People News Chris Avellone grows a pair and fights back against being cancelled

[Storyfag]

Some other gems of wisdom from you have been that if you refuse to defend yourself that means you are guilty according to courts, which is also untrue. It increases the chances that you will lose, since you are giving your accusers free reign to present whatever evidence they want in whatever light they want without you challenging it, but the evidence must still be presented.

please, read

No, that is not what I'm saying. You're yet another guy jumping into the middle of the conversation, misunderstanding it completely, and then taking it in another direction. Either go read 10 pages or don't reply to me about this shit.

You will never be a woman. Or with a woman.

 

[Irxy]

So you *are* telling us there is no presumption of innocence in civil cases?

Don't know about USA, but this is true where I live and probably in most legal systems out there.

 

[mediocrepoet]

So you *are* telling us there is no presumption of innocence in civil cases?

Don't know about USA, but this is true where I live and probably in most legal systems out there.

Not a lawyer in any jurisdiction, but there are at least some civil matters where the onus is explicitly on the defendant to prove that they acted properly. I have no idea if this is the case for libel in California, but it wouldn't be unheard of.

 

[Gruncheon]

Well, if you want to insist on a conversation based on your misreadings, I can't really help you. Maybe someone will talk to you. We'll wait and see.

You are being pretty retarded about this, and any time you talk about how the courts or laws work in general for this thread.

You seem to have two bad understandings here.

1.) The people slandering Chris are the ones being accused of something in this lawsuit, not Chris. And also, even if Chris loses the lawsuit, that is not proof that their accusations against him are true. That just means the court found that their statements and conduct didn't rise to the level of actionable libel.

2.) The presumption of innocence always applies in courts. There is no case that just accusing someone of something is all it takes. That doesn't change for civil cases and is the same as a criminal case. The only difference is the standards of proof. Criminal uses "beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil cases will typically use a lower standard, "clear and convincing evidence" or "preponderance of evidence".

But again, that doesn't change the fact that an accusation alone isn't enough. It must be backed by some evidence to prove the accusation. It certainly is in a defendant's interest to provide their own evidence that they haven't done what they are accused of since the accuser likely has some kind of evidence or they wouldn't have brought a lawsuit in the first place, but it isn't required. The accuser failing to provide adequate evidence of their claims is enough for them to fail and the defendant to win.



You really have a bad track record for talking about courts and the law in this thread. But you state untrue things so confidently, as if you were correct.

read

No, that is not what I'm saying. You're yet another guy jumping into the middle of the conversation, misunderstanding it compeltely, and then taking it in another direction. Either go read 10 pages or don't reply to me about this shit. No one in here is talking about karissa's presumption of innocence.

In total, there have been two or three people in this thread that actually showed they know legal procedural theory. The rest learned it from american TV series and wikipedia. You're not one of the former.

This is kind of impressively retarded. You tell the guy to 'read' without explaining what he's meant to read. Guy explains why your post is wrong in detail. You reply again with 'please read', quoting your own post where you tell him to 'read the last 10 pages'.

 

[Sentinel]

Well, if you want to insist on a conversation based on your misreadings, I can't really help you. Maybe someone will talk to you. We'll wait and see.

You are being pretty retarded about this, and any time you talk about how the courts or laws work in general for this thread.

You seem to have two bad understandings here.

1.) The people slandering Chris are the ones being accused of something in this lawsuit, not Chris. And also, even if Chris loses the lawsuit, that is not proof that their accusations against him are true. That just means the court found that their statements and conduct didn't rise to the level of actionable libel.

2.) The presumption of innocence always applies in courts. There is no case that just accusing someone of something is all it takes. That doesn't change for civil cases and is the same as a criminal case. The only difference is the standards of proof. Criminal uses "beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil cases will typically use a lower standard, "clear and convincing evidence" or "preponderance of evidence".

But again, that doesn't change the fact that an accusation alone isn't enough. It must be backed by some evidence to prove the accusation. It certainly is in a defendant's interest to provide their own evidence that they haven't done what they are accused of since the accuser likely has some kind of evidence or they wouldn't have brought a lawsuit in the first place, but it isn't required. The accuser failing to provide adequate evidence of their claims is enough for them to fail and the defendant to win.



You really have a bad track record for talking about courts and the law in this thread. But you state untrue things so confidently, as if you were correct.

read

No, that is not what I'm saying. You're yet another guy jumping into the middle of the conversation, misunderstanding it compeltely, and then taking it in another direction. Either go read 10 pages or don't reply to me about this shit. No one in here is talking about karissa's presumption of innocence.

In total, there have been two or three people in this thread that actually showed they know legal procedural theory. The rest learned it from american TV series and wikipedia. You're not one of the former.

This is kind of impressively retarded. You tell the guy to 'read' without explaining what he's meant to read. Guy explains why your post is wrong in detail. You reply again with 'please read', quoting your own post where you tell him to 'read the last 10 pages'.

Because I already spent 10 pages talking to people who misinterpreted the original post and made comments based on their misreadings of it, I'm not about to do it again, can't be bothered. Either go read the conversation that happened before and know what is being talked about or don't expect a reply. Of course I'm not gonna bother looking up where exactly the conversation is myself, I'm not the one interested in it. Do your own homework.

 

[Nihiliste]

There’s no point talking about legal procedure, the only important deciding factor in any outcome is “does this further globohomo’s aims or not?”

 

[Absinthe]

TheSentinel, to be honest, I don't read your posts in this thread either. I noticed a while ago that your notions of the Codex and the lawsuit were divorced from reality.

 

[Monkey Baron]

It wasn't an affair. She was raped.

 

[Storyfag]

It wasn't an affair. She was raped.

Ah, so all is back to the Giovanni idea of "normal" then. Christopher needn't worry about his position in the family at all.

 

[Grotesque]

Avellone and 2 other guys went to a room

no.

 

[Dycedarg]

Avellone and 2 other guys went to a room

no.

They also left together...

 

[Can't handle the bacon]

There's not a single reason to believe these accusations are anything more than yet another episode in a long and tired series of attempts to purge absolutely all forms of media and entertainment of wrongthink.

Rather than spending a single split second contemplating the possibility of obvious targeted slander being actually true, I'll resort to simply hoping that MCA gets through this cancel culture attack without being either having his life destroyed, or cucking out under pressure.

P. S. Can someone plz delete the previous post, too much pathos lol. Not sure why I can't delete it myself.

 

[ADULF HITLOR FAN KLUB]

Which evil person moved/deleted the last pages of discussion?

There were some juicy takes, that I wanted to thoroughly read, and now it is all gone.

 

[Rean]

Which evil person moved/deleted the last pages of discussion?

There were some juicy takes, that I wanted to thoroughly read, and now it is all gone.

They're worried the bantz will reflect badly on Christopher Avelloni and wreck his case. SAD!

 

[gaussgunner]

NOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST HIT ON WOMEN HELP ME GAME JOURNALISM

When you SLAPP women in California, you get SLAPPbacked. Old man MCA is going to have to start working on 5 kickstarters per year to pay for the follow up court case.

And just like that, the Age of Decline ended practically overnight and RPGs were great again.

 

[rojay]

However, this does not impact Chris's case or situation at all.


Edit: In general this is how the situations that effectively put the onus on the defendant work. It isn't that they presume someone who is accused is guilty, it is that they effectively set the bar so low for an accuser that they can get away with presenting incredibly flimsy or flawed evidence while the defendant is required to present much more solid evidence to successfully refute it.

Technically, not quite 'guilty until innocent', but pretty close to it.

I removed the bits about disparate impact, but thanks for that.

I am not licensed to practice in California and this is not legal advice, but defamation is pretty uniformly interpreted in U.S. courts. The plaintiff in a defamation case has to prove that the defendant(s) said 1) something that is provably false, 2) to a third party with no interest in the dispute (usually called "publication"), 3) that the defendant knew or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care that the statement was false and 4) that the statement caused the plaintiff damages.

There are a lot of issues to puzzle out where each of those elements is concerned, and it gets more complicated when the plaintiff is a "public figure," and/or when the statements are made about matters of public interest. Avellone may be a public figure, and so may have to prove "actual malice," (meaning that the defendants knew what they said was not true), but maybe not, because the subject of the suit almost certainly isn't of public interest.

It's actually a really interesting area of the law. There's a great book on a seminal 1st Amendment case, New York Times v. Sullivan, that's worth reading called Make No Law, by Anthony Lewis. (Edited to remove a wonky link.)

 

[Grimlorn]

Just because you two had a fling in the past doesn't mean you can't feel like apologizing profusely when your misunderstood spontaneous advance is rejected. Not in 2010s, not in America and not when you are a liberal who fancies himself a gentleman and a nice guy.

She was so deeply offended by it that she gave him the silent treatment and posted it on her facebook with his details edited out the next day with a "Why are men in the gaming industry like this?!?!?!" message. If they had done that kind of thing before, I don't believe the reaction would have been that severe, just an "Ew, no."

Yeah, and how much you want to bet posting that on Facebook, and making a big deal about it led to her eventually getting into the industry? How much you want to bet she used Chris Avellone as a reference after that as he would have been all too quick to placate her so she didn't reveal his name on those texts or DMs. It comes to mind the only reason such a woman would post those comments is to feign outrage over it and gain something out of it. Not just social media sympathy but a path into the industry she's been trying to join. Woman flirts with guy, then when guy goes "overboard" with a drunken text, the woman feigns outrage and now the guy has to apologize and owes her one. I don't know this is exactly what happened, but it seems very likely, and very manipulative.

 

[50726f73706572]

Jurror pool below

This guy looks like he's about to split right in the middle into two by mitosis.

You will not divide us!

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Which evil person moved/deleted the last pages of discussion?

There were some juicy takes, that I wanted to thoroughly read, and now it is all gone.

Infinitron's been moving it all into the 300+ page thread in Gaming Drama because ALL THINGS MUST BE MERGED.

It's why the Jeff Johnson link kept getting reposted. It was posted, then posts were moved, then re-posted, then those posts were moved, and so on.

Just because you two had a fling in the past doesn't mean you can't feel like apologizing profusely when your misunderstood spontaneous advance is rejected. Not in 2010s, not in America and not when you are a liberal who fancies himself a gentleman and a nice guy.

She was so deeply offended by it that she gave him the silent treatment and posted it on her facebook with his details edited out the next day with a "Why are men in the gaming industry like this?!?!?!" message. If they had done that kind of thing before, I don't believe the reaction would have been that severe, just an "Ew, no."

Yeah, and how much you want to bet posting that on Facebook, and making a big deal about it led to her eventually getting into the industry? How much you want to bet she used Chris Avellone as a reference after that as he would have been all too quick to placate her so she didn't reveal his name on those texts or DMs. It comes to mind the only reason such a woman would post those comments is to feign outrage over it and gain something out of it. Not just social media sympathy but a path into the industry she's been trying to join. Woman flirts with guy, then when guy goes "overboard" with a drunken text, the woman feigns outrage and now the guy has to apologize and owes her one. I don't know this is exactly what happened, but it seems very likely, and very manipulative.

She used Chris to get into the industry, then when Chris no longer had any use, discarded him for social points. I think Melcar had something to say about this.

 

[Morblot]

Ban Infinitron

 

[Quillon]

She used Chris to get into the industry, then when Chris no longer had any use, discarded him for social points.

Sounds similar to what Katrina did then. Tho she only Chris after the accusations with a tweet saying believe all women or something.

Tell us how you became involved with Obsidian Entertainment

I’ve worked at Obsidian for four and a half years now, and it’s all thanks to randomly meeting Chris Avellone at GDC back in 2013 (because who doesn’t know Chris Avellone?). Later in the year he recommended me for a production position at Obsidian, and that’s where I began my journey...

https://www.impulsegamer.com/katrina-garsten-interview-pillars-eternity-ii-deadfire/

---

ed: I checked to see IIRC; she posted this right after the accusations but didn't say anything about Chris directly apparently:

Oh oh, who abused this girl here at Obsidian? MCA has to answer for one more crime.

The pathetic part is that when she says "I'm not ready to talk yet", it doesn't mean that mentally she is not ready. It is that she doesn't want to burn the bridges with some companies, in case he needs a job there. Being the opportunist as she is.

 

[Tacgnol]

She used Chris to get into the industry, then when Chris no longer had any use, discarded him for social points. I think Melcar had something to say about this.

Also, Jacqui was flirting outrageously with Chris on various places for the best part of a year.

Chris did send an admittedly poorly written and rather tasteless message, but considering the type of messages Jacqui had been sending him, his messages weren't exactly out of nowhere.

 

[Melcar]

Yep, all whores.

 

[RRRrrr]

Not a lawyer in any jurisdiction, but there are at least some civil matters where the onus is explicitly on the defendant to prove that they acted properly.

This is a misrepresentation of the law. In civil cases, you do not have to prove intent (as in fault or negligence), intent is presumed and the respondent (defendant) has the onus to prove lack of intent, i.e. lack of guilt. You still have to prove that the action was performed.

When it comes to defamation cases, the plaintiff has to prove 1. That the statement was made to a third party; 2. That the statement was defamatory, i.e. damaging to the reputation; the respondent (defendant) can defend himself either by showing the statement was not made, or that the statement was true.

However, none of this means that the defendant has any onus to explicitly prove anything. The plaintiff (claimant) still has the onus to prove the facts that his claim is based on. A simple statement is not sufficient in any way-without proof, the claim will always be dismissed.

 

[Can't handle the bacon]

I hope the anus of the law will never be explicitly upon me.