• Brawler Yukon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    115
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Newell had previously requested a remote deposition, saying “that he is at risk of developing a serious illness were he to contract Covid-19,” according to the filing, and thus “has structured his life to minimize exposure to possible Covid-19 transmission. According to Mr. Newell, an in-person deposition, even with the health measures which plaintiffs propose, is not consistent with those safeguards.”

    Yet, he was perfectly happy to go door to door handing out Steam Decks with just a mask on? Throw the mask back on until you get on the witness stand, you’ll be fine.

    Edit: Forgot what a bunch of pathetic fanboys you all are around here. If this was any other CEO (Kotick or Riccitiello, for instance), you’d all be frothing at the mouth about how ridiculous it is that they’re trying to get themselves out of a simple request like this, but since it’s daddy gaben, he gets to do whatever he wants and you lap it right up 🙄

    • Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      82
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      He was outdoors, with a mask on.

      How does compare to being in an enclosed courtroom?

      • Brawler Yukon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        74
        ·
        1 year ago

        He was mere feet away from total strangers who may or may not have been masked when he opened the door (taking the video at face value, and assuming he didn’t send the production team up there to tell the residents to mask up first). Much more dangerous than a courtoom of people with N95s on, none of whom he would need to get as close to as he did for those Deck deliveries.

        • Chobbes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          60
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Interacting with maybe a dozen people outside with a mask on for a few minutes at a time is almost certainly much lower risk than being in a courtroom with, likely, many more people and stale air for hours. It’s certainly helpful if everybody is masked up in the courtroom, but people are notoriously bad at wearing masks properly, they’re going to require Gabe Newell to unmask for questions, and there’s a lot more factors you don’t control in that scenario… outside delivering stuff you can always walk away if somebody isn’t giving you the space you’re comfortable with… Regardless, all risk is cumulative and you may want to limit the number of times you do higher risk things as much as possible. Even if you rarely do some riskier things, it doesn’t mean you’re okay with that level of risk all of the time. I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to want to manage and minimize your exposure if you’re high risk.

    • DarkThoughts@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It amazes me that covidiots still don’t understand the difference between inside and outside spaces for that matter. If people breath and cough around the outside, shit will just be swept away by the wind. If people do that in enclosed spaces, then they’ll just start to saturate the air with germs over its prolonged time. And then you even expect them to take off the mask when they’re in the witness stand? Do you think that’s like a germ free zone? lol

    • Luna@lemmy.catgirl.biz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Going door to door in fresh air is something else than sitting in a room with lots of other people and “you’ll be fine” is an insane argument. You’ll be fine until you aren’t. Every person should be able to make that risk assessment for themselves and courts should not be able to force someone to risk exposure to anything.

    • CTDummy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Outdoors with proximity to 1-3 other people, where he can move at will and distance himself vs indoors, courtroom full of people and he’s sitting while people move around. Probably not the same. If the guy has risk factors for developing complications with COVID, which we can see he has one which is being overweight, I don’t think it’s reasonable for the court to force him to attend when he could attend remotely.

    • Wumbologist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wasn’t that like, 2 years ago? Isn’t it possible that his health situation has changed since then?

    • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Others have explained to you why it’s different, and that that happened 2 years ago and a lot of things health related can change in that time. But even if he had done that yesterday, even if it was the same, he should be able to choose to attend remotely, he’s not asking to be excused, he’s not asking to change anything, all he’s asking is to be able to do it from his home, and I wouldn’t deny that to anyone unless there’s a reason to be physically there, which there isn’t.

      • Chobbes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I don’t really think anybody should have to go to court in person, and I can definitely empathize with somebody wanting to avoid COVID (even if they’re not super high risk, you never know how it will affect you it seems). I kind of understand the bias towards in person things, but I really wish people would get over it. Sometimes it’s just a lot more practical to do things remotely, and while a video call isn’t quite the same as being there in person I think it’s something we can deal with. It certainly doesn’t seem like it would be that much worse for testifying tbh.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Damn someone is angry. You should really talk to somebody if random strangers disagreeing with you about news that happen to people you don’t know either rile you up so much.

    • vivadanang@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Kotick or Riccitiello

      I mean, yeah, if you drop those two as the alternative, every time, fuck those guys every day and twice on sunday. But… Gaben’s got a very different record.

      I’m of the opinion that he should have to testify like anyone else just to preclude Trump and their ilk from trying to get out of testifying in person.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Court is boring AF, he’s just using covid for an excuse to avoid having to go. I can’t really blame him for trying, but I’m not surprised it didn’t work.