Quote from: thedungeondelver;1084316Nick Reikeita just dropped the news:

Beard, Harris, Bullock & Hughes of Texas are suing B.J. Hensley, Stacey Dellaforino, Jessica Price and Christopher Helton on behalf of Frog God Games.

Steve Jackson games are 100% behind FGG.

Nick delivered a message on behalf of BHB&H:  "We will be in touch."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvqJ1mTkEuY

It's cliche to say that no lawsuit is a slam dunk, but considering how STUPID the SJWs going after Vic are--and how often SJWs in different scenes think and act alike--I am certain that Beard's firm will win this one easily. Stacy and company simply will NOT STOP GIVING THEM AMMO!

Nick Rekieta talked about it in his livestream last night: https://youtu.be/HMThCmRezFw?t=3444

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1084316Nick Reikeita just dropped the news:

Beard, Harris, Bullock & Hughes of Texas are suing B.J. Hensley, Stacey Dellaforino, Jessica Price and Christopher Helton on behalf of Frog God Games.

Steve Jackson games are 100% behind FGG.

Nick delivered a message on behalf of BHB&H:  "We will be in touch."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvqJ1mTkEuY

Yeah, I thought it would be Frog God not SJG taking action. Will be interesting to see how this develops, and whether they can demonstrate malevolent falsehood - my understanding is that libel is a tough sell in the USA, unlike here in UK. I wish them luck; apart from Hensley (AFAIK) the people they are taking action against have done immense harm to the RPG hobby IMO.

Edit: Do you have a link that isn't to Bad Boys 2?

Edit 2: Just thinking about this more. Suing Hensley (the person Webb apparently hit on at Paizocon) seems very odd, given that she seems to have behaved decently the whole time, and this is likely to cost a lot of public sympathy. This looks to me like a very US-lawyerly move that could well backfire badly (seen similar when my then-fiancee was enjoined in a suit against her landlady by lawyers working for parents of a girl who fell down stairs outside her apartment). I would have thought Robert Brookes would have been a much more obvious target. Of course there may be things we don't know.

Quote from: S'mon;1084331Edit: Do you have a link that isn't to Bad Boys 2?

Here ya go...
https://youtu.be/HMThCmRezFw?t=3440

Edit: Dang! Too slow.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;1084324Nick Rekieta talked about it in his livestream last night: https://youtu.be/HMThCmRezFw?t=3444

Thanks for link!

Quote from: Godfather Punk;1084335Here ya go...
https://youtu.be/HMThCmRezFw?t=3440

Edit: Dang! Too slow.

OK so just watched the video. So it sounds as if Webb is saying he never actually hit on Hensley at all, and did not pester her, he just offered her a cigarette. Which then explains why they are looking to enjoin her in the suit. If that's so it seems odd that Frog God themselves published an apology for Webb's behaviour at the convention. But Matt Finch is pretty socjus-inclined. Still I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1084316Nick Reikeita just dropped the news:
Beard, Harris, Bullock & Hughes of Texas are suing B.J. Hensley, Stacey Dellaforino, Jessica Price and Christopher Helton on behalf of Frog God Games.
Steve Jackson games are 100% behind FGG.
Nick delivered a message on behalf of BHB&H:  "We will be in touch."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvqJ1mTkEuY

This is going to get really ugly, but what can you do? It was going to happen one day. People are going to find out that using outrage mobs to destroy someone's business and reputation is no longer on the scale of geek slapfights and bad forum politics. These choices can come with real consequences (going both ways), and courts of law don't work the same way as courts of public opinion.

Agreed about it getting ugly. Then again it was only a matter of time before legal pushback against SJWs would happen. Predictably TBP is having yet another meltdown on the topic. How dare FFG and SJgames not conform to their insane, entitled demands.

How many times can one be done with a company as a fan. I don't get yet remotely understand SJWS why would someone not defend themselves against brigading attempts.

Quote from: sureshot;1084355. I don't get yet remotely understand SJWS why would someone not defend themselves against brigading attempts.

Time, money and social pressure (the fear of public shaming).

Very effective means of coercion. But all good things must come to an end, eventually.

I did my part for the betterment of humankind, and posted the link to the Rekieta Law website on ENWorld.

I feel good (now if I could only stop shaking with glee and schadenfreunde... :-).

Quote from: jhkim;1084313If you don't care what their gender is, then why are you (and Lurtch) asking about it and posting false claims about it?

It exactly the opposite. I don't care about their gender, and I'm saying your interest in their gender is bullshit.

It would help explain why she is mentally ill.

Quote from: sureshot;1084355Agreed about it getting ugly. Then again it was only a matter of time before legal pushback against SJWs would happen. Predictably TBP is having yet another meltdown on the topic. How dare FFG and SJgames not conform to their insane, entitled demands.

How many times can one be done with a company as a fan. I don't get yet remotely understand SJWS why would someone not defend themselves against brigading attempts.

They are totalitarians. The only way for this to stop is to suck the oxygen (money) out of the room for these knuckleheads.

I'm glad Bill Webb is doing something. They are ruining his name, his business, and he has to fight back.

Quote from: Brad;1084262I agree with the statement that a normal woman FULLY EXPECTS there's a possibility to be hit on by a guy at a bar. Just like I fully expect some rando will start having a conversation with me about whatever game is on at the time I'm at the bar. But then again, I don't go to anti-social millennial bars where everyone is furiously posting on feminist messageboards with their phones. If a girl is at a gaming convention having a drink at a hotel bar and some dude starts chatting her up...so? Should the fisticuffs begin, a shining white knight keeping the dogs at bay? Protect the young maiden from unwanted contact at all costs!

Nice strawman. Spinachcat, a self-admitted non-drinker who doesn't go to bars, claimed the only reason women go to bars is to get picked up by hot dudes. He labours under a misconception pretty common to people who don't actually drink or go to bars that the're dens of wild debauchery.

Of course a woman (or man, for that matter) who goes to a bar can expect there's a chance a someone may hit on them. Doesn't mean it's why they're going out, or that they have no reason to get annoyed if someone is being an asshole.

Quote from: Brad;1084262But as stated, I go to like actual bars and stuff, not places socially inept rubes congregate to pretend they're out in public when they actually just want to shun all possible human contact.

So when you go to a bar with three friends and don't expect to speak to anybody else, you're socially inept rubes? When I went with 16 co-workers a couple weeks ago for a going-away party for a colleague and it ended up with a bunch of us hitting a couple more bars, getting hammered, and none of us (all married or in a relationship) hit on anyone or were hit on, we were being socially inept rubes?

I'm confident most of the people who go out to a bar on any given night in the city I live in have no intention of speaking to anybody except the people they came with and maybe the waitress or bartender. Pounding shooters and looking to get laid are perfectly fine things. They just aren't what most people who like to drink alcohol with friends are interested in doing most of the time. I mean half the people out at a bar around here are with their partner anyway. A buddy of mine goes out three nights a week with his wife. In your world, that means they're probably swingers?

Re: Bad Boys 2 - that's the standard mic-drop for things like that.  The stream was still going on when I sent it so I wanted to make sure I got all of the salient details before giving y'all a time-stamped

I agree that going after Hensley might be a tactical mistake, but my non-lawyer observation is that a tactic is to lean on a group of people in some cases like this to see if any of them will flip on the others.  Maybe that's what he's doing here?  Because her words (I believe, I honestly haven't followed the case that closely until now) seem to have been, look, this happened, I don't want to dwell on it, I want to move past it.  So I'm wondering - and this is purely speculation - if he's not looking for someone to say, "Look, I never approached other businesses or conventions to try and ban FGG or Bill Webb or Steve Jackson Games".

Because, and let's be 100% clear, that is the angle they're coming in at.  They are NOT suing based on slander, they are suing based on Tortious Interference (that is, interfering with business contracts).  The Slander is just the ketchup for the fries...their attorneys will likely try to invoke anti-SLAPP privilege on what their clients have said, and may even have a legitimate case for it, but the TI is...yeah.  That's going to be ugly.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3341[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Haffrung;1084360Nice strawman. Spinachcat, a self-admitted non-drinker who doesn't go to bars, claimed the only reason women go to bars is to get picked up by hot dudes. He labours under a misconception pretty common to people who don't actually drink or go to bars that the're dens of wild debauchery.

Of course a woman (or man, for that matter) who goes to a bar can expect there's a chance a someone may hit on them. Doesn't mean it's why they're going out, or that they have no reason to get annoyed if someone is being an asshole.



So when you go to a bar with three friends and don't expect to speak to anybody else, you're socially inept rubes? When I went with 16 co-workers a couple weeks ago for a going-away party for a colleague and it ended up with a bunch of us hitting a couple more bars, getting hammered, and none of us (all married or in a relationship) hit on anyone or were hit on, we were being socially inept rubes?

I'm confident most of the people who go out to a bar on any given night in the city I live in have no intention of speaking to anybody except the people they came with and maybe the waitress or bartender. Pounding shooters and looking to get laid are perfectly fine things. They just aren't what most people who like to drink alcohol with friends are interested in doing most of the time. I mean half the people out at a bar around here are with their partner anyway. A buddy of mine goes out three nights a week with his wife. In your world, that means they're probably swingers?

Replying so you know I saw this. IDGAF what you think or say, honestly. You're free to be a retard.

RE: whole point of this thread...yeah. A lawsuit because you're directly damaging a company's ability to make money due to your mental illness. Makes perfect sense to me. And the whole gender thing...Jesus. If someone told me they wanted to be called King Arthur, I'd probably think they were a lunatic, so dudes wanting to be called ma'am I'll lump into the same category. It's not a moral necessity to placate people who are obviously dealing with legitimate emotional/mental issues, and doing so actually undermines their ability to get help. Why people insist that helping these people entails buying into their delusions is beyond me.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1084304Stacy was a woman (just finished breast cancer treatments). They no longer consider themselves to be a woman and use they/them pronouns. I think they are off base and sexist and racist, but using their suggested pronouns is no big deal and a minor courtesy.

No one has the right to tell me what pronouns I must use to refer to them.  Pronouns aren't used when you're in direct conversation with a person, but are instead used when you refer about someone to a third party and there is no right to insist how I communicate with another person or multiple people, whether it's about them or not.

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1084365No one has the right to tell me what pronouns I must use to refer to them.  Pronouns aren't used when you're in direct conversation with a person, but are instead used when you refer about someone to a third party and there is no right to insist how I communicate with another person or multiple people, whether it's about them or not.

Of course they have the right to tell you what pronouns they prefer. It is not illegal. If you refuse, that is your choice. But they certainly have the right to tell you the pronouns they use.