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

[Irxy]

And why the heck should someone not be proud of taking a stance for the person you respect, due to convictions or whatever, and going against the mainstream crowd and specific individuals betraying their friend and colleague out of fear? Also codex is not a hivemind, there are many different people with varied opinions on everything here, you are not special - at least in that way.

I already explained this for over >10 pages, if you can't be bothered to read it's because you're not interested in the answer. Don't quote me faggot.

There is nothing to answer, that's obviously a rhetorical question.

Do we know they both were? If they were, Chris should also admit to it. I'll admit I don't know where or how to draw lines when both parties are drunk.

The line is that you consent to full responsibility for all your actions while drunk the moment you willingly start drinking. This is common sense, that is why drunken driving is aggravating circumstances and not an excuse.

 

[Storyfag]

I recognize the possibility that Avellone's nigh-alcoholic past erased some thing from his memory. Every time he says "I don't remember any of this" in his post I can't help but think "does he not remember because it didn't happen, or does he not remember because he was drunk out of his mind?"

My skepticism doesn't mean I believe the woman's accounts of the events btw. She's 100% personally motivated and only wants to destroy his life.

Way to totally fail to understand the presumption of innocence, or happily sodomise it in order to have it both ways

So leaving aside the fact that presumption of innocence doesn't even apply in the court case we're talking about

Wait. So you're saying the court should not presume that Karissa is innocent?

 

[TF]

Oh for heaven's sakes.

Karissa et al have accused MCA of criminal conduct. The presumption of innocence therefore applies. He is innocent, until they prove their accusations in a criminal court. This won't happen, because they won't go to the police to file charges. That is most likely because their accusations are a crock of shit.

If you say 'ohhhh, well he drinks a lot so maybe they're right', you are chucking that presumption out the door. Worse, you're doing it on the basis of the most ridiculously gossipy accusations made in the most ridiculously gossipy outlet of all, Twatter.

If this bloke was a proven multiple sex offender, you might have a leg to stand on. You don't however.

Anyway, I'm sorry I inserted myself in here, unlike MCA har har, carry on folks!

 

[Sentinel]

I recognize the possibility that Avellone's nigh-alcoholic past erased some thing from his memory. Every time he says "I don't remember any of this" in his post I can't help but think "does he not remember because it didn't happen, or does he not remember because he was drunk out of his mind?"

My skepticism doesn't mean I believe the woman's accounts of the events btw. She's 100% personally motivated and only wants to destroy his life.

Way to totally fail to understand the presumption of innocence, or happily sodomise it in order to have it both ways

So leaving aside the fact that presumption of innocence doesn't even apply in the court case we're talking about

Wait. So you're saying the court should not presume that Karissa is innocent?

No, that is not what I'm saying. You're yet another guy jumping into the middle of the conversation, misunderstanding it compeltely, and then taking it in another direction. Either go read 10 pages or don't reply to me about this shit. No one in here is talking about karissa's presumption of innocence.

 

[Sentinel]

Oh for heaven's sakes.

Karissa et al have accused MCA of criminal conduct. The presumption of innocence therefore applies. He is innocent, until they prove their accusations in a criminal court. This won't happen, because they won't go to the police to file charges. That is most likely because their accusations are a crock of shit.

If you say 'ohhhh, well he drinks a lot so maybe they're right', you are chucking that presumption out the door. Worse, you're doing it on the basis of the most ridiculously gossipy accusations made in the most ridiculously gossipy outlet of all, Twatter.

If this bloke was a proven multiple sex offender, you might have a leg to stand on. You don't however.

Anyway, I'm sorry I inserted myself in here, unlike MCA har har, carry on folks!

Nice evasion lol.

 

[Storyfag]

I recognize the possibility that Avellone's nigh-alcoholic past erased some thing from his memory. Every time he says "I don't remember any of this" in his post I can't help but think "does he not remember because it didn't happen, or does he not remember because he was drunk out of his mind?"

My skepticism doesn't mean I believe the woman's accounts of the events btw. She's 100% personally motivated and only wants to destroy his life.

Way to totally fail to understand the presumption of innocence, or happily sodomise it in order to have it both ways

So leaving aside the fact that presumption of innocence doesn't even apply in the court case we're talking about

Wait. So you're saying the court should not presume that Karissa is innocent?

No, that is not what I'm saying. You're yet another guy jumping into the middle of the conversation, misunderstanding it compeltely, and then taking it in another direction. Either go read 10 pages or don't reply to me about this shit. No one in here is talking about karissa's presumption of innocence.

You stated pretty clearly that "presumption of innocence doesn't even apply in the court case we're talking about". The court case we are talking about is the one of MCA suing Karissa for purported slander. Ergo my surprise that you suddenly started talking about Karissa's presumption of innocence. Or lack thereof, to be precise.

Either start communicating logically, or don't post to us about this shit. Or any other shit.

 

[Irxy]

Karissa et al have accused MCA of criminal conduct.

Did she though? Problem is, stuff like "sexual predator", "abuse", "preying" etc. is just like calling someone a sad looser, not facts but opinions. I think only "assault" is a word for actual crime, but she can say she was talking about mental assault and not any real criminal event.
That is why these sluts can't go to police, they are basically accusing someone of being an ass - an opinion about someone's morality. The way people interpret it later and how it becomes a witch hunt is sad, modern law is not prepaired for this.

 

[Sentinel]

I recognize the possibility that Avellone's nigh-alcoholic past erased some thing from his memory. Every time he says "I don't remember any of this" in his post I can't help but think "does he not remember because it didn't happen, or does he not remember because he was drunk out of his mind?"

My skepticism doesn't mean I believe the woman's accounts of the events btw. She's 100% personally motivated and only wants to destroy his life.

Way to totally fail to understand the presumption of innocence, or happily sodomise it in order to have it both ways

So leaving aside the fact that presumption of innocence doesn't even apply in the court case we're talking about

Wait. So you're saying the court should not presume that Karissa is innocent?

No, that is not what I'm saying. You're yet another guy jumping into the middle of the conversation, misunderstanding it compeltely, and then taking it in another direction. Either go read 10 pages or don't reply to me about this shit. No one in here is talking about karissa's presumption of innocence.

You stated pretty clearly that "presumption of innocence doesn't even apply in the court case we're talking about". The court case we are talking about is the one of MCA suing Karissa for purported slander. Ergo my surprise that you suddenly started talking about Karissa's presumption of innocence. Or lack thereof, to be precise.

Either start communicating logically, or don't post to us about this shit. Or any other shit.

Well, if you want to insist on a conversation based on your misreadings, I can't really help you. Maybe someone will talk to you. We'll wait and see.

 

[Storyfag]

I recognize the possibility that Avellone's nigh-alcoholic past erased some thing from his memory. Every time he says "I don't remember any of this" in his post I can't help but think "does he not remember because it didn't happen, or does he not remember because he was drunk out of his mind?"

My skepticism doesn't mean I believe the woman's accounts of the events btw. She's 100% personally motivated and only wants to destroy his life.

Way to totally fail to understand the presumption of innocence, or happily sodomise it in order to have it both ways

So leaving aside the fact that presumption of innocence doesn't even apply in the court case we're talking about

Wait. So you're saying the court should not presume that Karissa is innocent?

No, that is not what I'm saying. You're yet another guy jumping into the middle of the conversation, misunderstanding it compeltely, and then taking it in another direction. Either go read 10 pages or don't reply to me about this shit. No one in here is talking about karissa's presumption of innocence.

You stated pretty clearly that "presumption of innocence doesn't even apply in the court case we're talking about". The court case we are talking about is the one of MCA suing Karissa for purported slander. Ergo my surprise that you suddenly started talking about Karissa's presumption of innocence. Or lack thereof, to be precise.

Either start communicating logically, or don't post to us about this shit. Or any other shit.

Well, if you want to insist on a conversation based on your misreadings, I can't really help you. Maybe someone will talk to you. We'll wait and see.

Enlihghten me, oh Wise One. How else would one read "presumption of innocence doesn't even apply in the court case we're talking about"? Is the court case we are talking about not the one of MCA suing Karissa for purported slander? Where have I erred, Teacher?

 

[TF]

Karissa et al have accused MCA of criminal conduct.

Did she though? Problem is, stuff like "sexual predator", "abuse", "preying" etc. is just like calling someone a sad looser, not facts but opinions.

Stating a person 'gets people drunk' to 'take advantage of them sexually', is an accusation of criminal conduct. It's an accusation of drugging and rape. Otherwise, it's an accusation of consensual behaviour, which is clearly nonsensical.

Anyone who says that, then backs off by suggesting they don't mean it in a criminal way, is using complete weasel words.

People need to be held to account for what they assert about others.

Edit: To be clear, I am saying that MCA is innocent of either of these things, and of any 'misconduct'

 

[likash]

Karissa et al have accused MCA of criminal conduct.

Did she though? Problem is, stuff like "sexual predator", "abuse", "preying" etc. is just like calling someone a sad looser, not facts but opinions.

Stating a person 'gets people drunk' to 'take advantage of them sexually', is an accusation of criminal conduct. It's an accusation of drugging and rape. Otherwise, it's an accusation of consensual behaviour, which is clearly nonsensical.

Anyone who says that, then backs off by suggesting they don't mean it in a criminal way, is using complete weasel words.

People need to be held to account for what they assert about others.

How the fuck did he get them drunk? Did he drugged them or force them to drink? You are a fucking adult. You are responsable for how much you choose to drink. People blaming Avellone for buying drinks to get them drunk are fucking retarded. Drinking is a choice. You guys act like KArissa was some kind of innocent/naive girl. She knew what she was doing. She used him to get job interviews for her friends. She took advantage of Chris and played him all the way. She accused him for publicity when she could not use him anymore.

 

[Sentinel]

Well, if you want to insist on a conversation based on your misreadings, I can't really help you. Maybe someone will talk to you. We'll wait and see.

You are being pretty retarded about this, and any time you talk about how the courts or laws work in general for this thread.

You seem to have two bad understandings here.

1.) The people slandering Chris are the ones being accused of something in this lawsuit, not Chris. And also, even if Chris loses the lawsuit, that is not proof that their accusations against him are true. That just means the court found that their statements and conduct didn't rise to the level of actionable libel.

2.) The presumption of innocence always applies in courts. There is no case that just accusing someone of something is all it takes. That doesn't change for civil cases and is the same as a criminal case. The only difference is the standards of proof. Criminal uses "beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil cases will typically use a lower standard, "clear and convincing evidence" or "preponderance of evidence".

But again, that doesn't change the fact that an accusation alone isn't enough. It must be backed by some evidence to prove the accusation. It certainly is in a defendant's interest to provide their own evidence that they haven't done what they are accused of since the accuser likely has some kind of evidence or they wouldn't have brought a lawsuit in the first place, but it isn't required. The accuser failing to provide adequate evidence of their claims is enough for them to fail and the defendant to win.



You really have a bad track record for talking about courts and the law in this thread. But you state untrue things so confidently, as if you were correct.

read

No, that is not what I'm saying. You're yet another guy jumping into the middle of the conversation, misunderstanding it compeltely, and then taking it in another direction. Either go read 10 pages or don't reply to me about this shit. No one in here is talking about karissa's presumption of innocence.

In total, there have been two or three people in this thread that actually showed they know legal procedural theory. The rest learned it from american TV series and wikipedia. You're not one of the former.

 

[Dycedarg]

I've decided to take a look at Karissa's initial statements and oh boy, Avellone has a soft spot for crazy pussy. Here are the links to the archived twitter thread and the nichegamer article:

https://nichegamer.com/2021/06/28/c...ibel-lawsuit-against-sexual-assault-accusers/
https://archive.vn/2pbP8

Here's the important part: after she got drunk, she, Avellone and 2 other guys went to a room where Chris tried to pound her. She said no and he left. And that's according to the thot herself. That's the whole story. She describes her own condition as "blackout drunk", but said she was able to say no "only because she was having her period". Needless to say someone capable of saying no is not incapacitade, just hammered. A shame he didn't go after his accusers right away.

 

[mediocrepoet]

I've decided to take a look at Karissa's initial statements and oh boy, Avellone has a soft spot for crazy pussy.

Crazy in the head, crazy in the bed. I get it. I mean, it's self destructive as hell because they can ruin your entire life, but I get it.

 

[Storyfag]

Well, if you want to insist on a conversation based on your misreadings, I can't really help you. Maybe someone will talk to you. We'll wait and see.

You are being pretty retarded about this, and any time you talk about how the courts or laws work in general for this thread.

You seem to have two bad understandings here.

1.) The people slandering Chris are the ones being accused of something in this lawsuit, not Chris. And also, even if Chris loses the lawsuit, that is not proof that their accusations against him are true. That just means the court found that their statements and conduct didn't rise to the level of actionable libel.

2.) The presumption of innocence always applies in courts. There is no case that just accusing someone of something is all it takes. That doesn't change for civil cases and is the same as a criminal case. The only difference is the standards of proof. Criminal uses "beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil cases will typically use a lower standard, "clear and convincing evidence" or "preponderance of evidence".

But again, that doesn't change the fact that an accusation alone isn't enough. It must be backed by some evidence to prove the accusation. It certainly is in a defendant's interest to provide their own evidence that they haven't done what they are accused of since the accuser likely has some kind of evidence or they wouldn't have brought a lawsuit in the first place, but it isn't required. The accuser failing to provide adequate evidence of their claims is enough for them to fail and the defendant to win.



You really have a bad track record for talking about courts and the law in this thread. But you state untrue things so confidently, as if you were correct.

read

No, that is not what I'm saying. You're yet another guy jumping into the middle of the conversation, misunderstanding it compeltely, and then taking it in another direction. Either go read 10 pages or don't reply to me about this shit. No one in here is talking about karissa's presumption of innocence.

In total, there have been two or three people in this thread that actually showed they know legal procedural theory. The rest learned it from american TV series and wikipedia. You're not one of the former.

So you *are* telling us there is no presumption of innocence in civil cases?

 

[Sentinel]

Some other gems of wisdom from you have been that if you refuse to defend yourself that means you are guilty according to courts, which is also untrue. It increases the chances that you will lose, since you are giving your accusers free reign to present whatever evidence they want in whatever light they want without you challenging it, but the evidence must still be presented.

please, read

No, that is not what I'm saying. You're yet another guy jumping into the middle of the conversation, misunderstanding it completely, and then taking it in another direction. Either go read 10 pages or don't reply to me about this shit.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Some other gems of wisdom from you have been that if you refuse to defend yourself that means you are guilty according to courts, which is also untrue. It increases the chances that you will lose, since you are giving your accusers free reign to present whatever evidence they want in whatever light they want without you challenging it, but the evidence must still be presented.

please, read

No, that is not what I'm saying. You're yet another guy jumping into the middle of the conversation, misunderstanding it completely, and then taking it in another direction. Either go read 10 pages or don't reply to me about this shit.

why are you gay?

 

[Storyfag]

Some other gems of wisdom from you have been that if you refuse to defend yourself that means you are guilty according to courts, which is also untrue. It increases the chances that you will lose, since you are giving your accusers free reign to present whatever evidence they want in whatever light they want without you challenging it, but the evidence must still be presented.

please, read

No, that is not what I'm saying. You're yet another guy jumping into the middle of the conversation, misunderstanding it completely, and then taking it in another direction. Either go read 10 pages or don't reply to me about this shit.

You will never be a woman. Or with a woman.

 

[Irxy]

So you *are* telling us there is no presumption of innocence in civil cases?

Don't know about USA, but this is true where I live and probably in most legal systems out there.

 

[mediocrepoet]

So you *are* telling us there is no presumption of innocence in civil cases?

Don't know about USA, but this is true where I live and probably in most legal systems out there.

Not a lawyer in any jurisdiction, but there are at least some civil matters where the onus is explicitly on the defendant to prove that they acted properly. I have no idea if this is the case for libel in California, but it wouldn't be unheard of.

 

[Gruncheon]

Well, if you want to insist on a conversation based on your misreadings, I can't really help you. Maybe someone will talk to you. We'll wait and see.

You are being pretty retarded about this, and any time you talk about how the courts or laws work in general for this thread.

You seem to have two bad understandings here.

1.) The people slandering Chris are the ones being accused of something in this lawsuit, not Chris. And also, even if Chris loses the lawsuit, that is not proof that their accusations against him are true. That just means the court found that their statements and conduct didn't rise to the level of actionable libel.

2.) The presumption of innocence always applies in courts. There is no case that just accusing someone of something is all it takes. That doesn't change for civil cases and is the same as a criminal case. The only difference is the standards of proof. Criminal uses "beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil cases will typically use a lower standard, "clear and convincing evidence" or "preponderance of evidence".

But again, that doesn't change the fact that an accusation alone isn't enough. It must be backed by some evidence to prove the accusation. It certainly is in a defendant's interest to provide their own evidence that they haven't done what they are accused of since the accuser likely has some kind of evidence or they wouldn't have brought a lawsuit in the first place, but it isn't required. The accuser failing to provide adequate evidence of their claims is enough for them to fail and the defendant to win.



You really have a bad track record for talking about courts and the law in this thread. But you state untrue things so confidently, as if you were correct.

read

No, that is not what I'm saying. You're yet another guy jumping into the middle of the conversation, misunderstanding it compeltely, and then taking it in another direction. Either go read 10 pages or don't reply to me about this shit. No one in here is talking about karissa's presumption of innocence.

In total, there have been two or three people in this thread that actually showed they know legal procedural theory. The rest learned it from american TV series and wikipedia. You're not one of the former.

This is kind of impressively retarded. You tell the guy to 'read' without explaining what he's meant to read. Guy explains why your post is wrong in detail. You reply again with 'please read', quoting your own post where you tell him to 'read the last 10 pages'.

 

[Sentinel]

Well, if you want to insist on a conversation based on your misreadings, I can't really help you. Maybe someone will talk to you. We'll wait and see.

You are being pretty retarded about this, and any time you talk about how the courts or laws work in general for this thread.

You seem to have two bad understandings here.

1.) The people slandering Chris are the ones being accused of something in this lawsuit, not Chris. And also, even if Chris loses the lawsuit, that is not proof that their accusations against him are true. That just means the court found that their statements and conduct didn't rise to the level of actionable libel.

2.) The presumption of innocence always applies in courts. There is no case that just accusing someone of something is all it takes. That doesn't change for civil cases and is the same as a criminal case. The only difference is the standards of proof. Criminal uses "beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil cases will typically use a lower standard, "clear and convincing evidence" or "preponderance of evidence".

But again, that doesn't change the fact that an accusation alone isn't enough. It must be backed by some evidence to prove the accusation. It certainly is in a defendant's interest to provide their own evidence that they haven't done what they are accused of since the accuser likely has some kind of evidence or they wouldn't have brought a lawsuit in the first place, but it isn't required. The accuser failing to provide adequate evidence of their claims is enough for them to fail and the defendant to win.



You really have a bad track record for talking about courts and the law in this thread. But you state untrue things so confidently, as if you were correct.

read

No, that is not what I'm saying. You're yet another guy jumping into the middle of the conversation, misunderstanding it compeltely, and then taking it in another direction. Either go read 10 pages or don't reply to me about this shit. No one in here is talking about karissa's presumption of innocence.

In total, there have been two or three people in this thread that actually showed they know legal procedural theory. The rest learned it from american TV series and wikipedia. You're not one of the former.

This is kind of impressively retarded. You tell the guy to 'read' without explaining what he's meant to read. Guy explains why your post is wrong in detail. You reply again with 'please read', quoting your own post where you tell him to 'read the last 10 pages'.

Because I already spent 10 pages talking to people who misinterpreted the original post and made comments based on their misreadings of it, I'm not about to do it again, can't be bothered. Either go read the conversation that happened before and know what is being talked about or don't expect a reply. Of course I'm not gonna bother looking up where exactly the conversation is myself, I'm not the one interested in it. Do your own homework.

 

[Nihiliste]

There’s no point talking about legal procedure, the only important deciding factor in any outcome is “does this further globohomo’s aims or not?”

 

[Absinthe]

TheSentinel, to be honest, I don't read your posts in this thread either. I noticed a while ago that your notions of the Codex and the lawsuit were divorced from reality.

 

[Monkey Baron]

It wasn't an affair. She was raped.