Burrito of Peace wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 23:13:


I can accuse you of kicking puppies and sodomizing goats on Twatter. Does that make it true?

this is a good example. because if i sued you for defamation, in order for me to win proving that I dont kick puppies or sodomize goats would not be enough. I would also need to prove you were accusing me maliciously.

you could say it for banter, for laughs, not maliciously. I would lose the libel case even though it is true that I dont sodomize goats and you spoke falsely.

So this case was deemed not just watertight but gilt edged. The two accusors were not just liars but doing it to harm chris,with a trail of evidence.

Acleacius wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 22:09:
Haha, ok, at least we agree there was a statement.

You missed the part where it was dismissed with prejudice. You know, exactly the same thing that happened to Brad Wardell. That reams of you now get to eat crow about, that's 2 for 2 failures.

Hope the ones who were screeching over this little band wagoning really enjoy the mess they've created. Never go with feelings over fact.

The factual reality is that a judicial and professional treatment of the allegations with both parts present, exonerates Avellone.

That should be reasonably sufficient for anyone well intentioned.

Please, let's stop with the throwing shades because feelings.

Wow, the guy with all the industry witnesses backing him up wins against the two angry exes? Shocking. This was a Me Too bandwagon from the the beginning. Some of you are eating crow right now. Yeah, I remember all the crap about this from before.

Acleacius wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 22:41:
Imo, the original allegations seemed real because of the way it was handled in the beginning.

Right but "seemed real" does not equate to "are real". Any corposhill worth their weight in water would look at the company's exposure risk and pick one of two options:

1. Fully cooperate with an investigation if they knew for a fact that they have 100% clean hands. This puts them in the best possible PR and legal light. It means their exposure risk is 0.

2. Evaluate what they know, and more importantly have documented (which will absolutely be compelled), and determine what the risk to their reputation, income, finances, and growth are. If the risk is smaller to fight it out in court, they will always pick that route 100% of the time. It costs them less, overall, in legal fees. They also know that they have the resources, generally, to outlast a single complainant or even a group of complainants if that group is smaller than N in legal proceedings. They also know to cut their risk vector early and swiftly by firing an employee. The employee may not actually be guilty of the accusations but that's not the point. The point is the optics of it. That's part of any basic risk assessment.

I'm not in the "instantly believe all accusations" camp. That, to me, defies basic logic and rigor. I operate under the presumption of innocence until facts prove otherwise. Bandwagoning is a thing, especially in the era of social media and neo-yellow journalism.

As far as I know, there are no lawsuits pending against Avellone's previous employers or Avellone himself at this time. Which means there are no complainants who are willing to actually put their allegations to the court for resolution. So they remain unfounded accusations with no real proof of their merit.

I can accuse you of kicking puppies and sodomizing goats on Twatter. Does that make it true?

Flatline wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 22:24:

Acleacius wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 22:06:
Two corporations (we know about) bowing out publicly without getting themselves involved.
After letting an employee go after at least a year, it was more like two, iirc.

Dual settling a suit, where everyone comes out better. Seriously, it happens all the time, well maybe not in the movies.

Any idea what Discovery would have looked like for him, really?
He sued them and any of his previous girlfriends could have been called to testify AND his employers?
Seriously, think about that. He would be/WAS dragging his employers into legal HELL.

Good enough that the defendants paid over a million dollars to make the case go away. Also calling his employers or girlfriends wouldn't necessarily be allowed because that's not material to whether or not he actually did the things the defendants accused him of. You get to do that if he gets on the stand and says "I'm a good guy I'd never do this to anyone", which opens your character up to being attacked, and that's a stupid defense if you've got other evidence for the case. The question is, did *these* specific incidents actually happen? Anything else is immaterial.

Oh are you saying they each paid $750k, if so then I did miss that one. Oh, you could mean the attorney fees were over $250, didn't get that deep.
So the girls would have had to call the alleged victims to testify, before Discovery and Communications were viable?
It's hardly worth all this, back and forth.

Flatline wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 22:14:

Acleacius wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 21:54:

Flatline wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 18:19:

Acleacius wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 14:04:
Right, it's so ambiguous, the girls could have agreed to pay his legal fees.
Then he paid them the $750k, if they agreed to never speak about it again.

That's not how settlements work. That's not how court works. If you pay the other side's legal fees, you've lost. You can't be making this argument in good faith. They literally 100% retracted what they were saying. If you paid someone to go away they'd never publish a "we 100% didn't mean the words we said" statement. They're admitting guilt in exchange for a settlement and dismissing the charges with prejudice, which means that he can't sue them again for this.

This is a settlement so it's not based on the merits, but let's put it this way, the defendants figured that attorney's fees plus a 7 figure payout is *less* than what they'd pay if this went to court.

The whole point was the statement was ambiguous and anything could be taken from it.
To the retraction, it was clearly written for them and 'they' didn't speak.
Iirc, they never said he assault them but was commenting on him and the allegations against him.
They clearly got caught up in the moment, you know like the fascist news network does, every 10 seconds.
You maybe correct, but once again the idea of how this is being handled public, is too ridiculous to be taken at face value.
But fell free. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Still not sure if you're intentionally obtuse or if it comes naturally. The "fascist news" bit is wild.

Or maybe you're not familiar with how US civil legal proceedings work in a fundamental sense? If you have any basic concept of how civil law works the statement, while moderately poorly written, can not "mean anything". That's like arguing that if I said I was holding an apple and let go of it then "anything" could happen next because you don't know what gravity is and then blaming *me* for not explaining gravity to you before saying I let go of the apple.

Also of course the statement was prepared by lawyers. It'd be idiotic to make a sworn official statement (there is an easily found https://twitter.com/erikkain/status/1639509491816484864 scan of the statement since apparently you don't believe anything actually happened) without your lawyer writing it for you when it comes to seven figure settlements. This is how legal proceedings work.

I don't get how this is too ridiculous. This is precisely how a civil settlement works. The details are more or less private, a public statement is made, end of story. Avellone's settlement demands probably included a retraction letter.

I have no idea what kind of person Avellone is beyond this but his two accusers didn't feel that they had enough evidence to make it to trial and win a defamation lawsuit against an arguably public figure. In defamation lawsuits with public figures, you have to prove actual malice, not just that you were wrong, but that you intentionally meant to harm the person you defamed by spreading knowingly wrong information, or information that you know you should have doubted/checked and spread it anyway, specifically to inflict harm, in order to win. It's an astonishingly high bar. That they settled means that the lawyers felt that there was compelling evidence that the defendants were not only wrong, but intentionally wished to inflict harm by spreading false statements. If it had merely been he said/she said, the lawsuit would have gotten thrown out and no settlement would have occurred.

It's actually a pretty fair comparison, except they get carried away on purpose. They are also in a Civil suit, and their balls are on fire.
It is a high bar, and they would have had access to his emails, chats and phone records, while working for the corporations. :-seepeoplewiththeirpantsonfirehere-:
The idea, that the comparison draws on is the girls' accusations were chat based on crowd mentality/stupidity.
We disagree on the statement. Not sure about apple and gravity, though.
Not necessarily, some people like to speak for themselves and the girls were not in a bad situation legally, depending on their personal legal burden.
What I mean is, I could see a legal group getting involved to help the girls.
The longer the suit went on the more witnesses and Discovery. All the bad things, corporations hate which weights on him.
I don't know him either, doesn't really matter, afaik.
Once again, like I mentioned in earlier post, this is just the low hanging fruit, if there was an assault maybe the 'assaulted' didn't want to go public.
The point being if there was an assault, it's probably not being handled in a civil suit.
Imo, the original allegations seemed real because of the way it was handled in the beginning.

Acleacius wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 22:06:
Two corporations (we know about) bowing out publicly without getting themselves involved.
After letting an employee go after at least a year, it was more like two, iirc.

Dual settling a suit, where everyone comes out better. Seriously, it happens all the time, well maybe not in the movies.

Any idea what Discovery would have looked like for him, really?
He sued them and any of his previous girlfriends could have been called to testify AND his employers?
Seriously, think about that. He would be/WAS dragging his employers into legal HELL.

Good enough that the defendants paid over a million dollars to make the case go away. Also calling his employers or girlfriends wouldn't necessarily be allowed because that's not material to whether or not he actually did the things the defendants accused him of. You get to do that if he gets on the stand and says "I'm a good guy I'd never do this to anyone", which opens your character up to being attacked, and that's a stupid defense if you've got other evidence for the case. The question is, did *these* specific incidents actually happen? Anything else is immaterial.

Acleacius wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 21:54:

Flatline wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 18:19:

Acleacius wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 14:04:
Right, it's so ambiguous, the girls could have agreed to pay his legal fees.
Then he paid them the $750k, if they agreed to never speak about it again.

That's not how settlements work. That's not how court works. If you pay the other side's legal fees, you've lost. You can't be making this argument in good faith. They literally 100% retracted what they were saying. If you paid someone to go away they'd never publish a "we 100% didn't mean the words we said" statement. They're admitting guilt in exchange for a settlement and dismissing the charges with prejudice, which means that he can't sue them again for this.

This is a settlement so it's not based on the merits, but let's put it this way, the defendants figured that attorney's fees plus a 7 figure payout is *less* than what they'd pay if this went to court.

The whole point was the statement was ambiguous and anything could be taken from it.
To the retraction, it was clearly written for them and 'they' didn't speak.
Iirc, they never said he assault them but was commenting on him and the allegations against him.
They clearly got caught up in the moment, you know like the fascist news network does, every 10 seconds.
You maybe correct, but once again the idea of how this is being handled public, is too ridiculous to be taken at face value.
But fell free. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Still not sure if you're intentionally obtuse or if it comes naturally. The "fascist news" bit is wild.

Or maybe you're not familiar with how US civil legal proceedings work in a fundamental sense? If you have any basic concept of how civil law works the statement, while moderately poorly written, can not "mean anything". That's like arguing that if I said I was holding an apple and let go of it then "anything" could happen next because you don't know what gravity is and then blaming *me* for not explaining gravity to you before saying I let go of the apple.

Also of course the statement was prepared by lawyers. It'd be idiotic to make a sworn official statement (there is an easily found https://twitter.com/erikkain/status/1639509491816484864 scan of the statement since apparently you don't believe anything actually happened) without your lawyer writing it for you when it comes to seven figure settlements. This is how legal proceedings work.

I don't get how this is too ridiculous. This is precisely how a civil settlement works. The details are more or less private, a public statement is made, end of story. Avellone's settlement demands probably included a retraction letter.

I have no idea what kind of person Avellone is beyond this but his two accusers didn't feel that they had enough evidence to make it to trial and win a defamation lawsuit against an arguably public figure. In defamation lawsuits with public figures, you have to prove actual malice, not just that you were wrong, but that you intentionally meant to harm the person you defamed by spreading knowingly wrong information, or information that you know you should have doubted/checked and spread it anyway, specifically to inflict harm, in order to win. It's an astonishingly high bar. That they settled means that the lawyers felt that there was compelling evidence that the defendants were not only wrong, but intentionally wished to inflict harm by spreading false statements. If it had merely been he said/she said, the lawsuit would have gotten thrown out and no settlement would have occurred.

And finally, *you* said that there were additional assault accusations leveled against Avellone. I would like to see those, as I've searched for them explicitly and could find no other accusations other than these two.

You're also invoking an appeal to authority by assuming that any business separating itself from Avellone must have surely done an investigation and that is a very, very, *very* big assumption on your part that suggests you've never dealt with corporations, PR, and HR before.

Citizen P wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 22:08:

Acleacius wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 21:56:
[Nah, I'm fully aware of the prepared statement

Yes. A prepared statement at the behest of the legal counsel of both parties and the settlement. A statement that dispels any ambiguity about the legal proceedings they relate to.

Except for you, apparently. It seemed written in clear concise language to me.

Haha, ok, at least we agree there was a statement.

Acleacius wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 21:56:
[Nah, I'm fully aware of the prepared statement

Yes. A prepared statement at the behest of the legal counsel of both parties and the settlement. A statement that dispels any ambiguity about the legal proceedings they relate to.

Except for you, apparently. It seemed written in clear concise language to me.

Two corporations (we know about) bowing out publicly without getting themselves involved.
After letting an employee go after at least a year, it was more like two, iirc.

Dual settling a suit, where everyone comes out better. Seriously, it happens all the time, well maybe not in the movies.

Any idea what Discovery would have looked like for him, really?
He sued them and any of his previous girlfriends could have been called to testify AND his employers?
Seriously, think about that. He would be/WAS dragging his employers into legal HELL.

Citizen P wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 21:51:

Acleacius wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 21:41:
What am I missing here

The part where they recanted their entire story, publicity admitted they have no knowledge of the defendant doing anything they claimed and owing them 7 figures.

I think you missed that part

You did mention the no evidence part, so you've got that going for you

Nah, I'm fully aware of the prepared statement given by him from them, without them speaking?
As several others have pointed out we really don't know who got that money by the statement, do we or did you miss that point?
Right, no evidence, can't imagine where the ambiguity fits in here.

Flatline wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 18:19:

Acleacius wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 14:04:
Right, it's so ambiguous, the girls could have agreed to pay his legal fees.
Then he paid them the $750k, if they agreed to never speak about it again.

That's not how settlements work. That's not how court works. If you pay the other side's legal fees, you've lost. You can't be making this argument in good faith. They literally 100% retracted what they were saying. If you paid someone to go away they'd never publish a "we 100% didn't mean the words we said" statement. They're admitting guilt in exchange for a settlement and dismissing the charges with prejudice, which means that he can't sue them again for this.

This is a settlement so it's not based on the merits, but let's put it this way, the defendants figured that attorney's fees plus a 7 figure payout is *less* than what they'd pay if this went to court.

The whole point was the statement was ambiguous and anything could be taken from it.
To the retraction, it was clearly written for them and 'they' didn't speak.
Iirc, they never said he assault them but was commenting on him and the allegations against him.
They clearly got caught up in the moment, you know like the fascist news network does, every 10 seconds.
You maybe correct, but once again the idea of how this is being handled public, is too ridiculous to be taken at face value.
But fell free. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Acleacius wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 21:41:
What am I missing here

The part where they recanted their entire story, publicity admitted they have no knowledge of the defendant doing anything they claimed and owing them 7 figures.

I think you missed that part

You did mention the no evidence part, so you've got that going for you

Bubicus wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 18:12:

Acleacius wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 13:42:
What? These aren't the assault cases. Several game companies investigated inhouse and found enough evidence to fire him, iirc.
My best guess, is he went after low hanging accusations, after the fact. Afaik, this doesn't clear him, at all. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm going to call you on that, Acleacius. Which companies fired him, and on what evidence?

Techland ended a contract on mutual agreement, and there was no evidence made public of any wrongdoing while he did work for them.
Owlcat said they were disapppointed and surprised, but his work was already done.

Ok, did you actually read the post? There are literally two listed there, and you want me to type them out because your reading me not the post?
Do you research, they did their own in house investigations, isn't that the way all corps do it?
What am I missing here, you clearly didn't even read the base post and now I need to do your research for you?

Ok, my turn to ask questions. Why don't you tell us how it works, then, pick a corporation and give us a break down.
How, you put, I'm call you on this one?

No one said there was evidence, all I said was there was an internal investigation, which you just corroborated.
They never give out the details, well unless it's some idiot like 'tiny hands mcdrump'.
Just like the damn public post, that was ambiguous as hell, and as mentioned they are generally sealed.

Overon wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 18:57:
I'm confused about what happened? This settles what cases involving Chris Avellone?

the summary here is confusingly written. basically avellone sued these two women for lying about him being a rapist (they literally did a little press tour calling him "an abusive, abrasive, conniving sexual predator" and saying "he sexually assaulted me, 100 percent").

it went to mediation, where the women agreed to publicly denounce all their previous statements, pay chris avellone's attorney fees, and pay chris avellone a 7-figure settlement.

to have accepted this outcome, they were probably going to get fucking buried if this actually went to court, and that's really saying something considering how high the bar for defamation and especially libel is in the US. i can't imagine a stronger possible rebuke.

unfortunately this is a type of stigma that won't wash off. chris avellone probably has no way back into the industry, and game press and developers still seem reticent to accept this outcome from what i've been following of it. kotaku and polygon who covered these claims extensively have still not reported on this outcome. i heard about it in forbes.

eh, as far as I can tell the issue is a couple of women who re-tweeted or reposted accusations. Can't see the original tweets because of elons brilliant monetization scheme, which limits the number of views a tweet can have. So the secondary parties are the ones that got sued. *shrugs*

* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on Mar 27, 2023, 02:10. Reason: Intolerance (rule 2)

How wonderful, those who have genuine cases of abuse now have more stacked against them because some people wanted to take advantage of change that should have been for the better.