exactly. and even ignoring the article, this part of the OP is just messy.
Oh really. And is it OK to let a thread like that on Era ? I saw mods post here so he must be.
There's a conclusion to be drawn here, certainly. I think it's a very well written article that shows a company worried about accusations that do not reflect the reality of its management and that provided ample evidence of such, so I don't think its author has took a risk of having his reputation tarnished by it.
OP went as far to try and correct native french speakers when not really knowing the language themselves in the thread they were banned in too.
Not surprised, he compared Le Monde with Fox News and he probably doesn't know Mediapart.
What's your view on Riot games ?
It is basically a private organisation with a government function, so I wouldn't say it is wrong to call it a government body. They are hired for the government, dependent on the government, but are in their own end, not a government company.
Still, it's one of the most enlightening pieces on the matter so far. It traces exactly how the event that sparked this all happened, i.e., the harmless pictures were posted on the company's premise, but the one who did them leaked a bunch of offensive stuff he did on his own, and QD's response was to investigate and make sure this one event wasn't indicative of the company's culture, which so far seems to be the case (which is why QD's actions are commendable, IMO, when most companies would quickly try to sweep stuff under the rug, QD is actually making sure its employees aren't subject to a toxic environment while also defending their reputation against claims that don't reflect the reality of the company). It's telling, also, that at least one person who claimed damages has refused to be interviewed. We'll see how the case against the French outlets will unfurl, but I do think they were well intended in their reporting, even if it seems, so far, that it was case of an exacerbated report over only a few statements.
Rightttttttt. "Harmless". I'm sure they it was harmless for Ellen Page when this happened:
kotaku.com
This poster said everything my brain has been screaming. Well said.
When you've being interviewed for a puff piece like this why would you say yes?
"I'm glad they didn't face abuse, except the ones who did but fuck them they were lying" is a hell of a take
this thread is backfiring as bad as the FIFA streamer who got banned for being a piece of shit
It's what happens when a fanboy makes a thread blindly defending a company they love and ignoring facts constantly.
Yes, harmless. The abusive pictures weren't posted on the company's premise, they were leaked by the person who made them. It says so on the article and on my post.
But it appears the accounts of those who claimed abuse have been unreliable so far, as their claims have been dismissed. There's a difference between a person feeling wronged (which no one can ever deny from that person) and a company fostering an abusive environment (which so far hasn't been proved, after investigations, audits and court cases). QD certainly could've done a better job of ensuring the well-being of these particular people, as no one should have to feel like that in their workplace, but QD also seem to be taking serious steps in regards to something similar never happening again.
I'm not sure how this is gaslighting from my part when I'm not the one dismissing what happened but the courts dismissing people's claims. QD also did their due diligence, so they didn't gaslit anything either. Everything would be very different had QD's management been found in fault, but nothing so far backs this notion.
I just reported his posts for obvious lying and misrepresentation of facts. I suggest you do the same too because this sort of behavior needs to not be allowed.
It's a newspiece? You are free to opine on it, too, but how is this propaganda? I do think that, so far, QD has handled this very well, much better than most cases that reach the public in regards to employees' treatment in the games industry. Does this means I'm stanning now?
What's being misrepresented? I just said that the inappropriate pictures weren't posted in the company's premise, that the offending material was shared later by its creator, not posted on the company's coffee machine like the previous material that was never reported on by the employees.
