* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on Apr 28, 2023, 03:18. Reason: Spam (rule 5)

* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on Apr 5, 2023, 03:00. Reason: Spam (rule 5)

Sepharo wrote on Apr 1, 2023, 22:14:

ChatGTP wrote on Apr 1, 2023, 10:14:

Beamer wrote on Apr 1, 2023, 09:20:

ChatGTP wrote on Apr 1, 2023, 03:54:
This case is a reminder of how important due process and the presumption of innocence is. The concept of "due process" refers to the legal requirement that a person be treated fairly and justly when they are accused of a crime or wrongdoing. In a just society, due process is essential because it helps to ensure that people are not unfairly punished or deprived of their rights.

One of the key principles of due process is the presumption of innocence. This means that an accused person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and that they are entitled to a fair and impartial trial where evidence is presented and they are given an opportunity to defend themselves.

The MeToo movement has highlighted the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault, and has led to many high-profile accusations and firings. However, it is important to remember that even in cases of sexual misconduct, due process must be respected. Accusations alone should not be enough to result in punishment, and the accused person must be given the opportunity to defend themselves and present evidence.

While it may be tempting to bypass due process in cases of sexual misconduct, doing so would undermine the principles of justice and fairness that are essential to a just society. The accused person's rights must be respected, and they must be given a fair trial in order to ensure that justice is served. By upholding due process, we can ensure that the guilty are held accountable while also protecting the rights of the innocent.

Socially, we need a lower standard than presumed innocent. If a boy scout leader is accused by several boys of molesting them, isn't it irresponsible to keep letting him take other boys camping until there's a trial? Especially since there's rarely evidence of such things and trials are solely he said, she said, and never outright proven?
And, as Sepharo keeps pointing out, he clearly isn't wholly innocent. He's still a sex pest, but not a sex offender.

In situations such as the one you have described, where multiple accusations have been made against someone for a serious crime such as sexual assault or abuse, it may be reasonable to take measures to protect potential victims. However, it is important to balance the need to protect against the presumption of innocence and due process.

It is understandable to have concerns about allowing someone to continue in a position of authority or access to potential victims when there are credible accusations against them. In such cases, it may be appropriate to temporarily remove them from that position while an investigation is carried out.

It is also important to note that while some cases may rely solely on "he said, she said" evidence, there are still legal processes in place to determine guilt or innocence. A thorough investigation and legal process may reveal additional evidence or inconsistencies in the accusations that could impact the outcome.

Ultimately, it is essential to uphold the principles of justice and fairness while also taking measures to protect potential victims. Accusations should be taken seriously, but they must be subject to a fair and impartial investigation, and the accused person should be given an opportunity to defend themselves.

ChatGPT you should always include your full session that resulted in these outputs.
Or at the least the relevant preceding prompt, but all previous prompts (within the session) are also taken into account.

You inquire about what lead me to generate the comments in this current thread. The comments were the result of one prompt each.

The first:
Explain why the concept of "due process" is important in a just society, and that even important movements like MeToo shouldn't make us want to bypass it.

The second:
Do you believe that socially, we need a lower standard than presumed innocent? If a boy scout leader is accused by several boys of molesting them, isn't it irresponsible to keep letting him take other boys camping until there's a trial? Especially since there's rarely evidence of such things and trials are solely "he said she said" and never outright proven? I'd love to hear your take on this.

1badmf wrote on Mar 31, 2023, 23:29:
that's why i was curious about what he actually sued for

the lawsuit is actually posted, you can read for yourself what "he actually sued for"
it was a series of social media posts

ChatGTP wrote on Apr 1, 2023, 10:14:

Beamer wrote on Apr 1, 2023, 09:20:

ChatGTP wrote on Apr 1, 2023, 03:54:
This case is a reminder of how important due process and the presumption of innocence is. The concept of "due process" refers to the legal requirement that a person be treated fairly and justly when they are accused of a crime or wrongdoing. In a just society, due process is essential because it helps to ensure that people are not unfairly punished or deprived of their rights.

One of the key principles of due process is the presumption of innocence. This means that an accused person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and that they are entitled to a fair and impartial trial where evidence is presented and they are given an opportunity to defend themselves.

The MeToo movement has highlighted the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault, and has led to many high-profile accusations and firings. However, it is important to remember that even in cases of sexual misconduct, due process must be respected. Accusations alone should not be enough to result in punishment, and the accused person must be given the opportunity to defend themselves and present evidence.

While it may be tempting to bypass due process in cases of sexual misconduct, doing so would undermine the principles of justice and fairness that are essential to a just society. The accused person's rights must be respected, and they must be given a fair trial in order to ensure that justice is served. By upholding due process, we can ensure that the guilty are held accountable while also protecting the rights of the innocent.

Socially, we need a lower standard than presumed innocent. If a boy scout leader is accused by several boys of molesting them, isn't it irresponsible to keep letting him take other boys camping until there's a trial? Especially since there's rarely evidence of such things and trials are solely he said, she said, and never outright proven?
And, as Sepharo keeps pointing out, he clearly isn't wholly innocent. He's still a sex pest, but not a sex offender.

In situations such as the one you have described, where multiple accusations have been made against someone for a serious crime such as sexual assault or abuse, it may be reasonable to take measures to protect potential victims. However, it is important to balance the need to protect against the presumption of innocence and due process.

It is understandable to have concerns about allowing someone to continue in a position of authority or access to potential victims when there are credible accusations against them. In such cases, it may be appropriate to temporarily remove them from that position while an investigation is carried out.

It is also important to note that while some cases may rely solely on "he said, she said" evidence, there are still legal processes in place to determine guilt or innocence. A thorough investigation and legal process may reveal additional evidence or inconsistencies in the accusations that could impact the outcome.

Ultimately, it is essential to uphold the principles of justice and fairness while also taking measures to protect potential victims. Accusations should be taken seriously, but they must be subject to a fair and impartial investigation, and the accused person should be given an opportunity to defend themselves.

ChatGPT you should always include your full session that resulted in these outputs.
Or at the least the relevant preceding prompt, but all previous prompts (within the session) are also taken into account.

Beamer wrote on Apr 1, 2023, 09:20:

ChatGTP wrote on Apr 1, 2023, 03:54:
This case is a reminder of how important due process and the presumption of innocence is. The concept of "due process" refers to the legal requirement that a person be treated fairly and justly when they are accused of a crime or wrongdoing. In a just society, due process is essential because it helps to ensure that people are not unfairly punished or deprived of their rights.

One of the key principles of due process is the presumption of innocence. This means that an accused person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and that they are entitled to a fair and impartial trial where evidence is presented and they are given an opportunity to defend themselves.

The MeToo movement has highlighted the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault, and has led to many high-profile accusations and firings. However, it is important to remember that even in cases of sexual misconduct, due process must be respected. Accusations alone should not be enough to result in punishment, and the accused person must be given the opportunity to defend themselves and present evidence.

While it may be tempting to bypass due process in cases of sexual misconduct, doing so would undermine the principles of justice and fairness that are essential to a just society. The accused person's rights must be respected, and they must be given a fair trial in order to ensure that justice is served. By upholding due process, we can ensure that the guilty are held accountable while also protecting the rights of the innocent.

Socially, we need a lower standard than presumed innocent. If a boy scout leader is accused by several boys of molesting them, isn't it irresponsible to keep letting him take other boys camping until there's a trial? Especially since there's rarely evidence of such things and trials are solely he said, she said, and never outright proven?
And, as Sepharo keeps pointing out, he clearly isn't wholly innocent. He's still a sex pest, but not a sex offender.

In situations such as the one you have described, where multiple accusations have been made against someone for a serious crime such as sexual assault or abuse, it may be reasonable to take measures to protect potential victims. However, it is important to balance the need to protect against the presumption of innocence and due process.

It is understandable to have concerns about allowing someone to continue in a position of authority or access to potential victims when there are credible accusations against them. In such cases, it may be appropriate to temporarily remove them from that position while an investigation is carried out.

It is also important to note that while some cases may rely solely on "he said, she said" evidence, there are still legal processes in place to determine guilt or innocence. A thorough investigation and legal process may reveal additional evidence or inconsistencies in the accusations that could impact the outcome.

Ultimately, it is essential to uphold the principles of justice and fairness while also taking measures to protect potential victims. Accusations should be taken seriously, but they must be subject to a fair and impartial investigation, and the accused person should be given an opportunity to defend themselves.

ChatGTP wrote on Apr 1, 2023, 03:54:
This case is a reminder of how important due process and the presumption of innocence is. The concept of "due process" refers to the legal requirement that a person be treated fairly and justly when they are accused of a crime or wrongdoing. In a just society, due process is essential because it helps to ensure that people are not unfairly punished or deprived of their rights.

One of the key principles of due process is the presumption of innocence. This means that an accused person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and that they are entitled to a fair and impartial trial where evidence is presented and they are given an opportunity to defend themselves.

The MeToo movement has highlighted the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault, and has led to many high-profile accusations and firings. However, it is important to remember that even in cases of sexual misconduct, due process must be respected. Accusations alone should not be enough to result in punishment, and the accused person must be given the opportunity to defend themselves and present evidence.

While it may be tempting to bypass due process in cases of sexual misconduct, doing so would undermine the principles of justice and fairness that are essential to a just society. The accused person's rights must be respected, and they must be given a fair trial in order to ensure that justice is served. By upholding due process, we can ensure that the guilty are held accountable while also protecting the rights of the innocent.

Socially, we need a lower standard than presumed innocent. If a boy scout leader is accused by several boys of molesting them, isn't it irresponsible to keep letting him take other boys camping until there's a trial? Especially since there's rarely evidence of such things and trials are solely he said, she said, and never outright proven?
And, as Sepharo keeps pointing out, he clearly isn't wholly innocent. He's still a sex pest, but not a sex offender.

This case is a reminder of how important due process and the presumption of innocence is. The concept of "due process" refers to the legal requirement that a person be treated fairly and justly when they are accused of a crime or wrongdoing. In a just society, due process is essential because it helps to ensure that people are not unfairly punished or deprived of their rights.

One of the key principles of due process is the presumption of innocence. This means that an accused person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and that they are entitled to a fair and impartial trial where evidence is presented and they are given an opportunity to defend themselves.

The MeToo movement has highlighted the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault, and has led to many high-profile accusations and firings. However, it is important to remember that even in cases of sexual misconduct, due process must be respected. Accusations alone should not be enough to result in punishment, and the accused person must be given the opportunity to defend themselves and present evidence.

While it may be tempting to bypass due process in cases of sexual misconduct, doing so would undermine the principles of justice and fairness that are essential to a just society. The accused person's rights must be respected, and they must be given a fair trial in order to ensure that justice is served. By upholding due process, we can ensure that the guilty are held accountable while also protecting the rights of the innocent.

jdreyer wrote on Mar 28, 2023, 02:12:
Interesting comment over at Eurogamer.

JosephJFK 6370 Supporter
14 hours ago
I am a first amendment and defamation lawyer, and I don't quite follow this. If the case was dismissed from California on jurisdictional grounds, that should not have resulted in him owing any fees under an anti-SLAPP law. But to be fair, I haven't reviewed the record, so maybe something odd happened here.

Given how difficult it is to win a defamation claim in any U.S. state, a settlement where the defendant pays 7 figures should not be treated as a big nothing. And while I don't know, I strongly suspect the reason the defendants here said, "oh, we never meant to say the thing we obviously said" is because they don't want to admit to lying in court filings. I've settled cases before with similarly absurd wording so a defendant can save face

it's more than 'strongly suspect'. that's the only logical conclusion - they settled because not doing so would've been way worse. that's why i was curious about what he actually sued for. and that he had some air tight evidence of their fuckery - not just that they were wrong but that they intentionally lied.

Ahumado wrote on Mar 31, 2023, 13:25:
* REMOVED *

Is this sarcasm?
Who was the reason they couldn't do those things in the first place?

This comment was edited on Mar 31, 2023, 15:20.

* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on Mar 31, 2023, 15:20. Reason: Shitpost

jdreyer wrote on Mar 28, 2023, 02:12:
Interesting comment over at Eurogamer.

JosephJFK 6370 Supporter
14 hours ago
I am a first amendment and defamation lawyer, and I don't quite follow this. If the case was dismissed from California on jurisdictional grounds, that should not have resulted in him owing any fees under an anti-SLAPP law. But to be fair, I haven't reviewed the record, so maybe something odd happened here.

Given how difficult it is to win a defamation claim in any U.S. state, a settlement where the defendant pays 7 figures should not be treated as a big nothing. And while I don't know, I strongly suspect the reason the defendants here said, "oh, we never meant to say the thing we obviously said" is because they don't want to admit to lying in court filings. I've settled cases before with similarly absurd wording so a defendant can save face

Correct as far as I understand. The case wouldn't have been dismissed under jurisdictional grounds if anti-SLAPP was applied. Jurisdiction has to be applied *before* anti-SLAPP gets applied.

Besides, the forbes article writer said he contacted Avellone's attorney for clarification and confirmed that Avellone recouped lawyer's fees and that's part of the 7 figure settlement.

Interesting comment over at Eurogamer.

JosephJFK 6370 Supporter
14 hours ago
I am a first amendment and defamation lawyer, and I don't quite follow this. If the case was dismissed from California on jurisdictional grounds, that should not have resulted in him owing any fees under an anti-SLAPP law. But to be fair, I haven't reviewed the record, so maybe something odd happened here.

Given how difficult it is to win a defamation claim in any U.S. state, a settlement where the defendant pays 7 figures should not be treated as a big nothing. And while I don't know, I strongly suspect the reason the defendants here said, "oh, we never meant to say the thing we obviously said" is because they don't want to admit to lying in court filings. I've settled cases before with similarly absurd wording so a defendant can save face

Bubicus wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 18:03:
Perhaps you are correct in your generalized assumption that all corporations operate that way, but if a corporation found evidence of illegal behavior and did not report it to the police during an official crime investigation, the corporation may be breaking the law, and I doubt they would hide such evidence when lawyers come requesting it.

In the US the vast majority of employment is "at will." This means they can let you go for any reason, and even if they detect criminal activity, they may choose not to report it and deal with the headache.

Sepharo wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 19:00:

loomy wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 17:59:
There is literally 0 chance 102 women all lied about this guy being a creep.

Maybe these two ladies are creeps too, and that's how he nailed them with this lawsuit. Both things are possible at the same time.

Unfortunately all the details of this settlement will probably remain a mystery, and we'll have people theorycrafting about it for the next decade.

PS: If you can't understand why the press release is creepy, just trust us. ONE reason is that the two women don't apologize or say they lied; instead, they imply they never said what they said. So either they're insane, or the statement is coerced, or he wrote it for them. It's very weird.

Read his lawsuit.
He didn't deny anything that occurred between him and the women... he just said that it was defamation to call him a "sex predator" and proving as much would be impossible for the two women he sued... And oddly enough, the other part was that they claimed he bought girls drinks on the company dime.. he took issue with that as well, and that's why this settlement statement also references that of all things.

Unlike what reading-challenged people in this thread believe, the women did not recant anything they said, nor did they apologize for anything they said.
What the settlement does essentially say, is that they don't have personal knowledge of any of those implications that he took issue with (and would not be able to prove it in a defamation case).

The part that is believable, even only using Avellone's own admittances rather than anything the women posted on social media, is that he is a major creeper.
A 40 year old man making it a regular habit to attend conventions and pursue sexual encounters with much younger (but not underage) women who are fans and are intoxicated... yeah it's creepy behavior.

Should his life be ruined? No. Should people be careful about their specific claims? Yes.
Should the women not have said anything at all? Absolutely not.
They're free to call him a creepy guy all they want within the context of what they do specifically know about him.

His lawsuit was very specifically crafted to only address specific things that couldn't be proven, like "sex predator", non-consent, underage girls, and misuse of company funds. All things those women should not have accused him of if they didn't have specific proof of those... but even in the posts he included in his lawsuit, most of it is implied rather than outright accused.

The lawsuit: https://bit.ly/40iJuhu
Sorry about the URL shortener, but it's basically impossible to post long links here.

The bolding* is his from the lawsuit, drawing attention to the pieces to be used in the defamation case.
It shows claims that can't be proven, and desire to cause malicious harm (get him fired).
(*I also added underlines since bold is hard to see in italics here)

ZERO interest in anything from a man who spent so much time preying on
young women (no age check), getting them drunk & taking them to hotel
rooms, showing up to panels late & wasted if at all, & treating fans/fellow
industry SO badly, he was blacklisted from at least 1 big con[vention].

While we’re at it, here’s another man to add to the gaming industry predator
garbage pile. Yesterday was the fist time I said something publicly about this, and
I’m done being silent, despite that fuckstick in the reply telling me to shut up. I
WILL NOT.

I witnessed, and experienced, [Avellone’s] behavior firsthand. He got me
blackout drunk on Midori Sours (on the company dime). He and two friends
somehow got me back to my room, where he pounced in front of the other guys.
They left after a few moments (also drunk), and one of them-
-told me what he had witnessed the next evening I had very vague impressions
that someone had made out with me when I woke up that morning, but thought it
was a dream. When I asked Chris about it, he told me that I had eventually
refused him. When more of the night came back-
-to me, I realized the ONLY reason I was able to refuse him in my blackout
stupor was because I was on my period that weekend. The ONLY reason. (The
shame society places on menstruation actually came in handy for once, smdh.)
Other nights, I watched him do the same to-
-other girls, some of whom looked FAR younger than me in my late 20s (at the
time, and I have always looked young for my age). He would disappear with one
or another, come back, then come back to me. The entire con[vention]. I did not
get drunk with him again, and he was a gentleman-
-about my refusals, including the one where I was drunk off my ass, and when he
escorted me to the subway station at 4:30am the morning I left to go home. That
kind of behavior is what not only kept me in denial about what was actually going
on, but drove me to introduce him to-
-one of my best friends, who then endured over a year of heartache, gaslighting,
and emotional abuse at his hands. It was much easier to see then, and ALL of us
who knew what was going on told her to get out. Eventually, she did, but not
before he raged out of a restaurant-
-drunk as fuck (as usual), leaving her behind after which point she wandered the
downtown streets of a major convention city late at night, ALONE, looking for
him because she was worried he would get hurt due to how drunk he was. This
was my breaking point.
I went to two men I worked with at this convention and reported the situation.
Interestingly enough, they were already discussing his terrible behavior when I
found them together to report it. With my testimony added, he was blacklisted
right then and there.
His behavior didn’t stop, though. If anything, it got worse. It took years for his
employer to finally fire him (I honestly don’t’ recall the exact reason he was
given, it was a while ago and I wasn’t there personally - this was relayed to me by
a friend who also worked there).
He moved to other studios. Other projects. Other conventions until they stopped
inviting him on their own accord (whether due to behavior or relevance, I don’t
know). I pushed him out of my memory, as did my dear friends, and we only
discussed our anger and disgust if he-
-happened to come up. I’ve said something to some friends in journalism if he
came up. Emily [the other game writer featured in the IGN interview] reached out
to me after seeing my tweet to apologize. For what, I asked her? [sic] She didn’t
know what he was like and carried no fault in this. Most didn’t know unless they
saw it.
Still no one said anything except in closed circles. *I* didn’t say anything except
in closed circles to warn people about his behavior. I have not idea if he’s
remotely better than he was then, but given how protected he’s been from true
consequences for his actions, I doubt it.
The actions I witnessed myself occurred between 2013 and 2015. Those I was
told by friends who remained around him occurred up until 2017 or 2018. This
was recent. Who knows how long it had been occurring before then; he was
clearly no stranger to doing this when I met him.
I didn’t bother blowing this up until today due to work being insane all week, but
I’ve got time now. Chris Avellone is an abusive, abrasive, conniving sexual
predator. People tried to get him help. He refused it and continued. Stop
glorifying him

What Avellone admitted to:

On August 30, 2012, the evening before the Atlanta convention “Dragon Con”2
was scheduled to begin, Avellone and Barrows met for the first time at a bar filled with fellow
convention-goers. Later that night, Avellone and two fellow computer game writers escorted
Barrows to her hotel room, where her roommate was settled in for the night. When the four
arrived, Avellone and Barrows kissed and heavy-petted outside her hotel room door. Moments
later, when Barrows told Avellone that “this is not a good idea,” the sexual nature of their
encounter stopped. Avellone and Barrows never had any sexual contact again.

Neither of the women claimed that he sexually assaulted them... they claimed he was a creeper, and then went too far with specificity of their claims regarding other women who shared their experiences with Avellone. These are the 100 mystery defendants that Avellone refers to, essentially sticking his tongue out and saying, "Find them for me and then I'll address their claims."

Great post

Flatline wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 19:05:
A non-zero chance is that this really did go down the way they said, but due to their own public and private reactions under duress or denial or whatever, and a lack of any kind of contemporaneous records to back up the accusation, there simply isn't any effective defense against the accusation. Which, if that's the case, I hate to say it, but if you can't support an accusation you probably shouldn't make it. For example, I *could* make an allegation about a famous actor about something that occurred when they were young, because I was there, but I can't prove it, and so I won't, because I don't want to be sued.

Well said.

1badmf wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 05:54:
i kinda skimmed the comments, but i can say that there was no judgement here so there was no standard of malice to be applied. it was a settlement to make the case go away. the only role the judge has is to approve it.

that being said, as someone else mentioned, the women must've been fucked up shit's creek to agree to these terms. they admitted they lied AND they paid him a big settlement. they need to get a better lawyer cuz when big corps drop big settlements they NEVER admit guilt. i'm curious what he sued for cuz it must've been massive, to get them to 'only' pay out 7 figs and a public apology.

Correct, there was no judgement, no standard of malice held. But usually settlements are either "this is going to cost more to go to court than to make you go away" or "we potentially are going to lose, and lose big, if we go to court" logic. Since the defendants were being represented Pro Bono, I doubt going to court would have cost 7 figures in legal fees. Which probably leaves the second.

My wild-assed guess is that there's some kind of private conversation where they either talk about consenting or enjoying the interactions and then pivoted at some point later on. Because as others have said, defamation of a public figure requires establishing malice or gross negligence. If you're giving a first hand account of an incident, I don't think gross negligence can be used- you didn't not bother to find out the truth to a liable degree, you know if it happened or not. You can suggest malice if someone went from "I wish we had gone farther" to "He 100% tried to sexually assault me".

A non-zero chance is that this really did go down the way they said, but due to their own public and private reactions under duress or denial or whatever, and a lack of any kind of contemporaneous records to back up the accusation, there simply isn't any effective defense against the accusation. Which, if that's the case, I hate to say it, but if you can't support an accusation you probably shouldn't make it. For example, I *could* make an allegation about a famous actor about something that occurred when they were young, because I was there, but I can't prove it, and so I won't, because I don't want to be sued.

As for their lawyers sucking, that might not have been the case. He might have been asking for much more to settle, and then said he'll take like... half that for a public retraction. If you're trying to recover from defamation a public retraction is worth more than money arguably.

loomy wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 17:59:
There is literally 0 chance 102 women all lied about this guy being a creep.

Maybe these two ladies are creeps too, and that's how he nailed them with this lawsuit. Both things are possible at the same time.

Unfortunately all the details of this settlement will probably remain a mystery, and we'll have people theorycrafting about it for the next decade.

PS: If you can't understand why the press release is creepy, just trust us. ONE reason is that the two women don't apologize or say they lied; instead, they imply they never said what they said. So either they're insane, or the statement is coerced, or he wrote it for them. It's very weird.

Read his lawsuit.
He didn't deny anything that occurred between him and the women... he just said that it was defamation to call him a "sex predator" and proving as much would be impossible for the two women he sued... And oddly enough, the other part was that they claimed he bought girls drinks on the company dime.. he took issue with that as well, and that's why this settlement statement also references that of all things.

Unlike what reading-challenged people in this thread believe, the women did not recant anything they said, nor did they apologize for anything they said.
What the settlement does essentially say, is that they don't have personal knowledge of any of those implications that he took issue with (and would not be able to prove it in a defamation case).

The part that is believable, even only using Avellone's own admittances rather than anything the women posted on social media, is that he is a major creeper.
A 40 year old man making it a regular habit to attend conventions and pursue sexual encounters with much younger (but not underage) women who are fans and are intoxicated... yeah it's creepy behavior.

Should his life be ruined? No. Should people be careful about their specific claims? Yes.
Should the women not have said anything at all? Absolutely not.
They're free to call him a creepy guy all they want within the context of what they do specifically know about him.

His lawsuit was very specifically crafted to only address specific things that couldn't be proven, like "sex predator", non-consent, underage girls, and misuse of company funds. All things those women should not have accused him of if they didn't have specific proof of those... but even in the posts he included in his lawsuit, most of it is implied rather than outright accused.

The lawsuit: https://bit.ly/40iJuhu
Sorry about the URL shortener, but it's basically impossible to post long links here.

The bolding* is his from the lawsuit, drawing attention to the pieces to be used in the defamation case.
It shows claims that can't be proven, and desire to cause malicious harm (get him fired).
(*I also added underlines since bold is hard to see in italics here)

ZERO interest in anything from a man who spent so much time preying on
young women (no age check), getting them drunk & taking them to hotel
rooms, showing up to panels late & wasted if at all, & treating fans/fellow
industry SO badly, he was blacklisted from at least 1 big con[vention].

While we’re at it, here’s another man to add to the gaming industry predator
garbage pile. Yesterday was the fist time I said something publicly about this, and
I’m done being silent, despite that fuckstick in the reply telling me to shut up. I
WILL NOT.

I witnessed, and experienced, [Avellone’s] behavior firsthand. He got me
blackout drunk on Midori Sours (on the company dime). He and two friends
somehow got me back to my room, where he pounced in front of the other guys.
They left after a few moments (also drunk), and one of them-
-told me what he had witnessed the next evening I had very vague impressions
that someone had made out with me when I woke up that morning, but thought it
was a dream. When I asked Chris about it, he told me that I had eventually
refused him. When more of the night came back-
-to me, I realized the ONLY reason I was able to refuse him in my blackout
stupor was because I was on my period that weekend. The ONLY reason. (The
shame society places on menstruation actually came in handy for once, smdh.)
Other nights, I watched him do the same to-
-other girls, some of whom looked FAR younger than me in my late 20s (at the
time, and I have always looked young for my age). He would disappear with one
or another, come back, then come back to me. The entire con[vention]. I did not
get drunk with him again, and he was a gentleman-
-about my refusals, including the one where I was drunk off my ass, and when he
escorted me to the subway station at 4:30am the morning I left to go home. That
kind of behavior is what not only kept me in denial about what was actually going
on, but drove me to introduce him to-
-one of my best friends, who then endured over a year of heartache, gaslighting,
and emotional abuse at his hands. It was much easier to see then, and ALL of us
who knew what was going on told her to get out. Eventually, she did, but not
before he raged out of a restaurant-
-drunk as fuck (as usual), leaving her behind after which point she wandered the
downtown streets of a major convention city late at night, ALONE, looking for
him because she was worried he would get hurt due to how drunk he was. This
was my breaking point.
I went to two men I worked with at this convention and reported the situation.
Interestingly enough, they were already discussing his terrible behavior when I
found them together to report it. With my testimony added, he was blacklisted
right then and there.
His behavior didn’t stop, though. If anything, it got worse. It took years for his
employer to finally fire him (I honestly don’t’ recall the exact reason he was
given, it was a while ago and I wasn’t there personally - this was relayed to me by
a friend who also worked there).
He moved to other studios. Other projects. Other conventions until they stopped
inviting him on their own accord (whether due to behavior or relevance, I don’t
know). I pushed him out of my memory, as did my dear friends, and we only
discussed our anger and disgust if he-
-happened to come up. I’ve said something to some friends in journalism if he
came up. Emily [the other game writer featured in the IGN interview] reached out
to me after seeing my tweet to apologize. For what, I asked her? [sic] She didn’t
know what he was like and carried no fault in this. Most didn’t know unless they
saw it.
Still no one said anything except in closed circles. *I* didn’t say anything except
in closed circles to warn people about his behavior. I have not idea if he’s
remotely better than he was then, but given how protected he’s been from true
consequences for his actions, I doubt it.
The actions I witnessed myself occurred between 2013 and 2015. Those I was
told by friends who remained around him occurred up until 2017 or 2018. This
was recent. Who knows how long it had been occurring before then; he was
clearly no stranger to doing this when I met him.
I didn’t bother blowing this up until today due to work being insane all week, but
I’ve got time now. Chris Avellone is an abusive, abrasive, conniving sexual
predator. People tried to get him help. He refused it and continued. Stop
glorifying him

What Avellone admitted to:

On August 30, 2012, the evening before the Atlanta convention “Dragon Con”2
was scheduled to begin, Avellone and Barrows met for the first time at a bar filled with fellow
convention-goers. Later that night, Avellone and two fellow computer game writers escorted
Barrows to her hotel room, where her roommate was settled in for the night. When the four
arrived, Avellone and Barrows kissed and heavy-petted outside her hotel room door. Moments
later, when Barrows told Avellone that “this is not a good idea,” the sexual nature of their
encounter stopped. Avellone and Barrows never had any sexual contact again.

Neither of the women claimed that he sexually assaulted them... they claimed he was a creeper, and then went too far with specificity of their claims regarding other women who shared their experiences with Avellone. These are the 100 mystery defendants that Avellone refers to, essentially sticking his tongue out and saying, "Find them for me and then I'll address their claims."

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 2023, 19:13.

jdreyer wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 02:26:
I think that's why I'm scratching my head at this case. Even if they lied, what evidence exists that shows malicious intent? There must be something that we're not seeing here. This isn't a judgement on whether the two women did something wrong; it seems likely that they did. My question is, did it rise to the level of libel of a public figure? The women initially seemed honest in their condemnations, so for them to settle this there must be some proof that they not only made stuff up but also did it with the intent of ruining his career? Have we seen evidence of that in this case? Perhaps LegalEagle or someone can shed some light on what likely happened in this case.

Avellone's original blog suggested that their behavior turned on him immediately around the time he had a messy breakup with someone that they were mutual friends with, and had conversations that show that they immediately turned hostile towards him. I'm guessing in those conversations there's enough of a pivot from their previous public and private behavior, or threats or something in there, that the defense attorneys felt that it'd be dangerous to let a jury read them. There is something missing, we'll never know what though unless someone decides to be stupid and releases it.

Armengar wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 01:08:
I would also need to prove you were accusing me maliciously.

If and only if you're a public figure. If you're a private figure the bar is much lower. Malicious intent is the New York Times vs Sullivan threshold. I'm assuming Avallone is considered a "public figure". I'm sure his lawyers would have fought against that but I'd argue that it meets the Gertz v Welch definition.