e.gif


Did not know I was going to learn this coming to this thread. Today's been weird.
 
What if he knew?

Yeah, this is what I keep thinking about. If this was such a poorly kept secret within the industry then that makes a lot of people suspect imo

I'm not accusing Griffin at all but when you see people like "this has been known for awhile" and then you go back a week in their twitter feed and see them joking around with Nick like..... what is it? What is happening here?
 
Almost certainly not, it's quite likely as described, but on the slim chance something has been missed, best not to be the one brandishing the pitchfork.

There's a reason they say that 'to assume only makes a ass of u and me' - clear cut things sometimes have a habit of not being...
I get you want to appear above it all to high road everyone, but theres enough smoke - especially at this point - that all youre doing is making an ass out of yourself
 
Who is being a vigilante?

Any individual assuming guilt and demanding he be sacked - you don't need a baseball bat and a hockey mask to go vigilante these days, you get enough people wound up about something on social media and you can deal enormous reputational damage to a person.
 
Almost certainly not, it's quite likely as described, but on the slim chance something has been missed, best not to be the one brandishing the pitchfork.

Clear cut things sometimes have a habit of not being...

No matter how many times you engage in hyperbolic rhetoric about lynching, pitch forks, and witch hunts, no one's going to forget that what you're actually talking about is people talking to each other. No one is attempting to hang Nick Robinson from a tree, or set him afire, or stab him with a farming implement.

They're talking about whether they personally think he's a scumbag or not.

Keep up the dishonest hyperbole, and I'll show you the door. Clear?
 
Yeah, this is what I keep thinking about. If this was such a poorly kept secret within the industry then that makes a lot of people suspect imo

I'm not accusing Griffin at all but when you see people like "this has been known for awhile" and then you go back a week in their twitter feed and see them joking around with Nick like..... what is it? What is happening here?

Perhaps the women were discussing it but literally none of Nick's friends knew? I mean, remove the internet from the equation and I had some (ex)friends in college that... well... turns out people can hide things really well...
 
Any individual assuming guilt and demanding he be sacked - you don't need a baseball bat and a hockey mask to go vigilante these days, you get enough people wound up about something on social media and you can deal enormous reputational damage to a person.

That's not vigilantism.

No matter how many times you engage in hyperbolic rhetoric about lynching, pitch forks, and witch hunts, no one's going to forget that what you're actually talking about is people talking to each other. No one is attempting to hang Nick Robinson from a tree, or set him afire, or stab him with a farming implement.

They're talking about whether they personally think he's a scumbag or not.

Keep up the dishonest hyperbole, and I'll show you the door. Clear?

Thank you.
 
Yeah, this is what I keep thinking about. If this was such a poorly kept secret within the industry then that makes a lot of people suspect imo

I'm not accusing Griffin at all but when you see people like "this has been known for awhile" and then you go back a week in their twitter feed and see them joking around with Nick like..... what is it? What is happening here?
It doesn't surprise me that nobody wants to discuss these rumors with the harassers' closest friends and associates.
 
Yeah, this is what I keep thinking about. If this was such a poorly kept secret within the industry then that makes a lot of people suspect imo

I'm not accusing Griffin at all but when you see people like "this has been known for awhile" and then you go back a week in their twitter feed and see them joking around with Nick like..... what is it? What is happening here?
The most likely answer is that they didn't know. If you know that someone is friends with someone who solicited nudes from you or sent you a dick pic or whatever, chances are you aren't gonna go up to them and be like 'yo your buddy harassed me'. Especially if you don't know them very well.
 
I get you want to appear above it all to high road everyone, but theres enough smoke - especially at this point - that all youre doing is making an ass out of yourself

Not trying to appear any kind of way - just making a simple counter argument that jumping to conclusions based on smoke never did anyone any good. You may disagree, but history wouldn't. Take that as you will...
 
What if he knew?

I don't think he knew. The Mcelroys are very proactive about inclusiveness and correcting problems. I think it's also important to remember that Polygon coworkers are in all different cities, and do not have much real life interaction with each other like regular coworkers. nick in SF, Griffin in Austin, Simone and Russ and Pat in New York, etc
 
What if he knew?
Plot twist, what if you knew? What if you are his accomplice? Can you prove you are not? Or can you just focus on the creep who is being accused here and not try to pull more people in this horrible mess when there's no indication of their involvement or knowledge of the harassment. Currently there's one guy to blame for this. He has also betrayed the trust of people close to him. We shouldn't try to stir anything up out of thin air.
 
It could have not been as widespread knowledge roughly 24 hours ago. As the allegations come up, people use their connections to look in to it and since the news is blowing up more people are willing to share with people they trust. There are many personal conversions that happened behind the scenes since this started
 
I'm not accusing Griffin at all but when you see people like "this has been known for awhile" and then you go back a week in their twitter feed and see them joking around with Nick like..... what is it? What is happening here?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Griffin isn't Nick's type.
 
It's ordinary people doling out punishment outside of the due process of the law - what do you call it?

Is a parent grounding their kid vigilantism? Someone refusing to invite someone to weekly game night because they ruined the game last week? Changing your HBO Go password because the one person you shared it with went on to share it with 8 other people?

Come the fuck on.
 
It's ordinary people doling out punishment outside of the due process of the law - what do you call it?

What punishment have we doled out?

The worst things that have happened to Nick this far is his friends have distanced themselves and his workplace is going to discipline him. Neither of which are things we have to power to do.

Get some perspective lmao.

Edit; whelp!
 
I'm not accusing Griffin at all but when you see people like "this has been known for awhile" and then you go back a week in their twitter feed and see them joking around with Nick like..... what is it? What is happening here?

I honestly don't think we should doubt Griffin until people come forward over telling him directly. Ben and Kessler were friends with Nick and seemed to be clueless. There's every chance people didn't tell Griffin (maybe were afraid of doing do) because of his relationship with Nick, and obviously Nick himself wouldn't talk about it.
 
Not trying to appear any kind of way - just making a simple counter argument that jumping to conclusions based on smoke never did anyone any good. You may disagree, but history wouldn't. Take that as you will...

The ironic thing here is that by "not trying to appear any kind of way" you're actually taking the most damning stance of all: performative indifference and willful dishonesty. You're intentionally ignoring the fact that most of the reaction to this has been people being very shocked and sad so that you can toot the trumpet of superiority. It's a terrible and disingenuous look and thankfully it seems like most people are seeing right through it.

edit: oh lol he got banned while I was typing this.
 
Not trying to appear any kind of way - just making a simple counter argument that jumping to conclusions based on smoke never did anyone any good. You may disagree, but history wouldn't. Take that as you will...
.... what? I'm not sure you understand smoke.

Edit:
Oops, banned
 
Just listen to any of the last two or three episodes of Griffin's Bachelor Pod. No reason to think he knew.

Wrongful dismissal.

Did "creepers" become a protected class in the decade since I moved out of California?

Polygon is gunna suspend him and investigate not because they're scared of lawsuits nor any kind of thing. As an employer, you owe some process to your employees. If you just jump the gun on someone it'll hurt your relationship with the rest of your employees. The fact they suspended Nick signals they're taking it seriously.
 
The most likely answer is that they didn't know. If you know that someone is friends with someone who solicited nudes from you or sent you a dick pic or whatever, chances are you aren't gonna go up to them and be like 'yo your buddy harassed me'. Especially if you don't know them very well.

Yeah, this is where I fall on it too, but I still think it raises the question. I don't think anyone he works with are complicit in this or anything, I just mean that if you knew he was doing this stuff wouldn't you just distance yourself from him immediately? I've just seen some examples today (and I don't want to name names tbh) who have had tweets that ostensibly say "finally this is getting outed" and you don't have to go *that* far back in their TL to see them interacting with Nick and joking around.

It might be more of a case of people presenting themselves as knowing for longer than they have, but if I was in a position where I had reason to believe this dude was doing shit like this I would distance myself as fast as I could.

Which, again, I don't think there is some conspiracy theory of dude journalists hanging out and high fiving over Nick's DMs, this just this disconnect for me when you see on Jul 29 someone @ing Nick on Twitter and then on Aug 3 someone being like "been waiting awhile for all of this to come out".

I honestly don't think we should doubt Griffin until people come forward over telling him directly. Ben and Kessler were friend with Nick and seem to be clueless. There's every chance people didn't tell Griffin (maybe were afraid of doing do) because of his relationship with Nick, and obviously Nick himself wouldn't talk about it.

Yeah, again, this isn't about Griffin specifically or Ben and Kessler. I don't want to seem like I'm making them guilty by association.
 
Ask him questions. He is their employee and has a contract with the company.

Just as it wasn't fair to go after Ben I think it was earlier in this thread, it's not fair right now to go after Vox or Polygon. So far they're doing the right thing (suspension pending investigation before any final termination).

Alright, I'll wait and see how they handle this.
 
Exactly what would be wrongful about it?

If the claims are unfounded or exaggerated or based on hearsay, he might be able to say he was fired without cause. He may also be able to sue for lost future wages as his firing may cause others to believe the allegations were true.

However it seems to me that Polygon could make a case that they are a personality based business and that his actions over Overcooked was what caused the allegations, true or not. That as a personality based business, his anger over Overcooked has attracted unwanted negative attention to the site, even if unfounded.

If that were the case, he would only be left with a defamation case against the accusers. However this also seems difficult, because all the twitter accusations are pretty carefully worded. No one explicitly said he asked women for nudes. No one explicitly said he sexually harrassed women (just that he DMed women, which is almost certainly true). One of them is very vague about being glad a lot of people are talking about stuff. It's actually unclear to me who is claiming that he sent them harassing messages vs claiming on behalf of others.

Again, all of this is predicated on the assumption that the allegations are unfounded. If they have evidence, then there's not likely any grounds for wrongful termination or defamation. I am also not a lawyer, so maybe there is nuances I'm unaware of.
 
I work in the legal department of a large company, I don't handle HR issues, but my colleagues do. If it's like any corporation, its head staff counsel is already on this, not in terms of an investigation, but coming up with the plan in conjunction with the head HR person most likely. Mainly because the person in question is known and has a public profile, he's not Joe Cubicle who got ripped at a company outing. They are going to go over his employment contract and see if it jives with the ability to dismiss for cause in the state of employment. On Monday, some staff peon, someone in my relative position, will contact the liability carrier for the company. Then we will work with a senior person there and determine what the risk exposure is/might/maybe, and then we do our investigation.

We don't do a complete investigation, as we are not prosecuting attorneys. We balance the risk exposure, set up a reserve (basically guesstimating how much it would cost in case of a potential suit from either the employee or the plaintiffs if the employee engaged in any activities on company time/tab (such as at conferences) and company equipment. The we balance out the cost of defense vs. termination. It's not typical that the company chooses to defend an employee. Its not typical that we contact the plaintiffs, unless they have lawyered up already and wish to file a claim/complaint for damages. Usually in the investigation of the employee, we can determine if they Did The Bad Thing, by our internal investigation. An even before we decide that depositions of all parties are necessary, we usually ask for all opposing counsels to submit their case to us, and we look at that. I don't work for a company with a media presence, but I know the PR people have a different employment contract that governs their social media use.

From that point, I can't really offer any insight to how Vox would handle it, as a media company, I imagine it would have different operation procedures than the company I work for, which is, financial in nature.

Let me stress this one last time. Staff Counsel/HR for major companies are not Law & Order: SVU Our job isn't "to get to the bottom of this." Our job is to protect the company's interests. Separate employees who present a risk. And do so in a way that mitigates the risk from the separated employee from trying to sue us. Also to mitigate the risk from 3rd parties who may want to seek damages.

Last edit: First thing any good manager (company man) does is tell every to STFU until they get word from higher up. And even then, they are usually given boundaries on what to say.
 
So, uh, as someone more or less coming in blind to all of this, what exactly is (or was, whatever) "Soft boy culture"? Or whatever? I see that term getting thrown around a lot and it's completely unknown to me.
 
What is it with twitter exactly? Do people go on there to make complete assholes of themselves or something?

it's a platform where you can say any thought very quickly without having to think about it, it's like a honey-trap for people exposing themselves as idiots. it's hard to keep up a facade on a platform designed around impulse posting.
 
Lawsuit how.

It could be in the employee contract that an employee can only be fired "for cause", which means they have to prove he violated their ethical code of conduct. It could be that the company has a termination procedure that requires this investigation, and if they don't follow it they're vulnerable to a lawsuit.

After research, I admit that it's not so clear the investigation is "the only way forward" legally, it really depends on their internal policy. There are also other reasons why they'd want to fire him "for cause", like not having to pay unemployment compensation.
 
So, uh, as someone more or less coming in blind to all of this, what exactly is (or was, whatever) "Soft boy culture"? Or whatever? I see that term getting thrown around a lot and it's completely unknown to me.
It's kinda the same idea behind "beta male" but less insulting and assholeish
 
it's a platform where you can say any thought very quickly without having to think about it, it's like a honey-trap for people exposing themselves as idiots. it's hard to keep up a facade on a platform designed around impulse posting.

Its not that hard. I have facebook and I manage to not air dumb shit on it.

Its like people go bonkers on twitter; unless twitter is streaming their subconscious thoughts I am constantly amazed how much controversary is brought forward by social media.
 
I guess there's a possibility he was trying to pick up girls in the industry and many of them are framing it as harassment for political reasons. I read somewhere that he and Anita Sarkeesian didn't see eye to eye very well. Anyway, it seems likely he might have gotten creepy with some of the girls coming forward, but I'll wait and see what happens as more info is revealed before passing judgement. Either way though, I doubt he will have a career at Polygon or any major gaming journalism site after this.

Haven't read 90% of this thread but from what I can see it's relatively polarized. Side stepping the issue of "what has he actually done" for a moment.

I believe in apologies and forgiveness. Forgiveness is not mine to give in this situation but in general I believe in redemption and making amends. I detest dummies like Colin Moriarty, not because of a stupid tweet but because of his ridiculous tantrum and the way he burned every bridge he ever had(except for is mom and girlfriend I guess). He refused to apologize because he said it would be a lie, so he goes on to print the tweet and frame it and hang in a place of prominence. That attitude is the grossest shit. So Nick being silent I hope is him going through a personal crisis(and not just avoiding shame) where he will come out the other side of it regretful and maybe humbled or more empathetic to his lady peers. Polygon peeps remaining silent I hope is them dialoging and investigating(and not just preparing damage control) their friend and co-worker's deeds.

Redemption is a state of mind, attitude, and a way of life. All the people vague tweeting may never forgive him but if he stops whatever gross shit he was doing then I respect him and wish him the best. I also don't hold it against anybody who doesn't forgive him, that's their life and their shit they have to deal with.

If Nick fucks off to Colin Landia then he'll just be another dummy who I rather not deal with/hear about.

Well said. Nobody believes in redemptions anymore, it's like one strike and fuck off forever which I don't understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom