Company News Stardock sexual harassment lawsuit dropped

[Irenaeus]

Maybe now he can concentrate in making good games.

 

[Redlands]

Maybe now he can concentrate in making good games.

Why? He's never done so in the past.

 

[GarfunkeL]

I'm a sexist and racist dumbfuck and I love to flaunt my prejudices and ignorance to the wider world

Thanks for the valuable contribution!

 

[dnf]

I'm a sexist and racist dumbfuck and I love to flaunt my prejudices and ignorance to the wider world

Thanks for the valuable contribution!

Do you even dock?

 

[Lorica]

I'm not some manager or coworker of yours. I own the company. It, and your job here, exist to suit my purposes, not vice versa. The company is not an end unto itself, it is a means to an end which is to further the objectives of its shareholders (in this case, me).

Manager of the year.

 

[Mantic]

Knowing how wimmin operate, she probably was constantly flirting and behaving in a slutty manner towards male colleagues, just waiting for someone to start pushing back so she could begin gathering ammunition to blackmail them with "sexual harassment" claims. The CEO was probably the grand prize in that harpy's plan.

 

[mondblut]

I'm not some manager or coworker of yours. I own the company. It, and your job here, exist to suit my purposes, not vice versa. The company is not an end unto itself, it is a means to an end which is to further the objectives of its shareholders (in this case, me).

Manager of the year.

Pray tell which one of the words above is not a 100% hard truth.

Fucking entitled peons, no wonder every reasonable businessman is switching his labor to thirdworldia.

 

[mondblut]

#3, however is not acceptable to me. I am an inappropriate, sexist, vulgar, and embarrassing person and I'm not inclined to change my behavior. If this is a problem, you will need to find another job.

#4, Again, I am not willing to adapt my behavior to suit others. IF you find my behavior problematic, I recommend finding another job.

I'm not some manager or coworker of yours. I own the company. It, and your job here, exist to suit my purposes, not vice versa. The company is not an end unto itself, it is a means to an end which is to further the objectives of its shareholders (in this case, me).

While I certainly agree that your rights as a person (certainly in terms of physical contact or interms of comments made towards you regarding your private live) take precedence over my rights as the owner of the business, that is as far as it goes.

I sincerely apologize for offending you while on our trip. I certainly would never intentionally try to upset you or make you uncomfortable and will endeavor to avoid doing so in the future. However, I won't change my basic personality to suit anyone (i.e. being an inappropriate, sexist, vulgar and embarrassing person).

I said it before, and will repeat again: manlier words have never been said.

 

[Lorica]

I'm not some manager or coworker of yours. I own the company. It, and your job here, exist to suit my purposes, not vice versa. The company is not an end unto itself, it is a means to an end which is to further the objectives of its shareholders (in this case, me).

Manager of the year.

Pray tell which one of the words above is not a 100% hard truth.

Fucking entitled peons, no wonder every reasonable businessman is switching his labor to thirdworldia.

Companies exist to make money, not to stroke the ego of a tactless moron who calls himself a manager. I'm in the process of watching a company go down in great big balls of flames due to retards like this and trying to whip the owner of another into shape before he drives his company to implosion again. They both say shit like that. They both do shit like that. They've both managed to scupper million dollar projects in the past year through stupid ego bullshit and they've both managed to lose 50% of core staff in a six month window with more on their way out. There may be some business genius out there (or, more likely, someone who's insansely lucky) who really does know all the answers and their moronic games will pay off, but surely you've been in the workforce long enough that you don't me trying to covince you that this attitude is a losing attitude.

Read it again. It's not "this company is for making money, not for providing you with friends that you like, so buck up," it's "this company is for me and I do what I want." Yeah, I don't think it's stupid to think the former when you sign a contract instead of the latter. He's making the ridiculous claim that making vulgar jokes IS the objective of the company. The company exists to make money for its shareholders, not make some man-child feel self-important.

 

[mondblut]

Companies exist to make money, not to stroke the ego of a tactless moron who calls himself a manager. I'm in the process of watching a company go down in great big balls of flames due to retards like this and trying to whip the owner of another into shape before he drives his company to implosion again. They both say shit like that. They both do shit like that. They've both managed to scupper million dollar projects in the past year through stupid ego bullshit and they've both managed to lose 50% of core staff in a six month window with more on their way out. There may be some business genius out there (or, more likely, someone who's insansely lucky) who really does know all the answers and their moronic games will pay off, but surely you've been in the workforce long enough that you don't me trying to covince you that this attitude is a losing attitude.

Sure, sucking it up and bending over will get you much farther in life that standing up for your own. You don't get far with your business when you are unwilling to comply with capricious demands of entitled primadonnas within your staff. That's why I find Brad's attitude even more admirable. To be willing to shut down his company rather than bend over is a rare sight in this age of manginas.

The company exists to make money for its shareholders, not make some man-child feel self-important.

Ever thought for a second that for him, having that company might be a hobby? He is, I presume, rich enough to call it quits whenever he wishes. So yeah, he may keep it around to "feel self-important", what's wrong with that? An enterpreneur is not obliged to anybody to remain an enterpreneur and stay obsessed with making more money for his entire lifetime.

 

[Overboard]

Companies exist to make money, not to stroke the ego of a tactless moron who calls himself a manager.

CEO. Also, owner.

I'm in the process of watching a company blah blah blah blah more on their way out.

Hooray for the logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent, a form of logical reversal. e.g. the owner of this company does this, Brad does this, therefore both their companies are failing (protip: no evidence exists to prove Stardock is in financial crisis). Also, a hasty generalisation, where a small sample is used to "prove" a conclusion.

Read it again. It's not "this company is for making money, not for providing you with friends that you like, so buck up," it's "this company is for me and I do what I want."

Perhaps you should do the reading, instead of engaging in straw men:

I'm not some manager or coworker of yours. I own the company. It, and your job here, exist to suit my purposes, not vice versa. The company is not an end unto itself, it is a means to an end which is to further the objectives of its shareholders (in this case, me).

Yeah, I don't think it's stupid to think the former when you sign a contract instead of the latter. He's making the ridiculous claim that making vulgar jokes IS the objective of the company.

Another straw man in the very same paragraph?

The company exists to make money for its shareholders, not make some man-child feel self-important.

A hat-trick! Three straw men in the same paragraph!

Just to reiterate, these are the relevant sections from the original email, and the response:

Brad,

...

1. 
   
   
   • ...
   • ...
   • Please be careful with your "jokes" which are at many times inappropriate, sexist, vulgar and very embarrassing not only to me, but everyone present.
   • ...

...

Respectfully,
Alexandra MisetaP

The reply

Hi Alexandra,

Thank you for bringing these up to me as I certainly do not want you to feel uncomfortable at work.

...

#3, however is not acceptable to me. I am an inappropriate, sexist, vulgar, and embarrassing person and I'm not inclined to change my behavior. If this is a problem, you will need to find another job.

...

I'm not some manager or coworker of yours. I own the company. It, and your job here, exist to suit my purposes, not vice versa. The company is not an end unto itself, it is a means to an end which is to further the objectives of its shareholders (in this case, me).

While I certainly agree that your rights as a person (certainly in terms of physical contact or interms of comments made towards you regarding your private live) take precedence over my rights as the owner of the business, that is as far as it goes.

I sincerely apologize for offending you while on our trip. I certainly would never intentionally try to upset you or make you uncomfortable and will endeavor to avoid doing so in the future. However, I won't change my basic personality to suit anyone (i.e. being an inappropriate, sexist, vulgar and embarrassing person).

Kind regards,
Brad

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Stardock makes very good money like they did for years, primarily because of their desktop software.

I'd imagine that with Windows 8 and the appropriate desktop offerings they released in reply to that, they're in better shape than ever before.

Also Brad kinda is a mangina, he made a blog post sucking up to women employees a while ago.

 

[Irenaeus]

I bought Fallen Empress (or something like that) from Stardock just for that letter.

 

[Ninjerk]

Overboard

 

[Spectacle]

If you can't treat your employees in a civil manner, you have no business running a company, whether you own it or not. Incorporation comes with many privileges and responsibilities, and one of those is to obey the law on workplace harassment. If you won't follow the law, shut down the company.

 

[Irenaeus]

If you follow the law with current high taxes, your company is not going to survive anyway.

 

[Lorica]

Companies exist to make money, not to stroke the ego of a tactless moron who calls himself a manager. I'm in the process of watching a company go down in great big balls of flames due to retards like this and trying to whip the owner of another into shape before he drives his company to implosion again. They both say shit like that. They both do shit like that. They've both managed to scupper million dollar projects in the past year through stupid ego bullshit and they've both managed to lose 50% of core staff in a six month window with more on their way out. There may be some business genius out there (or, more likely, someone who's insansely lucky) who really does know all the answers and their moronic games will pay off, but surely you've been in the workforce long enough that you don't me trying to covince you that this attitude is a losing attitude.

Sure, sucking it up and bending over will get you much farther in life that standing up for your own. You don't get far with your business when you are unwilling to comply with capricious demands of entitled primadonnas within your staff. That's why I find Brad's attitude even more admirable. To be willing to shut down his company rather than bend over is a rare sight in this age of manginas.

The company exists to make money for its shareholders, not make some man-child feel self-important.

Ever thought for a second that for him, having that company might be a hobby? He is, I presume, rich enough to call it quits whenever he wishes. So yeah, he may keep it around to "feel self-important", what's wrong with that? An enterpreneur is not obliged to anybody to remain an enterpreneur and stay obsessed with making more money for his entire lifetime.

You and I have different definitions of what it means to be a man. Leaving Brad at Stardock aside for a moment, a man who would trade success in his endeavours to spare his personal feelings, who treats his company like it's there to coddle him not to do something great, who lacks the humility to recognise critcism and profit from it, and who lacks the wisdom and intelligence to know how his words and actions impact other people and use them to his advantage, is just a kid playing with Lego. I get that you like him standing up for himself... But I respect people who stand up for themselves where it matters, it matters of their own success and abilities, rather than standing up for the right to throw Jew jokes around the office. That's what I'm railing against.

Returning to Brad... His letter reeks of "wah, I'm gonna be me!" when an adult would know that with men, with friends, relaxing and not working is the time to be vulgar and offensive if you feel like it. This is a grown man, a self-styled CEO who can't put on a tie and be an adult for the day at a company that he owns. That's sad. He comes across looking like a greater primadona to me than the complaining employee does.

I have thought about it. It isn't necessary that companies are just about money, you're right. Passion for something, the desire to change the world... There are respectable alternatives. I think it's still ridiculous that he needs an environment that's tailored to letting him be himself all the time. Someone who creates a company to feel self important is dumb and immature. I doubt that's the case with Stardock and this guy, too, but then why's he writing letters like that?

Companies exist to make money, not to stroke the ego of a tactless moron who calls himself a manager.

CEO. Also, owner.

Oh, sorry, he has a more grandiose title.

I'm in the process of watching a company blah blah blah blah more on their way out.

Hooray for the logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent, a form of logical reversal. e.g. the owner of this company does this, Brad does this, therefore both their companies are failing (protip: no evidence exists to prove Stardock is in financial crisis). Also, a hasty generalisation, where a small sample is used to "prove" a conclusion.

I wasn't proving a conclusion. I was explaining why I said what I said. That is, I criticized his management style and gave a rough, if rambly, explanation of why I think it sucks. I never said "the owner of this company does this, Brad does this, therefore both their companies are failing" you utter cunt-faced moron.

Read it again. It's not "this company is for making money, not for providing you with friends that you like, so buck up," it's "this company is for me and I do what I want."

Perhaps you should do the reading, instead of engaging in straw men:

I'm not some manager or coworker of yours. I own the company. It, and your job here, exist to suit my purposes, not vice versa. The company is not an end unto itself, it is a means to an end which is to further the objectives of its shareholders (in this case, me).

Yeah, I don't think it's stupid to think the former when you sign a contract instead of the latter. He's making the ridiculous claim that making vulgar jokes IS the objective of the company.

Another straw man in the very same paragraph?

The company exists to make money for its shareholders, not make some man-child feel self-important.

A hat-trick! Three straw men in the same paragraph!

Goddamn internet losers. First, look up the expression strawman.

Second, the first two are the same reading of the letter. See below.

Third, if you skipped step one, "the company exists to make money for its shareholders" is a claim that I'm making about companies based on my values. Feel free to disagree, but it isn't a strawman. The second part has to do with cases like those mondblut mentioned: in the off chance the guy created a company merely to inflate his own ego or stave off boredom. I dismiss it because I make the claim that it's childish. See my response to him.

Just to reiterate, these are the relevant sections from the original email, and the response:

Brad,

...

1. 
   
   
   • ...
   • ...
   • Please be careful with your "jokes" which are at many times inappropriate, sexist, vulgar and very embarrassing not only to me, but everyone present.
   • ...

...

Respectfully,
Alexandra MisetaP

The reply

Hi Alexandra,

Thank you for bringing these up to me as I certainly do not want you to feel uncomfortable at work.

...

#3, however is not acceptable to me. I am an inappropriate, sexist, vulgar, and embarrassing person and I'm not inclined to change my behavior. If this is a problem, you will need to find another job.

...

I'm not some manager or coworker of yours. I own the company. It, and your job here, exist to suit my purposes, not vice versa. The company is not an end unto itself, it is a means to an end which is to further the objectives of its shareholders (in this case, me).

While I certainly agree that your rights as a person (certainly in terms of physical contact or interms of comments made towards you regarding your private live) take precedence over my rights as the owner of the business, that is as far as it goes.

I sincerely apologize for offending you while on our trip. I certainly would never intentionally try to upset you or make you uncomfortable and will endeavor to avoid doing so in the future. However, I won't change my basic personality to suit anyone (i.e. being an inappropriate, sexist, vulgar and embarrassing person).

Kind regards,
Brad

So assume for a minute that the first bolded part is not a reference to making money and that he's not being hypocritical.

Instead, there are unspecified objectives belonging to its shareholders.

Brad says that he won't change to meet those objectives.

That's okay, he could just already be meeting those objectives by acting this way.

What might those objectives be? The smooth operation of his company? I dunno, sounds like he has personnel issues and won't take internal criticism that his personal style might be rubbing people the wrong way on a media tour. Maybe his behaviour serves the objective of making good video games, his real passion and the real purpose of Stardock? That could be, but I would like to see that argued. Oh, wait, Fallen Enchantress. Can't be that.

Could it be that his specifying that *he* is the primary shareholder, he's really saying that the company does whatever he wants? That's weird, you'd think companies existed for a reason other than making little boys happy.

Go read a book, Overboard.

 

[mondblut]

You and I have different definitions of what it means to be a man.

Definitely

Leaving Brad at Stardock aside for a moment, a man who would trade success in his endeavours to spare his personal feelings, who treats his company like it's there to coddle him not to do something great, who lacks the humility to recognise critcism and profit from it, and who lacks the wisdom and intelligence to know how his words and actions impact other people and use them to his advantage, is just a kid playing with Lego.

I dunno; unless you're desperate for cash right here and right now, having IRL Lego to play with is the whole point of starting a company of your own. If you can't say what you will and do what you will on your own premises, you could just as well slave off at mcdonalds.

I get that you like him standing up for himself... But I respect people who stand up for themselves where it matters, it matters of their own success and abilities, rather than standing up for the right to throw Jew jokes around the office. That's what I'm railing against.

Paying people from your own pocket and not throw Jew jokes around them? Are you fucking kidding me? What's the fun of it?

Returning to Brad... His letter reeks of "wah, I'm gonna be me!" when an adult would know that with men, with friends, relaxing and not working is the time to be vulgar and offensive if you feel like it. This is a grown man, a self-styled CEO who can't put on a tie and be an adult for the day at a company that he owns. That's sad. He comes across looking like a greater primadona to me than the complaining employee does.

Fuck adults and grown men. We already have a plenty of them in this industry. Like Herve Caen and Bobby Cotick. I'll take rebellious manchilds over the responsible adult scum surrounded by a horde of PR department employees working day and night to make them look like the nicest persons on Earth any day. Me being a fellow manchild and not inclined to change my behavior. Go Brad! (and hopefully start making fun games for a change, ehehe...)

I think it's still ridiculous that he needs an environment that's tailored to letting him be himself all the time. Someone who creates a company to feel self important is dumb and immature.

And I think that's the sole reason to strike out on your own to begin with. If you are out to suck up and bend over, you can always get a comfy spot at upper management of EA or something.

Also, "immaturity" rules.

 

[Cursed Platypus]

You and I have different definitions of what it means to be a man. Leaving Brad at Stardock aside for a moment, a man who would trade success in his endeavours to spare his personal feelings, who treats his company like it's there to coddle him not to do something great, who lacks the humility to recognise critcism and profit from it, and who lacks the wisdom and intelligence to know how his words and actions impact other people and use them to his advantage, is just a kid playing with Lego. I get that you like him standing up for himself... But I respect people who stand up for themselves where it matters, it matters of their own success and abilities, rather than standing up for the right to throw Jew jokes around the office. That's what I'm railing against.

Returning to Brad... His letter reeks of "wah, I'm gonna be me!" when an adult would know that with men, with friends, relaxing and not working is the time to be vulgar and offensive if you feel like it. This is a grown man, a self-styled CEO who can't put on a tie and be an adult for the day at a company that he owns. That's sad. He comes across looking like a greater primadona to me than the complaining employee does.

I have thought about it. It isn't necessary that companies are just about money, you're right. Passion for something, the desire to change the world... There are respectable alternatives. I think it's still ridiculous that he needs an environment that's tailored to letting him be himself all the time. Someone who creates a company to feel self important is dumb and immature. I doubt that's the case with Stardock and this guy, too, but then why's he writing letters like that?

That's actually the opposite. Who is she to decide how he is supposed to behave? As long as he doesn't infringe the law, doesn't infringe her personal freedom, she has no right to dictate how he can behave. She doesn't own him. And that's especially true since it's his own company, something he owns, where he decides what is appropriate and what isn't, as long as it doesn't go against the rational law.

He didn't do anything physical, not even direct verbal harassment. She has no righteous reason to expect him to change an harmless behaviour. She can still asks politely, but must always expect and accept a righteous refusal. She can go fuck herself, and she's obviously after lawsuit money.

He is both legally and morally right.

 

[mondblut]

^ what this guy said.

Whenever a stuck up bitch enters someplace she hardly belongs to and immediately throws a hissy fit demanding everybody to conform to her expected standarts of behavior, I want to fucking kick her in the stomach until she is clinically infertile, and then some more. That's why I applaud Brad's verbal version of that

(in b4 hiver having his whiteknighting veins popping: that applies to stuck up faggots, too)

 

[Lorica]

I don't know anything specific about her claims, just what's in the letters (which claim that he did touch her, for what it's worth). I still find his response whiny BS. This moral and legal right you talk about is a cowardly cover for childish behaviour. Sure, he'd probably be totally fine showing up to work in his pyjamas and playing with dolls all day instead of working, but I wouldn't respect him for that, either.

 

[Metro]

Whenever a stuck up bitch enters someplace she hardly belongs to and immediately throws a hissy fit demanding everybody to conform to her expected standarts of behavior, I want to fucking kick her in the stomach until she is clinically infertile, and then some more.

As a lawyer I would advise against such a course of action~

 

[mondblut]

Whenever a stuck up bitch enters someplace she hardly belongs to and immediately throws a hissy fit demanding everybody to conform to her expected standarts of behavior, I want to fucking kick her in the stomach until she is clinically infertile, and then some more.

As a lawyer I would advise against such a course of action~

...but wish you could join in, eh?

 

[Dexter]

Read it again. It's not "this company is for making money, not for providing you with friends that you like, so buck up," it's "this company is for me and I do what I want." Yeah, I don't think it's stupid to think the former when you sign a contract instead of the latter. He's making the ridiculous claim that making vulgar jokes IS the objective of the company. The company exists to make money for its shareholders, not make some man-child feel self-important.

You seem to fail to realize that he owns said company and can do whatever the fuck he wants, even prance around in women's underwear and put tigers in cages as decorations around the place or operate his in-house strip club as long as he can get the necessary permits.

Stardock is a privately held company with Brad Wardell as a majority owner similar to how Gabe Newell runs Valve (if he wanted a pool full of chocolate pudding to swim in in front of the corporate headquarters he could instate that too, no matter what other employees thought): http://www.stardock.com/press/CustomerReports/Stardock2012.pdf

Stardock is a privately-held company; so we’re not beholden to the disclosures to stockholders that publicly traded companies do.

The goal of a privately held company can be whatever the hell the owner wants it to be.

There are no "shareholders" in such a relationship and employees can take it how the company is run or leave, obviously nothing untoward or illegal had happened or the suit wouldn't have been dropped.

I'm pretty sure the guy will be deeply hurt by not earning your respect for how he is running his company though.

 

[Lorica]

I'm pretty sure the guy will be deeply hurt by not earning your respect for how he is running his company though.

Not as wounded as people like you seem to be that I disrespect him, so there's that at least.

Nothing you've said addresses the point:

Shitty-sounding manager. Whiny, childish attitude.

Keep going, though, tell me how eminently legal it all is. Tell me about all the great and zany real reasons companies form and operate, how making money and doing real work is second fiddle to pudding pools and pants padding.