|
Warthur posted:Conversations with Pundit himself tended to be really annoying, but there were some posters on there who seemed more chill and I was happy to shoot the poo poo with them, ignore Pundit's flailing (or argue directly with him when I was in the mood to), but bit by bit that got more difficult. Zak got more active on there. GamerGate happened and lots more chuds started coming out of the woodwork. Their bullshit started intruding more and more on the main RPG discussion area than it used to. Pundit shifted further and further to the right. Eventually, I realised that I was only still posting there out of inertia and some residual enjoyment of talking with those posters who hadn't succumbed to the kool-aid - but that these posters were becoming the minority (and indeed were migrating to other communities), and that the longer I stuck around there the more I was implicitly supporting Pundit's bullshit. Eventually Pundit said some vile poo poo which made the scales fall from my eyes and I left. I was a poster there back in 2012-2013 IIRC, although I didn't have much stomach for Pundit's dumber ramblings. I recall a poster called Daddy Warpig being active before GamerGate, but when that reactionary movement really picked up I saw the dude referenced on Kotaku-in-Action, photos of him doing personal meet and greets with Christina Hoff Summers, and basically becoming a "big name" among them. It's sort of bizarre in hindsight to look back and see how what was one guy in a sea of usernames would become one of the big standardbearers for gaming's alt-right.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
"...our statements regarding a recent ban have caused confusion and more importantly, made people feel that Gen Con doesn’t care about attendee safety. To clarify, " This part didn't sound great but holy poo poo they immediately, unambiguously, clarified with no weaseling. A good statement for sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
I mean, it doesn't sound great because that's exactly what they were being dragged for pretty much everywhere. I posted a single word response to their initial tweet and I'm *still* getting likes on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
I liked that Adkison signed it himself, and not as some byline-less entity like "GenCon LLC" or "GenCon Administration" or some similar responsibility-diffusing credit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
I mean, it was their own fault for saying "A person" in a week when like 5 people in various stages of shittiness from "Will try to get you removed from your job for speaking out of them" and "is still a horrible person but not quite like that" so.... Now they need to name all the rest of the names and make sure that they're banned as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:He's bookmarking them for later.  This sentence reads a lot more sinister to me than it would have yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
MollyMetroid posted:I mean, it doesn't sound great because that's exactly what they were being dragged for pretty much everywhere. I posted a single word response to their initial tweet and I'm *still* getting likes on it. Yeah, that's what I meant. Right up until "...to clarify..." it sounded like it was gonna be more of the same, but it wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Now they need to name all the rest of the names and make sure that they're banned as well. Yeeeeah, I'm of the opinion that these sort of lists should be public
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Yeeeeah, I'm of the opinion that these sort of lists should be public "The following people are banned from attendance and will be denied entry or ejected" and then a list of names and (if available) pictures is a very good idea. e: I don't know the relevant US laws but I would assume that it's the same as here. That is, that "management reserves the right to refuse entry to any person for any reason" applies at privately run events and venues unless racial/religious/sexual discrimination can be proven, and that "this person is banned from this venue/event/area" is a statement of fact that can't be libelous on its own. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Feb 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
Oh, wow. Some folks in the comments are trying to make it about Hambly's ban. "You don't care about victims AT ALL! He got ASSAULTED and was banned!" Saw that one coming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
I can imagine some reasons why publicly naming someone who is banned could be a problem. Most importantly, if a victim asserted a need for privacy, and naming the culprit would invariably lead to outing that victim due to specific facts and circumstances of the case. More broadly, I suspect they do not want to have to defend themselves from defamation lawsuits, irrespective of their legal right to name or their likelihood of prevailing in those lawsuits. If your lawyer tells you that you shouldn't name names, it's understandable to follow their advice. That said, I do see the other side of the coin: people unknown to GenCon who have been victimized, need to know that the person or people who victimized them are forbidden from attending, and the only realistic way for GenCon to be sure such people know, is to publicly name them. It may also be the only way for GenCon to provide an unequivocal and undeniable record of responsiveness to problems. If your victimizer is not on the list, this may prompt you to speak up, where you previously might have erroneously believe they had already been banned. e. actually if there has previously been legal action, there may be cases where GenCon agreed not to publicly name someone as part of a settlement. Something along the lines of, so-and-so agrees they're permabanned and to pay X to the victim in restitution etc., on the condition that the record is sealed and nobody can publicise the name, etc. and if a victim or their lawyer signs off on that settlement, it's not GenCon's place to refuse. This is even more speculative, though, and I have not heard of any reason to think it's actually happened. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
Dawgstar posted:If you're referring to Hambly, yeah. The tweets are gone now because they were reported as racist (shock) and in general it is a thousand years too early for him to take on SonicFox. Hambly is an enormous whiny bitch, so he would likely have to travel back to call Jesus a SJW to his face to be in range to take on a dude who rolls like SonicFox.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
I can say that, in any case where there was any kind of employer-employee relationship, you absolutely cannot get away with publicly stating that someone has been banned or terminated. In many states this extends to contractors and volunteers for non-profits. Hell, in my state you can get in a shitload of trouble for displaying photos of people who have committed a crime on the premises. That said, our local con got in some hot poo poo for maintaining a secret ban list that was used to pressure people into not reporting sexual abuse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
magpie games: we feel like we're getting more criticism than we deserve and its because of racism against latinx people also magpie games: https://twitter.com/CrownedRat/status/1098706536782811137 Der Waffle Mous fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
Zurui posted:I can say that, in any case where there was any kind of employer-employee relationship, you absolutely cannot get away with publicly stating that someone has been banned or terminated. In many states this extends to contractors and volunteers for non-profits. Hell, in my state you can get in a shitload of trouble for displaying photos of people who have committed a crime on the premises. For real? I take my previous statement back then. Places I used to work had big displays of names and photos of banned assholes behind the bar or inside the door. Attendance would go up every time a regular rear end in a top hat was barred and news filtered back to people who'd avoided the place because of them. I shouldn't make assumptions about other countries or probably even other states. Or gently caress, maybe things aren't like I thought here if you go outside dives in poo poo areas where nobody's gonna lawyer up about it. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
Der Waffle Mous posted:magpie games: we feel like we're getting more criticism than we deserve and its because of racism against latin americans. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
Zurui posted:I can say that, in any case where there was any kind of employer-employee relationship, you absolutely cannot get away with publicly stating that someone has been banned or terminated. In many states this extends to contractors and volunteers for non-profits. Hell, in my state you can get in a shitload of trouble for displaying photos of people who have committed a crime on the premises. Far as I'm aware, there is absolutely nowhere in the US where a company cannot make an outright truthful statement that an employee was terminated. HR best practices say not to under most circumstances to prevent frivolous lawsuits that may still be expensive to defend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
Nevermind how grossly stupid and insensitive that poo poo is, I'd be legit afraid for my life if I published something making fun of the goddamn Sinaloa Cartel. They murder people, regularly, ffs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I can imagine some reasons why publicly naming someone who is banned could be a problem. The language I've seen regarding Zak (which is very good phrasing IMO) generally says something along the lines of "Accusations have been made, and we believe them to be true." You're not publically stating that Zak did or didn't do anything, and putting it this way makes it impossible for him to claim that you have. But you are still proceeding as if they are true, because yeah. Of course they are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
Der Waffle Mous posted:magpie games: we feel like we're getting more criticism than we deserve and its because of racism against latinx people 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
i feel like mark diaz truman may be bad at making sensitive decisions
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
Dawgstar posted:Oh, wow. Some folks in the comments are trying to make it about Hambly's ban. "You don't care about victims AT ALL! He got ASSAULTED and was banned!" Saw that one coming. gamergate/alt-right fuckheads gave hambly $33k because he lied, a lot, claimed his 'assaulter' would be arrested (no one was arrested) and he needed the money for a civil suit, money he's likely pocketed and done a runner with (he claims to have spent $11k on the lawsuit and has a 'meeting in a few days'). He also somehow got 100k over comicsgate, the guy's scum but he has a following of all the comicsgate shitheads. I don't know if it's worse that idiots gave him 10s of thousands of dollars, or that he's been living off the money since then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
PST posted:gamergate/alt-right fuckheads gave hambly $33k because he lied, a lot, claimed his 'assaulter' would be arrested (no one was arrested) and he needed the money for a civil suit, money he's likely pocketed and done a runner with (he claims to have spent $11k on the lawsuit and has a 'meeting in a few days'). He also somehow got 100k over comicsgate, the guy's scum but he has a following of all the comicsgate shitheads. He burned every bridge he had to being a legitimate, professional YouTube MTG personality. Like Pundit, the big comicsgaters, and the rest of the alt-right all that's left is the hustle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
moths posted:The language I've seen regarding Zak (which is very good phrasing IMO) generally says something along the lines of "Accusations have been made, and we believe them to be true." Yup, and that's a reasonable approach for probably a fair amount of cases; but there could still be cases where a victim knows they will pay a price for their victimizer being publicly identified, and so asks that it not happen. And, the goal may not be "make sure we'd win a defamation lawsuit" but rather "make sure we are not subjected to a defamation lawsuit" which tends to make organizations more cautious. It is very unfortunate that an overly litigious society results in a chilling effect, but that is the world we live in right now and it's worth remembering it when we ask for very large organizations that have to deal with many thousands of people annually to improve their policies. I'll reiterate here that I am still speculating, and could be way off base as to the reasoning for GenCon's policies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:He burned every bridge he had to being a legitimate, professional YouTube MTG personality. Like Pundit, the big comicsgaters, and the rest of the alt-right all that's left is the hustle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
PST posted:gamergate/alt-right fuckheads gave hambly $33k because he lied, a lot, claimed his 'assaulter' would be arrested (no one was arrested) and he needed the money for a civil suit, money he's likely pocketed and done a runner with (he claims to have spent $11k on the lawsuit and has a 'meeting in a few days'). He also somehow got 100k over comicsgate, the guy's scum but he has a following of all the comicsgate shitheads. Related, Slick Nick Rekieta who is ComicsGate's "legal expert" and Blackface Lawyer has started an IndieGoGo for sex pest voice actor Vic Mignogna that's already gotten 44K with a goal of 100K. Half of that is probably clueless fans who think he's actually like the characters he plays and the rest are burning money to own the libs types.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yup, and that's a reasonable approach for probably a fair amount of cases; but there could still be cases where a victim knows they will pay a price for their victimizer being publicly identified, and so asks that it not happen. And, the goal may not be "make sure we'd win a defamation lawsuit" but rather "make sure we are not subjected to a defamation lawsuit" which tends to make organizations more cautious. It is very unfortunate that an overly litigious society results in a chilling effect, but that is the world we live in right now and it's worth remembering it when we ask for very large organizations that have to deal with many thousands of people annually to improve their policies. This comes across as "But what if doing the right thing inconveniences them and costs them money?" e: Not "I believe you meant that", just that's what this line of thinking sounds like to me. Yeah, it sucks to defend a defamation suit and still if someone's running those numbers and coming up with "it's less risky for us to do the wrong thing", then that person is at minimum a loving rear end in a top hat. E2: to put it better, that might well be a reason for an action or lack thereof, but it's not an excuse. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
Puto has a ton of different connotations that change depending on what country you’re in. It’s never nice though. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=puto&=true Cartel has had the same argument swirling around it since it was proposed. Should you make a game about the horrors of 00s drug life? Can the game be exciting, moral neutral, avoid gaze, etc? Should the people in the game talk like real life, which is often really offensive? I’m not defending other stuff Mark done. It hurt a lot of people. I wasn’t hurt by his two minutes hate post. A lot of people were. Solely on the topic of cartel, every AMA and interview he does he talks about these issues. Brandon's thread, on the variety of Latinx games, is worth clicking: https://twitter.com/drcaptainkobold/status/1096797212326219777?s=12 Golden Bee fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:I was a poster there back in 2012-2013 IIRC, although I didn't have much stomach for Pundit's dumber ramblings. I recall a poster called Daddy Warpig being active before GamerGate, but when that reactionary movement really picked up I saw the dude referenced on Kotaku-in-Action, photos of him doing personal meet and greets with Christina Hoff Summers, and basically becoming a "big name" among them. He seems to be mostly posting videos now where he shakes a camera in front of his books while reading out distilled grog, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sglQ94v6Es
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:This is starting to come across as "But what if doing the right thing inconveniences them and costs them money?" Yeah, I tend to agree. But I've been a part of many medium to large organizations, and organizations have... well, I guess I'd call it organizational inertia. Often individuals are not empowered to "do the right thing" irrespective of established policy, at least not without endangering their position. Probably in many cases, doing the right thing is still what they should do. But sometimes it'd be completely futile. For example, someone saying "gently caress it I'm going to publish a list on the GenCon site of everyone that has been banned" would get dismissed, and then the list immediately taken down. Of course, there's still the big boss, and so the buck stops somewhere. Conservative actions by the big boss often have the same sort of cover, though: if they ignore legal advice, the people they are responsible to can oust them: this is certainly true of corporations and nonprofits, and sometimes true of other kinds of organizations. I still agree with you, though. The only way this sort of lovely, limp, fearful behavior gets reversed, is when people both outside and inside the organization push back, as hard as they can. I strongly suspect there are people within the GenCon org who are doing so right now, as invisible as that would be to us spectators outside. And it's entirely possible that no lawyer has said "don't publish a list" and it's purely based on someone's gutfeels or preference as to policy. I genuinely don't know. My goal here has just been to explain a bit about how organizations tend to work, and especially larger, longer-lived organizations who have surely had to seek legal advice repeatedly in the past on a variety of subjects. It is a little too easy to just roundly condemn these kinds of orgs for not quickly and comprehensively doing what we think they ought to, even when while we certainly have the ability to push, cajole, and pressure them to be better. hyphz posted:He seems to be mostly posting videos now where he shakes a camera in front of his books while reading out distilled grog, like this:
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Maybe don't help this shitbag get clicks on his youtube videos and thus directly help him earn money for being lovely I don't think his channel's monetized or that he's close to having enough views to get the invite. And he does do things like ignoring his cat walking back and forth in front of the camera and at least point when he announces he "can't light his pipe".
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
oh okay, well I don't really know what the breakeven point is where youtube starts giving you money, so go ahead and click I guess
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:This comes across as "But what if doing the right thing inconveniences them and costs them money?" I (and I believe Leperflesh) are just trying to put into context the general policy of a large organization like GenCon keeping their banlist secret. It actually speaks well of them that they, in this case, chose to be quite clear on who and why.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
hyphz posted:He seems to be mostly posting videos now where he shakes a camera in front of his books while reading out distilled grog, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sglQ94v6Es Semantics: That's not who I was talking about in your quoted statement though. I was talking about this guy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
Golden Bee posted:Cartel has had the same argument swirling around it since it was proposed. Should you make a game about the horrors of 00s drug life? Can the game be exciting, moral neutral, avoid gaze, etc? Should the people in the game talk like real life, which is often really offensive? I'm gonna take a swing at this and go with no, no, aaaaand... no. Man that was really tough. It's already uncomfortable how much organized crime is romanticized in various media, I don't think anyone needs to be selling a game romanticizing loving Mexican cartels to mostly white, middle-class idiots with a distinct track record of lovely handling of this kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:oh okay, well I don't really know what the breakeven point is where youtube starts giving you money, so go ahead and click I guess They don't "start giving you money" automatically - if you get enough views on a video, you get a message inviting you to monetize, which also attaches a bunch of legal agreements about copyright infringement and such. I don't know what the number of views is/was - I got an invite for a random game video in I uploaded in 2009 (!) but it's probably harder now. (And I had to turn it down because at that time footage of video games was against the copyright terms.) Pundit just seems to be soliciting Patreons for some other show where him, Desborough and someone called Venger Satanis discuss "controversial topics" by using echoing mics and jump cutting between one of their faces, a weird neon doodle of a devil and the cover of one of Pundit's books. hyphz fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I still agree with you, though. The only way this sort of lovely, limp, fearful behavior gets reversed, is when people both outside and inside the organization push back, as hard as they can. I strongly suspect there are people within the GenCon org who are doing so right now, as invisible as that would be to us spectators outside. And it's entirely possible that no lawyer has said "don't publish a list" and it's purely based on someone's gutfeels or preference as to policy. I genuinely don't know. My goal here has just been to explain a bit about how organizations tend to work, and especially larger, longer-lived organizations who have surely had to seek legal advice repeatedly in the past on a variety of subjects. It is a little too easy to just roundly condemn these kinds of orgs for not quickly and comprehensively doing what we think they ought to, even when while we certainly have the ability to push, cajole, and pressure them to be better. I agree, mostly. I know how larger orgs drag their feet about poo poo, and whether you're inside or outside, you can and should condemn them for not quickly and efficiently doing the right thing, and further for not having processes in place for exactly that. You're definitely right that at least one person in the org is currently doing the closest appropriate equivalent to screaming "I loving told you so, you dumb fucks" at the top of their voice. There's nearly always someone who knew what the right thing to do was and said so while everyone else went "but what about if we say for instance just sat safely on our hands instead sine nothing bad has happened to us yet". Zurui posted:I (and I believe Leperflesh) are just trying to put into context the general policy of a large organization like GenCon keeping their banlist secret. It actually speaks well of them that they, in this case, chose to be quite clear on who and why. Yes, I get that and I think we're broadly agreeing with each other. My first post about it was really unclear and I've tried to amend it. A bunch of people use the same "but lawsuits! costs!" stuff with an unspoken "...and so nothing can or should change about that!" at the end and I didn't make it clear enough that I didn't think that was what was going on here. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
Der Waffle Mous posted:magpie games: we feel like we're getting more criticism than we deserve and its because of racism against latinx people I don't see maricon anywhere in there, though  e: this is not me saying it's not offensive, it's insanely offensive and also stupid Mr. Humalong fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
Golden Bee posted:Puto has a ton of different connotations that change depending on what country you’re in. It’s never nice though. "I don't have experience with this. But my heritage is also from Latin America so it's transferable" is still a pretty big yikes. I enjoyed Pasión but the majority of Latinx artists I know HATE when someone thinks they have access to everything because "We're all Latinx"
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
hyphz posted:Pundit just seems to be soliciting Patreons for some other show where him, Desborough and someone called Venger Satanis discuss "controversial topics" by using echoing mics and jump cutting between one of their faces, a weird neon doodle of a devil and the cover of one of Pundit's books.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 02:50
|
|
