Activision CEO Bobby Kotick Loses Lengthy Legal Battle
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
You're clearly a moron who has no idea how the real world works and especially no clue as to what constitutes sexual harassment.Therumancer said:
"He's hiring someone to wait on him on his private toy, and pretty much make his nards feel big so he can show off to his friends."
Right on the first part, WRONG on the last part. The fact that it is a private jet only makes things worse not nullifies it. That is her EMPLOYER asking her to fulfil a relationship/sexual duty which IS sexual harassment, even to ask. It is NOT - FUCKING NOT - the same as calling a Butler "Jeeves" as there is NOTHING sexual about that, just mild teasing. But soliciting for escort is SERIOUSLY going beyond the contract of employment which is to serve drinks.
You seem to conflate "I'm rich" with "I can do what I want"
Not quite true. You can do what you can afford and you have to pay for it the right way.
IF Kotick & Co. wanted an escort then they should have HIRED an escort, a woman who has gone into that job with full expectation that they have to hang on the arm of grease-ball douchebags and actually act like they like him. That gives the impression not that they are rich, but that they are a virile man that can shack up a super hot girlfriend and make her crazy about him. But NO STEWARDESS expects to have to do that after being employed as a flying butler.
"If Bobby Kotick wants to get drunk, and run around his plane naked and making indian noises he can do that because it's his bloody plane"
Yes but his employees ARE NOT HIS SLAVES! Not HIS people, he does not own them, if he wants to do shit like that then he cannot force his employees to be OK with it. He can't bait and switch, he needs to get people at the point of employment that agree to him doing stuff like that. If he can't find anyone (or doesn't want to pay them what they are asking for such a sickening job) then he better ask everyone to leave the plane while he re-enacts Indiana Jones in the nude and if he wants to do that in flight then he'll need to learn to fly the plane himself!
' The job is more like "oh hey, your really hawt, how about I pay you a hundred thousand dollars a year to come serve me and my friends on a private plane" '
Pure Supposition. How do you know that her contract of employment was dependent on her being sexually alluring in appearance and attitude? Hmm? Are you AGAIN making sexist assumptions after watching too many eurotrash pornos? Stewardesses must dress smart and professional, same as if a guy doing the job must have pressed trousers and shirt, be clean and give that winning "Pan Am Smile". But you're clearly a deluded, lecherous, pervert if you conflate sexual queues from that, I mean jesus christ man, have you ever worked with a real woman? I'm no casanova but fuck sake even I can tell the difference between sex-work and entirely non-sexual service work.
Not exactly the same but it reminds me of the Fight Club quote:WhiteTigerShiro said:
"The people you're after are everyone you depend on. We do your laundry, cook your food and serve you dinner. We guard you while you sleep. We drive your ambulances. Do not fuck with us."
what a prick. after he got wholeheartedly busted in court, he tried to appeal and reduce the award? the dude is swimming in gold like Scrooge MacDuck and he cant give away 400k$ legally.
i hate Kotick. i really do. he isnt worthy of life, lets say as much.
i hate Kotick. i really do. he isnt worthy of life, lets say as much.
Treblaine said:
Drop the flames, it's possible to have a disagreement without them.
Ultimatly this comes down to us disagreeing over the nature of the work. The major differance probably being our life experiences. Through no fault of your own your actually the ignorant one here, and argueing based on an ideal. I on the other hand worked for a decade as security for two world class casinos, and have some idea of how these things work.
You are basically jumping on the job title of "Stewardess" having never dealt with professional escorts, or the job titles given to some of them for this kind of work. Understand one does not NEED a stewardess on a private plane, the purpose of having one is something else entirely. What's more as these debates go on, people are trying to change the nature of the debate (what happened to the arguements about a stewardess doing similar work to a bouncer and being a skilled professional? Easy it became hard to defend in this context).
Where you and others are correct is in the fact that the contract probably doesn't specify such things, after all it would be illegal to do so. This is what makes it a scam since what such a position is for is obvious, yet can be argued in a legal sense against the employer, because what he's asking for *IS* illegal, but it doesn't change the fact that the employer got played.
Argue all the ideals and textbook definitions in the world, as they put it in "Battlestar Galactica", "This has all happened before, and it will happen again".
None of this has to do with me being demeaning towards women, or anything else, since the bottom line is she basically agreed to it, and I seriously doubt there was any misunderstanding here, since it's pretty obvious what these guys wanted from their conduct, and there are plenty of women who would do it without a second thought. From where I'm sitting it very much looks like she pretended to be that girl, waited to build a case, and decided to go legal.
You are argueing from the perspective that the girl answered some "private jet stewardess wanted" type ad or whatever and then wound up being abused. I very much doubt that is the case, even if she argued something similar to that and won.
I'd say we're done discussing such things though since you can't keep it polite. Plenty of people say things to me that I strongly disagree with, and I don't resort to flames. I expect the same courtasy.
Don't foist you experiences in a CASINO of all places onto all other areas of employment.Therumancer said:
Just because some escorts call themselves "stewardesses" does not make all stewardesses escorts, end of story. Just because they aren't bouncers (that definition is limited to commercial airlines in post-9/11 world) that DOESN'T MAKE THEM SEX WORKERS!
Who cares if he doesn't NEED a stewardess on a private jet... He doesn't NEED a private jet! he also doesn't need an escort, he needs three square meals a day and a cot to sleep, "need" has nothign to do with it. People WANT a stewardess because they are too bloody lazy to make their own drinks and want someone to be a butler. How would you feel if you got a job as an air steward and your employer expected you to be his "arm candy"? The gay angle makes no god damn difference. You shouldn't have to put up with shit like that.
And how do you have the NERVE to say this:
"This is what makes it a scam since what such a position is for is obvious, yet can be argued in a legal sense against the employer, because what he's asking for *IS* illegal, but it doesn't change the fact that the employer got played."
IT IS NOT OBVIOUS!
Maybe a lecherous pervert like yourself might THINK that, but if you really think it is "obvious" that private air stewardess is code for private escort then you can expect that attitude to land you on a sex offenders registry. My god man, it's in plain English: serve drinks, fluff pillows, clean and greet NOT PLAY GIRLFRIEND!
You set up a situation where NO WOMAN can privately work for a man without being expected to do 'something on the side'.
"None of this has to do with me being demeaning towards women, or anything else, since the bottom line is she basically agreed to it
...there are plenty of women who would do it without a second thought."
Sick Bastard.
You sound EXACTLY like a rapist who won't take no for an answer, will rationalise that "really they wanted it" even if they say no. To spite the HUGE RISK that this woman has to get caught lying and the HIGH likelihood that they will be caught, plus the risk to their career.
Jesus Christ.
The kinds of people you meet on the internet. Makes me sick.
Treblaine said:
Is this some attempt to bait me into breaking my general policy of not reporting people? To give you a fair warning, if you can't deal with people with differant opinions you don't belong here on The Escapist, and probably not on Internet forums to begin with. If I wanted to make a serious issue out of this, I could probably get you at least suspended since this is now the second time you've flamed me when I've done nothing but be polite to you. If what I'm saying here offends you, then chances are you might want to move on, because your probably going to strongly disagree with others in the course of conversation here, and they probably won't be quite as nice about it as I have been. Consider this a fair warning. I can't speak for anyone else, but with your attitude and flames you might want to move on.
That said, I think a lot of your anger largely comes down to the fact that you can't win the debate we're in. Tough cookies, it happens to all of us.
Due to your attitude this will be my last post on the subject.
The bottom line here is that I have life experience with such things, you do not. You have no real platform to argue from at all, you simply do not like the points that I'm making, and by being right what I am saying conflicts with what you want to believe.
Among other things you seem to be trying to interpet what I'm saying intentionally out of context by accusing me of attacking the stewardess profession, and other things. Jumping around every single time you lose on a front, and now your saying "I sound like a rapist" or must be a pervert simply because I'm aware of how things work. It should be noted that while I did say that I thought she was running a scam, I never actually said I approved of the situation in general, merely that I thought she scammed them. In fact if you ever bothered to do some checking on who your talking to, you'd notice that I'm frequently involved in debates here on Prostitution where I maintain an anti-prostitution, which is less than popular on these forums where the majority seem to be very pro-prostitution going by the debates.
All I have said is that to me the situation seems like one where the law was being flaunted to begin with, she was hired to provide such services, and then decided to sue. All I've said is that is the vibe I get going by what has been written and the behaviors involved. Anything else you want to read into it is entirely you. It's fine if you want to disagree with me, but there is no need to be rude about it.
At any rate, this conversation is done as far as I'm concerned. Like most internet discussions we are going to have to agree to disagree... and I recommend you learn to do this yourself instead of launching flames when you disagree with someone.
Strange, I wanted to report you for gross misogyny.Therumancer said:
I only relented as it doesn't seem to be you are trying to be offensive, it seems you really do hold such view and was merely stating your opinion. But that's only worse.
But you're right, I think we should end this here. I don't want to converse with you again, I certainly wouldn't want to meet you in real life because frankly your thought process and opinions scare the shit out of me.
Off topic nerdrage ruins threads. Thousands of topics a year go awry due to the unwarranted lengthy wall of text arguments by two nerds with opposing views.
Please give £2 a month to oxfam and we can feed these nerds caffeine/mountain dew and cookies to raise their glucose levels so they can learn think more clearly and use the private message function on the forums to enact their dangerously angry debates. Just £2 a month can provide blood thinners so they can avoid popping a vein or having an aneurism.
Only you can stop Nerdrage.
OT: yup he's a dick, his company gets bad PR now amongst the games company, bad enough that that other senior activision fellla is trying to set it right so it must of impacted sales.
Kotick will leave activision in a VISIBLE way atleast in the next few years if the PR gets any worse. he will probs still run it from the shadows but pretend he left to get sales up or to get better public image for actiblizz.
eventually if EA starts turning a more lucrative profit they will start copying EA's business model and for some reason EA seems to be putting out some pretty decent stuff/ideas atm. imo of course.
Please give £2 a month to oxfam and we can feed these nerds caffeine/mountain dew and cookies to raise their glucose levels so they can learn think more clearly and use the private message function on the forums to enact their dangerously angry debates. Just £2 a month can provide blood thinners so they can avoid popping a vein or having an aneurism.
Only you can stop Nerdrage.
OT: yup he's a dick, his company gets bad PR now amongst the games company, bad enough that that other senior activision fellla is trying to set it right so it must of impacted sales.
Kotick will leave activision in a VISIBLE way atleast in the next few years if the PR gets any worse. he will probs still run it from the shadows but pretend he left to get sales up or to get better public image for actiblizz.
eventually if EA starts turning a more lucrative profit they will start copying EA's business model and for some reason EA seems to be putting out some pretty decent stuff/ideas atm. imo of course.
Sorry to burst your bubble mate but it's not part of the job. I used to work in a boutique law firm that formed LLC's to hold private jets on a regular basis and we handled labor issues as well. Notwithstanding what you imagine the position entails, it's essentially no different than that of a flight attendant for a commercial airliner. Rich people like to be pampered and have the same amenities that they would have flying first class on a commerical airliner and that's all the job entails. While I'm sure there are some depraved people that want more, there's no way in hell they are going to be legally entitled to it from a private flight attendant, and, for all his other shortcomings, Kotick doesn't come off as on of them anyway. Keep in mind that he's not the one doing the alleged harrassment here, it's the pilot.Therumancer said:
There's nothing to indicate that she's scam artist. She filed a formal notice of harrassment with the management which is what she is supposed to do. She gave management an opportunity to address the situation, which it failed to do. Management (Kotick) engaged in an unbelievably stupid act of retaliation by terminating her within two months of her unresolved complaint. Kotick merely confirmed that he's an arrogant asshat in the way he handled the harrassment claim and her termination, and the way he handled the litigation. If Kotick had handled the whole thing properly it would have resulted in either (a) the replacement of the pilot, or (b) a waiver and release in exchange for severance for Madvig. Any severance that Kotick's lawyers would have been able to negotiate would have in all likelihood been below $200k and their legal bill to negotiate the waiver and release would sure as hell have been less than $1.9 million (the total for Madvig's attorney's fees and Kotick's former attorney's fees plus arbitration costs).
Ima Roo said:
It has nothing to do with what I "imagine" the position to entail. Nor is it some kind of misogynistic hatred of women as some people have implied.
The big differance here is that from what your describing you dealt with private jets in the sense of ones owned by a company for the use of employees. A private jet being owned by a company like say Sony or whatever for the general use of it's executives and VIPs is something far differant from what's being described here where the jet was owned and used by a single guy and his close friends as a personal toy rather than a corperate asset from how things were described.
What's more, the girl in question certainly does not seem to have been hired through a third party like the one you claimed to work with.
The telling point here is that despite being greedy, guys like Bobby Kotick are generally not stupid when they have been around as long as he has. Hiring someone in the context your talking about and then pulling the things that he tried to do would be exceedingly stupid. They very fact that the issue exists, and what's more that he decided to fight it rather than quietly settling to begin with, makes me think that it's far more likely that what was asked of her did not go beyond what she was hired to do.
This is not a statement about women, or whether he should have been hiring people to provide those services or not, it's simply my opinion and the vibe I get from reading that.
Those I'm discussing this with seem to be brining in various "X factors" that aren't accounted for in the article, what's more her being employed by a seperate company anc contracted through them which is what you are talking about would probably have been a key element of this dispute, when it actually seems to be a situation where she was employed individually and is going after Kotick and company herself, rather than working with
another employer.
You're dead wrong again. I've dealt with private jets in the sense of ones owned by anyone. Anyone with half a brain that owns a private jet puts it into a holding company to limit their liability and take advantage of certain tax benefits. That's exactly what Kotick and Gordon did in this case. You shield clients from liability by keeping it all tied up in the company that owns the plane and that includes any assets in connection with the plane which includes the employees (flight crew including pilots and flight attendants) which, again, is what Kotick and Gordon did in this situation. There is no "big differance" [sic]. I'm speaking from an informed position.Therumancer said:
I never said she was hired through a third party. I said that the law firm in which I worked advised clients on their labor matters in regards to the those employed in connection with their holding company's primary asset, i.e. the plane. Madvig was an employee of Cove Management, not a direct employee of Kotick or Gordon and I never said otherwise.Therumancer said:
What makes you draw the assumption that Kotick could not have been exceedingly stupid in this case? Otherwise smart businessmen do exceedingly stupid things in their private affairs all the time, and Kotick has shown himself to be an arrogant prick in many instances in his business dealings. This pattern of behaviour is hardly inconsistent with his character which is exactly the point. He hires one of the sharpest litigators in California. He refuses to listen to their advice to settle. He has them engage in scorch the earth litigation against their advice in an attempt to stick it to the plaintiff and runs up colossal legal fees as a result. He ends up settling anyway and paying an additional $475k in legal fees to the plaintiff on top of the settlement amount he was advised to pay in the beginning. He then tries to stiff his lawyers and predictably gets sued by them for the money he owes them and has to pay over 1 million dollars to them for legal fees and an additional 480k in legal fees to them for arbitration costs (and then thre are the legal fees he had to pay to the law firm that represented him in the fee dispute). That screams of all kinds of stupidity on multiple levels. If you don't think compounded acts of stupidity can't be committed by otherwise intelligent people you're blinding yourself to the realities of the world. This current recession is a monumental testament to such acts.Therumancer said:
I get that. My point is that various aspects of your opinion are uninformed and therefore don't carry a lot of weight with them.Therumancer said:
You're the one using "X Factors" by making numerous assumptions to speculate about the plaintiff's motives in filing her lawsuit. I'm just telling you facts about how holding company's for these planes and their employees are set up and run which simply don't comport with your speculations.Therumancer said:
if his past record is of any indication, stuff like this won't change him one bit. Now, if he suffered a stroke, then I'll start being optimistic that things will change.
