113
Gabe Newell ordered to make in-person deposition for Valve v. Wolfire Games lawsuit
(www.gamesindustry.biz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2023
113 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30500 readers
96 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's shitty. I hope Valve goes down in this law suit but Gabe specifically asked for a remote deposition because he's old and obese. Two serious factors for COVID or really any illness. Apparently that wasn't enough to get them to allow remote deposition. What a really shit situation to put a person in.
On the other hand I don't see why being there in person has to be required for anyone. He can say exactly the same things remotely.
Purged by creator
A court room with stale air and only him with his mask on. Surely, what could go wrong? I see no risks at all.
Just let him join remotely. What is the big deal here?
It states everyone else will wear a mask too and he will remove his during his deposition. Like it or not, the courts require in-person attendance.
Why do the courts require an in person attendance? How is it okay for our government services to ignore technology? Imagine we still went with God's will as proof of a crime. This is just the ignorance of the judge making someone take a day to come down and give their side. This whole thing could be done via text message. We just have a government that isn't utilizing technology.
cause you would then have to dispatch a 3rd party audit to make sure Gabe isn't reading from a teleprompter that his lawyers prep to answer any questions on the fly. You can prep your script "before" but not during, once you are on the stand you are on your own, subject to the court rules, etc.
Anything they haven't been prepped on is just answered with I don't know. So the end result is just who is the better actor? Who memorized their lines the best.
They will have to face the consequence because then the lawyer will bring up stuff that shows:
Target is to make the case, through Gabe is just a attacking vector.
It would be impossible to prove that you remembered something while in the stand which is why many people use that as a defense.
Did you followed the Debb vs Heard one? I know it's kinda special case with lots of video and court recorded footage etc. Gabe isn't exactly a celebrity that expose their private life, but if internal emails is on the table for discovery then it can also be very different. Cause they will just tell you "you said/wrote make a decision here from this email" then start off that. Like you said who is a better actor? Can you suddenly remember details with which "partial" quote are referenced without context from email 6 months ago for your argument? And then suddenly don't remember any details making a decision 2~3 weeks ago? From neuroscience, our memory is pretty unreliable as we can fill the gap all we want. But it's court case just how the judge/jury believed what part they saw/hear.
I mean the internal emails and things speak for themselves. You don't need the CEO to comment on them.
I hope you understand the principle of putting down names and/or title in email for paper trails is a thing, you don't really think Valve is a "flat" structure as marketed, right? I've consider myself lucky that I didn't run into much political or ethical drama thing for my career, but simply put names down and confirm the decision in writing dodge me quite a couple big bullets.
Yes but again what do those names do? They simply point a stake holder. You may put them on there stand but everyone has the ability to their 5th amendment rights. So again it doesn't really matter and comes down to whose better under pressure which seems like an unfair justice system. Specially considering it's a form of interrogation to force someone up on a stage and ask them a bunch of questions with tons of pressure.
I didn't design that system, and I think it is this way because in the past without forensic evidence, the witness role basically put the burden to people who are testifying or on the stand for questions. That's why nowadays when the suits wants to push shady things they go off record cause they don't want to keep any evidence. It's up to the minions to smart up to make sure you cover your own ass.
And, sometimes company make or break during trials. I don't want to see value flop, but I also think 30% is a lot if you don't even use steam features. (here I mean you only publish on steam, but you don't use their DRM/Friend/Matchmaking, workshop, lobby, etc. But if a dev do indeed use those backend service I think it's justified. )
Depp
whoops.
It’s not even a valid excuse any more at this point. People can get vaccinated at their leisure against the current variants no problem, and other fat old dudes don’t get to bail on an uncomfortable situation either, this is just special treatment for the rich. Also all the accommodations that are already being made with everyone wearing masks. Also I’m sure they can open a fucking window or so for some fresh air
I might be more inclined to agree if there was some benefit to having him show up in person, but I don’t see why he can’t just attend this remotely. People get sick after being vaccinated too. Maybe is a minimal risk, but it seems like a pointless risk nonetheless.
It’s a court of law. People appear in person to ensure they are who they are, their answers are theirs and they fully own them, they aren’t being coerced or manipulated, and so on. FaceTimeing in from the bathroom at his home isn’t cutting it.
He's required to wear a mask. He can't wear one while giving the deposition though. A remote deposition isn't different than an in person one. So this argument falls flat. Why require a person to travel if we have the technology to not? Why did we even do all of this Internet building if our government services won't use it? Technology is supposed to make our lives easier. The 80 year old judge is clearly behind the technical times and doesn't want to learn a skill that should be required at this point.