Devs quit Skullgirls and Indivisible studio Lab Zero Games, issues with studio owner

Something is probably wrong when almost half of the staff is leaving at once, but seeing other studios releasing statements for cutting ties is just wrong altogether. This looks more like PR (public relations) move from the other studios, which is something that is happening too often in the recent past. Companies taking political stands, where it is not related to their business at all and giving statements when nobody asked for them, just to get some visibility in current events.

I wouldn't be surprised if there will be a call for cancelling the owner for good.

Isn't Kotaku known to be biased about issues like racism and such ?
I'd be cautious to use Kotaku as a source on the subject...
I'd even go as far as disregarding them. Thus making this story like that.

I've read part of the senior animator letter, and that's the typical snowflake fake complain when things don't go their way.
Could be true, could be false, but currently, the trend is false accusation everywhere on those peculiar subjects for revenge.

Even if the individual accusations cannot be fully verified, and they most likely won't be, I think it's quite unlikely for a bunch of people to just stand up and leave for no reason while flinging wild accusations at the door. So even if we treat the accusations as accusations we can lean into Occam's razor and say that managerial fault is more likely than a multi-person conspiracy against Zaimont.

Even if the individual accusations cannot be fully verified, and they most likely won't be, I think it's quite unlikely for a bunch of people to just stand up and leave for no reason while flinging wild accusations at the door. So even if we treat the accusations as accusations we can lean into Occam's razor and say that managerial fault is more likely than a multi-person conspiracy against Zaimont.

Still doesn't justify lynching the person, even if we assume they are guilty. Again, due legal process.

Also, I strongly disagree from your inference. I have seen multiple cases in my life of a number of people doing a concerted/group attack on someone due to various issues unrelated to the guilt or innocence of that person to the matters they are accused of. I can only think it also happens to the world at large.

I am not justifying any "lynching". If people want Zaimont to be punished they should seek a legal solution. But I also believe that the people who are leaving the company have the right to give an account of why they are leaving and Zaimont can correct the record using legal processes if someone can be deemed to be libelous.

Also, note that my inference only stated that I believed in managerial fault, not that I'm 100% convinced of everything anyone has said about the guy. My assertion is simply that I don't believe without a collapse in management people would be leaving the company. Whether that collapse was fully, partially or not at all due to the accusations made doesn't matter. My only aim was to balance the discourse since some people seem to be leaning towards a hypothesis of a conspiracy and I find that highly unlikely.


Last edited by Samsai on 25 August 2020 at 12:07 pm UTC

I'll add to the skepticism bucket this small fact:
There are no legal action against the guy from what we know.

And that's the typical signature of false accusation, even more so in Los Angeles. They have pretty good laws against Harassement. Why aren't there any legal action and only twitter bashing ?

... Why aren't there any legal action and only twitter bashing ?

Probably because everyone knows that legal battles are long, darwn-out, expensive affairs with a low probability of success. Most people just quit, get a new job, and move on.

... Why aren't there any legal action and only twitter bashing ?

Probably because everyone knows that legal battles are long, darwn-out, expensive affairs with a low probability of success. Most people just quit, get a new job, and move on.

Not only that, while you are quite correct, it's not always stuff that's illegal. Being a complete creep and a terrible person is not illegal but not someone you want to work for. This is clear here. It's not CaNcEl CuLtUrE, it's clearly people being left with no choice.

Still doesn't justify lynching the person, even if we assume they are guilty. Again, due legal process.

Lynching means something, to call this sort of thing lynching is just gross. This is private individuals using their freedom of speech to call out an employer's behavior and make public statements. There's no legal process involved because this is how speech is supposed to work.

Complaining about "cancel culture" comes across as saying, "Some people should not be subject to repercussions or public criticism for their actions."

Isn't Kotaku known to be biased about issues like racism and such ?
I'd be cautious to use Kotaku as a source on the subject...
I'd even go as far as disregarding them. Thus making this story like that.

I've read part of the senior animator letter, and that's the typical snowflake fake complain when things don't go their way.
Could be true, could be false, but currently, the trend is false accusation everywhere on those peculiar subjects for revenge.

Biased about racism? You do know that the alternative would be "pro racism" right?!

This is cancel culture. Condemn first, ruin the dude's life first, ruin all business opportunities and create a stigma that will follow him all his life. Then maybe in the future if he'll be judged innocent no news will be told, because it is not interesting. That's why there is such a thing as due legal process. Even a person suspect of the worst crimes against mankind is still only a suspect: they cannot be punished until they are properly judged.

I guess the question is, how would you suggest this situation be handled differently? I know the U.S. is generally litigious but you don't have to sue every time you are wronged to somehow prove you were wronged.

Those who left felt strongly enough about it to leave in the midst of a pandemic and a 10% unemployment rate in the U.S. That says a lot to me.

No, that's a false dilemma. And I would suggest not to go this way on this thread, this has nothing whatsoever to do with racism and the current topic is controversial enough.

Did you even read the article and the linked source that talks about past issues? Zaimont thought it was funny to make a racist joke about "I can't breathe". If you don't understand that, and why it's truly shit to joke about it then you must live in a really nice bubble. So yes, Racism does come into it. Stop defending a clear creep and terrible person. You can't just write everything off like this as some form of cancel culture or whatever idiotic term people come up with next to defend terrible people.


Last edited by Liam Dawe on 25 August 2020 at 3:08 pm UTC

He's an asshole, that's for sure, this is the conversation (not as inappropriate as you would think): https://imgur.com/a/EAHadqu
Cancel culture is just witch-hunting, if you got an asshole coworker you can do something about it, it seems like the typical situation in which a guy is being a dick and nobody does nothing about it so he keeps being a dick and also becomes more and more stupid over the time, because nobody does anything.
I have a coworker that likes to sexually touch the people, the same day he touched me i just said him that the next time I would smash his head against the concrete. He never touched me again.

I don't know, looking at the conversation it looks like he's trying too hard to be funny and generally not too good at interacting with a person. Especially since said person is apparently a young, sexy lady who's publicly into kinky stuff (did I get this part right?).

Then again, as others previously said, if half of the staff is quitting over his behavior, I think it's safe to assume that there was something wrong about it that made people uncomfortable.

But I feel sad for the cries to cancel that individual, it's cancel culture to its fullest. What's wrong with cancelling someone if they deserve it?

What on earth are you talking about? This isn't 'cancel culture', it's half a game studio quitting because their manager is a known abusive sex pest arsehole who should have been fired.

My employment history is deeply varied - from voice acting to nursing to retail - but one thing is 100% consistent: bad managers make working life utter hell for those who have to work under them. There are, generally, three solutions - promote them, fire them, or watch good staff leave. This studio chose option 3.

The aspiemeter readings are out of range... again.

I'll add to the skepticism bucket this small fact:
There are no legal action against the guy from what we know.

And that's the typical signature of false accusation, even more so in Los Angeles. They have pretty good laws against Harassement. Why aren't there any legal action and only twitter bashing ?

Um, very simply and assuredly, no... My father spent almost his entire career in HR for large corporations dealing with issues such as these and legal actions are outrageously rare, even in situations that are 100% verified through investigative means (which, if it's high ranking people involved, these companies will do). It's outrageously time consuming and expensive and everyone involved is motivated to resolve these issues in a multitude of other ways.

He also noted, for much the same reasons to say nothing of fears of blowback and reputational harm, false accusation, especially in the workplace, is also outrageously rare. While everyone in the industry has their favorite story or two about a fake this or a false that, the vast majority of accusations usually have some degree of truth behind them at some level.

I am not actually defending his "cause", I am defending his right to not be condemned before trial.

If you want to defend the rights of racists, shouldn't you do this in court instead of a Linux Gaming forum? :D

This is one of the rare circumstances on GOL that I wouldn't mind the comments being disabled. Some of these comments are rather disheartening to read.

Still doesn't justify lynching the person, even if we assume they are guilty. Again, due legal process.

Lynching means something, to call this sort of thing lynching is just gross. This is private individuals using their freedom of speech to call out an employer's behavior and make public statements. There's no legal process involved because this is how speech is supposed to work.

These private individuals acting in concert and contributing to get that guy out of the market

Excuse me, but they quit their jobs. As in, abandoned their gainful employment to instead make zero dollars, very literally putting their money where their mouths are. He's still sitting on his now-largely-vacant company; he's not the one "out of the market".

From the said joke, I had not understand at the time I read this was an allusion to George Floyd, indeed. Anyway, this look like dark humor to me, insensitivity to George's death, not necessarily racism only because George was black.

I keep my point that this is cancel culture, which tries to skip trial and due process.

You know, I'm in my fifties. Back in the 1970s or 80s I don't remember anyone thinking you had to have a trial and due process before you were allowed to say something nasty about someone. So I don't think saying nasty things about people without first holding a trial represents "cancel culture". It's kind of incoherent as an idea--how do you try someone for the right to say nasty things about them without first saying the nasty things you want to be allowed to say?

If you're so hung up on trials, it seems to me the shoe is on the other foot--if they're lying, let him sue them for libel.