Let the dogs bark until proven? You are aware of historical examples where someone who was in fact guilty of criminal behaviour but only “unproven allegations” floated about, and said individuals continued to abuse in the meantime, right?
This is a very tricky situation to deal with for a business because you have a duty of care to your other employees, and I honestly can’t believe the amount of people who would be happy for “nothing to be done” and for a business to behave as if there’s no anticipation of risk at all. Particularly where allegations concern matters where empirical proof tends to be very timely to generate.
Its a Lose lose situation but memeing about cancel culture misses the point. Businesses don’t do it to deplatform people, they do it because they’re risk averse.
If someone told you your car was suspected of having a fault which may cause it to blow up due to several as of yet unverified reports about such, and concluding said reports will take a week or two, would you drive the car in the meantime or would you arrange alternative methods of travel until the report is done?
Yes, in this case verifying stuff about allegations of abuse can take months due to scarcity of physical evidence, so what does the business do?
And as far as I see in this thread, the main issue is they dumped him, not that they hired a replacement. Would people be okay with it suddenly if they didn’t replace him? And just left KT without VA? Ummmm i don’t think so. People annoyed they dropped him
And yet we’ve just established here, that at least you (others may disagree) think taking a sensible precaution is sensible
So my question I guess what should a company like blizzard do? Doing nothing seems negligent, but people aren’t happy if you swap them out. So what should blizzard do?
And regarding rehiring him, people assume he wants the job back? Also does that mean they simply fire the guy they hired to replace him without any reason as to his performance? What about their rights? the situation isn’t nearly as cut and dry as people make out.
I’m pretty sure if people here were hired to replace someone, and then they set about to work, and suddenly the guy they replaced was like “oh I’m coming back” they’d be pretty pissed off if the company abruptly fired them giving that as the reason. You may well be relying on that work for money, or reputation for your own work.
Unless the new VA contract states the appointment was conditional on the vindication of the original VA and is only available upon the originals unavailability, blizzard have no onus to swap back in the original guy legally, and to do so they may have to unjustly dismiss the new guy whom could possibly attempt legal action for example constructive dismissal.
Not a simple solution. Not saying I agree with blizz leaving them in dump, but just explaining why it is the way it is.
You know, back in the 90s when companies had SOME decency, when Disney was on bad terms with Robin Williams, they hired Dan Castellaneta for the Aladdin sequels instead. He voiced the Genie in Return of Jafar, and actually recorded all the lines for King of Thieves, but when Disney and Robin Williams buried the hatchet, they rehired Williams and eventually used him for King of Thieves.
Also they didn’t re-record all the lines in the original movie for the VHS releases, that would have been nuts. Just saying.
As for the new guy, they hired him, paid him for the voice acting (hopefully), he should be fine.
True, there are ways forward sure. I do think however people think that unless the old VA is reinstated, things are wrong, when it could easily be the case he has been offered a return but turned it down for whatever reason.
I agree businesses could do more to try and repair damage caused by their actions when taking reasonable precautions though, many don’t though because legally they don’t have to. It would be a gesture of goodwill, and ATM it seems like a lot of businesses aren’t in the habit of doing more than the minimum required.
Disagree. Hefty penalties should be applied but in my opinion they are not equivalent offences. Damaging an individuals reputation is not equivalent to violation of another’s physical body (usually involving violence) and the idea they should be treated identically is wrong. This is equivalent suggesting that someone may have killed someone inflicts the same kind of damage (and presents the same kind of risk) as actually killing someone.
Yes, punishments need to deter, I agree. But the “eye for an eye” approach is regressive and runs contrary to the principle of punishments being meted in accordance with the gravity of an offence.
Unless people here happen to think that an individual losing job offers and reputation is equivalent to being attacked and sexually assaulted in terms of their gravity? I happen to disagree on that one.
His name and reputation is tainted because of some twitter nutjob.
His old work has been replaced, and the things he had planned for the future are most likely cancelled so some companies can gain brownie points. People who have barely heard of him will be knowing him for the grooming/sexual harassment stuff. He’s f’kd and will have a hard road of recovery.
There definitely should be an eye for an eye punishment for situations like this. She was hellbent on ruining his life, might aswell give her the same treatment?
Not trying to derail too much but up until today I didn’t know who the particular author that everyone was son incensed about was. Having had a quick look at wowhead it appears that the location of her NPC is “unknown”. So is the NPC in the game still or has it been removed? I know that the two NPCs for Swifty are shown on Wowhead in their original positions but I am not in game to check if they are actually there or not.
Nowhere did I say what happened to him won’t have consequences.
I am challenging the idea that all of what he suffered (job loss, reputation, etc) is somehow equivalent to someone being sexually assaulted.
Someone whom is sexually assault can experience all of the above, plus will have suffered some physical harm and violation too, surely you can’t view them as the same?
And regarding “she deserves therefore” the sentences of offenders should be based upon objective criteria and not something as fickle as a feeling of “deserts” else you have the way for us to apply different sentences to people for similar crimes based upon nothing more than “what we reckon they have coming to them”.
A fine legal principle as we stand here from the sidelines raging about Twitter lunatics. But not so cosy and fine if you suffer at the end of it, and per have you commit some middling infraction one day, but the court decides “you deserve worse” and so you’re slapped with a sentence far beyond the gravity of what you actually did.
I’ll make it clear, I do not believe false accusers should get no punishment. They should. But in my mind the only fair way to administer punishment is based upon the gravity of the offence itself and observable damage from it, and I’m sorry, but I do not believe an individual having their reputation damaged “and possibly their future prospects” is equal damage to something being sexually violated against their will, because this can damage reputation and future prospects just as much if not more, but involves a violation of one’s body.
I happen to view the sanctity of one’s body as being a higher order thing to protect than ones reputation. Our bodies are the vehicle for our very existence, we are impossible to divorce from them and cannot “drop them”. Therefore violating someone’s body is in principle worse than reputation violation because in theory, it is possible to escape or weather reputation damage, but you cannot escape your own body.
Both are destroying someone’s life. But of course the same jail time you’d think is not justice for the poor women right?
They’re not the same offenses no, but the odds of a man actually winning these types of cases are very low already, since they all believe these women. Sad thing now is, that when something is real, some people don’t even believe this any more, since things do happen yes.
But in a case like this, even if the guy won, he probably doesn’t get a job any more, past and future ruined, and these women go away laughing. And then there’s white knights like you that think we should be gentle on them? I don’t think so.
Firstly, do me the courtesy of being respectful, I haven’t been disrespectful to anyone here (much less you) so abandon the attempt at namecalling.
Secondly, if you’re going to refer to a claim about “men never win cases like these” then make sure you’re not talking nonsense, there is a HUGE statistical precendent over the past 50 years or so that when it comes to cases where someone alleges someone (a man) of sexual misconduct convctions are freakishly low. Do not let the focus on redressing this over the past 5 years or so corrupt your view of the situation and convince you that “men never win this stuff” - yes they do. It is notoriously difficult for an accuser to win this kind of case without direct empirical proofs. In cases of “he said she said” the accuser can not win the case as the judge may not rule a verdict of guilt unless it stems from evidence presented (they cnanot run with their gut or feelings).
Thirdly, I never claimed this thing is never applied wrongly and men don’t suffer unjustly as a result - i’m simply saying that as things stand, this situation is the best we have. Like many other posters, you seem to be talking as if there are only ever cases of false accusations and it couldn’t possibly be true that some of these men DID do the things claimed, and I say this because you are 100% focused on the plight of men wrongly accused and haven’t given so much as one word of comment to those who may genuinely be victims of sexual abuse by said men.
Fourthly - I never said be gentle with them, I said I do not agree they shpuld get exactly what a convicted sex offender would get on the basis “it’s just as bad” because it’s a wonky legal idea. I actually said explicitly “punishments should be severe” so maybe try reading what i’ve actually typed rather than caricaturing my position.
Perhaps not explicitly, but I assume you didn’t mean to allude to me as “White-knighting” as a badge of honour did you? It’s an attempt at slinging mud and was totally not needed for you to make your points that you did.
Irrespective, we disagree, that’s fine, it happens, but I think a sum of that disagreement stemmed(s) from you not paying attention to the specifics of what i’m saying (assuming i’m suggesting false accusers should get a slap on the wrist, when I explicitly said otherwise) and then arguing against a position I never stood in support of in the first place
I called you a white knight yes, and I stand with that comment. People are so sensitive these days. Wasn’t meant as disrespectful, it was just what I thought.
How about men who accuse women of sexual misconduct in general? Guess what, that ones a LOT lower. Curious, isn’t it? One side gets treated a lot more poorly when they come out about sexual misconduct than the other, and one gets a lot more laughing at them and told ‘that can’t happen to men’. The problem is that a lot of the accusations are hard to prove either which way because there’s a lot of intricacy with intimacy and relations of that nature. There’s also a lot of ‘post-regret coitus’ that goes on including YEARS down the line to try to differentiate from in the first place.
