It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
low rated
avatar
kohlrak: Best example is the final bit of the request. The use several bullet points to ask for compensatory damages, 2 to ask for punitive damages. It's like how in highschool you can use passive voice to extend the word count of an essay that you don't have enough information to meet the minimum word count.
avatar
Jemolk: I don't see what you're referring to, unless it's the first two points here. Under the section heading "Prayer for Relief," the initial points are: 1. compensatory and punitive damages, 2. unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and other remedies and penalties available under the Equal Pay Act. Is this what you're referring to? If so, then I have to disagree. Legalese is extremely picky about wording. It needs to be, in order to even attempt to eliminate linguistic ambiguity. Simply put, these are (admittedly subtly) different requests, and the latter is not neatly folded into the former, even if in everyday conversation it could be.

1. Compensatory and punitive damages;
So, we're asking for fair compensation and for extra money beyond that.

2. Unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and other remedies and penalties available under the Equal Pay Act;
Now, i would agree with you on clarity if it wasn't for the obvious "and other remedies and penalties" bit. There's something about that that seems oddly inspecific, yet i'm sure the cited legislation would be more specific... But it sure would save time and effort on everyone's behalf if they just enumerated that right here instead.

3. Injuctive relief;
So we wantthem to do something in addition to paying money, and we aren't going to define what that even is?

4. Declaratory relief;
My legalese has gotten rusty over the years, and i'm not quite sure what this is. Using my basic deduction skills, though, i would assume that means "the relief defined in this section."

5. Equitable relief, including but not limited to reinstatement and/or front pay, pay adjustments, backpay, lost wages and benefits (including base pay, incentive pay, pension benefits and awards), in an amount to be proven at trial;
So this is the stuff in 2, except properly enumerated, but also leaving the amount incredibly vague. See, we aren't going to state before hand what our initial demand is, right? Who the hell knows why?

6. Prejudgement interest, as required by law;
And they already declare this is actually implicit in law and shouldn't even need delcared.

7. Attourney's fees and costs to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing; and
Which always baffles me, because that's also implied in a civil trial, and a major part of lawfare.

8. Other relief the Court deems to be just and proper.
This is what we call... "punitive damages," mentioned back at 1.

One of my favorite things is how the SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION implicitly makes one of the presumed plaintiffs a defendant. You know, Chief People Officer Claudine Naughton, whom, if you look her up, has HR for AIG in her employment history, implying to me that part of the "People department" would be HR? I would love to hear her have to take the stand and claim she was paid unfairly compared to all the male officers in "comparable positions" and then have to take the stand again and defend her department's actions, and somehow explain how she's part of this frat group that descriminates on female outsiders like her. Maybe i'm just making too many assumptions, here, but this looks like good fun.

EDIT: And imagine right now saying "white men" in a lawsuit. This sounds like something out of a comedy routine about modern politics. Maybe they should've left the race out of this, just sayin'.
Post edited July 22, 2021 by kohlrak
low rated
avatar
borisburke: A % discount on an over-priced product could still cost you more than a zero discount on a reasonably priced product. And many people are willing to pay inflated prices just to be first. They know it, and exploit it. Early access for example is just cynical outsourced beta testing for profit. Another practice that disrespects customers needs to end. Can you imagine this practice in some other industry? Dyson's early access new-model vac (may explode). Early access movies (finished edit may differ), etc..
avatar
Breja: None of which has really anything to do with this case. But please, do go on. Don't let reason stop you. I'm sure there's a witch to burn here somehere.
Tempted as I am by your troll. I think I've made my relevant point and choose to resist your attempts to drag me off-topic.
low rated
avatar
JakobFel: I'm absolutely not a fan of Activision-Blizzard but this just proves how absurd our modern culture is. Given how often the "harassment" and "pay inequality" crap is flung around by a certain group of crybabies, I don't buy it.

I really hope the judge throws it out because that would be an incredible waste of time and money for everyone involved.
Good golly, I agree with you on something.
low rated
avatar
Breja: None of which has really anything to do with this case. But please, do go on. Don't let reason stop you. I'm sure there's a witch to burn here somehere.
avatar
borisburke: Tempted as I am by your troll. I think I've made my relevant point and choose to resist your attempts to drag me off-topic.
You're the one going off topic, and no, you're not making relevant points about anything. Early-access (which I myself avoid like the plauge) has nothing to do with alleged "frat boy culture" and the lawsuit. You're just another example of this silly emotional nonsense I was talking about. You dislike this and that about current gaming industry, so when a gaming company gets sued you're all happy, even though the lawsuit has nothing to do with the issues that draw your ire.
low rated
avatar
borisburke: And many people are willing to pay inflated prices just to be first. They know it, and exploit it.
Barring special editions, they usually charge the same amount as when people buy new copies after launch. If you mean digital editions vs physical....well they should be cheaper, but aren't(as companies be companies). None of this is likely to change(just like DRM will likely never go away), so the best thing to do is for people to wait for sales.


-

avatar
kohlrak: So we want them to do something in addition to paying money, and we aren't going to define what that even is?

See, we aren't going to state before hand what our initial demand is, right? Who the hell knows why?
My guess is that it's partially because they might not be expecting this case to succeed(and are possibly hoping/expecting to take this to civil court later on).
Post edited July 22, 2021 by GamezRanker
low rated
avatar
borisburke: Tempted as I am by your troll. I think I've made my relevant point and choose to resist your attempts to drag me off-topic.
avatar
Breja: You're the one going off topic, and no, you're not making relevant points about anything. Early-access (which I myself avoid like the plauge) has nothing to do with alleged "frat boy culture" and the lawsuit. You're just another example of this silly emotional nonsense I was talking about. You dislike this and that about current gaming industry, so when a gaming company gets sued you're all happy, even though the lawsuit has nothing to do with the issues that draw your ire.
If you say so. Now, back on topic please...
low rated

1. Compensatory and punitive damages;
avatar
kohlrak: So, we're asking for fair compensation and for extra money beyond that.
Um, no. Punitive damages are not "beyond fair compensation." The point of punitive damages is to actually make it costly to try to cheat people, because punitive damages are not as strictly limited as compensation, and so can increase to the point of becoming a real cost and a real risk.

2. Unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and other remedies and penalties available under the Equal Pay Act;
Now, i would agree with you on clarity if it wasn't for the obvious "and other remedies and penalties" bit. There's something about that that seems oddly inspecific, yet i'm sure the cited legislation would be more specific... But it sure would save time and effort on everyone's behalf if they just enumerated that right here instead.
Maybe because putting half a bill into the "requested relief" section is unnecessary for clarity? This is entirely typical of documents of its sort, and the rant makes it seem like you're just looking for an excuse to dismiss the complaint.

3. Injuctive relief;
So we wantthem to do something in addition to paying money, and we aren't going to define what that even is?
I'm not entirely sure what it means either, but I'm certainly not going to claim that the judges and lawyers involved don't. That would be rather presumptuous. Especially because I'm fairly sure this has a rather specific technical meaning here, having run across it before.

4. Declaratory relief;
My legalese has gotten rusty over the years, and i'm not quite sure what this is. Using my basic deduction skills, though, i would assume that means "the relief defined in this section."
Again, I'm quite sure, having run across it before, that it has a very specific technical meaning.

5. Equitable relief, including but not limited to reinstatement and/or front pay, pay adjustments, backpay, lost wages and benefits (including base pay, incentive pay, pension benefits and awards), in an amount to be proven at trial;
So this is the stuff in 2, except properly enumerated, but also leaving the amount incredibly vague. See, we aren't going to state before hand what our initial demand is, right? Who the hell knows why?
I wouldn't count on that. It includes some things that would be specified in the relevant legal codes, yes, but you're very aggressively applying a layman's interpretation to all this, and that just isn't going to be reliable. While we're at it -- leaving things open-ended can result in getting more than you would have otherwise asked for. That tends to be desirable in lawsuits.

6. Prejudgement interest, as required by law;
And they already declare this is actually implicit in law and shouldn't even need delcared.
Required and implicit are two different things, as are whether you think something should need to be declared and whether it actually does need to be declared. Certainly it doesn't hurt, and lawyers are expected to be meticulous.

7. Attourney's fees and costs to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing; and
Which always baffles me, because that's also implied in a civil trial, and a major part of lawfare.
Expected, yes. (Not implied. Implied is something else entirely.) You DO still have to actually request this stuff.

8. Other relief the Court deems to be just and proper.
This is what we call... "punitive damages," mentioned back at 1.
No, it's "hey, if you'd like to give us more than we're asking for, we certainly won't say no!"

One of my favorite things is how the SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION implicitly makes one of the presumed plaintiffs a defendant. You know, Chief People Officer Claudine Naughton, whom, if you look her up, has HR for AIG in her employment history, implying to me that part of the "People department" would be HR? I would love to hear her have to take the stand and claim she was paid unfairly compared to all the male officers in "comparable positions" and then have to take the stand again and defend her department's actions, and somehow explain how she's part of this frat group that descriminates on female outsiders like her. Maybe i'm just making too many assumptions, here, but this looks like good fun.
Okay, what the hell is this? Yes, women are capable of perpetuating sexism against women. Yes, a woman can be part of a structure that discriminates against women, and even help maintain it. Sexism (and racism, and all the other forms of institutionalized bigotry) is a structure, not just a series of individual beliefs and behaviors. That's not to say individual beliefs and behaviors don't play into it, but it's more than that and always has been.

EDIT: And imagine right now saying "white men" in a lawsuit. This sounds like something out of a comedy routine about modern politics. Maybe they should've left the race out of this, just sayin'.
Imagine presuming that it couldn't possibly be relevant.
low rated
avatar
JakobFel: I'm absolutely not a fan of Activision-Blizzard but this just proves how absurd our modern culture is. Given how often the "harassment" and "pay inequality" crap is flung around by a certain group of crybabies, I don't buy it.

I really hope the judge throws it out because that would be an incredible waste of time and money for everyone involved.
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: Good golly, I agree with you on something.
'Tis a rare day, indeed! Haha I guess it just proves that I don't disagree with you to be contrarian, we just definitely have our different opinions and it's absolutely nothing personal.
Post edited July 22, 2021 by JakobFel
low rated
avatar
Jemolk: You're not very familiar with legal filings, are you? The extensive procedural sections need to be there for legal reasons; it's not just to confuse the shit out of you. Granted, one could make the argument that the law is needlessly obtuse and made to confuse laymen generally, but that applies to far more than just this suit, and using it to discredit this suit in particular is a pretty weird take, unless you're just searching for an excuse not to believe anything bad about ActiBlizz.
Correct. Law is complicated and you need to arm yourself with every last possible citation. Since this is also literally the goverenment you gain and automatic multiplier to bureaucratic procedure, since they're the ones who made all these laws and one wrong step could invalidate the entire case.

(I also think the State of California wants to bury Actipuddle, seeing as this is after they were given repeat warnings and a generous timespan to improve, so it's time to metaphorically get the missiles out.)
avatar
JakobFel: I'm absolutely not a fan of Activision-Blizzard but this just proves how absurd our modern culture is. Given how often the "harassment" and "pay inequality" crap is flung around by a certain group of crybabies, I don't buy it.

I really hope the judge throws it out because that would be an incredible waste of time and money for everyone involved.
This is literally the state of California after a two year investigation.

This ain't some J Q Public case.
Post edited July 22, 2021 by Darvond
low rated
Absolutely disgusting some of the things I've read from this. I have no desire to ever support such a garbage company ever again. I won't touch anything Activision either after all of this. Blizzard and Activision should both be six feet under as far as I'm concerned. I hope the good people working there make it out, and find themselves in a better position when it's all over. **** Blizzard, **** Activision, and **** Kotick.

Today I even went and submitted the request to have my entire account closed and permanently deleted. They're dead to me.

https://us.battle.net/support/en/help/wf/services/1327/1361
low rated
avatar
Darvond: This is literally the state of California after a two year investigation.

This ain't some J Q Public case.
Lol that doesn't help. If anything, it just further strengthens what I said.
avatar
TomNuke: Absolutely disgusting some of the things I've read from this. I have no desire to ever support such a garbage company ever again. I won't touch anything Activision either after all of this. Blizzard and Activision should both be six feet under as far as I'm concerned. I hope the good people working there make it out, and find themselves in a better position when it's all over. **** Blizzard, **** Activision, and **** Kotick.

Today I even went and submitted the request to have my entire account closed and permanently deleted. They're dead to me.

https://us.battle.net/support/en/help/wf/services/1327/1361
This is what I call "haste". I'll laugh if, a few months from now, the case is settled with no proof toward the accusations and you deleted your account for nothing.

Remember, our society is supposed to adhere to "innocent until proven guilty". Cases like this, as well as the reactions of the masses, they not only contribute toward toxic cancel culture but they also make it virtually impossible for the accused to ever clear their name, even when they're completely innocent.
Post edited July 23, 2021 by JakobFel
low rated
avatar
JakobFel: This is what I call "haste". I'll laugh if, a few months from now, the case is settled with no proof toward the accusations and you deleted your account for nothing.

Remember, our society is supposed to adhere to "innocent until proven guilty". Cases like this, as well as the reactions of the masses, they not only contribute toward toxic cancel culture but they also make it virtually impossible for the accused to ever clear their name, even when they're completely innocent.
This is just one more reason among many others for why I requested the account to be deleted. If I really cared about my account (which is literally every game, the extreme progress and stats I've built up across all those games, World of Warcraft characters that go back to early 2005, and other things) I wouldn't have put in the request.

This isn't some "he said she said", and has nothing to do with cancel culture either. This is a mult-year investigation by the State of California, and that kind of shit doesn't just happen for no reason. Yes, Blizzard deserves their day in court / opportunity to defend themselves, but I'm ready to wash my hands of anything Blizzard and move on. Like I said, multi-year investigation by the State of California...

"In a tragic example of the harassment that Defendants allowed to fester in their offices, a female employee commited suicide while on a company trip due to a sexual relationship that she had been having with her male supervisor. The male supervisor was found by police to have brought a butt plug and lubricant on this business trip. Another employee confirmed that the deceased female employee may have been suffering from other sexual harassment at work prior to her death. Specifically, at a holiday party before her death, male co-workers were alleged to be passing around a picture of the deceased's vag***."

When I see shit like this in the court documents, an investigation done by the State of California, it's time for me to go. I want nothing to do with them anymore, and this is just a major reason among many already.

Let's be real here - Worst case scenario for Blizzard is all this stuff is 100% true, and the best case being that it's still a dog shit studio with a destuctive and toxic work environment run by horrible people. I don't like any of that, and they'll see no money from me again.
Post edited July 23, 2021 by TomNuke
low rated
avatar
JakobFel: This is what I call "haste". I'll laugh if, a few months from now, the case is settled with no proof toward the accusations and you deleted your account for nothing.

Remember, our society is supposed to adhere to "innocent until proven guilty". Cases like this, as well as the reactions of the masses, they not only contribute toward toxic cancel culture but they also make it virtually impossible for the accused to ever clear their name, even when they're completely innocent.
avatar
TomNuke: This is just one more reason among many others for why I requested the account to be deleted. If I really cared about my account (which is literally every game, the extreme progress and stats I've built up across all those games, World of Warcraft characters that go back to early 2005, and other things) I wouldn't have put in the request.

This isn't some "he said she said", and has nothing to do with cancel culture either. This is a mult-year investigation by the State of California, and that kind of shit doesn't just happen for no reason. Yes, Blizzard deserves their day in court / opportunity to defend themselves, but I'm ready to wash my hands of anything Blizzard and move on. Like I said, multi-year investigation by the State of California...

"In a tragic example of the harassment that Defendants allowed to fester in their offices, a female employee commited suicide while on a company trip due to a sexual relationship that she had been having with her male supervisor. The male supervisor was found by police to have brought a butt plug and lubricant on this business trip. Another employee confirmed that the deceased female employee may have been suffering from other sexual harassment at work prior to her death. Specifically, at a holiday party before her death, male co-workers were alleged to be passing around a picture of the deceased's vag***."

When I see shit like this in the court documents, an investigation done by the State of California, it's time for me to go. I want nothing to do with them anymore, and this is just a major reason among many already.

Let's be real here - Worst case scenario for Blizzard is all this stuff is 100% true, and the best case being that it's still a dog shit studio with a destuctive and toxic work environment run by horrible people. I don't like any of that, and they'll see no money from me again.
Was it proven yet? No? Then they're still innocent, whether you like that or not. As I said, the word of the Californian government means less than used toilet paper, so that doesn't exactly boost my confidence that this anything other than another attack by cancel culture. If it's genuinely proven in a court of law, I'll be right there with you (though I'm absolutely not going to delete my account over it). Frankly, I don't care what happens to Activision-Blizzard, I'm just sick and tired of society believing accusations like this before it has been proven in a court of law... you know, the way our founding fathers wanted it?
low rated
avatar
TomNuke: Absolutely disgusting some of the things I've read from this. I have no desire to ever support such a garbage company ever again. I won't touch anything Activision either after all of this. Blizzard and Activision should both be six feet under as far as I'm concerned. I hope the good people working there make it out, and find themselves in a better position when it's all over. **** Blizzard, **** Activision, and **** Kotick.

Today I even went and submitted the request to have my entire account closed and permanently deleted. They're dead to me.

https://us.battle.net/support/en/help/wf/services/1327/1361
yeah sure :P

is this even your main?
Post edited July 23, 2021 by Orkhepaj
low rated
avatar
JakobFel: Was it proven yet? No? Then they're still innocent, whether you like that or not. As I said, the word of the Californian government means less than used toilet paper, so that doesn't exactly boost my confidence that this anything other than another attack by cancel culture. If it's genuinely proven in a court of law, I'll be right there with you (though I'm absolutely not going to delete my account over it). Frankly, I don't care what happens to Activision-Blizzard, I'm just sick and tired of society believing accusations like this before it has been proven in a court of law... you know, the way our founding fathers wanted it?
I really don't give a shit what you think. They deserve the chance to defend themselves, like I said already, but I'm also free to make my own decision on the matter. Guilty or not, there's enough here for me to say I want nothing to do with the company anymore. This is just another thing ontop of many other issues.

If this was just some he said she said, I'd have the same attitude as you right now, but this is on a whole other level. Even the best case scenario for them is still the breaking point for me. Decent and good people, don't put themselves in positions where they even possibly could be accused of just absolutely horrible shit like this.