Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'NMA News and Information' started by Proletären, Jun 28, 2021.
Fucking pigs are fucking fine, but fucking pigs kinda isn't.
ACAB, don't fuck pigs.
You guys haven't lived until you've ravaged a pig's asshole and made it oink
So if we know someone and we're alone in a room with them and there's nothing recording us, we can just say whatever we want about them? Despite what it might cost them at work or in their social lives? When those words are provably harming that person's career? Despite neither of the people having witnesses for anything besides the other one who is in opposition to them?
Which is why I said it's next to impossible.
It's why Character Testimonies are a thing, as that's the closest to innocence that can be proven.
The trouble here comes in the form of Obsidian. The best Testimonies in a work related context will have to come from them, and if this added into why he got fired, then it could prove rather difficult.
Exes and close friends will also have to do. But effectively, it becomes hard as he'll need to prove his own innocence in order to win a lawsuit against the defendant.
Laws are fucked like that.
I just find it curious you could (maybe not this situation, speaking in general) lie about someone, have them fired from their job because of the words you said, be taken to court over it, and essentially have no responsibility to prove yourself correct but the person who has lost something due to your words has to prove themselves innocent. Does a big think if true. Probably should be changed.
You're right, it is fucked.
The problem is, in a situation of two People in a room with no cameras or anyone watching. And Person A tells Person B to kill themselves. Person B can't really prove that what Person A said is right.
In the eyes of public opinion, both are lying and both are telling the truth. The court of law will state that Person A didn't say that until it's proven he did.
Character testimonials will have to come in and say "Yes, he is a shitty person" or "No, he is lovely".
I don't really know a better system, but it doesn't work all the time.
You've been nearly saying the opposite. Saying that Chris will be assumed to have done the things the woman has accused him of until he proves he didn't. Now you're saying that Chris will be assumed to have not done these things until someone proves it.
So is it this or do they need to prove they are telling the truth?
Sorry, in MCA's case, as he is the one filling the lawsuit, he'll need to say he didn't do it. Otherwise he can't prove karrisa is guilty for lying.
So that'd be... every case of libel? As opposed to a more criminal case? Because I don't think he was ever accused of doing anything that was illegal, just accusations of being really creepy and that implied that he had the potential to do so.
That's kind of exactly the point.
And it's why this Lawsuit is very hard to win.
As I've said, she's not accusing him of anything outside of being a creep, it was the game companies that got rid of him, meaning at best he could have sued for unfair dismissal.
It does seem he is attacking the wrong person here. However, he can prove innocence (as I've just rememberer), he said he wasn't in the same place as where he was accused. If he can give the courts evidence that he was elsewhere, that's a win for him.
But even then, it's nothing more than being a creep, which would put MCA in a weird situation.
If the problems come down to drink, then there's that and he'll probably be told to seek help for it.
In a perfect world the world would do this. However, people like Anita have an agenda. Things like due process gets in the way of their goal which is to have the game industry be women run only. Also remember that this woman and her BFF drove a innocent man to kill himself and never took responsibility or apologize for it. This woman has a body count and you can't blame people for being hostile towards her for fear that she will add another body to her pile.
You make it sound like they break into Game Developer's houses at night while they sleep and kill them.
Well she did encouraged a Twitter hate mob to harass a dev who was having mental health problems to the brink of suicide.
I remember reading about that at the time.
Do you know the name of the dev or the game they worked on?
Yes it was Alec Holokwa who was the dev for A Night in the Woods. It is a sad story. Zoey Quinn accused him of raping her, Anita sent a Twitter hate mob to harass him, his studio fired him and his own family even took Zoey side. All these shit caused Alec to take his life and we later find out that Alec never raped or abused Quinn. Rather she abused him and was the cause of his mental decline during their relationship. Moral of this story is to allow due process and wait for evidence. A lesson these assholes failed to learn as we see with dear chubby Anita.
I looked into it. Yeah, I'm okay with Anita, but I'm not a fan of Zoe Quinn.
I think while Anita may be misdirected in her critisms, she's not a complete Trainwreck like Zoe.
However, reading into it, there does seem to be a fairly clear picture of a guy who was struggling emotionally with his actions.
I think there is some truth, but the way Zoe puts it, and I personally believe she's exaggerating certain instances.
What you're failing to understand is that it's a matter of reputation. What's the alternative, let the story lie because you can't get any technical gain? Fuck that.
"Chris Avellone wins libel lawsuit against false accuser" as a headline on journo feeds is the victory in and of itself. It's a war of hearsay and reputation is the battlefield.
The story of "Avellone is a creep" will be buried in the cultural memory on top of "oh yeah didn't he win that case proving it was bullshit though" and people won't care for the nitty gritty details - which is also what gets you back in the ring of employment in the first place.
He got tossed because of his reputation and now he's trying to repair it. I'm really unsure of the point you're making.
The point I'm trying to make is if he wants to win a case against him, he needs to prove what they are saying are lies.
Moreso, if they have a number of items against him that can be used as evidence, then he'll need to combat that.
It could be case that there are no claims to back up what they are saying as a few Twitter messages don't really count as evidence
If there are others to back up the story and if there are materials that are evidence, effectively MCA has lost and a counter suit can be filled.
What I'm saying is the case is flimsy at best. Filling it and losing will make him look worse and withdrawing it will also look worse.
It sucks, but there's not a lot you can in these situations. It's why law is mostly up for interpretation and not a science. You can only gather the information and get it yourself.
Again, an unfair dismissal to companies that let him go would have been the better case to to for.
Because now he is fighting "I'm not a creep" instead of "I lost work because of unsubstantial accusations".
There's the chance he could lose just based on the fact there's not really a case there.
My assumption would be that if there was solid evidence, it would have been posted at the time and not witheld. Combined with her behaviour elsewhere I'm really not expecting much from her. The story in and of itself is flimsy in the first place.
Yeah, the whole thing is rather flimsy. But aye, this is what happens when courts don't take sexual assault seriously