Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit [Jun 28, 2021, 7:17 pm ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
Game writer Chris Avellone has filed
a libel lawsuit over sexual misconduct allegations that surfaced against him
one
year ago (thanks
D.M.
Schmeyer via
Gamasutra).
Just yesterday
we mentioned a few posts by Chris addressing the situation, and clearly these
were related to the lawsuit. The defendants are listed as Karissa Barrows, Kelly
Bristol, and 100 Jane Does, and the complaint includes a demand for jury trial.
Part of it alleges conspiratorial behavior:
Avellone is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, each unnamed Defendant was the agent of the other named Defendant(s) herein, and at all times were and are acting within the purpose and scope of such agency, and with the permission and consent of his/her/its named co-Defendant(s) with knowledge, authorization, permission, consent, and/or subsequent ratification and approval of each co-Defendant. Avellone is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each named and unnamed Defendant knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to deprive Avellone of his rights and to cause the damages described herein.
Quinn wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 11:22:Quinn wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 04:03:
Do you understand that your approach to this subject puts you at odds with jdryer?Sepharo wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 11:08:
It doesn't, you can read what he wrote again and again... it says the same thing that roguebanshee and I also said, as does the wikipedia article, as does the law, as does Dutch law, regarding discrimination.
While I appreciate the time you put into this, you are preaching to the choir at this point. It's true that initially, due to the context of the discussion, I went about the "protected group" aspect clumsily. But we're past that. Been past that for a while now. I'll say it again: I understand and have always understood that white people are a race and that male is a gender.
But let's forget it. You choose not to consider the context regarding the discussion from comment 79 and up. That's fine. I've been foolish to let go of the theory -- pragmatist that I am -- and focus more on in which context the "protected group" part was injected. Again, the context was this in a very tiny nutshell: Man gets fired. That's ok, we don't need a reason in Californian law. So if a black man gets fired for the same non-reasons, that's ok? No [inject protected group reference here].
Hope that tiny nutshell explains how shit got derailed.
Wow you almost admitted that you were confused about what "protected group" meant... ALMOST!
No nothing was derailed, you continued to pretend that you weren't confused while your posting made it clear that you were... at some point I think you figured it out, but yeah just can't seem to admit fully what happened.
The best we'll get is "went about the 'protected group' aspect clumsily".
No you were straight up wrong in your understanding of jdreyer's post as repeatedly demonstrated.
If that's not the case, then why claim that he said something he didn't?
Why differentiate roguebanshee's response from his?
Why say that I'm at odds with him?
Date
Subject
Author
Copyright © 1996-2025 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2025 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 15 June 2025, 19:58.