Quote from: S'mon;1084625They can potentially garnish future earnings, like the SPLC did with Tom Metzger.

Quote from: Xisiqomelir;1084592Ah yes,Mr. "Gamers owe me a living wage". I'd almost happily forgotten.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1084543Given these people have no meaningful assets to go after I'm not sure what Froggy hopes to accomplish with a lawsuit.

Quote from: Brad;1084635Against my better judgement, I read the rpg.net thread RE: this lawsuit. Besides being a fucking echo chamber filled with utter stupidity, it seems like those morons literally think any sort of legal action isn't valid if they support whomever is being sued. I've never seen such blatant ignorance in my life.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1084674Bill Webb has come out with an official statement regarding the incidents in question. No mention of the suit itself.

https://froggodgames.com/frogs/statement-by-bill-webb/?fbclid=IwAR2SnzK2mmpX5HgZnm8r3vVik-Azjh47kw6NBE3BLOGTgrK9pk-3TO393X4

QuoteI was overly familiar with Ms. Hensley and acted in a gender dismissive fashion. To be specific, I put my arm around her shoulders and called her "sweetie."

QuoteI acted like an idiot that day.

Quote from: SHARK;1084638Greetings!

Well, my friend, for those of us not as courageous as you, share some quotes from the apes!:D

I can just imagine you rolling your eyes or smacking your forehead reading through some of that stuff.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

QuoteIs just nonsense, because his 'truth' is at odds with contemporaneous statements, and is nearly 2 years after the event, and also on the back of many, many other people talking about their experience of his behaviour at conventions. There's an awful lot of it which is how he and FGG are the real victims

QuoteThis lawsuit threat is bullshit. I rate maybe 10% odds that anything is ever filed and actually goes anywhere, rather than they file something and nothing ever happens. Based only on information that is publicly available, any claim (as I have seen it described) would be meritless to such a degree that there could be consequences for the plaintiff. We have the American Rule, of course, but that doesn't mean you can't get sanctioned.

Here are your go-tos:
1. Any suit, on whatever grounds, opens Webb and others to the possibility of depositions, which let me tell you, he does not fucking want to sit for if he has the sense God gave a cane toad. His personal exposure is potentially enormous if he's conducted himself in the way he's alleged to have for the length of time he is alleged to have done so.
2. Regardless of whether an anti-SLAPP remedy is available, there are plenty of attorneys out there who do pro se work when first amendment issues are involved. I'm not guaranteeing that the defendants will be able to get free representation, but there's a significant chance of it.
3. If you sue potentially geographically distant defendants like this, there's a real risk somebody claims diversity jurisdiction and you land in federal court whether you wanted to or not. That is really, really serious. I am not saying state court is, like, baby games for children, or something. I practice totally in state court (although I've been in federal court before, I decided it wasn't for me.) People get the death penalty and financially ruinous judgments in state court just fine. But the federal level is an entirely different ballgame and requires a level of seriousness and professionalism that a lot of attorneys simply can't manage. This is an intrinsically unserious suit (if it even happens) pursued by people I personally reckon to be un-serious.
4. People need this reality-check: You cannot win a tortious interference suit, in any state in the US, on merely "this person talked shit about me on the internet and some people declined to buy my products." The exact formulation of the elements may be state-specific, but it requires actions which are not justifiable, are not done under a right, are malicious, et cetera. It requires knowledge elements that I'm not an expert on but look like they might be tricky. I think that pleading and proving specific economic harm might be tricky, too. If you could get sued for organizing a boycott, which I think may overstate the level of involvement the defendants have, then guess fucking what, people would be getting sued for that shit all the time. The defendants need to have done something - sabotaged delivery trucks or blackmailed FGG's business partners - to get to tortious interference. Not just "I talked about things I personally saw happen." That's a defamation claim, regardless of what the plaintiff inscribes on their petition, and defamation cases are not easy. Based on what I've seen, this is a zero-star review of Webb's personal conduct at a convention, and that's just not justiciable.

So there you go. I'm not saying people shouldn't talk about this, but don't hold your breath for this to go anywhere.

My best guess is that they're trying to do a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) without actually doing the lawsuit part, because it's cheaper, and even the threat of a lawsuit can have a silencing impact. Not just against whatever hypothetical defendants are named by the youtube lawyer, but other victims who may never have made a public statement before. It has the effect of changing the conversation from "just how much of a trashbag is Bill Webb, based on publicly-available accounts of his conduct?" to "whoa what about that totally-not-imaginary lawsuit, huh?"

My second-best guess is that this is just another alt-right grift trying to grab those microcelebrity bucks.

Furthermore, they're using a cutout (youtube guy, not the actually-in-a-firm Mr. Beard) to add another layer of uncertain accountability to the threat, and perhaps another layer of microcelebrity networking.

I'm probably done with this thread until something happens that's worth further comment.

QuoteWhen I heard about this stuff at Paizocon I was disturbed but if the guy had owned up to it and apologized (and was sincere about it) I probably would have chalked it up to someone being super drunk and stupid. But this? This is, bluntly, evil. Suing the victim? I was already not doing business with this company but now anyone who does business with them will be on my list of companies that don't get my money. Looking at you Steve Jackson Games...

Quote from: Brad;1084678That's it..?

Quote from: Brad;1084678Alt-right grift...yep.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1084566So if you say to a business partner, "You can do business with BadGuys Inc. or you can do business with me, make up your mind," that's OK, but if someone goes round to all BadGuys Inc.'s suppliers or clients and says, "None of you should do business with BadGuys, I mean, c'mon, they're bad guys! It's in the flippin' name!", that's not?  What makes a particular case of interference "improper"?

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1084629Wait... what? What was this?

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1084701Amusing that there are complaints that he names the "victim" when she has made public statements identifying herself.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1084674Bill Webb has come out with an official statement regarding the incidents in question. No mention of the suit itself.

https://froggodgames.com/frogs/statement-by-bill-webb/?fbclid=IwAR2SnzK2mmpX5HgZnm8r3vVik-Azjh47kw6NBE3BLOGTgrK9pk-3TO393X4