Quote from: Ratman_tf;1037339Shot from the hip. Nerds get bullied. Bullies are attracted to nerds as soft targets.

Bingo.  It's really that simple.

Quote from: Mistwell;1037332Clarification: Helton did not contact Fannon at all, and attempted to publish the article earlier with no response or even notice to Fannon. Morrus saw the article in editorial review and said wait a second hold on there, have you asked Fannon his side of this or if he has a response? He vetoed the article as it was, and insisted Fannon be contacted and given an opportunity to respond, prior to publication. So given no choice, Helton did that.

Also, Fannon is in fact calling out some of what was said as a total fabrication from a person with a known vendetta against him. Whether that is true or not is left up for everyone to decide for themselves, but he definitely called at least some of it a lie.

If so, then good on Morrus. I was commenting on the content of the article as I read it. That's a vital part of this.

Which parts has Fannon said are total fabrications?  I saw several comments of his that there were misunderstandings, but I didn't see anything that called out any such.

Quote from: Mistwell;1037332Yes, except the sources here are anonymous and are unwilling to be identified, face the accused, or be subject to questioning from the accused. Which would make it not admissible. The right to face your accuser and question them is fundamental to eyewitness testimony and due process, baring extremely unusual circumstances (like the witness is dying or has died, or is a young child).  I mean, we have an entire Constitutional bill of rights amendment just about this right, to make it really super clear how important it is (sixth amendment - confrontation clause).

I would agree that anonymous sources are generally less credible than named ones (and the article did have one named witness). However, I don't think that news reporting should give up on all anonymous sources. There is plenty of good reporting from anonymous sources, and lots of reasons why people might not want to make their names public for a news article. Besides, gamedaddy didn't ask about the names of the anonymous sources - but rather suggested that only photographs or recordings would constitute evidence.

Quote from: Haffrung;1037320You don't see this hysteria around other types of gathering. About music festivals or softball tournaments. What in fuck is it about modern nerd culture that makes so many people people so neurotic and anxious about anything to do with sex? You would think that as nerd culture became more mainstream, nerds would behave more like normal people. But George RR Martin frequently attests to how wild and raunchy the early Hugos conventions in the 70s and 80s were, booze-soaked affairs with hook-ups (many that turned into long-term relationships) galore. So there's something new going on here.

From my point of view, #MeToo has had an effect far more broadly than just nerd gatherings. After Weinstein, movie productions and meetings have had a lot more scrutiny, and after Nassar, girls gymnastics and other sports venues have had a lot of scrutiny. After Bailey Davis, the biased fraternization rules of the Saintsations and other cheerleaders have been the subject of controversy. I would say NFL players and cheerleaders are pretty far removed from nerd culture.

Quote from: Haffrung;1037320You don't see this hysteria around other types of gathering. About music festivals or softball tournaments. What in fuck is it about modern nerd culture that makes so many people people so neurotic and anxious about anything to do with sex? You would think that as nerd culture became more mainstream, nerds would behave more like normal people. But George RR Martin frequently attests to how wild and raunchy the early Hugos conventions in the 70s and 80s were, booze-soaked affairs with hook-ups (many that turned into long-term relationships) galore. So there's something new going on here.

Look at photos of those 70s hugo parties; look particularly at the men.  Look at photos of current year geek con du jour; look particularly at the men.  Could you switch them and (apart from fashion) not tell the difference?  Do the same for your local softball tournament or music festival compared against the geek con du jour.

Think about what feeds a short-term attraction loop, as confirmed by much scientific research, and then think about geek culture.  What part of geek culture optimizes the traits that drives short-term attraction?  (physical appearance, easy confidence, outcome independence, evident existing acceptance/high status in the local social order, etc.)

I don't find much about the current situation surprising.  The majority of women don't want to be touched by the majority of gamer men, who've in turn convinced themselves that - for the first time in human history - the key to a man's sexual success isn't relentless personal improvement, but instead cheering on from their place against the auditorium wall, patiently waiting to be chosen to dance.

Well I better get my copy of Nova Praxis before Void Star Studios is pressured to pull Sean's letter from the book (or the whole book from POD).

Also, I hope Drivethrurpg.com doesn't pull POD support for things like Shaintar.

Quote from: jhkim;1037346If so, then good on Morrus. I was commenting on the content of the article as I read it. That's a vital part of this.

Which parts has Fannon said are total fabrications?  I saw several comments of his that there were misunderstandings, but I didn't see anything that called out any such.

I am getting the sense you only read the article and never read Sean's response to it. He erased his response since then, but a copy with names redacted is here.  For instance, you seem to have missed him saying this:

QuoteThe actual witness Helton is using for this allegation - (MOD EDIT: Accuser name redacted) - is someone who has a position of top leadership within the Royal Manticoran Navy. She actively sought a romantic relationship with me; while this was something I was initially amenable to, I later determined significant reasons to not pursue it (including a mercurial and vengeful personality whenever someone ever took a position against her). I was a guest, at her invitation, to Manticon, where I believe she is attempting to set this fiction.

And fiction it is. Not one single word of this piece is based in anything to do with fact, outside of (a) my attending the con as a guest and (b) assisting the convention (despite protests that I should not, being a guest) with moving things into and out of a truck. The comments and actions attributed to me simply did not happen; I categorically and absolutely deny them in their entirety. This is not a way I have ever acted with anyone I did not have an active and intimate connection to, and not in any public venue such as this.

Pretty sure that's a very firm claim of fabrication for that particular incident.

QuoteI would agree that anonymous sources are generally less credible than named ones (and the article did have one named witness). However, I don't think that news reporting should give up on all anonymous sources. There is plenty of good reporting from anonymous sources, and lots of reasons why people might not want to make their names public for a news article. Besides, gamedaddy didn't ask about the names of the anonymous sources - but rather suggested that only photographs or recordings would constitute evidence.

Wow....moving target much? You said, "This is simply wrong. Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay, and is admissible in court." I quoted you back, so there was no room for confusion.

We were talking about if anonymous eyewitness testimony was hearsay in a court of law. I pointed out it was. Now you're replying, "but yeah, journalists in articles!" Yes, imagine that, if you completely change the topic to something entirely different your argument works? Come on man, you were "simply wrong," to use your own words. If you meant "Journalists" rather than "hearsay evidence" then you might have considered saying that completely other thing instead rather telling someone they were wrong when they were right? He was 100% correct, anonymous eyewitness testimony as reported by someone else is the very definition of hearsay. That's the correct word to use to describe them - it's practically word for word the definition of the word hearsay, which is "the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law."

I am not taking sides here. I think Sean made some bad choices, and I also question some of the accusations. But, I do think everyone should challenge their assumptions, both in defense of Sean and in condemnation of him.

Quote from: jhkim;1037346Which parts has Fannon said are total fabrications?  I saw several comments of his that there were misunderstandings, but I didn't see anything that called out any such.

I believe Fannon said the first two incidents (involving the hug and picture) were misunderstandings on his part and he explained his side of those stories. He said that the later incident, where it was claimed he was leering at a woman's breasts and making crude noises/remarks, is a total lie from someone with an axe to grind over the fact he quit their organization last year. Whether or not he's changed his tune since putting out that original defense, I have no idea.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1037350Well I better get my copy of Nova Praxis before Void Star Studios is pressured to pull Sean's letter from the book (or the whole book from POD).

Also, I hope Drivethrurpg.com doesn't pull POD support for things like Shaintar.

I doubt that will happen, but if it does the Fate version will still be available, for what it's worth. Fannon only worked on the SW conversion of the game. I just wish we'd gotten more Nova Praxis material, period. It's a really solid setting and VSS puts out the best PDFs I've ever seen.

Quote from: jhkim;1037347From my point of view, #MeToo has had an effect far more broadly than just nerd gatherings.

It's definitely destroying humanity with it's witch hunting.

Quote from: jhkim;1037347After Weinstein, movie productions and meetings have had a lot more scrutiny,

No they're not, actually.  Selected celebrities are, but the actual infrastructure is not looked at.  Because, let's continue pick on Weinstein:  So he's admitted to doing it to three women.  Fine. But this was not a one man crime, especially given how many knew of it.  What about the lawyers that work for him that 'made' these women sign an NDA?  According to American Law, they're complicit in the crime.  As is anyone who knew of what he did.  And what about the women who went through with it, got bribed and said nothing, setting up the next actress to take the fall?  What about them.  Aren't they complicit because of their silence?  American Law says yes.

Which brings up an issue with all this.  And this horribly off topic and I apologize, but...  At what point did it become mandatory to allow every pretty girl who decides that she wants to be a star, automatically become one?  The problem with #MeToo is the same problem that Feminism has always brought to the table:  It's the base assumption that all men are monsters.  Every single one of us born males are women beaters and rapists, and that we're to be watched and roundly punished for the slightest infraction that some other man does as ALL men are beasts that will destroy the universe if we're left unchecked.  And that women are all blameless victims with no control of their actions.  And quite frankly, women whoring themselves out for a reward has been happening for much longer than anyone wants to admit, some are just more honest about it than most.

If a woman doesn't like a man's attentions, she has every right to say no.  And have been for as long as humanity has been around.  In fact, women have had the power over relationships for as long.  And you know, most guys will be upset and move on, probably wallow in self-pity for a few weeks, but that's life in general, but very few, like vanishingly so, will physically assault a woman after a rejection.

'Being a creeper' is not a crime, despite the Left wanting to make it into one.  And if it does become one, then everyone here, every single male gamer here is a potential criminal, because there will always be that one girl who you're being nice to, because she's cute and interesting (even if you're married and not looking), except that you're not actually flirting, but she thinks you are, and finds you terribly unattractive.

Quote from: VengerSatanis;1037330Blogged about it:

https://vengersatanis.blogspot.com/2018/05/sean-patrick-fannon-sexual-harassment.html

Thank you Venger! Doesn't surprise me that a SJW creeper would rag on Alpha Blue. But oh, the sweet irony.

But I noticed you railed against people seeking jury trials and guilty verdicts. While I understand your sentiment, please understand that those of us demanding DUE PROCESS aren't doing it to protect abusers. Absolutely and utterly not. Due Process protects everyone and if the day ever comes when someone comes for you, you will want due process for yourself.

And you'd need it. Satanic cult leaders who write space porno definitely should be on the due process side. And I say this as someone who supports your rights to free speech, religious choice and free expression. But hot damn VS, you would need all the due process the law allows if the mob came for you.

The court of public opinion has always been a very bad idea. In the age of social media, it's anathema to our society.

Quote from: jhkim;1037346I would agree that anonymous sources are generally less credible than named ones (and the article did have one named witness). However, I don't think that news reporting should give up on all anonymous sources. There is plenty of good reporting from anonymous sources, and lots of reasons why people might not want to make their names public for a news article.

I highly disagree. Anonymous sources are tools to push agenda. We've seen that time after time from both Team Red and Team Blue.

Instead, we need stronger whistleblower protections and we need less anonymous sniping from the shadows.

Quote from: EOTB;1037349Look at photos of those 70s hugo parties;

Links?

Quote from: Brand55;1037355I doubt that will happen, but if it does the Fate version will still be available, for what it's worth. Fannon only worked on the SW conversion of the game. I just wish we'd gotten more Nova Praxis material, period. It's a really solid setting and VSS puts out the best PDFs I've ever seen.

When I figure out how to play Fate, that might be comfort.

But yeah I could use more Nova Praxis. Sadly it looks like the studio is focusing on Strands of Fate 2e rather than more Nova Praxis content.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1037370When I figure out how to play Fate, that might be comfort.

But yeah I could use more Nova Praxis. Sadly it looks like the studio is focusing on Strands of Fate 2e rather than more Nova Praxis content.

The Strands of Fate engine behind NP is a lot easier to work with than stuff like Fate Core, but I feel your pain. Aspects are a bitch and I still don't really like 'em.

That's the problem with tiny, usually one-man shows like VSS. They just can't put out enough books for us greedy gamers to stay satisfied.

Quote from: EOTB;1037349Look at photos of those 70s hugo parties; look particularly at the men.  Look at photos of current year geek con du jour; look particularly at the men.  Could you switch them and (apart from fashion) not tell the difference?  Do the same for your local softball tournament or music festival compared against the geek con du jour.

Think about what feeds a short-term attraction loop, as confirmed by much scientific research, and then think about geek culture.  What part of geek culture optimizes the traits that drives short-term attraction?  (physical appearance, easy confidence, outcome independence, evident existing acceptance/high status in the local social order, etc.)

Can we have the answers now? I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Quote from: Mistwell;1037351I am getting the sense you only read the article and never read Sean's response to it. He erased his response since then, but a copy with names redacted is here.

I read Sean's response on Facebook that was linked earlier, but by the time I read it, he had already erased the previous version. Thanks for the link. That is very different than what he posted later. I agree that he was calling specific parts fabrications.

Quote from: Mistwell;1037351Wow....moving target much? You said, "This is simply wrong. Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay, and is admissible in court." I quoted you back, so there was no room for confusion.

We were talking about if anonymous eyewitness testimony was hearsay in a court of law. I pointed out it was. Now you're replying, "but yeah, journalists in articles!" Yes, imagine that, if you completely change the topic to something entirely different your argument works? Come on man, you were "simply wrong," to use your own words. If you meant "Journalists" rather than "hearsay evidence" then you might have considered saying that completely other thing instead rather telling someone they were wrong when they were right? He was 100% correct, anonymous eyewitness testimony as reported by someone else is the very definition of hearsay. That's the correct word to use to describe them - it's practically word for word the definition of the word hearsay, which is "the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law."

Any news article itself is hearsay - regardless of whether the sources are named or anonymous. No court would have a news article itself read in court as evidence of what was reported on. That's not a criticism of the journalism or a complaint that the journalist is doing something wrong by taking in bad data - it's inherent in journalism.

If a journalist talks to a witness, records what they say, and then writes the article - then the journalist's article is hearsay. That is true regardless of whether the witness wants their name published or not. But the source itself is admissible evidence.

The point of gamedaddy's complaint was that only photographs or recording of the interaction would constitute real evidence, which I pushed back against. Eyewitness testimony is valid evidence in court, and if the journalist is writing based on eyewitness testimony, then they are writing based on evidence that could be admissible.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1037364Links?

I don't have any links.  At some point in the past few years - somewhere gaming related: blog, forum or wherever I don't remember - the subject of the hugo parties came up as an early example of cosplay, with pictures.  The participants looked to be in shape and generally "good looking", with costumes that showed it all off.  A lot of Star Trek and similar stuff, IIRC.    

But I have no idea where that conversation was, and google isn't easily turning up anything.  It did turn up photos of a couple of other 60s cons here: http://belatednerd.com/tag/worldcon/

These aren't those I was thinking of, but you see similar things: men who are fit and trim, wearing suits, and who look like they could move from an event at a con to a boardroom without stopping off at their room.

QuoteCan we have the answers now? I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Then be stumped.