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

[cherry blossom]

Angry men afraid that their right to coerce drunk women into sex without getting called rapists making up an absolute binary state, ignoring the gradient from drunk to incapacitated when even the definition of incapacitation is up for debate in a lot of cases. "Her eyes were open and she was mumbling, and I heard yes".

Law is often very dodgy on these things.

Not as dodgy as your clearly idiotic statements. You said that "drunk people can not give consent" and later doubled down when someone called you out on your clearly retarded statements by calling him a "potential rapist". And you never even brought up the difference between incapacitaded and drunk before the tweet I quoted. It's almost like you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

You sound like you are... triggered.

 

[Cat]

You sound like you are... triggered.

And you sound like you are retarded. What's your point?

 

[Lambach]

Guys. Please. It ain't even bait at this point.

 

[Jrpgfan]

I fucked a couple of times while drunk. Where's your sympathy for me, you heartless bastard?

Heck, I hardly ever fucked sober. I am never fully 100% sober to begin with. Halp, I've been subjected to a torrent of rape and sexual abuse for the entirety of my adult life!

You might like to ask yourself why it is that you almost always were drunk when you had sex, what you were really looking to get out of it.

Adult men/women like to drink when going out and have(or try to) sex afterwards.

More news at 11.

By the way, this is not the face of a non-alcoholic.

I wonder how many times women raped poor Avellone.

 

[Jrpgfan]

It's ridiculous at this point people are still defending Karissa. The girl took a pic with Avellone after the alleged rape calling him the last gentleman on earth and even introduced a friend to him and encouraged them to hit on each other, and when people found out those tweets she promptly deleted them with another 60k tweets. I don't know what more proof people need to see this old hag is acting in bad faith.

 

[Saduj]

Drunk people can decide to buy cars that cost six figures, adopt a stray dog, join the military, get married, be tattooed and commit felonies for which they are legally responsible - among many other decisions that are more life changing than a night of casual sex providing a child is not conceived. And having been drunk can't mitigate any of these decisions after the fact. No calling the cops on the tattoo artist because he "assaulted" you while you were drunk. On all these matters, society understands that everyone else needs to operate under the assumption that a drunk person can still make decisions because being drunk doesn't mean that other people can read your mind and tell what you really want.

But now "drunk women can't consent to sex". LOL. They do it all the time. And it isn't as big a deal as any of the other things I've mentioned.

 

[KevinV12000]

An interesting legal question that I anticipate becoming a central issue at trial is whether or not MCA is a public figure for the purposes of a libel action. For those of you not familiar with the American libel action, which had to be balanced against the fundamental right of freedom of speech, if the plaintiff is a public figure then he must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, as opposed to the normal tort threshold of violation of a common duty of care.

Given the First Amendment, you can see how this corollary to the traditional tort cause of actions libel and slander arose; simply put, people need to be free to speak about public actors without fear of lawsuit up to the point where they are causing harm via known falsehoods and driven by actual malice. So, for example, I can tweet or post on the Internet that 4 members of the NY Times' editorial board are convicted pedophiles without fear of the NY Times coming after me, so long as I was just repeating what I'd heard or what I had concluded the facts to be. If the NY Times were to sue me, they'd have to overcome a large presumption against libel to get me for damages.

From the pleadings, MCA's attorney has anticipated worst case (which is a large part of what we attorneys do) and argued the case as if MCA were in fact a "public figure." But the issue is not conceded, as it should not be. The interesting argument here is that MCA is very, very famous, but only to a very, very small group of people. I'm guessing that 99 out of a random 100 people on the street would have no idea who he is. So, the defense is going to have a bit of a tough time winning the argument. On the other hand, to the type of people who attend gaming and sci-fi conventions (i.e. goons/goonettes) I would think that number would rise to at least 4 out of 10, which is also not a slam dunk but closer.

The eventual ruling of law will be more or less novel and specific to the case, and will no doubt be very appealable no matter which side the trial judge comes down on.

Of course, the bottom line here is that defendants are likely judgment-proof in any case. The chances of MCA collecting anything even if he does win is remote. If he's really doing this, it has to be for the principle of vindication, not the money damages.

In my experience, such clients rapidly lose their thirst for justice once the real costs of actual litigation starts to roll in. We'll see if MCA has the wherewithal to swallow those costs, but it seems to me to be unlikely. An ideal outcome here would be a settlement with admission of falsehoods from defendants prior to trial but after discovery. After all, defendants will be bearing their own costs as well. I think at the end of the day that is the most likely outcome.

 

[KevinV12000]

Drunk people can decide to buy cars that cost six figures, adopt a stray dog, join the military, get married, be tattooed and commit felonies for which they are legally responsible - among many other decisions that are more life changing than a night of casual sex providing a child is not conceived. And having been drunk can't mitigate any of these decisions after the fact. No calling the cops on the tattoo artist because he "assaulted" you while you were drunk. On all these matters, society understands that everyone else needs to operate under the assumption that a drunk person can still make decisions because being drunk doesn't mean that other people can read your mind and tell what you really want.

But now "drunk women can't consent to sex". LOL. They do it all the time. And it isn't as big a deal as any of the other things I've mentioned.

Women want the right to ret-con their sexual activity to rape if their reputation takes a hit and/or the man she was with turns out to be much lower-status than she had thought. This is obvious, transparent and, frankly, deeply depressing. Young men today need to know this and they need to protect themselves against it, particularly if they are in college.

 

[Lambach]

That whole "people/women can't consent if drunk" thing makes sense if by "drunk" you mean so wasted that they can't stand and have almost no control of their motor functions, or they straight up blacked out and are unconscious, in which case, yeah it's p. much rape or some type of sexual assault.

But if by "drunk" you mean still lucid and in control, just with lowered inhibitions, then I regret to inform everyone that there's a pretty decent percent of people among us, maybe even a good chunk of us, who are rape babies and that a lot of couples you see started their relationships through sexual assault (e.g. they went out, had some drinks, met each other and started making out).

 

[Saark]

From the pleadings, MCA's attorney has anticipated worst case (which is a large part of what we attorneys do) and argued the case as if MCA were in fact a "public figure." But the issue is not conceded, as it should not be. The interesting argument here is that MCA is very, very famous, but only to a very, very small group of people. I'm guessing that 99 out of a random 100 people on the street would have no idea who he is. So, the defense is going to have a bit of a tough time winning the argument. On the other hand, to the type of people who attend gaming and sci-fi conventions (i.e. goons/goonettes) I would think that number would rise to at least 4 out of 10, which is also not a slam dunk but closer.

I think one of the main questions here would be about the fact that Karissa herself stated, that she did not know who Avellone was before she met him. In her eyes he was just some dude buying drinks, and she joined in without any previous knowledge of who he was. Whether or not this is still a point that will matter in the grand scheme of things when deciding on whether or not he should be considered a public figure is up for debate I suppose.

Ultimately I feel that despite it lowering the chances, he should be considered as such. His damages are within his field of expertise, as he lost his gaming development jobs after being accused by people within the gaming industry, as someone who has spent considerable parts of his life inside it and shaping it.

In my experience, such clients rapidly lose their thirst for justice once the real costs of actual litigation starts to roll in. We'll see if MCA has the wherewithal to swallow those costs, but it seems to me to be unlikely. An ideal outcome here would be a settlement with admission of falsehoods from defendants prior to trial but after discovery. After all, defendants will be bearing their own costs as well. I think at the end of the day that is the most likely outcome.

Maybe that's the end goal here. To pursue a strategy that will require Karissa to publicly recant/apologize for her statements so he can move on "vindicated" in the eyes of the wider public, and potentially be able to clear his name for good. Suing for punitive damages is just one of many outcomes, but he does not strike me as the kind of person who would try to take her to the cleaners even if given the chance. Her life is already sad enough as it is, the humilation of having to apologize for her false statements would probably be much bigger than making her live in an even shittier apartment or taking the little money she still has from when she stole from a donation drive.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Drunk people can not give consent.

reminder that avellone was also drunk therefore she raped avellone

edit: also stop arguing with the tranny before she hangs xirself and leaves a note blaming this place. Argue with the wumao instead, he's there for this purpose

 

[Fargus]

Should have sued back then instead of "spending last year trying to persuade himself these acts were done out of misguided self-righteousness" lmao. I any case good luck to him. I hope he puts those whores back in their place and it would be great to see him writing for rpgs again.

 

[Roguey]

Maybe that's the end goal here. To pursue a strategy that will require Karissa to publicly recant/apologize for her statements so he can move on "vindicated" in the eyes of the wider public, and potentially be able to clear his name for good. Suing for punitive damages is just one of many outcomes, but he does not strike me as the kind of person who would try to take her to the cleaners even if given the chance.

Karissa doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would ever settle or admit to being wrong about this. If the judge doesn't dismiss it, she will have complete faith that the jury will rule in her favor.

 

[Saark]

Karissa doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would ever settle or admit to being wrong about this. If the judge doesn't dismiss it, she will have complete faith that the jury will rule in her favor.

While she is certainly an unhinged sociopath, I doubt she would go against her defense attorneys better judgment to take a deal when it is offered to her. A jury of her peers will not consist of the witchhunting social media mob that she is used to having, and most sane people will not give her the time of day after most of her original tweets come to light. I doubt this will ever get to a point where a jury is involved at all.

 

[Roguey]

While she is certainly an unhinged sociopath, I doubt she would go against her defense attorneys better judgment to take a deal when it is offered to her. A jury of her peers will not consist of the witchhunting social media mob that she is used to having, and most sane people will not give her the time of day after most of her original tweets come to light. I doubt this will ever get to a point where a jury is involved at all.

You're expecting rationality where there is none.

 

[Lambach]

Maybe that's the end goal here. To pursue a strategy that will require Karissa to publicly recant/apologize for her statements so he can move on "vindicated" in the eyes of the wider public, and potentially be able to clear his name for good.

Can't say I remember a single case like this in which the accuser retracted their statements or apologized, they always either double down or go silent until it blows over (then bitch about our patriarchal society much later and claim they're a "survivor" with PTSD or some shit, lul),

 

[Roguey]

One of the twitter loons is reading this thread for some reason.

The chuds are Very Confused about your involvement, Greg.

I see KiwiFarms-level intellect isn't limited to KiwiFarms

I'm looking forward to the "this isn't a SLAPP," "the First Amendment is different in California," "lawtwatter is always wrong," "only unsuccessful lawyers would think Chris Avellone could lose," etc etc etc takes And then after he loses, that it was judicial bias, sabotage, etc

For the record I've been on the "Avellone is possibly being sabotaged by a prog-taqiya" train since day one. I make no predictions about the outcome of the case because it's impossible for someone like me to know. I find it rather boggling why so many people are spending so much time arguing about it with confidence on the bird site.

 

[Eli_Havelock]

It was absolutely not the correct choice. Do remember that around the same time Chris' accusers "came forward", pretty much the same thing happened to Seven Pesos Pedro. Except he's the one who handled it correctly. He immediately went in full offense mode, used all of his public platforms to vehemently deny the accusations and defend himself, got lawyered up within a day or two and started threatening/throwing lawsuits at his accusers.

Basically what it seems a lot here would say Chris should have done. A few others with different opinions, too.

Even the thread title is calling Chris out. Personally, I don't believe any internet accusations without proof, because that's what I do about shitbag crowdfunders - I collect proof. Display a bit here and there as I see fit.

But there was TheSentinel trolling for retadreds by saying everyone here was cult of personality tribalist defending him. The juxtaposition of noting that in a post indirectly calling Chris out is just great.

Fast forward a year, Enraged Enrique's reputation is still 99.9% intact*, his career didn't take so much as a scratch and almost no one even mentions that case anymore. Compare that to Chris who chose to beg and grovel (or strategically do nothing as you claim ), who has been dropped and abandoned by p. much all of his "friends" and is entirely unemployable in the vidya industry because of his reputation as a sex molester.

Speaking of someone who was canceled around the same time and just fucking vanished - Jeremy Soule.

*he did get banned from RetardEra, but it's, you know, RetardEra (although that may have been because of his "transphobic" review of The Last of Us 2, I can't remember)

Oh, RetardEra, I would get the Terry Crews treatment and banned for being a non-white with an opinion they don't approve of (they love getting extra racist about that sort of thing).

 

[The_Mask]

anyone know if this guy is objective or has an agenda? /haven't watched the video yet

I just watched all of it. He makes a strong case why this case is hard to win in California, but he does state that there are a few statements that Karissa has made publicly that, presented in the right way, can be argued that cross the liberties upheld by the First Amendment.

From his perspective, he assesses that it is a weak case, and that things will end up in a settlement rather quickly because no one wants to drag this on forever.

Problem is that I don't think he looked at all the evidence. While the video goes on, he never looks at the latter part of the filling, the one that has all the evidence and so on, so I'm a bit skeptical on his overall verdict.

 

[Vladimuar]

As I said, his best chance is China now.

Iran is more preferable. Lots of pussies never licked.

 

[Quillon]

Problem is that I don't think he looked at all the evidence. While the video goes on, he never looks at the latter part of the filling, the one that has all the evidence and so on, so I'm a bit skeptical on his overall verdict.

Was that "the evidence" tho? I thought those were just the source of the statements mentioned before; "here is the screenshot of where Karissa said this, here is the article from this site" etc

David Cernat's video had more stuff than the 90-page filing Where are the receipts, testimonies etc? I assumed they'd be revealed at the court or something.

 

[The_Mask]

Yeah. That matters. The exposure and context matter. They establish a time-line, and an impact. Again... I feel he wasn't thorough, and that he isn't a Californian lawyer doesn't help either.

All I was saying is that it doesn't feel any different than an opinion someone here on the Codex would dish.

 

[Dexter]

And there's a 99% chance that it will be handed to a Judge like that, given that Chris chose to sue in California.

Orange County. Not San Francisco. Predominantly White with a lot of wealthy neighborhoods and to a large part even Republican, at least until the last few years. It's also where Palmer Luckey incorporated his Defense contractor company after being banished from Silicon Valley. There's a decent enough chance they don't get an uber-activist judge there, it's certainly one of the more "Republican" parts of California you could do it in, while not being too rural: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_County,_California#Government

Jackie (not to be confused with Jacqui) never weighed in on the allegations, or confirmed or even gave credence to the claims made against him. It's clear she cared about him when they stopped seeing each other (based on his medium post and her still tweeting at him after the fact) and she could've easily supported her friends during last years events. But she didn't.

This part is pure fantasy: https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sr9o9b

She also protected her Twats in solidarity with the other Twats: https://twitter.com/GeekyFriedRice
Also she's apparently "Community Manager" for Star Wars: The Old Republic at BioWare now.

Can't say I remember a single case like this in which the accuser retracted their statements or apologized

https://www.shacknews.com/article/81281/stardock-lawsuits-settled-after-employee-apologizes
https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...ent-gets-sued-for-fucking-up-elemental.75826/

 

[Jonathan "Zee Nekomimi]

making out with a girl

Hey. Non English speaker here. What does making out mean? Kiss or you know.. sexual intercourse, vaignal penetration?

hand holding

 

[Vladimuar]

making out with a girl

Hey. Non English speaker here. What does making out mean? Kiss or you know.. sexual intercourse, vaignal penetration?

mutual anticipation of pussy licking