By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 27 December 2010
Edit Thread
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Kasz216 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Kasz216 said:
.jayderyu said:

Ethics & Morals weighed against Legal Contract. That's the dillema. Do you favor a legal contract that owns your soul? or do you favor what's more ethical? Legal does not mean Ethical. Often I find that Legal is a way to get around Ethical treatment of employees. Ever notice some of the contracts you sign up to a company that waves the rights to some of the labour laws? Legal yes, Ethical no.

How is it ethics and morals vs a legal contract when West and Zampella were the unethical, immoral ones who broke their contracts?

Activision not paying the whole team in due time their share on the game profits was actually the first to violate the contract. A CEO that doesn't pay his best teams in due time is a bad CEO and a danger for his company.

Except for the fact that Activision tried to pay them.... but West and Zampella blocked said payments and demanded they be paid all the bonus if anything and didn't submit any actual bonus payment structure outside of that?

You can't blame a company for not paying you if you refuse to fill out your tax forms and refuse to take your paycheck everytime it's haned to you.

This is what Activision states about the issue, while West and Zampella's versions are quite different. And IIRC, they didn't agree about the amount, either . And there was also disagreement about the control on the MW series. I wouldn't take W and Z's versions as Gospel , but neither I would Activision's one. So, given Kotick's record about trying to get blood out of a stone, I prefer to side with W and Z unless Activision's reason become undoubtable.

So your taking the word of the group of people you KNOW did something wrong, because you dislike the other group of people.  Thank you for proving my point.

 

Afterall your taking the side of "They did something wrong, but it's ok because they said activision did something wrong too, with no proof, and apparently with memos and notices stating the exact opposite in evidence."

Which by the way isn't an actual defense.   Even if they are telling the truth about the payments, they are still guilty of breach of contract.  If someone else breaches your contract you don't breach it as well and claim "they did first" and thing everything is going to be ok.  You start legal procedings.

Unless you are buying the story that "They fired them so they could keep a few million dollars while risking sales in the billions of dollars..."