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

[Eli_Havelock]

If you accuse me, in the middle of the street, of robbing your store and beating up your employee, and, after looking at your bloodied employee, I remorsefully apologize to her and ask to be taken to jail, everyone watching the confrontation on the street will see it as an admission of guilt, even though I never addressed your accusations of robbery.

You're using a situation that involves physical material evidence in the res as an analogy for responding to social media accusations based on years in the past? I take it back, your comedy is getting good.

 

[Sentinel]

While we were all surprised by how much of a wet noodle he is when faced with confrontation, he never admitted to abuse (rapists don't say "I'm sorry things didn't work out") and as far as I know no proof of it ever came out, so I don't see much issue in being proud of believing in the innocence of someone you care about. People are proud of dumber things.

What we do have however are statements from companies saying they cut ties with him because they take sexual harassment very seriously (which is code for "we side with the crying woman immediately, proof is optional").

He never denied the abuse either, which, when you're being accused of something, is basically an admission of guilt.

are you chinese?

No? What's the implication? I don't get it. If the defendant decides not to show up to court, that is an admisison of guilt, and an auto-win for the plaintiff.

 

[Sentinel]

If you accuse me, in the middle of the street, of robbing your store and beating up your employee, and, after looking at your bloodied employee, I remorsefully apologize to her and ask to be taken to jail, everyone watching the confrontation on the street will see it as an admission of guilt, even though I never addressed your accusations of robbery.

You're using a situation that involves physical material evidence in the res as an analogy for responding to social media accusations based on years in the past? I take it back, your comedy is getting good.

You've been trying to get my attention for a while. I didn't reply because you're retarded and have demonstrated that you have 0 reading comprehension. I just want to clarify that the analogy I posed is pretty simple and doesn't involve any evidence connecting the crime to the criminal (in fact that's the entire point of this conversation and the analogy itself). I won't bother replying to whatever diarrhea you come up with next so don't bother replying.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

No? What's the implication? I don't get it. If the defendant decides not to show up to court, that is an admisison of guilt, and an auto-win for the plaintiff.

Yeah, because you are required to answer at that point. That's different from ignoring tweets saying you did this and that.

 

[Eli_Havelock]

While we were all surprised by how much of a wet noodle he is when faced with confrontation, he never admitted to abuse (rapists don't say "I'm sorry things didn't work out") and as far as I know no proof of it ever came out, so I don't see much issue in being proud of believing in the innocence of someone you care about. People are proud of dumber things.

What we do have however are statements from companies saying they cut ties with him because they take sexual harassment very seriously (which is code for "we side with the crying woman immediately, proof is optional").

He never denied the abuse either, which, when you're being accused of something, is basically an admission of guilt.

are you chinese?

No? What's the implication? I don't get it. If the defendant decides not to show up to court, that is an admisison of guilt, and an auto-win for the plaintiff.

And now applying actual court proceedings to the court of public opinion. You're really on a roll. You should tour.

You've been trying to get my attention for a while. I didn't reply because you're retarded and have demonstrated that you have 0 reading comprehension. I just want to clarify that the analogy I posed is pretty simple and doesn't involve any evidence connecting the crime to the criminal. I won't bother replying to whatever diarrhea you come up with next so don't bother replying.

...and then you had to do some weak "no YOU'RE a towel" about what you've been called on about your tribal nonsense you've been smearing like a cat dragging its ass across the carpet for about a dozen pages.

Disappointing.

 

[Sentinel]

And now applying actual court proceedings to the court of public opinion. You're really on a roll. You should tour.

I am applying them because I'm talking to someone who said this

Can anyone think of an argument against this?

Their argument is "legal matters are not real life", don't think anything you say matters at that point. You're talking about rule of law to someone who thinks the law just gets in the way of justice.

No? What's the implication? I don't get it. If the defendant decides not to show up to court, that is an admisison of guilt, and an auto-win for the plaintiff.

Yeah, because you are required to answer at that point. That's different from ignoring tweets saying you did this and that.

You're only required to answer the summon if you want to defend yourself, and only people who believe themselves not guilty actively defend themselves. Thus, if you don't answer the summon to defend yourself, you're guilty. That is the presumption that serves as the basis for the auto-loss in case you ignore the court case. Just like with Chris, who made no efforts whatsoever to defend himself for a year (on the contrary) - it's not surprising to see how people could believe the stories against him.

 

[Eli_Havelock]

And now applying actual court proceedings to the court of public opinion. You're really on a roll. You should tour.

I am applying them because I'm talking to someone who said this

Can anyone think of an argument against this?

Their argument is "legal matters are not real life", don't think anything you say matters at that point. You're talking about rule of law to someone who thinks the law just gets in the way of justice.

No? What's the implication? I don't get it. If the defendant decides not to show up to court, that is an admisison of guilt, and an auto-win for the plaintiff.

Yeah, because you are required to answer at that point. That's different from ignoring tweets saying you did this and that.

You're only required to answer the summon if you want to defend yourself, and only people who believe themselves not guilty actively defend themselves. Thus, if you don't answer the summon to defend yourself, you're guilty. That is the presumption that serves as the basis for the auto-loss in case you ignore the court case. Just like with Chris, who made no efforts whatsoever to defend himself for a year (on the contrary) - it's not surprising to see how people could believe the stories against him.

Ah, there you are, back to your schtick. To entertain the farce of your participation, I shall explain this to you so you can compose another hilarious fuckup of a reply:

Clockwork Knight said that the court of public opinions doesn't care about real law as shown by their extra-judicial attempts to enact justice.

At which you ran in and determined that if someone isn't going to answer a summons to the court of public opinion then it is just like a real court of law and they forfeit.

 

[Sentinel]

And now applying actual court proceedings to the court of public opinion. You're really on a roll. You should tour.

I am applying them because I'm talking to someone who said this

Can anyone think of an argument against this?

Their argument is "legal matters are not real life", don't think anything you say matters at that point. You're talking about rule of law to someone who thinks the law just gets in the way of justice.

No? What's the implication? I don't get it. If the defendant decides not to show up to court, that is an admisison of guilt, and an auto-win for the plaintiff.

Yeah, because you are required to answer at that point. That's different from ignoring tweets saying you did this and that.

You're only required to answer the summon if you want to defend yourself, and only people who believe themselves not guilty actively defend themselves. Thus, if you don't answer the summon to defend yourself, you're guilty. That is the presumption that serves as the basis for the auto-loss in case you ignore the court case. Just like with Chris, who made no efforts whatsoever to defend himself for a year (on the contrary) - it's not surprising to see how people could believe the stories against him.

Ah, there you are, back to your schtick. To entertain the farce of your participation, I shall explain this to you so you can compose another hilarious fuckup of a reply:

Clockwork Knight said that the court of public opinions doesn't care about real law as shown by their extra-judicial attempts to enact justice.

At which you ran in and determined that if someone isn't going to answer a summons to the court of public opinion then it is just like a real court of law and they forfeit.

Again, I'm just going to assume you're actually autistic and cannot read implications in what people say, which explains your general lack of reading comprehension. I'm done with you, go bother someone else.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

You're only required to answer the summon if you want to defend yourself, and only people who believe themselves not guilty actively defend themselves. Thus, if you don't answer the summon to defend yourself, you're guilty. That is the presumption that serves as the basis for the auto-loss in case you ignore the court case. Just like with Chris, who made no efforts whatsoever to defend himself for a year (on the contrary) - it's not surprising to see how people could believe the stories against him.

Not "just like" at all. You are not required to defend yourself on twitter under legal penalties.

That was the point of the "legal matters aren't real life" post. There's no evidence he did anything, but it doesn't stop people from thinking it doesn't matter because he didn't say anything so clearly he admits it. It's not surprising they would think that way, but it's retarded.

 

[Eli_Havelock]

Again, I'm just going to assume you're actually autistic and cannot read implications in what people say, which explains your general lack of reading comprehension. I'm done with you, go bother someone else.

It's like you have no familiarity with kafkatraps in the court of public opinion. Or you do and you're purposefully playing thick as pig shit.

 

[Turbografx]

Huzzah, let fly!

 

[mondblut]

No thread on current events is complete without this guy:

 

[Sordid MCA/Prosper Hybryd]

btw. didn't Jackie also supported Karissa during the accusations, posting some texts? I find it a bit strange that MCA didn't include her too, even not naming her/making her "then girlfriend" in the filing. Maybe Chris convinced Jackie to support his case? That'd be the ultimate 4D chess move :D

Can't go after Jackie for libel because she only posted the truth (that he sent her a cringe text and apologized for it as soon as he realized it was unwanted). It seems his belief is that she only did that because of what Karissa and her friend said, and by proving those are lies, the text was just a one-off mistake, not proof that he's some sort of serial harasser.

I think that you are mixing Avellone's ex-girlfiend Jackie and Jacqui Collins.

 

[Mustawd]

19 pages already?

Meh. Most of us are waiting for a real lawyer with credentials to give his opinion on this or actual developments one way or the other. Otherwise, it's just thesentinel sperging about shit no one cares about except some poor fools who continue to engage with him as if his thoughts actually matter.

UPDATE: Seems this thread is now about stupid random crap the Chinese poster thesentinel is saying. Mods, please split this thread and title it "Chink things" and place all thesentinel posts in there.

 

[Quillon]

btw. didn't Jackie also supported Karissa during the accusations, posting some texts? I find it a bit strange that MCA didn't include her too, even not naming her/making her "then girlfriend" in the filing. Maybe Chris convinced Jackie to support his case? That'd be the ultimate 4D chess move :D

Can't go after Jackie for libel because she only posted the truth (that he sent her a cringe text and apologized for it as soon as he realized it was unwanted). It seems his belief is that she only did that because of what Karissa and her friend said, and by proving those are lies, the text was just a one-off mistake, not proof that he's some sort of serial harasser.

I think that you are mixing Avellone's ex-girlfiend Jackie and Jacqui Collins.

Yeah apparently I was, even at the time lol.

 

[Sentinel]

You're only required to answer the summon if you want to defend yourself, and only people who believe themselves not guilty actively defend themselves. Thus, if you don't answer the summon to defend yourself, you're guilty. That is the presumption that serves as the basis for the auto-loss in case you ignore the court case. Just like with Chris, who made no efforts whatsoever to defend himself for a year (on the contrary) - it's not surprising to see how people could believe the stories against him.

Not "just like" at all. You are not required to defend yourself on twitter under legal penalties.

That was the point of the "legal matters aren't real life" post. There's no evidence he did anything, but it doesn't stop people from thinking it doesn't matter because he didn't say anything so clearly he admits it. It's not surprising they would think that way, but it's retarded.

We're talking about the public perception of the case. If you don't want to seem guilty and you believe you aren't guilty, then you are absolutely required to defend yourself.

There is no evidence Avellone did anything, but he did everything in his power to help the supposed victims by acting apologetic, remorseful, and submissive towards the allegations. This is behavior of someone who's guilty of something, which is why a lot of people turned on him. He didn't help himself in any way. It's not retarded, any unbiased third party with no knowledge of the people involved or the facts would lean towards the victims at first glance in this case with how Avellone acted.

 

[Eli_Havelock]

You're only required to answer the summon if you want to defend yourself, and only people who believe themselves not guilty actively defend themselves. Thus, if you don't answer the summon to defend yourself, you're guilty. That is the presumption that serves as the basis for the auto-loss in case you ignore the court case. Just like with Chris, who made no efforts whatsoever to defend himself for a year (on the contrary) - it's not surprising to see how people could believe the stories against him.

Not "just like" at all. You are not required to defend yourself on twitter under legal penalties.

That was the point of the "legal matters aren't real life" post. There's no evidence he did anything, but it doesn't stop people from thinking it doesn't matter because he didn't say anything so clearly he admits it. It's not surprising they would think that way, but it's retarded.

We're talking about the public perception of the case. If you don't want to seem guilty and you believe you aren't guilty, then you are absolutely required to defend yourself.

There is no evidence Avellone did anything, but he did everything in his power to help the supposed victims by acting apologetic, remorseful, and submissive towards the allegations. This is behavior of someone who's guilty of something, which is why a lot of people turned on him. He didn't help himself in any way. It's not retarded, any unbiased third party with no knowledge of the people involved or the facts would lean towards the victims at first glance in this case with how Avellone acted.

When will you stop beating your wife?

 

[Eli_Havelock]

2.) He didn't do anything in his power to help the supposed victim or act apologetic, remorseful, or submissive towards the allegations. His apology to someone else, his ex-GF, about not handling the relationship well was all he should have. But doing that was a mistake as it was taken out of context by others, just like you, to make the claim you are here. But he didn't actually do that, just so you understand.

Dude seems to have it out for Chris while trying to play that everyone here is giving support just because muh tribe. Accurate information is not in their interest.

I guess if you get removed from one game (Dying Light 2) you get removed from all in the last 9 years?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

We're talking about the public perception of the case. If you don't want to seem guilty and you believe you aren't guilty, then you are absolutely required to defend yourself.

Sure. But that doesn't confirm anything, and it is not comparable with not showing up to court.

There is no evidence Avellone did anything, but he did everything in his power to help the supposed victims by acting apologetic, remorseful, and submissive towards the allegations. This is behavior of someone who's guilty of something, which is why a lot of people turned on him. He didn't help himself in any way. It's not retarded, any unbiased third party with no knowledge of the people involved or the facts would lean towards the victims at first glance in this case with how Avellone acted.

Eh, to me it's clear they would have sided with the crying woman no matter what (Angryjoe and others who denied the accusations were then accused of using their clout to silence the accusers) and MCA's reaction is secondary, but I can't prove that.

 

[Eli_Havelock]

No, you were right earlier saying this was ideological tribalism.

For some. For most others and industry vets it's the same shit we saw during the Satanic Panic, just with a different religion with their own venues of attack.

 

[Whimper]

You're only required to answer the summon if you want to defend yourself, and only people who believe themselves not guilty actively defend themselves. Thus, if you don't answer the summon to defend yourself, you're guilty. That is the presumption that serves as the basis for the auto-loss in case you ignore the court case. Just like with Chris, who made no efforts whatsoever to defend himself for a year (on the contrary) - it's not surprising to see how people could believe the stories against him.

Not "just like" at all. You are not required to defend yourself on twitter under legal penalties.

That was the point of the "legal matters aren't real life" post. There's no evidence he did anything, but it doesn't stop people from thinking it doesn't matter because he didn't say anything so clearly he admits it. It's not surprising they would think that way, but it's retarded.

We're talking about the public perception of the case. If you don't want to seem guilty and you believe you aren't guilty, then you are absolutely required to defend yourself.

There is no evidence Avellone did anything, but he did everything in his power to help the supposed victims by acting apologetic, remorseful, and submissive towards the allegations. This is behavior of someone who's guilty of something, which is why a lot of people turned on him. He didn't help himself in any way. It's not retarded, any unbiased third party with no knowledge of the people involved or the facts would lean towards the victims at first glance in this case with how Avellone acted.

When will you stop beating your wife?

When she starts behaving herself of course. Why is the Sentinel's wife being portrayed as the victim here?

 

[Eli_Havelock]

You're only required to answer the summon if you want to defend yourself, and only people who believe themselves not guilty actively defend themselves. Thus, if you don't answer the summon to defend yourself, you're guilty. That is the presumption that serves as the basis for the auto-loss in case you ignore the court case. Just like with Chris, who made no efforts whatsoever to defend himself for a year (on the contrary) - it's not surprising to see how people could believe the stories against him.

Not "just like" at all. You are not required to defend yourself on twitter under legal penalties.

That was the point of the "legal matters aren't real life" post. There's no evidence he did anything, but it doesn't stop people from thinking it doesn't matter because he didn't say anything so clearly he admits it. It's not surprising they would think that way, but it's retarded.

We're talking about the public perception of the case. If you don't want to seem guilty and you believe you aren't guilty, then you are absolutely required to defend yourself.

There is no evidence Avellone did anything, but he did everything in his power to help the supposed victims by acting apologetic, remorseful, and submissive towards the allegations. This is behavior of someone who's guilty of something, which is why a lot of people turned on him. He didn't help himself in any way. It's not retarded, any unbiased third party with no knowledge of the people involved or the facts would lean towards the victims at first glance in this case with how Avellone acted.

When will you stop beating your wife?

When she starts behaving herself of course. Why is the Sentinel's wife being portrayed as the victim here?

Because she's female and philogymy is more prevalent than misogyny in Western cultures. TheSentinel is still guilty. Change my mind.

 

[Sentinel]

1.) Everyone in this thread thinks he handled it very poorly initially by not challenging the accusations. I don't know why you think you have some new insight here, this was all said a year ago when it was happening. Everyone already knows that and discussed it a long time ago.

I'm not providing any new insight, just explaining why his behavior could rightfully be seen as an admission of guilt. As you said everyone initially said the way he acted was dumb, but for some reason everyone is rejecting the reason why it was dumb.

2.) He didn't do anything in his power to help the supposed victim or act apologetic, remorseful, or submissive towards the allegations. His apology to someone else, his ex-GF, about not handling the relationship well was all he should have. But doing that was a mistake as it was taken out of context by others, just like you, to make the claim you are here. But he didn't actually do that, just so you understand.

He absolutely did provide ammo by apologizing to his ex-gf/whatever the fuck in a tweet not even directed at her. Yes he did act remorseful and submissive ("that said, please just cancel me at once"). Among the accusations levied against him were accusations of emotional abuse towards his ex-gf, and his apology to her leaves a lot of room for interpretation, including an interpretation of admission of guilt ("I'm sorry for not handling it as well as I should have"). I'm not taking anything out of context, I'm well aware of how it all played out, you're just misinterpreting my posts. I'm not saying Avellone is guilty.

3.) None of this has anything to do with the recent statement by Avellone (other than his statement helps clear it up) or the lawsuit. Do you have any point here?

If you bothered to read the conversation instead of sniping lone comments you'd figure out the point. But I'll spoonfeed you:

This entire conversation started because some guy said the Codex should be proud of having Avellone's back and supporting him in these trying times. I said that was pathetic because it required no effort or strain from anyone here (except for Cernat), nothing was accomplished (so there was nothing to be proud of), and everyone here supported Avellone either out of a cult of personality or because of political reasons (the accusers are of the opposite side of the political and cultural isle). Despite MCA literally having a thread dedicated entirely to sucking his dick on the Codex, people said this cult of personality didn't exist, citing explanations for the support such as "we supported him because he's one of us"; "we supported him because we liked him". The support for MCA would have happened regardless of the case against him being made public, by nature of the Codex and the accusers. In other words, the support MCA received wasn't the result of an analysis of the case, but was an a priori guarantee given the two reasons I stated above.

Now, a third party removed from this entire ordeal that doesn't know either Avellone or the accusers (ie, a jury, or your average faggot reading news online), looking at the entire situation and knowing that Avellone was a heavy drinker, had every reason to come out of it thinking Avellone was guilty, because he made no efforts to convince anyone otherwise. Whether you like it or not, if you don't defend yourself, it's assumed you're guilty - that's just how it works. The accusers didn't provide proof for some of their claims, but anyone would question why Avellone didn't defend himself if he believed he wasn't guilty. And this in turn would've made it very hard to justify supporting MCA unless you were either politically motivated or had MCA cock to suck.
In simpler terms, someone not involved in the MCA cult or without political investment could easily be convinced that Avellone was guilty of the things he was accused of.

All of this to say - the only sense of pride anyone here could take from this is putting work into accomplishing something, and that only someone is Cernat, not "everyone who supported Avellone", because half of those had ulterior motives, and the other half would never tell MCA he was wrong anyway.

 

[Marullus]

I would strongly encourage everyone to temper their expectations. I think it is highly likely that Chris loses on a motion to dismiss and ends up having to pay the women he sued tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees and sanctions, if he is lucky. The amount could easily reach six figures, his own bills notwithstanding. Many of the statements he is suing over are opinion, according to the law.

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. Thread:

A Medium article is the best recourse Chris has against his first two causes of action, because the law really can't help him here. People have tried suing over sex predator and lost because courts have said it is opinion. You may not like it, or think that it is unfair, but that's the situation.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Your veiny, throbbing hateboner for MCA fanboys made you forgot the third option other than political sides or fanboyism: supporting him because there was never any evidence or admission of guilt, other than his passive-aggressive remarks about deserving to be canceled.