> only played the role she was brought on to do

How is that different from losing? Just because she was set up to lose?

You seem to be equating "influential" with "culture leading".

I'm a software developer, not trying to brag because I have serious doubts about my skills but right now I'm in a great job and have a few serious offers with great pay and benefits.

I've done some research and the claims people are making about the bad environment at Blizz are not without merit - can't say they are real because IDK but too strong to just dismiss. I would not even consider a job there without real and verifiable proof that my worries are unfounded. I'm probably not going to consider them over the many other viable offers I have.

To what extent are the people acting out the same people who command enough respect to leave and take an elite team with them?

I would be surprised if there was more than, say, 30% overlap. IME people who act out generally aren't the most productive and generally don't command the most respect from the most productive people.

Because they wouldn't want to work for a company that tries to cover up and ignore culture that is sexist? It might lead to trying to find other jobs and seeing Blizzard on a resume in a negative connotation. Oh you worked for Blizzard? We need to do a check to see if you were one of the people supporting the Bill Cosby hotel room.