A New Start! (the Reboot) The Front Office, Ownership, & Coaching Staff Thread

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Not sure what you mean here?...

 

They were down there to get photos for the calendar and a "behind the scenes" video on the making of the calendar. The expectations were that everything would be scrubbed and appropriate. Someone got more explicit video, etc. for the "good bits" video. That is what I'm referring to. 

[spjunkies]

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by spjunkies

[Riggo#44]

****, now he'll be more "hands on?"

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Another thing that annoys me about his response...

 

There's a girl featured in the article who alleges that she was encouraged to "get to know" Snyder's friend better in a hotel room. Rather than show any empathy or sympathy for what she's probably gone through, he drills her instead. What an asshole. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

25 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

yeah you guys are right, it's hard.  Va doesn't really outline the same way other states do like Alaska... which this would clearly fall under.

 

States	Summaries of Law	Penalties
Alaska (29 SLA § 11.61.123)	A person is guilty of indecent viewing if he knowingly views or produces a picture of the genitals, anus, or female breasts of another person without consent.	Class A misdemeanor if the subject is an adult and a class C felony if the subject is a minor.
Delaware (11 De. Code Ann. § 1335)	A person is guilty of violation of privacy when he (1) trespasses on private property intending to subject anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance or (2) installs in a private place, without consent, any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events in that place	Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one-year imprisonment and a $2,300 fine.

 

Is there some invasion of privacy illegality possibly? There could be something similar to what you posted bout Alaska in reproducing images of someone they did not give consent, and I'm positive none of them gave consent for their exposed body parts to be reproduced.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Califan007

[Riggo#44]

3 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Another thing that annoys me about his response...

 

There's a girl featured in the article who alleges that she was encouraged to "get to know" Snyder's friend better in a hotel room. Rather than show any empathy or sympathy for what she's probably gone through, he drills her instead. What an asshole. 

 

Basically called her a liar.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Another thing that annoys me about his response...

 

There's a girl featured in the article who alleges that she was encouraged to "get to know" Snyder's friend better in a hotel room. Rather than show any empathy or sympathy for what she's probably gone through, he drills her instead. What an asshole. 

 

That's because she's claiming Snyder was the one who encouraged she "get to know" his friend better in a hotel room.

 

If he shows empathy for what she probably went through, he's admitting guilt.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

9 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Is there some invasion of privacy illegality possibly? There could be something similar to what you posted bout Alaska in reproducing images of someone they did not give consent, and I'm positive none of them gave consent for their exposed body parts to be reproduced.

 

What are we doing here???

 

It HAS TO BE illegal to take nude footage of these girls and pass it around the office. I don't care if someone is able to cite the exact law, but I can't believe it's not illegal. 

 

Edit - sorry, I'm fired up but I'm AGREEING with you @Califan007

Edited August 26, 2020 by TD_washingtonredskins

[Panninho]

7 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

I also agree that Snyder was actually more absent and hands-off while Bruce was here, generally. The problem was that he would make himself or his will known during high-leverage moments (usually in regards to QB decisions and deals) and ruin things. So it didn’t matter that he wasn’t around much the rest of the time—setting aside the fact that the guy he trusted to be his stand-in was also a POS, of course.

Also most of the allegations from the new article are from before 2010. So even if he was more absent recently, he created that culture back then. 

That whole statement is pathetic. 

[ExoDus84]

Is it me, or is Snyder saying he's going to be more "hand's on" pretty tone-deaf based on the allegations of 20 years of systemic and pervasive sexual harassment occurring directly under his supervision? Who would want that clown to be more "hand's on"? Certainly not the cheerleaders.

 

Or the front office personnel.

Or coaches.

Or players.

Or fans.

[Burgold]

10 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

****, now he'll be more "hands on?"

 

 

You know, him saying he's going to be "hands on" when it comes to the cheerleaders is not exactly helping his case.

 

I'm joking, but it isn't funny. I think we're probably at the point where if Dan does truly love the team the best way to show that would be to step down. Even if this was Bruce, Larry, and the rest of the gang, the buck stops at the top. If this were the first incident, you could then say, "Okay, he wasn't around and didn't know this was going on," but given the office environment described and worse, given the cheerleading incident from several years ago, this had to be on his radar. If it wasn't, that too was negligent.

[Riggo#44]

4 minutes ago, Burgold said:

You know, him saying he's going to be "hands on" when it comes to the cheerleaders is not exactly helping his case.

 

I'm joking, but it isn't funny. I think we're probably at the point where if Dan does truly love the team the best way to show that would be to step down. Even if this was Bruce, Larry, and the rest of the gang, the buck stops at the top. If this were the first incident, you could then say, "Okay, he wasn't around and didn't know this was going on," but given the office environment described and worse, given the cheerleading incident from several years ago, this had to be on his radar. If it wasn't, that too was negligent.

 

It was kinda funny.

 

There is no way--NO WAY--he didn't know what was going on. This has been happening for decades under his stewardship. You have to be the most unaware, ignorant, incompetent dip**** to not know what was going on...

 

On, second thought, it's entirely possible he didnt know...

[Conn]

14 minutes ago, Panninho said:

Also most of the allegations from the new article are from before 2010. So even if he was more absent recently, he created that culture back then. 

That whole statement is pathetic. 

Oh, absolutely. That post was only a commentary on the stuff I explicitly mentioned, which was a discussion someone else was having. Not anything else.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

18 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

What are we doing here???

 

It HAS TO BE illegal to take nude footage of these girls and pass it around the office. I don't care if someone is able to cite the exact law, but I can't believe it's not illegal. 

 

I believe this part of the thread started out by trying to determine if what those guys did (or what Snyder did) was against the law.

 

I also want to make this clear to everyone. Nobody "took nude footage" of the cheerleaders. That conveys that the goal of the video was to capture the women nude. It wasn't. But there were a few moments when there was a nipple slip or a moment when a breast was exposed during the shoot. My understanding is that this EXTREMELY normal aspect of doing a behind the scenes video may have some moments like that which get edited out for the commercial release of the video. Creepy uncle Larry asked the video dept guys to put those edited parts on a separate DVD and to zoom in on some body parts (not necessarily nude body parts). The creep factor started with Larry's request, not with taking the video itself. That's ordinary and normal and not unsavory.

 

again, full disclosure...I have both videos and photos of models with obvious nip slips, camel toes, upskirts, etc, etc...I either Photoshop it so that things are covered--smoothed out razor bumps from one model's bikini trim, moved an entire section of a gown over to cover one model's hoo-ha lol, stuff like that--or remove it completely either through cropping or (again) Photoshopping it out. The results are completely above board, nothing unusual or perverted in the slightest. But, yeah, I still have the original images and video that have those occasional moments where something gets seen. Now if Larry asked me to take all those edited bits and put them on a DVD for him, that's when it crosses the line. But not when I'm taking the video or when the photos are being taken. That's all above board.

 

I believe strongly that the behind the scenes video was also above board, nothing wrong whatsoever with it. But when Creepy uncle Larry asked to compile all the nip slips and etc etc for him to look at, that's a completely different story. The original video itself is not the issue.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Califan007

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[profusion]

I doubt there's criminal liability at issue here, and the statute of limitations probably expired on any potential charges some time ago.

 

As a matter of public perception, though, this goes to another level beyond lewd comments and propositions. This is a level of ugliness that you can't just wipe away with usual corporate drill of "fire the perp, pay off the victim, and bring in the consultant to conduct trainings."

 

And there's supposedly more to come. How many other women are going to be willing to come forward now that a few brave women found the strength to put their names out there on this? We're already up to 25, and the stories are getting uglier and closer to Dan himself. 

 

If he had half a brain, he'd already be on the phone looking to cash out.

[Riggo#44]

 

[Mr. Sinister]

44 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I hope she's right.

 

She's wrong. This dude is the alien from Life

[88Comrade2000]

The beginning of the end, let’s hope so.

 

We are going to need more stuff tying to Dan directly and proof of that. Right now this is a she said, he said story.

 

Hopefully this new revelation leads to more people coming forward.

 

I expect a drip, drip of bad information to come out.

 

 

 

[Dissident2]

25 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

What are we doing here???

 

It HAS TO BE illegal to take nude footage of these girls and pass it around the office. I don't care if someone is able to cite the exact law, but I can't believe it's not illegal. 

 

Edit - sorry, I'm fired up but I'm AGREEING with you @Califan007

 

Here's what seemed like happened to me based on interviews I've heard today and the article itself. 

 

The cheerleaders were being filmed WITH THEIR KNOWLEDGE while doing the shoot. They were shooting risque photos/pictures where they might have been holding things over their breasts or been painted in body paint while nude, etc. So I guess there may have been times when they lowered or adjusted whatever was covering their breasts, etc. and the camera just kept rolling. Or sounds like the camera zoomed in to body parts that may have been covered in paint, etc. So they knew the cameras were there, but obviously didn't think any of those shots would ever be used by anyone, let alone passed around to our lecherous owner. Don't know where something like this stands as far as literal "crime." Should definitely be lawsuit-worthy, though. 

[Koala]

34 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

Basically called her a liar.

 

I cant believe his defense is, she didnt report it, and she remained with the organization, so it couldnt have happened.  Umm, #metoo movement, are y'all paying attention??  This is a textbook case of everything the movement was protesting. They ought to be devouring him right now, 

[spjunkies]

1 minute ago, Koala said:

 

I cant believe his defense is, she didnt report it, and she remained with the organization, so it couldnt have happened.  Umm, #metoo movement, are y'all paying attention??  This is a textbook case of everything the movement was protesting. They ought to be devouring him right now, 

 

Oh it's gaining traction, Daniel messed up big time with that garbage release. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

32 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I believe strongly that the behind the scenes video was also above board, nothing wrong whatsoever with it. But when Creepy uncle Larry asked to compile all the nip slips and etc etc for him to look at, that's a completely different story. The original video itself is not the issue.

 

Fair enough, I don't know enough to know. I do agree that raw footage existing during a photo shoot that includes body paint, topless girls, etc. is going to have some "collateral damage" with some explicit footage. But, I think it's completely fair (and I know you do too) that those girls could have expected that footage to be professionally handled/discarded/etc. 

16 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

Here's what seemed like happened to me based on interviews I've heard today and the article itself. 

 

The cheerleaders were being filmed WITH THEIR KNOWLEDGE while doing the shoot. They were shooting risque photos/pictures where they might have been holding things over their breasts or been painted in body paint while nude, etc. So I guess there may have been times when they lowered or adjusted whatever was covering their breasts, etc. and the camera just kept rolling. Or sounds like the camera zoomed in to body parts that may have been covered in paint, etc. So they knew the cameras were there, but obviously didn't think any of those shots would ever be used by anyone, let alone passed around to our lecherous owner. Don't know where something like this stands as far as literal "crime." Should definitely be lawsuit-worthy, though. 

 

Exactly. They obviously knew that cameras were there to film the calendar shoot. It's the "what happens to this footage" question that is disgusting. The best analogy I can think of is that my bank has plenty of information about me that I wouldn't want going public and I trust them to contain or dispose of...all sorts of PII. When there is a breach, it's a huge story!

 

Now, we are talking about girls entrusting their EMPLOYER with video and images of them. They know that there will be a calendar and a "behind the scenes" video. But they should never anticipate (or even need to worry) that this would go anywhere public or even to some gross inner circle in Ashburn. 

[JSSkinz]

Dan picked a bad time to start a Twitter account.

[Bacon]

I think the only answer is to get a recording of Dan saying the N word. It must exist.