|
Anyone else feel bad for Sandi? I mean all she really probably wants is to be a c-tier actor on some daytime tv show, who hobnobs with good looking people and acts out dramas revolving around everyday life. Instead she's got to pretend to like spaceships and put up with fat nerds non stop. As it is, no one appreciates her sacrifice anyway and just shits on her for answering emails or whatever. Of course, in this environment, just being a normal girl is going to make you a huge target. I hope she's getting a lot of money because honestly she's probably the hardest working person of the bunch.
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:FTFY. all this Sandi hate makes me think the gamergate connection is not as tenuous as it sounds
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
KiddieGrinder posted:You're a loving idiot. All I'm saying is "ethics in the gaming industry" and "woman hating" has a rather conspicuous and recurrent overlap
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:Read this: I don't know, like croberts said, there are two sides to every story. It does not seem outside the realm of possibiity that Sandi was a target of malicious rumors, especially when the gaming industry has been known to struggle with misogyny. A former employee could easily drum a lot of sympathy on the basis of shared prejudice against women in gaming.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:I think most people are far more troubled about her being a short tempered racist than being a woman. If it was a man that pulled the same poo poo it would still be uncalled for. alleged racist
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Madcosby posted:when she tried to sing the german national anthem she sang the nazi one instead this was probably more of an innocent mistake whereby she just wanted to look smart and copied what she saw one time on the history channel, without realizing the difference. If it even happened at all. I mean really, "she's a racist" is the most obvious attempt to deflect culpability on the part of the accuser because it ostensibly suggests they're concerned with these sorts of issues and thus cannot be sexist. When in fact, they're probably just sexist. I mean what's harder to believe. Gamers are misogynist or Sandi sits at home practicing the nazi anthem? The fact that people would prefer to believe the latter just proves how far feminism has to go.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Sarsapariller posted:I applaud your attempt at neutrality (seriously). But, what would you accept as proof, if multiple matching independent statements from more than 5 people (presumably interviewed separately, by email) aren't enough? It is a fact that they buried any mention of her and Chris being married. It's also a fact that they hosted unrelated theater readings at their offices specifically for her. It's a fact that something happened the day after Derek Smart leaked the Jennison letter, and four or five people were immediately fired or quit- and the person leaking the info to DS also added the same kind of description as was seen in the article, of her shouting profanities and accusing people of being traitors. honestly the gaming press/industry has such a poor history with women, at this point I won't accept anything on word alone from those sources. It would have to come from an impartial party
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
People are just jealous of croberts cause Sandi is beautiful 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Sarsapariller posted:Who counts as impartial, though? Who is so far beyond reproach that they could tell you Sandi is an awful person, and you would believe that they meant it? I note that you aren't defending Roberts against the accusations made in the article- are they more credible to you? Doesn't that seem like a strange position to hold, where allegations for one gender require a higher standard of evidence than the other? Former employees are always temping to listen to because presumably they have the "inside-track" but really most former employees I've met are just shitbags mumbling about how they got screwed over. Does it mean they can't be right? No. But they're incredibly suspect as the only link to the truth. I mean if unanonymous reports from people higher up on the food chain who weren't fired came out corroborating this kind of thing I would accept that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:No it's okay, they went before the UN, only women are harassed online and they are harassed only because they are women. Look if your only defense is an unironic "lol I'm worse than the UN" like its a good thing when it comes to acknowledging these things, you have some introspection to do
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Roflan posted:Maybe that's because you just talk to shitbags? Most of the people who just left jobs that I talk to can't stop talking about how great their new job is... Yeah until the cycle repeats itself
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Sarsapariller posted:I agree with you, former employees are a very weak evidence if that was all it was. But their assertions have been backed up over and over again- there's photo evidence that she used the office for her theater project. There's now confirmation from Chris himself that they are married, which (indirectly) confirms that they've been trying to suppress it all this time. There's evidence that multiple people literally walked out on the 25th. DS said she'd had a screaming fit. The next day she was on a livestream and her voice was wrecked, they claimed it was from a cold. Then on top of all of that you've got people making the claim that she is an HR disaster. I'm just sayin' all those data points can be explained in terms that don't implicate Sandi as being a terrible human being. But if you are predisposed to think that way (misogyny) then it seems obvious to connect the dots in such a way that it is dispositive that she is. However, that is not indicative of the true state of affairs so much as it is (indicative of) a strong bias against women. I say lets give her the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
G0RF posted:I say lets doubt her benefit. That's really brave of you
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:Automatically assuming a person is blameless because they happen to be a woman is super misogynistic fyi. yeah Im sure all this Sandi hate is coming from the egalitarian goodness of people's hearts
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:Would there be this much hate if she was a man? Yes there would look at Lesnick. If we replaced all mentions of Gardiner with Lesnick there would be the exact same reaction. Possibly even more so because Ben is horrible. If Sandi were a man there would be no mention of her to begin with, since no one would want to make him/her a target without some underlying prejudice to substantiate it (well assuming homophobia didn't take its place since she's now a man). As long as the evidence is thin, its credulity is linked to stereotyping women in management which is inherently sexist. Even if it turns out Sandi is a witch, right now you'd be believing the right thing for the wrong reasons. These are just allegations and she deserves the benefit of the doubt
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Sir_Charles posted:what the gently caress are you talking about Leave Sandi alone
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:Holy poo poo, where the gently caress are you even coming up with this poo poo? If you're really interested in learning, check out Anita Sarkeesian's series on women in gaming to see how sexism is rampant in the culture and industry.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:Again if she was a man this thread would definitely be criticizing her. The only reason you aren't is because she is a woman. Which is again misogynistic. Yeah! It would be misogyny not to criticize her. Listen to yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:Whatever you say, user account with a full page of 'trolling' ban reasons. Jesus cripes guys, you still feeding this chucklefuck and having this awesome thread derail into gamergate bullshit? First of all, the truth is regularly dismissed as trolling when its before its time. Hasn't dsmart taught you anything? Further, its gonna take decades to exorcise the ghost of gamergate and these arguments against Sandi aren't hastening that
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:You have to have a cool down period so people forget about your username then try again. Try again to do what? Penetrate your deeply rooted sexism? I get that since you've found a convinient excuse to ignore your entrenched prejudice you're gonna run with it since that would be easier, but all that shows is how far we have to go and how necessary Anita and Co. are.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
sorla78 posted:KOTAKU's Schreier is weighting in This is what I've been saying all along. Also its not that ironic when you consider that gamergate is about attacking women.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
So are we all in agreement then? It would be misogynistic not to vilify Sandi on the basis of a bunch of anonymous hearsay?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
peter gabriel posted:Would it be inappropriate if I patted her rear end and called her Toots? Do you have enthusiastic consent
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
peter gabriel posted:From my side yes I do good buddy consent must be bilateral
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
look at dat guy
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
peter gabriel posted:Might be a gal, wow sexist it would be misogynistic not to apply the term guy to men and women equally
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Leave Sandi alone
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
I don't practice contract law but from what I remember from law school + general knowledge about the law that applies is this: First thing you have to realize is any sort of legal outcome is going to be determined by the rules of the jurisdiction the case is litigated in. This means different outcomes state to state (in the US) and very different outcomes in non-US jurisdictions. So at the onset, anyone claiming to know what would happen is full of poo poo, unless they're specifying a jurisdiction from the get go. If they're ignorant to this factor, then their opinion is poo poo and should be disregarded. This is the number one factor. Secondly in the united states we have different rules from personal services contracts and contracts for the sale of goods. The Uniform Commercial Code sets out the rules governing the sale of goods. The common law, which can sometimes draw on UCC principles in addition to its own body of case law, governs personal services. Projects like this first need to be determined which set of rules they fall under. When it is ambiguous the determination is made as to what is the main purpose of the contract. In other words, is the main purpose of the contract to provide a game, or to provide the services of game development. This can be explicitly stated in the contract, but even if it is-- it is not controlling, it actually has to be determined by an analysis that looks to the purpose of the contract, and what the terms state are essentially just a piece (albeit a strong piece) of evidence to that end. However you can't just cover your bases by saying this is a personal services contract when it clearly isn't. I'm getting ahead of myself, but obviously the rules are a little less strict for personal services, as such any company that wanted to escape liability would try to go for personal services in a breach of contract action if they thought they could do so. Here is where we get into unknown territory. Since this has, to my knowledge, under the current facts, never been litigated, we can only speculate as to what category it falls under. However, in my non expert opinion, it would fall under the category of contract for a product. Sub contractors who work for companies to develop modules or aspects of a game or art assets pretty clearly are hired to perform services + goods, could be construed as working in services, but end users are always looking for a product. It seems ridiculous on its face to say end users invested into game development for its own sake, and not as part of any business venture to incorporate the assets or work into a larger project for resale akin to how sub contracted software engineers might. Of course a lot of this is going to depend on the terms of the agreement, but usually the terms won't vindicate this kind of dispute; rather they'd only settle it if cleared up the issue in a way that clearly defined it as goods. In other words, if you were seeking to prove this was a contract for goods and not services, rather than vice-versa, the terms could be potentially easily dispositive of the issue. That doesn't mean shipping a poo poo product however doesn't relieve them of their obligation. Goods only need to pass as "fair" according to industry standards to not be considered in breach of delivery. And we're talking about courts here, so if digital-stick-mans moves and shots gun, you might have enough to show you delivered. But we're still not out of the woods, because all of that is premised on the idea of it being a contract dispute over goods that were never delivered, or were non-conforming without a fix, such that the buyer was entitled to refund. There is still the issue of misrepresentation in the inducement of the contract, which is more under the tort side of things. At the onset it would be impossible to prove that CIG never intended, from the get-go, to make good on their claims and rather just wanted to take people's money. So fraud as to original kickstarter is out. However at a certain point they may have innocently, negligently or recklessly misrepresented themselves, their goals, their capacity to perform, their intent to delivery, etc, which reasonable could have relied upon and in doing so wasted their money. This might entitle them to a refund or potentially punitive damages if CIG crossed the line with their jpeg-selling into fraud territory by knowingly taking people's money without any intent to provide the promised product. Now a lot of this goes to what exactly was promised. Was it a jpeg or was it something more? Not being a retard, I've given zero $ to Croberts so I haven't look at any of that. But a lot of it would then go back to a personal services v goods analysis into their subsequent fundraising. At the end of the day CIG is refunding because if it heads off litigation its cheaper and easier to do so, because they stand to lose a shitload if they go to court, and further it could tie things up and generally be a headache in a way that's totally not worth it. They have enough people freely giving, that wouldn't sue even if Croberts came and took a poo poo in their mouth, that it's not in their best interest to fight it out with the small portion of disgruntled customers in court. Also suing kickstarter would be dumb because kickstarter really isn't doing much besides bringing the parties together, such that you'd have to prove a lot to show that they were somehow liable (they knew one party wouldn't be able to perform, or at least were negligent in some way by allowing them a platform-- potentially a better theory, but untested). If there's any take away from this at all it should be that any sort of legal speculation from non lawyers on this is totally worthless and people should shut up because even lawyers can't say exactly where this would go, and that's assuming what we know is everything there is to know and is true, which is obviously not the case. God only knows what the real facts are, and that would have to come out in court. Such that this is so insanely unpredictable, people who know what they're talking about can't even say how it would go, let alone random internet spectators.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:Serious question, what percentage of Something Awful's regular visitors happen to be lawyers/law students/just spergs about law? I know at least one other lawyer from my WoW days
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:is constantly pushing the date for delivery back by updating the TOS actually legal? I have no idea how contracts are amended, but I thought it had to be understood by both parties that that's what was going on, and the sneaking it into the tos thing seems kinda skeezy to me. generally the actual contract can only be changed "with consideration" in other words, one side can't unilaterally change the terms *and make it binding* without giving up something in exchange that merits doing so. they're said to be under a pre-existing duty to perform the original contract, such that the other party doesn't have to do anything to hold them to the terms of the original agreement. Everything is case-specific though. I don't know enough about what's really going on to go in-depth, but if I take "constantly pushing back delivery date by updating TOS" at face value: then no that is in no way enforceable. However, if there are other more nuanced things in play it might get trickier. It may just be a slight of hand to try and get people to waive their right to hold them to the original date in order to continue using the service that wasn't included as part of the original contract. thus it could be ok in the sense that the new consideration for the forebearance on exercising your right to sue under the broken contract date of delivery is access to whatever on-going service you're subscribed to this would on its face stand up, but if the service you're waiving your rights to enforce the delivery date on is actually a part of the product you contracted for originally then it basically amounts to a changing box-top agreement which are considered "adhesive" and are usually looked at with suspicion. the service would need to be legit and apart from the original agreement such that agreeing to it wasn't at odds with the original contract and constituted valid consideration for the forebearance its bargaining for. If its just a method to rubber stamp their bullshit then that would eventually be shown to be the case, but even if it is, if it makes sussing that out prohibitive enough its served its purpose (someone buying something for $1000 then buying a related product for 1$ and a promise not to sue for not delivering on original contract when second product is only worth $2 at most would be found to be unconscionable--but if you have to spend $10,000 to prove this...). Irrational Man fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 20:11
|
|