Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1084711No, you believe the accusation is serious (believe the accuser). The accusation is "he looked at me with rape eyes across the room". You then evaluate the accusation to make sure you understand it. Maybe the accuser is being emotional and you find out from talking to them that there is a restraining order in place.

This all comes from not enough attention being given in the past. And, again, this is common HR practice as well, not a convention thing or a "woke" thing.

Now, if the accusation is shown to be false, you then react to that, but in the interests of safety you need to "believe" it as in act if it were true from the beginning.

I hereby accuse Myrdin Potter of looking at me with rape eyes from across the room last month when I visited the company he works for.  I demand that his employer "believe the accuser", "act as if it were true", and put him on indefinite unpaid leave (or just fire his ass, since you don't really want someone like that on your payroll, do you?), until it can be proven that I don't even know what company he works for and almost certainly haven't set foot in the same nation as him at any point in the last year.

That is why a blind "believe the accuser and act as if the accusation is true until it can be proven false" policy is a bad policy.  It's practically designed to ensure that the innocent will be punished for things they didn't do, regardless of whether the incorrect accusation came about through malice, through a simple misunderstanding, or "for the lulz".

Quote from: nDervish;1084747I hereby accuse Myrdin Potter of looking at me with rape eyes from across the room last month when I visited the company he works for.  I demand that his employer "believe the accuser", "act as if it were true", and put him on indefinite unpaid leave (or just fire his ass, since you don't really want someone like that on your payroll, do you?), until it can be proven that I don't even know what company he works for and almost certainly haven't set foot in the same nation as him at any point in the last year.

That is why a blind "believe the accuser and act as if the accusation is true until it can be proven false" policy is a bad policy.  It's practically designed to ensure that the innocent will be punished for things they didn't do, regardless of whether the incorrect accusation came about through malice, through a simple misunderstanding, or "for the lulz".

Greetings!

Exactly. Believe the Accuser? LOL. How about you withhold judgement, make an investigation without punishing or penalizing anyone first? We've seen plenty of "accusers" of rape, racism, homophobia--all been hoaxes. Absolute fucking frauds. "Believe the Accuser!" is for cucks. Don't believe shit. You investigate, corroborate, interrogate, multiple testimonies, analysis, and gather evidence, review evidence, cross-check, cross-reference, and cross-examine evidence and testimony, and squeeze the truth out of suspects, witnesses, and so on. All that good stuff is how truth is determined.

So many of these Liberal frauds get their asses jackhammered when they are dragged into a room with police detectives and explained if they are fucking lying they are going to fucking prison for the next 5 or 10 years of their life...as the detectives bring in boxes of files, interviews, video footage, cell phone records, analysis of all that lined up with what the moron lying fuck has claimed....oh, yeah! Suddenly their story changes...the weeping and sobbing begins...as they confess they fucking lied and made everything up...then they sob and beg for mercy...LOL.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: nDervish;1084747I hereby accuse Myrdin Potter of looking at me with rape eyes from across the room last month when I visited the company he works for.  I demand that his employer "believe the accuser", "act as if it were true", and put him on indefinite unpaid leave (or just fire his ass, since you don't really want someone like that on your payroll, do you?), until it can be proven that I don't even know what company he works for and almost certainly haven't set foot in the same nation as him at any point in the last year.

That is why a blind "believe the accuser and act as if the accusation is true until it can be proven false" policy is a bad policy.  It's practically designed to ensure that the innocent will be punished for things they didn't do, regardless of whether the incorrect accusation came about through malice, through a simple misunderstanding, or "for the lulz".

I would be perfectly fine if you tried it at the company I work for. The procedure is pretty clear, the accusation would be treated seriously and the HR rep would do a quick assessment of the validity of the claim. If it is obviously baseless, determined by asking you a few questions, it would be done.

It is so unlikely that a baseless accusation would be made that the default is to assume otherwise. There is more risk to not assume otherwise than there is to do so. Maybe I do have rape eyes and failure to act will cause big damage to the company.

My state also has good protection of workers built into the law and case results, so if I was harmed by a negligent action, I would have recourse.

So your straw man argument just shows you want to protect rapists on the small chance that someone will make a false accusation and that you want to increase risk to victims and the company by imposing some legal standard that the corporation is not required to uphold. Even in legal cases, arrests are public and you will be held before trial. Unless there is some horrible personal malice, the state is not held responsible for arresting innocent people. Only the trial has the much higher standard you are demanding.

This particular straw man argument has been well considered by the general industry and rejected. It does open the door for exploitation, but so far that trade-off seems to be worth it.

Margaret Atwood pointed out the folly of always believing the accuser in this column:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/am-i-a-bad-feminist/article37591823/

QuoteMy fundamental position is that women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails, including criminal ones. They're not angels, incapable of wrongdoing. If they were, we wouldn't need a legal system...

This structure – guilty because accused – has applied in many more episodes in human history than Salem. It tends to kick in during the "Terror and Virtue" phase of revolutions – something has gone wrong, and there must be a purge, as in the French Revolution, Stalin's purges in the USSR, the Red Guard period in China, the reign of the Generals in Argentina and the early days of the Iranian Revolution. The list is long and Left and Right have both indulged. Before "Terror and Virtue" is over, a great many have fallen by the wayside. Note that I am not saying that there are no traitors or whatever the target group may be; simply that in such times, the usual rules of evidence are bypassed.

Such things are always done in the name of ushering in a better world. Sometimes they do usher one in, for a time anyway. Sometimes they are used as an excuse for new forms of oppression. As for vigilante justice – condemnation without a trial – it begins as a response to a lack of justice – either the system is corrupt, as in prerevolutionary France, or there isn't one, as in the Wild West – so people take things into their own hands. But understandable and temporary vigilante justice can morph into a culturally solidified lynch-mob habit, in which the available mode of justice is thrown out the window, and extralegal power structures are put into place and maintained. The Cosa Nostra, for instance, began as a resistance to political tyranny.

This particular case doesn't require that you take a global philosophical stance about the nature of accusations because there isn't a clearly articulated accusation from a primary source on the table. For a recent comparison, it is very different from the Brett Kavanaugh drama last year. In that case, his accuser sat down under oath and stated clearly what he had done. While I understand that her testimony is not sufficient to convict him in a court of law, I found her believable, my opinion is that there is a good chance he is a lying piece of shit, and the people who frothed at the mouth to defend him are political opportunists and/or bug-eyed misogynists. This is not the gaming world's version of those events. The aggrieved party hasn't publicly explained what she believe occurred. The third hand accounts rattling around the internet are vague, contradictory and in some cases seem to have been made up or confused with other events and people. And if you tried to guess what did happen you would conclude it was perhaps a '2' on the '1-10' sliding scale of sexual harassment and assault.

There is no winning for SJGames or anyone really wgen dealing with SJWs. They are so mentally ill thst everything, anything, everyone , anyone bothers them.

SJGames did not react fast enough to the situstion, the wording of their response offensive etc..., by not saying anyrhing they endorse Webb actions, they get told the company cannot due to legal "lies! It is an excuse they support webb".

In any case most of the SJWs riding in on theor horses called suddenly fully woke will still play and buy products from their supposedly banned companies. I too can say
I will no longer buy, promote or run any products from SJGames. Whose to say behind closed doors or away from social media I'm doing the exact opposite.

It seems a rpg culture war is beginning and the SJWs insust on fighting it to the bitter end even if it destroys the hobby.

Quote from: Haffrung;1084766Margaret Atwood pointed out the folly of always believing the accuser in this column:

Mighty ironic from one of the patron saints of the "white men are EEEVUL" crowd, and the author of that one wretchedly bad book.

Quote from: sureshot;1084773It seems a rpg culture war is beginning and the SJWs insust on fighting it to the bitter end even if it destroys the hobby.

It was already on seven or eight years ago, just at a lower temperature. My hunch, though, is that the SJWs have overplayed their hand, and the pendulum is already swinging the other way. People across society are wising up as they realise what the SJWs have in store for them, their children and their way of life.

Quote from: Melan;1084779Mighty ironic from one of the patron saints of the "white men are EEEVUL" crowd, and the author of that one wretchedly bad book.

They basically threw her out of the club for writing that article.

They shot Bukharin, too.

Quote from: Melan;1084781They shot Bukharin, too.

"Get back to Georgia, dead boy!"

(I know that was Beria, not Bukharin, but I couldn't find a blackly humorous quote on the death of Bukharin.)

Quote from: Melan;1084779MMy hunch, though, is that the SJWs have overplayed their hand, and the pendulum is already swinging the other way. People across society are wising up as they realise what the SJWs have in store for them, their children and their way of life.

I think the recent "Abolishing Whiteness" stuff where they have to defend themselves as "No we don't LITERALLY mean killing all white people" may have been a mis-step. But really ever since SJWs acquired a name they have been on the decline. It's not like 2008 where Liberals just assumed they should accept whatever SJW madness came up next.

Quote from: Melan;1084779It was already on seven or eight years ago, just at a lower temperature.

They have been at it for about a century - really since WW1 ended without a worker's revolt, and Gramsci then the Frankfurt School realised they needed a different approach. We had Political Correctness in 1990 and it's been getting a lot worse since. In Britain they took power with Blair in 1997 and abolished traditional concepts of Liberty in favour of increasingly harsh totalitarian repression. The dangerhair SJWs are just one extreme end of it.

I used to think they were always going to win, and they currently control all the commanding heights, but they seem to have lost all moral authority among the general population.

Quote from: S'mon;1084793They have been at it for about a century - really since WW1 ended without a worker's revolt, and Gramsci then the Frankfurt School realised they needed a different approach. We had Political Correctness in 1990 and it's been getting a lot worse since. In Britain they took power with Blair in 1997 and abolished traditional concepts of Liberty in favour of increasingly harsh totalitarian repression. The dangerhair SJWs are just one extreme end of it.

I used to think they were always going to win, and they currently control all the commanding heights, but they seem to have lost all moral authority among the general population.

Greetings!

Hey S'mon! Yes, I agree. On some days, I think our society is filled with too many room-temperature IQ morons, and we are essentially doomed to leaping into the abyss of shit, where the globalist/socialist elite rule over us, with hordes of frothing at the mouth SJW shock troops to perpetually harass and dominate our society into a weird, dystopian slavery. I often believe that is the fate we are headed towards, as our society is too stupid, too self-absorbed, and too weak--or simply too few in number--to do anything other than submit to the new tyranny.

Then, on other days, I see little glimmers of hope, small fires breaking forth here and there, relentlessly committed to standing strong, and turning the cultural tide. Which gives me some small hope that a ferocious struggle, or a series of struggles, shall play out where we gradually take back our culture, and restore health, sanity, and vigor to our nations, and our civilization.

I bounce hopelessly back and forth, as in one week or a period, I see nothing but a cascade of stupidity and defeat. Then I see little battles being waged and islands of sanity and resistance forming, both high and low, from normal working people being fed up with the nonsense and tyranny, to groups of academics, lawyers, politicians and other leaders stepping forth, boldly risking their wealth, careers, and reputations, to stand firm, and resist the SJW gloablist tyranny. I'm enough of an idealist to believe we shall win through eventually.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1084799I'm enough of an idealist to believe we shall win through eventually.

Well I know they can't win, because they are fundamentally opposed to reality. It's a question of how much damage they can do.

The point of a lawsuit is to end the damage done by internet bullies like Chris Helton & the other named defendants. If the suit moves forward, those people would need to explain
why they have said what they said and why.

Their position is indefensible. Legally. Largely because they incorporated an internet-bred body of lies to vilify Bill Webb. He's come out saying just that.

What if you posted a mistake here and everytime you made subsequent posts, a group of people reminded everyone of that bad post you made. What if You were a game designer
trying to sell your product and everytime you showed up, that group reminded everyone of that mistake you made. What if you showed up at a con and those same people
reminded everyone of that bad post you made AND IT COST YOU SALES. What if you partnered with another company and this same group reminded everyone of that old post
ypu made AND IT COST YOU SALES.

If you got tired of it and sued, those people would need a GOOD attorney or two.