Stardock Embroiled in Clashing Lawsuits, Story Only Gets Weirder

Posted by patrickklepek (3068 posts) -
Elemental came out of the gate with a bunch of issues. Miseta once worked on Elemental.

This one’s a doosey. Sit down, and stay awhile.

Kotaku first reported this morning on a brewing legal confrontation between Stardock CEO Brad Wardell and former marketing manager Alexandra Miseta. She left Stardock three weeks before the disastrous Elemental shipped, a game Wardell later fell on his sword for, placing the largest blame for its many faults on himself.

She left and eventually filed sexual harassment charges.

It’s been more than two years since Elemental shipped, and the legal details are just now coming to light.

In her lawsuit, Miseta outlined a history of behavior by Wardell, culminating at a May 2010 dinner where Wardell reportedly touched her hair. Miseta sent an email to Wardell the next day with bullet points, outlining about what made her uncomfortable. She asked Wardell to “never touch my hair or any of my body parts; not even jokingly” and “do not talk about my private life or about my boyfriend/future husband in any terms especially negative terms.”

“With the above few behavioral changes,” she said, “I'm hoping our previously friendly and professional relationship can be reestablished.”

Wardell quickly responded.

"Thank you for bringing these up to me as I certainly do not want you to feel uncomfortable at work,” he said.

Wardell had problems with several of the points, and then gave Miseta an ultimatum about his behavior.

“I'm not some manager or coworker of yours,” he said. “I own the company. It, and your job there, 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).”

She left.

When Stardock was unable to dismiss Miseta’s harassment suit, which goes to trial at an unspecified date, the company filed its own lawsuit against Miseta, alleging she "deleted, destroyed, and/or stole” marketing materials related to Elemental. Stardock is seeking more than $1 million in damages.

There are many, many more details in Kotaku’s story, including a link to the lengthy filing papers.

What’s interesting is how Wardell has chosen to publicly responded. Rather than sticking by a carefully worded response, and, then, asking for patience at the case works through the legal system, Wardell has been unusually frank with critics on the Quarter to Three boards. You read that right.

Before that happened, though, Stardock released a lengthy statement to Joystiq today:

“It is unfortunate that feelings were hurt during this after-hours, non-work-related public dinner where several people were in attendance. This is a frivolous case against Brad Wardell that will be litigated in a court of law. That she would choose to try to fight this in the court of public opinion versus the court of law only further demonstrates the frivolity of her case.

However, there is no excuse for her malicious behavior when she quit without notice and used her privileged access to destroy valuable company intellectual property which contributed to the loss of millions of dollars and affected the livelihoods of Stardock employees. It is without question that Alexandra Miseta's intent to harm the company included her actions of stealing company property, destroying company material and rendering remaining materials unusable.

This behavior is unacceptable, against the law and should not be condoned. A court case is actively being pursued in a federal court by Stardock Corporation.

Alexandra Miseta has been aware of the pending charges against her for the past two years. The claims against her were filed almost two years ago. They have recently been moved to federal court due to Stardock's discovery of a federal statute which directly addresses her unlawful actions. To suggest Stardock Corporation's actions are retaliatory to her personal case against Brad Wardell is absurd.

- Stardock Corporation”

And here’s where Wardell begins wading into the Quarter to Three forums. Scroll down a bit. He outlines some more details about the original incident in question, which prompted Miseta’s email:

“Ok, I'm going to respond here since I'm being directly accused of something.

The incident that started this happened back in 2010. Myself, Alexandra, and a few others were at a pub while waiting to go to the Qt3 dinner that Lloyd case had set up.

While there, Alexandra got teased and got mad. At the time, i didn't realize she was so upset about it. So we went to the Qt3 get together (that some here may have even been at) and that.

She later emailed me telling me she was mad about the incident - to which I apologized for hurting her feeligs but also insisted that I watch what jokes I tell around the office. (To understand the context, we're a relaxed software company, lots of Family guy jokes, Simpsons references, Robot Chicken references, etc.). To which I responded, admittedly, very very harshly to.

Now, you can argue that I was a jerk in how I responded to her. But it does not justify her getting pissed off, quitting without notice and using her network access to wipe out our marketing assets 3 weeks before the ship of the game forcing me and a few other key team members to scramble at the last second to deal with it.

In addition, I would ask those who are so quick to condemn me personally to ask themselves this - what impact do you think it would have on your team if a key person quit, wiped out a bunch of stuff and made a bunch of legal theats? Think of the effect it would have around the office.

NO one has suggested that if she hadn't done this that Elemental would have been a great game. But there is a huge gulf between having a "great game" and a "total disaster". The ultimate blame for the game's failure lies with me for reasons I've stated countless times. But that doesn't excuse someone from maliciously and intentionally wiping out years worth of marketing data, assets, etc.

And the charge that this is "retaliatory" is ridiculous and, frankly, offensive to not just me but virtually everyone here at Stardock - who I can assure you are at least as pissed off as I was about what she did.

The only thing that has recently changed is that our case against her got moved to federal court and that we have continued our position of not settling her frivolous case.”

Wardell is continuing to contribute to the thread, which is an interesting legal tactic. I’ll be watching.

Staff Online
#1 Posted by patrickklepek (3068 posts) -
Elemental came out of the gate with a bunch of issues. Miseta once worked on Elemental.

This one’s a doosey. Sit down, and stay awhile.

Kotaku first reported this morning on a brewing legal confrontation between Stardock CEO Brad Wardell and former marketing manager Alexandra Miseta. She left Stardock three weeks before the disastrous Elemental shipped, a game Wardell later fell on his sword for, placing the largest blame for its many faults on himself.

She left and eventually filed sexual harassment charges.

It’s been more than two years since Elemental shipped, and the legal details are just now coming to light.

In her lawsuit, Miseta outlined a history of behavior by Wardell, culminating at a May 2010 dinner where Wardell reportedly touched her hair. Miseta sent an email to Wardell the next day with bullet points, outlining about what made her uncomfortable. She asked Wardell to “never touch my hair or any of my body parts; not even jokingly” and “do not talk about my private life or about my boyfriend/future husband in any terms especially negative terms.”

“With the above few behavioral changes,” she said, “I'm hoping our previously friendly and professional relationship can be reestablished.”

Wardell quickly responded.

"Thank you for bringing these up to me as I certainly do not want you to feel uncomfortable at work,” he said.

Wardell had problems with several of the points, and then gave Miseta an ultimatum about his behavior.

“I'm not some manager or coworker of yours,” he said. “I own the company. It, and your job there, 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).”

She left.

When Stardock was unable to dismiss Miseta’s harassment suit, which goes to trial at an unspecified date, the company filed its own lawsuit against Miseta, alleging she "deleted, destroyed, and/or stole” marketing materials related to Elemental. Stardock is seeking more than $1 million in damages.

There are many, many more details in Kotaku’s story, including a link to the lengthy filing papers.

What’s interesting is how Wardell has chosen to publicly responded. Rather than sticking by a carefully worded response, and, then, asking for patience at the case works through the legal system, Wardell has been unusually frank with critics on the Quarter to Three boards. You read that right.

Before that happened, though, Stardock released a lengthy statement to Joystiq today:

“It is unfortunate that feelings were hurt during this after-hours, non-work-related public dinner where several people were in attendance. This is a frivolous case against Brad Wardell that will be litigated in a court of law. That she would choose to try to fight this in the court of public opinion versus the court of law only further demonstrates the frivolity of her case.

However, there is no excuse for her malicious behavior when she quit without notice and used her privileged access to destroy valuable company intellectual property which contributed to the loss of millions of dollars and affected the livelihoods of Stardock employees. It is without question that Alexandra Miseta's intent to harm the company included her actions of stealing company property, destroying company material and rendering remaining materials unusable.

This behavior is unacceptable, against the law and should not be condoned. A court case is actively being pursued in a federal court by Stardock Corporation.

Alexandra Miseta has been aware of the pending charges against her for the past two years. The claims against her were filed almost two years ago. They have recently been moved to federal court due to Stardock's discovery of a federal statute which directly addresses her unlawful actions. To suggest Stardock Corporation's actions are retaliatory to her personal case against Brad Wardell is absurd.

- Stardock Corporation”

And here’s where Wardell begins wading into the Quarter to Three forums. Scroll down a bit. He outlines some more details about the original incident in question, which prompted Miseta’s email:

“Ok, I'm going to respond here since I'm being directly accused of something.

The incident that started this happened back in 2010. Myself, Alexandra, and a few others were at a pub while waiting to go to the Qt3 dinner that Lloyd case had set up.

While there, Alexandra got teased and got mad. At the time, i didn't realize she was so upset about it. So we went to the Qt3 get together (that some here may have even been at) and that.

She later emailed me telling me she was mad about the incident - to which I apologized for hurting her feeligs but also insisted that I watch what jokes I tell around the office. (To understand the context, we're a relaxed software company, lots of Family guy jokes, Simpsons references, Robot Chicken references, etc.). To which I responded, admittedly, very very harshly to.

Now, you can argue that I was a jerk in how I responded to her. But it does not justify her getting pissed off, quitting without notice and using her network access to wipe out our marketing assets 3 weeks before the ship of the game forcing me and a few other key team members to scramble at the last second to deal with it.

In addition, I would ask those who are so quick to condemn me personally to ask themselves this - what impact do you think it would have on your team if a key person quit, wiped out a bunch of stuff and made a bunch of legal theats? Think of the effect it would have around the office.

NO one has suggested that if she hadn't done this that Elemental would have been a great game. But there is a huge gulf between having a "great game" and a "total disaster". The ultimate blame for the game's failure lies with me for reasons I've stated countless times. But that doesn't excuse someone from maliciously and intentionally wiping out years worth of marketing data, assets, etc.

And the charge that this is "retaliatory" is ridiculous and, frankly, offensive to not just me but virtually everyone here at Stardock - who I can assure you are at least as pissed off as I was about what she did.

The only thing that has recently changed is that our case against her got moved to federal court and that we have continued our position of not settling her frivolous case.”

Wardell is continuing to contribute to the thread, which is an interesting legal tactic. I’ll be watching.

Staff Online
#2 Posted by Animasta (14460 posts) -

wardell is a fucker and a shithead news at 10

#3 Posted by Nettacki (1313 posts) -

Well I for one am willing to look out for this a bit.

#4 Edited by MisterMollusk (399 posts) -

Man I would hate to have to deal with this kind of thing. It's really hard to pass any kind of judgement since I don't know what really happened. I just hope justice is served.

#5 Posted by FinalDasa (1253 posts) -

It never looks good when someone accuses you of one thing and you just sue them back. It makes you look petty, even if it does have basis.

Also feeling the need to defend yourself also makes him look guilty. He should quit while he's behind.

#6 Edited by CaLe (3678 posts) -

I support both of them and hope both of them win their respective battle against each other.

#7 Posted by TrafalgarLaw (861 posts) -

Haha, I just love how she got sweet revenge. Wardell the basement virgin can rot away along with his games for all I care.

#8 Posted by Veiasma (194 posts) -

Here comes the inevitable wave of people jumping to conclusions without all the facts because the plaintiff is a woman.

#9 Edited by jesterroyal (339 posts) -

Never go anywhere outside of work with your boss/employees. Ever. Moral of the story. They can sue you too easily. Just.. weird. I don't know either of these people enough to make a value judgement on them. But if she wiped those assets she deserves to pay for it. And if he truly assaulted her he also deserves to pay.

#10 Posted by Rayeth (1000 posts) -

@CaLe: Kharmic Strike, they both kill off each other (in the legal/financial sense, actual killing is not a good solution).

#11 Posted by Dopey2400 (72 posts) -
@jesterroyal said:

Never go anywhere outside of work with your boss/employees. Ever. Moral of the story. They can sue you too easily. Just.. weird. I don't know either of these people enough to make a value judgement on them. But if she wiped those assets she deserves to pay for it. And if he truly assaulted her he also deserves to pay.

What he said.

#12 Posted by Terrorbite (28 posts) -

@Veiasma: Wait, are you saying that women can do bad things too? Oh. My. God.

#13 Posted by Antipunk217 (82 posts) -

Seems like a lot of comments before the story was read.

#14 Edited by wrecks (2125 posts) -

These choice quotes from his response show the kinda man he really is:

#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 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.
#15 Posted by kingofpeanuts (478 posts) -

@jesterroyal said:

Never go anywhere outside of work with your boss/employees. Ever. Moral of the story. They can sue you too easily. Just.. weird. I don't know either of these people enough to make a value judgement on them. But if she wiped those assets she deserves to pay for it. And if he truly assaulted her he also deserves to pay.

Bingo!

#16 Posted by FinalDasa (1253 posts) -

@Oldirtybearon: Well that's not what I meant, I perhaps should have clarified my remarks. I meant defending himself in the threat that was mentioned in Patrick's story. He should have let his lawyers or a single statement speak for him and deny the charges if untrue. I didn't mean he shouldn't ever defend himself.

Also next time don't say things like I hope you don't breed. Just call me out by making a point and counteracting mine. It's the internet sure but we're still people.

#17 Posted by Oni (2067 posts) -

Hey, guy? Sexual harrassment is not cool. Belittling her feelings about it even less so. So yeah, fuck off.

#18 Posted by MattyFTM (14243 posts) -

@wrecks said:

These choice quotes from his response show the kinda man he really is:

#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 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.

Yeah, those were the key bits that stand out for me. You could argue that he was possibly being sarcastic with the whole "I am an inappropriate, sexist, vulgar and embarrassing person" part, but when you end a statement with "you need to find another job.", it 's clearly not the time for sarcasm.

Moderator
#19 Posted by aagaard (25 posts) -

@jesterroyal said:

Never go anywhere outside of work with your boss/employees. Ever. Moral of the story. They can sue you too easily. Just.. weird. I don't know either of these people enough to make a value judgement on them. But if she wiped those assets she deserves to pay for it. And if he truly assaulted her he also deserves to pay.

Or if you happen to live in a country where people don't sue each other left and right... do go outside of work with your boss/employees. Socializing is fun and getting to know your colleagues can make it easier to work together.

#20 Posted by CornBREDX (4454 posts) -

I find this all more and more confusing so I'm gonna withhold judgement on this now.

#21 Posted by YoungFrey (1319 posts) -

I feel like this unfortunately links two cases. Is there a valid harassment claim? Did she sabotage the company? Even if the one is true, that doesn't make the other false or OK if it did happen.

#22 Posted by cmblasko (1006 posts) -

Everything about this guy's behavior bothers me. I find it extremely unlikely that his company doesn't have some sort of back-up system in place just in case something happens to their work.

#23 Posted by Krakn3Dfx (2480 posts) -

This is horrible, what an asshole.

On the other hand, he did put out freeware that added a Start Button back to Windows 8.

All is forgiven!

#24 Edited by Baal_Sagoth (1205 posts) -

Hm, confusing story there, Patrick. I'm going to assume that is because the facts are few and far in between and the whole situation still is contradictory as fuck. The only thing I've heard so far about Elemental's catastrophic release is this Three Moves Ahead podcast episode from 2010

Now, on first glance one is compelled to say that there's one straight up dude on display here. Then again I haven't heard of the Lady in question until I read this article. I honestly fucking hope that there's a point at all to the insinuations you point out here and we're not talking about some random bitch hoping for some attention. If there's been a sexual harassment incident that's very shitty, no doubt, and there sure as hell are plenty of dudes acting like absolute morons when testosterone gains control. Then again, this wouldn't be the first time a women used sexual harassment as an excuse to stir up some shit. [And the only fucking thing you come up with is 'touching hair', really?!? I wonder what's up with that quote man...]

I'm going to follow this but I fucking hope you aren't reporting some shitty-ass rumor here. Using forum responses as a device to question legitimacy seems like a lame and bankrupt attempt for a story on a website that heavily uses twitter, facebook, twitch, forums and random blog sites freqeuntly in gaming coverage. You quote fucking Kotaku in your first paragraph and then leave snarky remarks about internet forums? Really?

#25 Posted by CrossTheAtlantic (1145 posts) -

@wrecks said:

These choice quotes from his response show the kinda man he really is:

#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 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.

#5, I want to make myself look as guilty as possible.

#6, i really digging holes. Like love it. One of my favorite things to do.

#26 Posted by Ravenlight (8033 posts) -

@wrecks said:

These choice quotes from his response show the kinda man he really is:

#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 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.

Clearly Wardell needs to find another planet to live on because his worldview does not align with the way the rest of us mortals live life. If we can get President Gerzhtmagnne elected on the Space Cannon platform, we can just send this guy to live on the Sun.

#27 Edited by jesterroyal (339 posts) -

@aagaard said:

@jesterroyal said:

Never go anywhere outside of work with your boss/employees. Ever. Moral of the story. They can sue you too easily. Just.. weird. I don't know either of these people enough to make a value judgement on them. But if she wiped those assets she deserves to pay for it. And if he truly assaulted her he also deserves to pay.

Or if you happen to live in a country where people don't sue each other left and right... do go outside of work with your boss/employees. Socializing is fun and getting to know your colleagues can make it easier to work together.

Truthfully I think you got to feel out the situation. I made that statement for effect but the sentiment is true. If you hang out with someone who is a direct superior or inferior to you its VERY difficult not to let one bleed into the other. In many cases that bleed over can be great, like you said. It helps you get to know people better and making friends as an adult is NOT EASY. Its just a risk to pal around with someone in the same branch as you who is at a very different pay grade. Especially in the land of the litigation.

---

I'm not a legal savant by any stretch so take these statements as I feel they apply to social norms. I feel like there are right ways to do things and wrong ways. (Regardless of whatever legality is in play) If this was a non work related event that work people just happened to be at, i feel like she should have brought her complaints to him in a non work related fashion. If you hate the people you go to parties with, just don't go anymore. Remove yourself from the situation. And If it was a work related complaint he should have replied to her email with a modicum of decency instead of that silly drivel he spouted back.

I hope both parties get a fair and just trial on both counts. I've never been one to scream "MAKE HIM PAY" becuase I truly don't know anything about what happened. And if I were accused of something I would like to have a fair chance at things and not be killed in the court of public opinion before even coming to trial. They could totally both be innocent and if the court is doing its job that is what we will find out.

#28 Posted by DerWaffleMous (2 posts) -

Wardell is the type of guy to use his company's assets to engage in some petty shit.

Like the time he had Stardock boycott UPS and other companies because they decided to pull their ads from Glen Beck's show.

#29 Posted by Animasta (14460 posts) -

@Baal_Sagoth: She told everyone she was leaving and was deleting her account a week before she actually did it, you know, so if they really didn't back it up it's all their fault

#30 Posted by Scotto (1113 posts) -

@FinalDasa said:

@Oldirtybearon: Well that's not what I meant, I perhaps should have clarified my remarks. I meant defending himself in the threat that was mentioned in Patrick's story. He should have let his lawyers or a single statement speak for him and deny the charges if untrue. I didn't mean he shouldn't ever defend himself.

Also next time don't say things like I hope you don't breed. Just call me out by making a point and counteracting mine. It's the internet sure but we're still people.

How does it make him seem more guilty that he's NOT hiding behind his lawyers, and is instead speaking freely about it? That's kind of ass-backwards. His speaking publicly might be a bad legal tactic (there's a reason lawyers just tell you to shut up), but it hardly makes him look more guilty.

Anyway, this is an interesting development, but I tend to refrain from passing judgment one way or another. Wardell's email makes him look like a massive asshole, but it's hard to say if that was just him speaking a little too informally about what ended up being a serious problem. And being an asshole doesn't automatically make him guilty of sexual harassment, either. It all depends on the details of this "hair touching" incident, which I assume the other people present should be able to confirm or deny pretty easily.

As for her, if she retaliated against that email by essentially destroying company property, then she could find herself being successfully sued. And again - I assume fellow employees should be able to confirm or deny this pretty easily. Particularly if, as Wardell mentioned, a bunch of them were pissed off about it too.

But passing judgment one way or another based on the partial info-nuggets that surface on the internet, is pointless.

#31 Posted by august (3811 posts) -

@DerWaffleMous said:

Wardell is the type of guy to use his company's assets to engage in some petty shit.

Like the time he had Stardock boycott UPS and other companies because they decided to pull their ads from Glen Beck's show.

... what

#32 Posted by Animasta (14460 posts) -

@Scotto: a bunch of employees have said that his suit is bullshit actually.

#33 Posted by Scotto (1113 posts) -

@Animasta said:

@Baal_Sagoth: She told everyone she was leaving and was deleting her account a week before she actually did it, you know, so if they really didn't back it up it's all their fault

The law doesn't work this way. Mentioning that I'm going to rob a bank a week before I do it, doesn't suddenly make it the bank's fault.

And from the sounds of it, the damage went far beyond "deleting her account" anyway.

#34 Posted by jesterroyal (339 posts) -

@Animasta: I don't know if you've done anything for an organization before but that's actually not true. You don't get to quit and delete. Very commonly, as part of a company, anything you create at that company is owned by the company. The blame doesn't shift to the company just because they didn't have a backup plan for data she deleted of her own volition.

#35 Posted by MediumDave (87 posts) -

Reading Patrick's write-up, it sounds like wires got crossed, and then shit went down, this could've been a mutual parting of ways, shit, now this sucks. Reading the stuff at Kotaku, the stuff from the trial, Wardell kind of sounds like a scumbag. Well...mostly, he sounds like the somewhat douchey boss who thinks everyone is a bro and is all, "Man, I slap EVERYBODY'S ass, what's YOUR problem," and then send you a "hilarious" Youtube video. And then he turns into a scumbag later when he pushes that too hard. I hate myself for finding this so interesting, but I have to keep reading!

As for not fraternizing...yeah, it depends on the person. My old boss came out drinking with us and I would invite him over for Rock Band all the time, but he was a cool dude like that. Real laid back, cursed with the best of 'em, didn't give a shit, had a good time, knew where the line was with each person, and made sure he never crossed it. Current boss? Fuck that. Don't want to hang out after work with him.

#36 Posted by a5ehren (62 posts) -

Remember when we all loved Stardock because Gal Civ 2 didn't have any DRM on it? Those were the days...

#37 Posted by FinalDasa (1253 posts) -

@Scotto: I agree. I meant more from my perspective it always make someone seem guilty when someone accuses them of one thing and their main response is "but you did this!". Also in that same thread he's calling out Kotaku's story and just recently Totilo (editor in chief of Kotaku) had to defend themselves from his apparently false statements.

So again to me it just seems like he went to this thread and decided this would be how he set everything "straight" only to lie and try everyone to see things from a perspective that supports him and only him.

But you probably are right, I did just assume his guilt right away. I'd love to hear someone else's perspective from the company, see what they knew or saw.

#38 Posted by ReV_VAdAUL (44 posts) -

Patrick I'm just curious why you only allude to the female plaintiff's case in passing and try and conflate the time she filed her suit (which you state as "eventually" but which is stated both in the Kotaku article and the legal papers in that article as December 2010, mere months after her departure from Stardock) with when Stardock's suit regarding her allegedly deleting promotional material which was filed on July 30th 2012 (which meant they realised she had deleted those materials two years after it allegedly happened) which happens to be only a fortnight after Wardell's motion to dismiss on her sexual harassment suit was itself dismissed (meaning the case will go ahead) on July 16th 2012?

Further while only making brief mention of Wardell's alleged harassment of the female plaintiff you quote, in full, two long statements Wardell has made in his own defence. Without comment or corroboration. Why have you neglected to quote any of the lengthy legal claims of sexual harassment the plaintiff made but given Wardell two long quotes?

#39 Posted by Animasta (14460 posts) -

@Scotto said:

@Animasta said:

@Baal_Sagoth: She told everyone she was leaving and was deleting her account a week before she actually did it, you know, so if they really didn't back it up it's all their fault

The law doesn't work this way. Mentioning that I'm going to rob a bank a week before I do it, doesn't suddenly make it the bank's fault.

And from the sounds of it, the damage went far beyond "deleting her account" anyway.

then why sue now? If it was as bad as he claims it was, why wouldn't he sue a month or two out? This is a ploy to settle and I don't see how you could say otherwise, timing being what it is.

#40 Edited by admanb (225 posts) -

@jesterroyal said:

Never go anywhere outside of work with your boss/employees. Ever. Moral of the story. They can sue you too easily. Just.. weird. I don't know either of these people enough to make a value judgement on them. But if she wiped those assets she deserves to pay for it. And if he truly assaulted her he also deserves to pay.

Alternately, don't consider the fact that someone is the opposite gender from you to be permission to be physical and dismissive of their relationship status, especially if you are their boss.

#41 Posted by Deusoma (2972 posts) -

Patrick, Patrick, Patrick, how could you miss the opportunity to make the second sentence in this story "Stay a while, and listen"?
 
That being said, both cases seem to be rather straightforward, and if it's true the sabotage suit was filed years ago, completely unrelated. I care very little for the legal squabblings of people who dislike each other, so I'll leave it at that.

#42 Posted by Scotto (1113 posts) -

@Animasta said:

@Scotto said:

@Animasta said:

@Baal_Sagoth: She told everyone she was leaving and was deleting her account a week before she actually did it, you know, so if they really didn't back it up it's all their fault

The law doesn't work this way. Mentioning that I'm going to rob a bank a week before I do it, doesn't suddenly make it the bank's fault.

And from the sounds of it, the damage went far beyond "deleting her account" anyway.

then why sue now? If it was as bad as he claims it was, why wouldn't he sue a month or two out? This is a ploy to settle and I don't see how you could say otherwise, timing being what it is.

Stardock's statement, as quoted by Patrick, says these charges have been pending for two years, and Wardell says the new "update" is simply that they got bumped up to federal court.

So if that is the case, then your point here kind of falls apart.

#43 Edited by lafigueroa (37 posts) -

I just wanted to say that if everything in this countermotion is true (http://www.scribd.com/doc/105112455/Def-s-Mtn-for-SD

) then the girl herself has her own sexual harrassment claims coming her way. Which, more importantly than anything else, suggests that Stardock has been breeding a very hostile culture in which everybody can and does whatever they want, no matter how uncomfortable it may make others feel (infact that discomfort might even be the point). The real story at hand here isn't the employee who left and sued, it's the 30 or so who choose to remain in celebration of this very hostile culture in which all, men and women alike, are subject to sexist(both kinds), vulgar, and otherwise profane "jokes" and "teasing" in the pursuit of some fantasy rapport that atleast the CEO believes to exist.

EDIT: For clarifiaction, The above assumes both side's motions have some merit. This remains to be proven in the court of law. One or both sides could come out exonerated in this affair yet.

#44 Posted by Vashyron (189 posts) -

I smell a Law and Order episode.

#45 Posted by ChrisTaran (1487 posts) -
Wardell is continuing to contribute to the thread, which is an interesting legal tactic. I’ll be watching.

Am I missing something? How is that a legal tactic? Or is Patrick being sarcastic?

I wish more people were open like this guy to be honest.

#46 Posted by Scotto (1113 posts) -

The part that amuses me about these cases, is just how quickly, based on partial information at best, people will firmly take sides.

The story for me here is just the bizarre move of a CEO going into an internet forum to defend himself at length about a pending court case, instead of clamming up at the advice of lawyers. The rest will just come out in court, after being adjudicated by people with far more intimate knowledge of the facts than any of us.

#47 Posted by Scotto (1113 posts) -

@ChrisTaran said:

Wardell is continuing to contribute to the thread, which is an interesting legal tactic. I’ll be watching.

Am I missing something? How is that a legal tactic? Or is Patrick being sarcastic?

I wish more people were open like this guy to be honest.

If he's telling the truth, then absolutely. If he's actively spreading vindictive lies to try and bolster his case or preserve his reputation? Not so much.

I'm sure his lawyers have been doing a lot of facepalming, either way.

#48 Posted by Sin4profit (2868 posts) -

@MattyFTM said:

@wrecks said:

These choice quotes from his response show the kinda man he really is:

#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 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.

Yeah, those were the key bits that stand out for me. You could argue that he was possibly being sarcastic with the whole "I am an inappropriate, sexist, vulgar and embarrassing person" part, but when you end a statement with "you need to find another job.", it 's clearly not the time for sarcasm.

I dissagree, that would suggest any woman who worked for Whiskey Media could sue because they didn't like their brand of humor. "if you're not comfortable in that environment, look for a new environment", that's how that reads to me.

Either way, as with all cases like this it requires we make assumptions based on what we want to believe through our social conditioning. I've known enough necrotic and manipulative women in my time to not make these cases so black and white.

#49 Posted by ChrisTaran (1487 posts) -

@Sin4profit said:

@MattyFTM said:

@wrecks said:

These choice quotes from his response show the kinda man he really is:

#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 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.

Yeah, those were the key bits that stand out for me. You could argue that he was possibly being sarcastic with the whole "I am an inappropriate, sexist, vulgar and embarrassing person" part, but when you end a statement with "you need to find another job.", it 's clearly not the time for sarcasm.

I dissagree, that would suggest any woman who worked for Whiskey Media could sue because they didn't like their brand of humor. "if you're not comfortable in that environment, look for a new environment", that's how that reads to me.

Either way, as with all cases like this it requires we make assumptions based on what we want to believe through our social conditioning. I've known enough necrotic and manipulative women in my time to not make these cases so black and white.

Couldn't agree more with the part I bolded. If you don't like the work environment you're in, then get out.

#50 Posted by Bravestar (379 posts) -

well, to me it sounds like these 2 were made for each other. have fun in court!

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.