Big Study Proves Most Viewers of Youtube D&D Shows Treat it as a SHOW

Omega · September 21, 2018, 05:05:28 AM

In this day and age where you can be sued for just looking at someone? All it takes is a player with the money and the urge and someone dumb enough to give them a reason.

Christopher Brady · September 21, 2018, 05:16:00 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit;1057157I really, really don't think you'd have a case there, except maybe in organized play events. But not in games you run in your home, where you can just utterly ignore the rules. Even in organized play, they'd just argue you have no requirement to play the game.

Maybe not in your country (Aren't you in someplace almost sane in South America or something?) but in North America? Oh, no, you can be sued into oblivion for not having the right politics. We're willing to change LAWS so we can convict 'wrong thinkers'.

Anon Adderlan · September 21, 2018, 10:28:33 AM

I think this whole lawsuit tangent is stupid. Mockery is more effective.

RPGPundit · September 25, 2018, 02:14:03 AM

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1057195Maybe not in your country (Aren't you in someplace almost sane in South America or something?) but in North America? Oh, no, you can be sued into oblivion for not having the right politics. We're willing to change LAWS so we can convict 'wrong thinkers'.

I really don't think that in the US you could sue someone for a voluntary game.

EDIT to add: In Canada, you might just be able to send someone to the kangaroo-court Human Rights Tribunal for 'hate speech' or something like that, I'll admit.

Christopher Brady · September 26, 2018, 04:46:55 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit;1057698I really don't think that in the US you could sue someone for a voluntary game.

EDIT to add: In Canada, you might just be able to send someone to the kangaroo-court Human Rights Tribunal for 'hate speech' or something like that, I'll admit.

They've changed sexual assault laws to exclude exculpatory evidence. Because of one guy they wanted to nail, but the women's text messages destroyed the case, so our Prime Minister enacted a bill to remove that.

RPGPundit · September 28, 2018, 02:47:59 AM

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1057878They've changed sexual assault laws to exclude exculpatory evidence. Because of one guy they wanted to nail, but the women's text messages destroyed the case, so our Prime Minister enacted a bill to remove that.

Wait, what? I never heard of this. What bill is that?

Christopher Brady · September 28, 2018, 03:26:22 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit;1058150Wait, what? I never heard of this. What bill is that?

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.7/page-1.html

The short of it, by using the term Victim it's assuming the accused is guilty. It also removes any ability to review any evidence AFTER the act that may shed light on whether or not there was consent involved. At this point, it's passed. And now a woman who decides that last night's drunken hates sex that she initiated, and then texted the guy to have it again, can claim rape and more or less the guy is guilty, despite the fact that there's texts and e-mails that could claim otherwise.

RPGPundit · October 01, 2018, 06:00:00 AM

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1058157http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.7/page-1.html

The short of it, by using the term Victim it's assuming the accused is guilty. It also removes any ability to review any evidence AFTER the act that may shed light on whether or not there was consent involved. At this point, it's passed. And now a woman who decides that last night's drunken hates sex that she initiated, and then texted the guy to have it again, can claim rape and more or less the guy is guilty, despite the fact that there's texts and e-mails that could claim otherwise.

Well, that's just insane. Has this actually happened though, where the bill has been used that way in a case thus far that you know of?

Christopher Brady · October 01, 2018, 10:25:40 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;1058509Well, that's just insane. Has this actually happened though, where the bill has been used that way in a case thus far that you know of?

I've not heard of anything involving a major celebrity, although recently, the Prime Minister has been accused of sexual harassment, I believe.

rawma · October 02, 2018, 10:04:29 PM

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1058157http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.7/page-1.html

The short of it, by using the term Victim it's assuming the accused is guilty. It also removes any ability to review any evidence AFTER the act that may shed light on whether or not there was consent involved. At this point, it's passed. And now a woman who decides that last night's drunken hates sex that she initiated, and then texted the guy to have it again, can claim rape and more or less the guy is guilty, despite the fact that there's texts and e-mails that could claim otherwise.

I read it; it doesn't seem too different from the US victims rights law, although the right to request anonymity as a witness would violate the US Constitution (if the request were granted). Significantly, it does no more than give the victim rights to request stuff, and have things considered, and so on, but with a lengthy list of things it is not to interfere with. I'm not even sure what provision would achieve what you're all worked up about; maybe having the victim's privacy considered, but that's at the discretion of the prosecutor, as far as I can see, and prosecutors all over have a history of hiding exculpatory evidence from defendants.

RPGPundit · October 04, 2018, 05:02:20 AM

Well, this is all getting off topic, but it would be interesting to see what happens with a test case of this.

But really, that's enough of this side-track.