This little bit of news came to me today. It made my day. Helton is a piece of garbage who has been writing as a "games journalist" on RPGs for a long time now, and was one of the first people to call for me to be blacklisted when it came out that I was one of the Consultants on 5th edition D&D.
He was one of a group of SJWs who had been trying to defame Bill Webb and Frog God Games while trying to pressure Steve Jackson Games into dropping their collaboration with Frog God. So Frog God/Webb reached out to Ty Beard, a lawyer who is becoming increasingly famous for taking on cases of fighting back against SJW harassment and false accusations. And Beard shared this tweet today, specifically stating that he looks forward to "discussing" Helton's allegations against Webb "under oath" (https://twitter.com/TyBeard10/status/1120939689706434560).
Marvelous.
Oh, and icing on the cake: they're suing Stacy Dellorfano and Jessica Price too!
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Ashton Old Church Rhodesian + C&D's Crowley's Best
Some critical fail rolls were made by some.
Fire in the hole!!! Haha!!!
Oh God make this happen please. Those people ruined so many lives.
If you read your own forum more, you would have known this last night...
But I am skeptical much will come of this, given that it's people all over the country. They aren't going to fly in to Texas for a trial.
To me it's the shock and awe from the SJWs in the hobby. How dare Bil Webb, FGG and SJGames dare to defend themselves. After all they should have have bent over backwards to accommodate their and ever gamer SJWs feelings on the matter. They would have lost money if they did do that. Too damn bad all that matters in life is based on "reasons and feels" and not profit.
BTW Pundit you are on Chris Helton radar you should feel proud. I guess since Pundit is also not bending over backwards to accommodate Helton demand for a safe space he and we are bad people. https://twitter.com/JCTXS/status/1120942629313818625/photo/1 .
Quote from: JeremyR;1084499If you read your own forum more, you would have known this last night...
But I am skeptical much will come of this, given that it's people all over the country. They aren't going to fly in to Texas for a trial.
The framework for handling lawsuits when the parties are located in different states is well-established and robust, so the case isn't going to fall apart if the defendants choose not to show up. However, that doesn't mean the defendants will have to move to Texas for the duration of the suit or anything like that. Some form of teleconferencing is commonly used for things like depositions, and a lot of things can be handled by lawyers in Texas.
My recommendations: subscribe to Nick Reiketa's channel on youtube, watch it like a hawk. When he does his Lawsplaining the Internet streams, which are long and late at night (but he re-uploads them) any with Ty Beard will likely have more information as the case goes on. Keep an eye on the very weird website "kiwi farms"; they have a Games sub-forum where they're talking about this. I went down a rabbit hole this morning; Reiketa and Ty Beard both have given thanks to kiwi farms for helping them archive stuff in the Vic Mignogna case, and they are interested in the RPG suit case too, and have started to talk about it. While they have their own forum culture there one thing is they really, really stay on top of information.
Also I think if they defendants don't bother showing up in Texas or responding, it is a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
Finally, this isn't defamation, don't mistake it. This is Tortious Interference which is going to be a lot easier to prove. Defamation strays into the area of free speech. See, I can say, "I think Pundit is a cockholster who shouldn't get one one-billionth of the fame he has because he's a transphobe" and that's protected speech. However, if I call up (say) his print shop that does his various RPGs and tell them "You should drop his business, he's a transphobe, it would be better for you to do that" and they terminate that business agreement...that's TI.
N.b.: Pundit's not a transphobe, I was using that as an outrageous example.
But yeah, Dellaforino, Helton and Price better brace for impact.
Good.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1084525My recommendations: subscribe to Nick Reiketa's channel on youtube, watch it like a hawk. When he does his Lawsplaining the Internet streams, which are long and late at night (but he re-uploads them) any with Ty Beard will likely have more information as the case goes on. Keep an eye on the very weird website "kiwi farms"; they have a Games sub-forum where they're talking about this. I went down a rabbit hole this morning; Reiketa and Ty Beard both have given thanks to kiwi farms for helping them archive stuff in the Vic Mignogna case, and they are interested in the RPG suit case too, and have started to talk about it. While they have their own forum culture there one thing is they really, really stay on top of information.
Second both of these great recommendations. The Farms link to the sub-forum dedicated just to what they have named the "Weeb Wars" is: https://kiwifarms.net/forums/weeb-wars.98/
This is the Rekieta law channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbkjX3E0IhuUfPzL0FjSPaw/videos
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1084525Also I think if they defendants don't bother showing up in Texas or responding, it is a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
I doubt they'll sue
in Texas. If they were to do so, unless the Defendants are also in Texas, the defendants would have an argument for lack of personal jurisdiction which would make even summary judgment not a slam dunk. (The defendant could do what's called a collateral attack when the plaintiff goes to enforce the judgment, asserting that the judgment was improperly granted for lack of personal jurisdiction.)
What they'll likely do is sue in Federal Court siting in diversity in the
defendant's state. If they do sue in Texas, and the defedant's lawyer is not a moron, he'll show up, claim there's no personal jurisdiction, and then if that fails, move for transfer of venue back to his own turf, which the court would be likely to grant.
It'll be an interesting process.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1084525However, if I call up (say) his print shop that does his various RPGs and tell them "You should drop his business, he's a transphobe, it would be better for you to do that" and they terminate that business agreement...that's TI.
N.b.: Pundit's not a transphobe, I was using that as an outrageous example.
Not necessarily. One of the elements in TI is that the interference must be
improper. Not just any interference. In the 3rd Restatement of Torts, an example given is something along the lines of "D could refuse to do business with P after learning that P has a contract or business relationship with an organization that D finds
morally distasteful. D knows that his business is worth more to P than the other organization's and that his refusal to deal is substantially certain to cause P to terminate his contractual or business relationship with the other organization. Since his motivation is not improper, P's actions would not satisfy a claim of tortious interference by the other organization."
However, Restatements are not law, so it depends on what the common law (not the statutory law, although that is also important) of the state sued in actually says. So, again, it
could be TI, but it is not likely, as a
matter of law found to be TI. So the fact-finder (i.e., Jury) would have to make a decision.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1084533Not necessarily. One of the elements in TI is that the interference must be improper. Not just any interference. In the 3rd Restatement of Torts, an example given is something along the lines of "D could refuse to do business with P after learning that P has a contract or business relationship with an organization that D finds morally distasteful. D knows that his business is worth more to P than the other organization's and that his refusal to deal is substantially certain to cause P to terminate his contractual or business relationship with the other organization. Since his motivation is not improper, P's actions would not satisfy a claim of tortious interference by the other organization."
However, Restatements are not law, so it depends on what the common law (not the statutory law, although that is also important) of the state sued in actually says. So, again, it could be TI, but it is not likely, as a matter of law found to be TI. So the fact-finder (i.e., Jury) would have to make a decision.
Ahh...that is interesting, I did not realize that. A little less cut and dried than I thought.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1084525Keep an eye on the very weird website "kiwi farms"; they have a Games sub-forum where they're talking about this. I went down a rabbit hole this morning; Reiketa and Ty Beard both have given thanks to kiwi farms for helping them archive stuff in the Vic Mignogna case, and they are interested in the RPG suit case too, and have started to talk about it. While they have their own forum culture there one thing is they really, really stay on top of information.
Honestly, KiwiFarms is not an ally I would like to have. It is a site populated by the same kinds of amoral shitheads you would find on 4chan and Something Awful, engaging in doxxing and some pretty psychotic stalking behaviour.
Quote from: Melan;1084536Honestly, KiwiFarms is not an ally I would like to have. It is a site populated by the same kinds of amoral shitheads you would find on 4chan and Something Awful, engaging in doxxing and some pretty psychotic stalking behaviour.
I had heard that but never gotten "close enough" to really dig in to it.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1084525My recommendations: subscribe to Nick Reiketa's channel on youtube, watch it like a hawk. When he does his Lawsplaining the Internet streams, which are long and late at night (but he re-uploads them) any with Ty Beard will likely have more information as the case goes on. Keep an eye on the very weird website "kiwi farms"; they have a Games sub-forum where they're talking about this. I went down a rabbit hole this morning; Reiketa and Ty Beard both have given thanks to kiwi farms for helping them archive stuff in the Vic Mignogna case, and they are interested in the RPG suit case too, and have started to talk about it. While they have their own forum culture there one thing is they really, really stay on top of information.
Also I think if they defendants don't bother showing up in Texas or responding, it is a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
Finally, this isn't defamation, don't mistake it. This is Tortious Interference which is going to be a lot easier to prove. Defamation strays into the area of free speech. See, I can say, "I think Pundit is a cockholster who shouldn't get one one-billionth of the fame he has because he's a transphobe" and that's protected speech. However, if I call up (say) his print shop that does his various RPGs and tell them "You should drop his business, he's a transphobe, it would be better for you to do that" and they terminate that business agreement...that's TI.
N.b.: Pundit's not a transphobe, I was using that as an outrageous example.
But yeah, Dellaforino, Helton and Price better brace for impact.
Thank you for the breakdown. I'd think under this definition then TI would be a slam dunk. I mean, they're literally going after SJG in a manner that holds up to exactly what you've written. The proof is literally fucking everywhere.
EDIT: Aaaaand I caught up on page two. Still interesting, but maybe not a slam dunk after all. I guess we shall see.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1084525My recommendations: subscribe to Nick Reiketa's channel on youtube, watch it like a hawk. When he does his Lawsplaining the Internet streams, which are long and late at night (but he re-uploads them) any with Ty Beard will likely have more information as the case goes on. Keep an eye on the very weird website "kiwi farms"; they have a Games sub-forum where they're talking about this. I went down a rabbit hole this morning; Reiketa and Ty Beard both have given thanks to kiwi farms for helping them archive stuff in the Vic Mignogna case, and they are interested in the RPG suit case too, and have started to talk about it. While they have their own forum culture there one thing is they really, really stay on top of information.
Also I think if they defendants don't bother showing up in Texas or responding, it is a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
Finally, this isn't defamation, don't mistake it. This is Tortious Interference which is going to be a lot easier to prove. Defamation strays into the area of free speech. See, I can say, "I think Pundit is a cockholster who shouldn't get one one-billionth of the fame he has because he's a transphobe" and that's protected speech. However, if I call up (say) his print shop that does his various RPGs and tell them "You should drop his business, he's a transphobe, it would be better for you to do that" and they terminate that business agreement...that's TI.
N.b.: Pundit's not a transphobe, I was using that as an outrageous example.
But yeah, Dellaforino, Helton and Price better brace for impact.
Greetings!
Dungeon, that's a very nice legalese example there you gave between Freedom of Speech and TI. Thank you. I liked it, and it also really digs into why and how the SJW's are so fucked up and wrong about their behavior with all of this.
It's a big part of what we've all been so resistant and angry about with SJW's for quite awhile now. It's good to see some folks finally able to stand up to the SJW's and blast them.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Given these people have no meaningful assets to go after I'm not sure what Froggy hopes to accomplish with a lawsuit.
Quote from: sureshot;1084505I guess since Pundit is also not bending over backwards to accommodate Helton demand for a safe space he and we are bad people. https://twitter.com/JCTXS/status/1120942629313818625/photo/1 .
And not one reply in support of him or from his 'allies'. Ouch!
Quote from: Melan;1084536Honestly, KiwiFarms is not an ally I would like to have. It is a site populated by the same kinds of amoral shitheads you would find on 4chan and Something Awful, engaging in doxxing and some pretty psychotic stalking behaviour.
#KiwiFarms, #4Chan, #SomethingAwful, #EncylopediaDramatica, and other #SJWs are allies insofar as they collect
evidence. And they should both be rightfully commended for the help they offer and condemned for the harm they cause, because seeking simple solutions to complex problems are why we're in this mess in the first place.
Proud to say I've never sullied myself by having a Twitter account in the first place. But now I see why this Helton character is a target. Never heard of him before - where do all these shitbags even come from???
Pundit - you just made my day. Fucking superb. I once made the mistake of trying to be friends with that emotionally-compromised tabloid journalist. I hope he gets eviscerated.
They may not have large assets available, but recovering damages via leins and/or garnishments might be options. It's hard to imagine FGG thinks they'll recover large stacks of money unless it turns out that a defendant has a trust fund.
Just FYI for those who haven't been reading - this has already been under discussion in the current thread, "The Woke morons are going after Steve Jackson Games" (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40422-The-Woke-morons-are-going-after-Steve-Jackson-Games&p=1084384&viewfull=1#post1084384).
Nick Reiketa's video is here - with the segment about this topic about 57 minutes in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMThCmRezFw&feature=youtu.be&t=3440
He notes that the lawsuit exists, and also characterizes the issue as being about Bill Webb offering a cigarette to someone, giving them the pack with his room key in it - which was taken as a pickup attempt. This is the first that I've seen of that story, which Anon in the other thread says is a new version that just came from Bill Webb himself. Regardless of who is right, this is completely different than the previous accounts of what happened at PaizoCon 2017 as in the Enworld article (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4613-Harassment-At-PaizoCon-2017), which was that Webb was drunkenly stalking a woman through the halls until he was stopped by a con staffer.
There is also an RPGnet thread (https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/frog-god-games-threatens-to-sue-bill-webbs-victim-and-others-read-redtext-in-post-13-before-replying-suit-not-yet-actually-filed.844987/%3Cbr%20/%3E) on the topic, but it is also light on details or sources when I checked.
Regardless of the outcome, FGG & Co. are performing a public service. It seems to have become accepted in various corners of social media that trying to destroy people's livelihoods with malicious gossip is just good fun. Just possibly the demonstration that there might actually be consequences for participating in these activities might convince people to think twice in the future.
Quote from: jhkim;1084554Just FYI for those who haven't been reading -
This an attempt by jhkim to distract the reader by throwing up links to two different forums that have both condemned Bill Webb based on hearsay, which is an example of the reasons why there is legal action being taken now.
Quote from: SHARK;1084542Dungeon, that's a very nice legalese example there you gave between Freedom of Speech and TI. Thank you. I liked it, and it also really digs into why and how the SJW's are so fucked up and wrong about their behavior with all of this.
It's a big part of what we've all been so resistant and angry about with SJW's for quite awhile now. It's good to see some folks finally able to stand up to the SJW's and blast them.
Well, be sure to look closely at what Tanin Wolf above said, too; my description was a little vague and he puts a fine point on it.
Quote from: jhkim;1084554There is also an RPGnet thread (https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/frog-god-games-threatens-to-sue-bill-webbs-victim-and-others-read-redtext-in-post-13-before-replying-suit-not-yet-actually-filed.844987/%3Cbr%20/%3E) on the topic, but it is also light on details or sources when I checked.
Understatement of the fucking year.
Quote from: jhkim;1084554Just FYI for those who haven't been reading - this has already been under discussion in the current thread, "The Woke morons are going after Steve Jackson Games" (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40422-The-Woke-morons-are-going-after-Steve-Jackson-Games&p=1084384&viewfull=1#post1084384).
Nick Reiketa's video is here - with the segment about this topic about 57 minutes in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMThCmRezFw&feature=youtu.be&t=3440
He notes that the lawsuit exists, and also characterizes the issue as being about Bill Webb offering a cigarette to someone, giving them the pack with his room key in it - which was taken as a pickup attempt. This is the first that I've seen of that story, which Anon in the other thread says is a new version that just came from Bill Webb himself. Regardless of who is right, this is completely different than the previous accounts of what happened at PaizoCon 2017 as in the Enworld article (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4613-Harassment-At-PaizoCon-2017), which was that Webb was drunkenly stalking a woman through the halls until he was stopped by a con staffer.
There is also an RPGnet thread (https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/frog-god-games-threatens-to-sue-bill-webbs-victim-and-others-read-redtext-in-post-13-before-replying-suit-not-yet-actually-filed.844987/%3Cbr%20/%3E) on the topic, but it is also light on details or sources when I checked.
yes Christopher Helton wrote the Enworld story. He also wrote about it in the forums and discussion threads over at RPG.net and on twitter as well, and probably a few other places as well. Matter of fact, he and a few other people have not stopped writing about it.
Quote from: wmarshal;1084552They may not have large assets available, but recovering damages via leins and/or garnishments might be options. It's hard to imagine FGG thinks they'll recover large stacks of money unless it turns out that a defendant has a trust fund.
Well, If it were me, I would also request a court order from the Judge barring the defendants from making any public statements about the plaintiff, the plaintiffs company, or any business dealings. I would also request a peace warrant barring the defendants from being at the same conventions and or public events as the plaintiff.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1084533One of the elements in TI is that the interference must be improper. ...In the 3rd Restatement of Torts, an example given is something along the lines of "D could refuse to do business with P after learning that P has a contract or business relationship with an organization that D finds morally distasteful. D knows that his business is worth more to P than the other organization's and that his refusal to deal is substantially certain to cause P to terminate his contractual or business relationship with the other organization. Since his motivation is not improper, P's actions would not satisfy a claim of tortious interference by the other organization."
So 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: sureshot;1084505To me it's the shock and awe from the SJWs in the hobby. How dare Bil Webb, FGG and SJGames dare to defend themselves. After all they should have have bent over backwards to accommodate their and ever gamer SJWs feelings on the matter. They would have lost money if they did do that. Too damn bad all that matters in life is based on "reasons and feels" and not profit.
BTW Pundit you are on Chris Helton radar you should feel proud. I guess since Pundit is also not bending over backwards to accommodate Helton demand for a safe space he and we are bad people. https://twitter.com/JCTXS/status/1120942629313818625/photo/1 .
Oh awesome! That means he's reading this! Hi Chris!! How fun is this? I hope Bill Webb gets everything in your tiny apartment, including your cat and that secret collection of very-not-woke porn you try to hide from people!
Who are we kidding? Helton doesn't have a single damn thing worth taking but Webb isn't doing this for the money. Oh no. The great Mr.Beard is going to make the entire legal process as humiliating as possible for Helton & Co. and that's the goal.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1084564yes Christopher Helton wrote the Enworld story. He also wrote about it in the forums and discussion threads over at RPG.net and on twitter as well, and probably a few other places as well. Matter of fact, he and a few other people have not stopped writing about it.
And if Helton was being as honest about Webb as he'd been about me in 2014 during his article for Consultantgate, then not a single word of it is true.
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"?
Well, just a guess here, it would be improper to say you should not do business with others if what you are claiming is really not true and they are not bad guys. If you are lying about that, and making a false claim against them, you are in fact harming them.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1084570Oh awesome! That means he's reading this! Hi Chris!! How fun is this? I hope Bill Webb gets everything in your tiny apartment, including your cat and that secret collection of very-not-woke porn you try to hide from people!
Who are we kidding? Helton doesn't have a single damn thing worth taking but Webb isn't doing this for the money. Oh no. The great Mr.Beard is going to make the entire legal process as humiliating as possible for Helton & Co. and that's the goal.
Did SJ Games send you the Fantasy Trip?
seems to me that when Helton demanded people boycott both Frog God Games and Steve Jackson Games (claiming that Jackson was supporting people who sexually assaulted others), he went way over the line. Helton better have some money to hire an attorney, because he is in serious trouble.
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"?
The first is probably OK. The second might be OK too.
Clearly improper is the realm of things like blackmail. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, however, where that line is between improper and proper.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1084573Well, just a guess here, it would be improper to say you should not do business with others if what you are claiming is really not true and they are not bad guys. If you are lying about that, and making a false claim against them, you are in fact harming them.
There's a definite, solid, maybe.
Quote from: jeff37923;1084557This an attempt by jhkim to distract the reader...
...it is? Inferring intent is one of those things that FGG will likely be relying on for its case. So if
you believe FGG has a case... watch out! You're treading very close to creating one yourself here. (For nominal damages.)
(Or, in a less confrontational way: be the knight of common sense you are and don't succumb to outrage or contempt.)
Quote from: RPGPundit;1084571And if Helton was being as honest about Webb as he'd been about me in 2014 during his article for Consultantgate, then not a single word of it is true.
Ah yes,Mr. "Gamers owe me a living wage". I'd almost happily forgotten.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1084589...it is? Inferring intent is one of those things that FGG will likely be relying on for its case. So if you believe FGG has a case... watch out! You're treading very close to creating one yourself here. (For nominal damages.)
(Or, in a less confrontational way: be the knight of common sense you are and don't succumb to outrage or contempt.)
Neither outrage nor contempt, just letting the reader know that those links jhkim posted as "informative" go to forums that condemned on hearsay the guy who has hired a legal firm to take action.
Not everyone has seen this whole melodrama unfold and are coming into it while it has gotten to the good parts. Being directed to posts which are the hearsay being acted upon as legitimate sources of information is disingenous at best.
It is about time someone stood up to the tabletop gestapo. Well, maybe I shouldn't say tabletop. It doesn't seem like any of them actually play tabletop games as they are far too busy throwing their own metaphorical feces at people. I am an absolute believer in free speech, free thought, and the rights of people to live however they want in peace. But this, this is not peace. This is a clutch of insignificant children who hypocritically believe they have the duty to instruct others how to behave.
Honestly, this whole thing is madness. Ever hobby or group has its crazies, that's just how the odds break. But to think that this niche hobby is even a good place to stand up for social justice is hilariously insane. They are struggling and lashing out against their own insignificance by trying to harm others, even people who pay them lip service.
I don't know Webb, never met the guy. I was not present when whatever he did supposedly occurred. I also don't care. If he committed a crime, let him be charged. But I cannot stand for this trial by deranged spoiled millennials over social media. It must end. Happy hunting to Mr. Webb.
Quote from: Lurtch;1084583Did SJ Games send you the Fantasy Trip?
I'm not sure who sent it! But it sure did arrive at the ideal time!
LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR!!!
What wonderful news!
Quote from: sureshot;1084505I guess since Pundit is also not bending over backwards to accommodate Helton demand for a safe space he and we are bad people.
I remember trying on a black hat for the first time and discovering that I look damn fine in black hats.
Totally good with being part of the "bad people" in upside down world.
Hail Honkler motherfuckers!
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.
Most of the SJWs I've met IRL have been trust fund kids. Perhaps the lawyers know where the gold is buried.
I wonder if Helton and crew are aware how serious this is. This isn't television or the movies, kids. The verdict can potentially ruin the rest of their lives.
Watch what you do online!
Quote from: Spinachcat;1084607Most of the SJWs I've met IRL have been trust fund kids. Perhaps the lawyers know where the gold is buried.
They can potentially garnish future earnings, like the SPLC did with Tom Metzger.
Quote from: jeff37923;1084596Neither outrage nor contempt, just letting the reader know that those links jhkim posted as "informative" go to forums that condemned on hearsay the guy who has hired a legal firm to take action.
Not everyone has seen this whole melodrama unfold and are coming into it while it has gotten to the good parts. Being directed to posts which are the hearsay being acted upon as legitimate sources of information is disingenous at best.
That's not how I saw it (EDIT: and I could be wrong). I'm not defending jhkim, as he can defend himself, I'm only looking at it and going, "Poster A posted something. Poster B inferred a malicious intent ("to distract the reader"), but made no case for why. What's up?" Going to the source of the wrongdoing to see the wrongdoing and get a full picture of what's going on doesn't seem disingenuous, on its face, unless you
want to read it that way. Another way of looking at those links that requires no inference of intent is that they are supplemental data, perhaps poorly presented (but that's neither here nor there).
Quote from: S'mon;1084625They can potentially garnish future earnings, like the SPLC did with Tom Metzger.
Not as effective as you'd think. Having a judgment like that is only enforceable in the jurisdiction of the judgment. So the answer is to get up and move. Once you're in a different jurisdiction, they have to file to enforce the judgment there too. While the Full Faith and Credit clause means the judgment will get enforced in the other state once filed and approved, the point is to merely make it such a pain in your ass that you never do it.
Quote from: Xisiqomelir;1084592Ah yes,Mr. "Gamers owe me a living wage". I'd almost happily forgotten.
Wait... what? What was this?
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.
Deter people from damaging their business on the basis of lies. They don't need to get a penny from the defendants in order to make the lawsuit worthwhile.
Against 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: 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.
Greetings!
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
Regardless of the outcome, I assume that being on the business end of a lawsuit is a pretty damned stressful and unpleasant experience. If the case goes forward at all, that should at least encourage people to think before joining the "Hey, let's destroy this person's reputation and livelihood for fun!" brigade.
Bill 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
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."
That's it..?
QuoteI acted like an idiot that day.
Doesn't actually seem like it if this account is true.
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
Response to Bill Webb's post:
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
And also:
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.
Alt-right grift...yep.
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...
Okay.
Quote from: Brad;1084678That's it..?
I know, right? Yet all those fucking morons will probably double down on the FGG/SJG hate-train over this.
Quote from: Brad;1084678Alt-right grift...yep.
Fucking idiots. How embarrassing. I hope I've never been this full of kool-aid before.
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"?
From my understanding of it : It's improper when made by a third person who has no reason to be influencing the deal. In this case all the SJWs trying to have SJG drop a deal with FGG have no reason to be influencing the deal. From the D&C VS Mark Waid case I was under the impression the deal had to be broken for it to be actionable tho. RiekietaLaw gives a great explanation of what TI is in one of his vids.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1084629Wait... what? What was this?
Helton wrote an article a few years ago saying gamers are cheapskates and we should all be happily paying more for our books. It seems the original article isn't up anymore, but here it is if you want to read it: https://web.archive.org/web/20160512143548/http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?3410-Why-We-Need-To-Pay-What-Games-Are-Worth-Not-What-We-Think-They-Should-Cost (https://web.archive.org/web/20160512143548/http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?3410-Why-We-Need-To-Pay-What-Games-Are-Worth-Not-What-We-Think-They-Should-Cost)
There was a thread on this site discussing it as well: https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?34449-Entitled-Incompetent-Game-Designers-Demand-You-Be-Forced-To-Pay-Them-More-Money (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?34449-Entitled-Incompetent-Game-Designers-Demand-You-Be-Forced-To-Pay-Them-More-Money)
Amusing that there are complaints that he names the "victim" when she has made public statements identifying herself.
Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1084701Amusing that there are complaints that he names the "victim" when she has made public statements identifying herself.
Found the far right-wing, fascist, bigoted, victim-silencing alt-right scum!
/s
Were the defendants right in literally stalking Webb across the internet and making it difficult for him, aka Frog God Games, to do business with other companies? Was that legal?
Probably, no.
THIS, is the issue at hand, and I'm probably sure Steve Jackson Games wont tolerate it, as they look to profit from working with FGG.
But, we'll see. In court.
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
Is it actually going to be Steve Jackson Games as plaintiff?!
Fingers and toes crossed here!
Quote from: Xisiqomelir;1084724Is it actually going to be Steve Jackson Games as plaintiff?!
Fingers and toes crossed here!
I don't think there is a lawsuit. Just. Youtubuer created drama
Quote from: Lurtch;1084727I don't think there is a lawsuit. Just. Youtubuer created drama
Care to put money on that? :D
Well, I would welcome it if there was a lawsuit and it would mean we could end litigation-by-internet.
Quote from: JeremyR;1084499If you read your own forum more, you would have known this last night...
But I am skeptical much will come of this, given that it's people all over the country. They aren't going to fly in to Texas for a trial.
If they don't respond at all, they default. They automatically lose.
As an outsider, I'm trying to piece together what exactly is going on with all this.
As far as I can tell, BJ Hensley was offered a cigarette at PaizoCon, someone noticed Bill Webb had stuck his hotel key to the pack of cigs, some SJW watching screeched WAPE WAPE WAPE, then... Jessica Price and others bullied BJ Hensley into joining their cries of victimhood? And then Jessica Price, Christopher Helton, and Stacy Dellorfano conspired to go after FGG / Bill Webb's business relationships and contracts for the past 2 years? With Christopher Helton being some Male Feminist SJW type who has been trying to police tabletop via standard "games journalist" tactics? Outside of being the most creepy twitter profile / avatar I've seen in quite some time, who is Stacy Dellorfano?
I know Jessica Price was working at Paizo before she apparently was fired for sleeping on the job / attempting to defame Frank Mentzer. Apparently she was pushing some false statement that Bill Webb was stalking BJ Hensley at the same con and had to be physically restrained by Paizo employees, whom they claim he assaulted and hurt (without evidence)?
This is a really weird adventure book for Dungeons and Dangerhairs, but I can fully understand why Bill Webb doesn't want to play anymore. This should be interesting.
Quote from: KiTA;1084745If they don't respond at all, they default. They automatically lose.
Not necessarily. If the original court lacked personal jurisdiction, you can collaterally attack the ruling when the other party comes to enforce it.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1084693From my understanding of it : It's improper when made by a third person who has no reason to be influencing the deal. In this case all the SJWs trying to have SJG drop a deal with FGG have no reason to be influencing the deal. From the D&C VS Mark Waid case I was under the impression the deal had to be broken for it to be actionable tho. RiekietaLaw gives a great explanation of what TI is in one of his vids.
A customer of the first or second party influencing them against the other on moral grounds
might actually be considered proper. It's... not a simple process to determine improper (except in the case of things like blackmail or extortion, which if those were the case, it would be more covert, as they have technical requirements that aren't met, broadly, by shouting on Twitter).
Quote from: Brad;1084678That's it..?
Doesn't actually seem like it if this account is true.
If that's it, it probably wouldn't be found to be sexual harassment at all (in law). Sexual harassment has to be both offensive to the plaintiff (which takes into account all their past actions)
and would be offensive to a reasonable person. It's a tougher standard than most people think.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1084760A customer of the first or second party influencing them against the other on moral grounds might actually be considered proper. It's... not a simple process to determine improper (except in the case of things like blackmail or extortion, which if those were the case, it would be more covert, as they have technical requirements that aren't met, broadly, by shouting on Twitter).
That assumes that they don'f Know the allegations are false or exaggerated.
Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1084764That assumes that they don'f Know the allegations are false or exaggerated.
False would be a clear red flag, but exaggerated? That's... harder to say what's an exaggeration and what's not
for this purpose. You would really want to dive deep into the case law to see if that question has already been answered. I have no clue.
Quote from: jeff37923;1084736Care to put money on that? :D
Sure. $5.
Quote from: KiTA;1084745I know Jessica Price was working at Paizo before she apparently was fired for sleeping on the job / attempting to defame Frank Mentzer.
Is there some written evidence (in the internet) of this, from Paizo or some witnesses ?
I too had the impression that miss Price was shown the door from Paizo, but in a hush-hush way. But I could be totally mistaken about that. Hence my inquiry.
Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1084768Is there some written evidence (in the internet) of this, from Paizo or some witnesses ?
I too had the impression that miss Price was shown the door from Paizo, but in a hush-hush way. But I could be totally mistaken about that. Hence my inquiry.
Account from Price quoted here https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/a8i2yy/drama_jessica_price_reveals_why_paizo_fired_her/
We now know that a female Paizo staffer grabbed Webb and injured herself trying to haul him around. She then demanded medical bill money from Paizo. It sounds as if this woman may have criminally assaulted Webb. Paizo were understandably a bit annoyed which then escalated.
I feel sorry for Lisa Stevens. She just wanted to sell tabletop games.
Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1084768Is there some written evidence (in the internet) of this, from Paizo or some witnesses ?
I too had the impression that miss Price was shown the door from Paizo, but in a hush-hush way. But I could be totally mistaken about that. Hence my inquiry.
Well - she was fired from ArenaNet (Guild Wars) - but I assumed that she left Paizo to go there, as there is more $ in video games.
Quote from: S'mon;1084769I feel sorry for Lisa Stevens. She just wanted to sell tabletop games.
I don't. Stevens refused to deal with the growing SJW problem at Paizo well before this incident happened.
Quote from: Lurtch;1084767Sure. $5.
Covered. $5 it is.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1084761If that's it, it probably wouldn't be found to be sexual harassment at all (in law). Sexual harassment has to be both offensive to the plaintiff (which takes into account all their past actions) and would be offensive to a reasonable person. It's a tougher standard than most people think.
That is much tougher than the standard for an internet conviction, followed by boycott and defamation of everyone you've ever met.
Which is where things like Defamation and Tortious Interference come into play: because your interests can be harmed so easily in the court of public opinion, you have a duty not to harm someone else's interests improperly or without privilege to do so (which is basically the same thing) and if you commit that tort against someone else, they're supposed to be able to get damages out of you for it.
Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1084768Is there some written evidence (in the internet) of this, from Paizo or some witnesses ?
I too had the impression that miss Price was shown the door from Paizo, but in a hush-hush way. But I could be totally mistaken about that. Hence my inquiry.
Someone mentioned it on the farms, I do not know of any confirmation other than that.
Price brings up two stories about Paizo when she bitches about them. One is that the SJWs at the company had repurposed some Conference rooms as a place to take naps -- because SJWs are functional toddlers, incapable of living in reality -- and her boss stopped it by making a policy that the blinds were to remain open unless the rooms were actively being used for business purposes that needed privacy. She countered by accusing him (her?) of victim shaming because people were using said rooms to cry in due to all the stress.
The other story is her alluding to being told to knock it off when she was going after Frank Mentzer and was told under no uncertain circumstances that there are some things even a SJW infested company like Paizo can't allow.
Since she complains about both thinking both are evidence that she was a poor oppressed victim, it's likely one or the other led to her termination.
Quote from: S'mon;1084769Account from Price quoted here https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/a8i2yy/drama_jessica_price_reveals_why_paizo_fired_her/
We now know that a female Paizo staffer grabbed Webb and injured herself trying to haul him around. She then demanded medical bill money from Paizo. It sounds as if this woman may have criminally assaulted Webb. Paizo were understandably a bit annoyed which then escalated.
I feel sorry for Lisa Stevens. She just wanted to sell tabletop games.
No, we don't know that. Jessica Price is an utter sociopath, and sociopaths are known to lie whenever it serves them. She
claims that this happened, but remember right after PaizoCon Frog God Game's lawyer -- who is bound by the bar association rules to not lie or he literally risks ruining his life -- stated he couldn't verify this story with Paizo.
https://archive.fo/8lRbY
Specifically:
QuoteA series of tweets brought to our attention have mentioned that an altercation occurred at the time of the incident, and that a Paizo employee was injured. From talking to the individual who made the complaint we have not been made aware of any altercation beyond the behavior of Mr. Webb addressed in the complaint. To date, we have not received any information from Paizo or any other party regarding an employee being injured or how such an injury occurred. I can be contacted at [EMAIL REDACTED] if anyone has further first-person accounts. I will be out of country for the next two weeks, but when I return I will review any such information.
The individual who made the complaint is BJ Hensley, who initially was telling people she was only upset that Bill Webb made a fool of himself in front of Paizo and that some crazy women -- Jessica Price and the anonymous woman who supposedly hurt herself "pulling Webb off BJ Hensley" et all (Stacy Dellorfano?) -- were twisting things and using her to get at him. She only recanted this stance later and changed her statement to be more in line with Price et all.
Bill Webb also specifically denied it in the recent posting. A workplace incident report would have been made available to Frog God Games' lawyer upon request, or at the very least they would have confirmed they had one and an incident occured, they didn't.
In other words, it did not happen. Read through the lines: She went to her boss with a woman who (IF you believe Price and this woman, which you shouldn't) assaulted Bill Webb after Webb handed a pack of cigarettes to a coworker. In public. At a work function. And then demanded not only that they pay her medical bills -- an HR issue that Price had no business being involved with -- but that they also blacklist a CEO and a Company they had business contracts with.
No wonder she got fired. If it wasn't sleeping on the job or going after Mentzer, it would definitely had been this.
Price is lying in order to defame Webb. If not, well, she's going to have to prove that in court, because apparently she's being sued, likely for Defamation, Criminal Conspiracy, and Tort Interference with a Contract / Tort Interference with Potential Business. It'll be Webb's word vs her's, and the burden of proof will be on
her to prove it happened.
Quote from: SavageSchemer;1084545Proud to say I've never sullied myself by having a Twitter account in the first place. But now I see why this Helton character is a target. Never heard of him before - where do all these shitbags even come from???
Out of nowhere?
Seriously, he sounds like he never read anything by the Pundit.
You don't need to guess who the person that supposedly was hurt is, you just need to look at Bill Webb's statement as there is a copy of a tweet there where the person identifies themselves and says it was their fault.
Quote from: KiTA;1084782No, we don't know that. Jessica Price is an utter sociopath, and sociopaths are known to lie whenever it serves them. She claims that this happened, but remember right after PaizoCon Frog God Game's lawyer -- who is bound by the bar association rules to not lie or he literally risks ruining his life -- stated he couldn't verify this story with Paizo.
Yes, but I was going by the Crystal Frazier (who AFAIK is a trans & SJW inclined) statement - https://froggodgames.com/frogs/statement-by-bill-webb/?fbclid=IwAR2SnzK2mmpX5HgZnm8r3vVik-Azjh47kw6NBE3BLOGTgrK9pk-3TO393X4 - that the injury was self inflicted by whoever grabbed Webb.
AFAIK Stacey D was not even at the Con and certainly was not a Paizo staffer. Nothing to do with her.
Crystal is the one that grabbed him, according to her tweet.
Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1084794Crystal is the one that grabbed him, according to her tweet.
OK, that clarifies things slightly. I see from my Paizo APs that Frazier was a Paizo staffer.
I am not a lawyer, but I have an extensive background in legal consulting. The law is not like most TV shows or movies. In my experience, legal thrillers are as fantastical as LotR. Might as well have orcs and elves as clients and lawyers casting spells.
Most civil cases settle before trial. It is relatively easy and relatively cheap to launch a civil lawsuit. Then defendants either lawyer up (which can get expensive) or they represent themselves (called "in pro per" or "pro se"). That's almost always a mistake because the bias against self-representation is extreme even if you know what you're doing. Thus, most people lawyer up which begins the money suck. The vampire, I mean lawyer, then demands a retainer (usually $3k or $5k) to start reading and responding to your case, and usually they want an "evergreen" retainer which means as the lawyer uses up your retainer, you gotta refill their beer mug every month.
Very tasty for your lawyer, not so tasty for you!
Getting a free lawyer for a civil suit isn't easy. Law firms use their "pro bono" hours for lawsuits to garner positive press or push their own political activism. A good pro bono suit is helping a homeless family who got evicted get justice so they can move into a house. Defending internet randos who tried to interfere with inter-state commerce? Not sexy.
However, the problem with civil lawsuits is getting paid after you win. There are entire firms who only do enforcement of judgments. I know cases where the "winner" cut a deal for just attorney fees or less, just to incentivize an enforcement firm to hunt without mercy. But I also know cases where a decade passed and the "winner" still never saw a dime.
Here's some basic info:
http://www.fullertonlaw.com/enforcement-of-judgment
Let's not forget the OJ civil case. He's living swanky because certain laws protect him from collection on the massive civil judgment from two entire decades ago. The Juice is Loose, and his NFL cashola is rolling hard in his bloody hands.
Quote from: Brad;1084635Against my better judgement, I read the rpg.net thread RE: this lawsuit.
There is occasionally value in reading the thoughts of those who disagree with you.
Even if just for the LOLZ.
Quote from: Brad;1084635I've never seen such blatant ignorance in my life.
I used to think there was a bottom to human stupidity. I was wrong.
Apparently asshattery goes to infinity and beyond!
Quote from: KiTA;1084745This is a really weird adventure book for Dungeons and Dangerhairs,
Awesome!! That's gonna be my new name for 5e.
These threads just reinforce why I don't hire people I suspect of being SJWs. No women studies minors allowed in my division
Quote from: Lurtch;1084805These threads just reinforce why I don't hire people I suspect of being SJWs. No women studies minors allowed in my division
Don't use the term Women Studies majors. They'll claim gender discrimination and sue you.
Use the term "grievance Studies" -- it's actually a form of Post-Modernist Identity (Cultural) Marxism, but "Grievance Studies" is dismissive and insulting in a way that drives those types, who consider themselves serious scholars despite literally not believing in logic or reasoning, utterly mad.
Quote from: KiTA;1084809Don't use the term Women Studies majors. They'll claim gender discrimination and sue you.
Use the term "grievance Studies" -- it's actually a form of Post-Modernist Identity (Cultural) Marxism, but "Grievance Studies" is dismissive and insulting in a way that drives those types, who consider themselves serious scholars despite literally not believing in logic or reasoning, utterly mad.
Whatever it's called I won't hire white women so I don't have to hear about it. Luckily, I work in IT and white women are too stupid to do the work and my department is 30% women. There is nothing worded than a younger white chick.
Steve Jackson Games sued the Secret Service ..... and won. They WILL NOT be bullied online by these people based on an event from years ago that had zero legal implications.
It's about making money. The SJWs harass people online and think it's their right. It isn't. You have a right to voice your opinion, yes, but if what you are saying is disingenuous AND interferes with a company's
ability to make money, you will be in an actionable position.
These defendants are bullies, plain and simple. No different than someone who tries to take your lunch money. What they have posted for YEARS has impacted FGG's ability to make money. SJG, obviously, wont
be as submissive as FGG. You have to stand up to bullies or they will tear you down.
What if you made a mistake and a group of people NEVER LET YOU LIVE IT DOWN. Anytime you posted online, they were there talking about what you did years ago. Anytime you launched a product or service, they
were there talking about what you did years ago. Anytime you showed up at a Con, they were there talking about what you did years ago. Anytime you posted on a forum, they were there talking about what you did
YEARS AGO.
That's harassment. Easily Tortious Interference. If I were the lawyer, I'd capture all the internet comments from the bullies and read them in court. Easy win. They CANNOT defend themselves.
This is the stupidity of SJWs: they do not understand that, while their cause may be worthwhile, their tactics are fucked-up. They are, essentially, suicide-bombers, and this lawsuit, if carried out, will prove that.
My concern is that the action is followed through. A threat is not enough. Make them defend their stupid position in a way that informs other SJWs that bullying people online is dangerous.
We'll see.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1084803In my experience, legal thrillers are as fantastical as LotR. Might as well have orcs and elves as clients and lawyers casting spells.
Now I kind of want that as a show.
Quote from: Lurtch;1084813Whatever it's called I won't hire white women so I don't have to hear about it. Luckily, I work in IT and white women are too stupid to do the work and my department is 30% women. There is nothing worded than a younger white chick.
There are plenty of reasonable people who come here to talk about games, but the fact that this sort of thing gets posted pretty often - and this community as a whole puts up with it - is why folks are right when they bitch about the misogynistic shit bags who lurk here.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1084843There are plenty of reasonable people who come here to talk about games, but the fact that this sort of thing gets posted pretty often - and this community as a whole puts up with it - is why folks are right when they bitch about the misogynistic shit bags who lurk here.
Because they should be banned for sins against political correctness.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1084844Because they should be banned for sins against political correctness.
I just take it as he works at a shitty IT place because I have had plenty of white woman work for me in IT and they do quite well. I am more of a finance guy and my staff and leaders are more and more women and they are as good or better than the men.
It is a shitty thing to say and it has nothing to do with political correctness. Not wanting a drama llama on the team
is one thing, but if someone posted about a women only gaming group there would be pages of meaning and whining here about it.
I would have mocked it, but was busy. I should do that now, I guess, but I will enjoy some roti prata instead.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1084842Now I kind of want that as a show.
Attorney 1: And now, my star witness, the aboleth will take the stand. His telepathy allows him to be a perfectly accurate judge of character.
Attorney 2: Objection! By precedent set by His Honor Gygax, I challenge you to step into the Circle of Discriminatory Will! The loser shall perish and all court fees will be extracted from his estate!
Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1084847I just take it as he works at a shitty IT place because I have had plenty of white woman work for me in IT and they do quite well. I am more of a finance guy and my staff and leaders are more and more women and they are as good or better than the men.
It is a shitty thing to say and it has nothing to do with political correctness. Not wanting a drama llama on the team
is one thing, but if someone posted about a women only gaming group there would be pages of meaning and whining here about it.
I would have mocked it, but was busy. I should do that now, I guess, but I will enjoy some roti prata instead.
There are women only gaming groups, in roll20 they are allowed, the criticism is because the ppl that tried to have a men only group were banned, so it's about the double standard.
Just like in the UK the effing government has job openings where they discriminate against white men. Either it's okey to discriminate or it's not.
Now he said first abt not hiring anybody with a grievance studies degree. And then he said it about young white women. Maybe in his mind most of the grievance studies graduates are young white women (and I think he would be right in thinking so).
So it's not muhsoggyknees. And you're free to mock him, it's called free speech, same thing that allows him to say shit you find deeply offensive.
Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1084847It is a shitty thing to say...
Yeah, I think it's shitty, too. (Not only does it describe a shitty hiring practice, but it I'd say it also describes a legally dangerous hiring practice.)
You can legally discriminate when hiring if you have less than 15 employees.
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/smallbusiness/faq/do_laws_apply.cfm
And you can even dodge that by using contractors.
Quote from: Beldar;1084848Attorney 1: And now, my star witness, the aboleth will take the stand. His telepathy allows him to be a perfectly accurate judge of character.
Attorney 2: Objection! By precedent set by His Honor Gygax, I challenge you to step into the Circle of Discriminatory Will! The loser shall perish and all court fees will be extracted from his estate!
Judge to Court Clerk: How much XP will Attorney 2 get if he defeats the aboleth?
Quote from: Larsdangly;1084843There are plenty of reasonable people who come here to talk about games, but the fact that this sort of thing gets posted pretty often - and this community as a whole puts up with it - is why folks are right when they bitch about the misogynistic shit bags who lurk here.
Hey, he specified white women. White people are oppressors. He's just "punching up".
Quote from: Larsdangly;1084843There are plenty of reasonable people who come here to talk about games, but the fact that this sort of thing gets posted pretty often - and this community as a whole puts up with it - is why folks are right when they bitch about the misogynistic shit bags who lurk here.
This place isn't as different from RPGnet as a lot of people want believe. Tribalism, anger, and resentment are pronounced in both. And I'd wager in both forums single, childless, sexually inactive people are dramatically over-represented compared with the population at large.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1084842Now I kind of want that as a show.
Sounds like a sequel to Harry Potter. The Law School years.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1084843There are plenty of reasonable people who come here to talk about games, but the fact that this sort of thing gets posted pretty often - and this community as a whole puts up with it - is why folks are right when they bitch about the misogynistic shit bags who lurk here.
It's not misogyny to say that I don't want to hire insufferable white chicks because they are all the worst. Any minors or double majoring with women studies and it's always women studies and I'm not hiring you.
I have a team that has 30% women doing actual technical work. I'm far above industry norms. Where is my virtue points for that? I don't get any because feminism is about making the world easier for rich white girls.
You want to know why young white women are the worst? Because they are so extreme even the POC they say they are trying to help find them bat shit crazy. I have black, Asian, Hispanics, and Arabs women all working for me. Yes, I have white women too. But, I have to interview these people and you can just feel it. They are the worst.
Women are great. This isn't about gender. It's about white women over the last 30 years never being disagreed with and having huge Chips on their shoulders.
Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1084847I just take it as he works at a shitty IT place because I have had plenty of white woman work for me in IT and they do quite well. I am more of a finance guy and my staff and leaders are more and more women and they are as good or better than the men.
It is a shitty thing to say and it has nothing to do with political correctness. Not wanting a drama llama on the team
is one thing, but if someone posted about a women only gaming group there would be pages of meaning and whining here about it.
I would have mocked it, but was busy. I should do that now, I guess, but I will enjoy some roti prata instead.
You are conflating white women with women. See! Feminism is about white women.
Women are fine. Women are talented and equally capable as men and vice versa. Young white women are awful and I hate working with them. If I could trade every white woman I work with under 30 to a black woman, Mexican woman, Asian woman, Arabic woman, Persian woman, I would. It's young white people that are drama woke people. Not minorities
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/white-progressives-polarizing-america/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liberals-dumb-themselves-down-when-they-speak-black-people-new-study-contends/
I'm a Person of Color. I deal with these woke white people treating me like a child. You know who'd I rather deal with the worst MAGA guy ever because at least they'll treat me like everyone else and not as a baby unicorn.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1084868Hey, he specified white women. White people are oppressors. He's just "punching up".
You get it. As an Indian American I deal with white supremacy each and everyday and how dare my LIVED EXPERIENCE be questioned. Now, I'm an Asian American which I know is only a +1 to my virtue score and I am male which is a -10 penalty to my virtue score.
Anyway, I was being cheeky. I just am tired of young white women being so terrible and ruining everything.
Quote from: Haffrung;1084885This place isn't as different from RPGnet as a lot of people want believe. Tribalism, anger, and resentment are pronounced in both. And I'd wager in both forums single, childless, sexually inactive people are dramatically over-represented compared with the population at large.
Even after what you have seen of their behavior you can post that with a straight face.
- They get told that SJGames is unable to really comment about the whole FGG situation due to legal reasons.
Too bad SJGames should even if it causes them legal issues their silence means they are absolutely positively complicit in the entire affair.
- People point out that it might hurt SJGames financially to just stop everything with FGG
They get banned too bad so sad SJGames should lose money and go bankrupt.
-People ask for cooler heads to prevail
Before they get banned they are insulted thrown imaginary word their way by both the mentally ill mods and gamers from the sight such as "concern trolling and sealioning" and you have the stones to comment that this place is as bad as rpg.net. Any credibility you had with me as a poster you had went out the window. Only the most dense and purposefully naive person would do that. This place is far from perfect for you to say this place is as bad as rpg.net.
Send me the address of your drug dealer and check into a hospital you might suffering from a major concussion. This place is as bad as rpg.net give us a fucking break and more importantly get a fucking clue.
Quote from: Lurtch;1084895You get it. As an Indian American I deal with white supremacy each and everyday and how dare my LIVED EXPERIENCE be questioned. Now, I'm an Asian American which I know is only a +1 to my virtue score and I am male which is a -10 penalty to my virtue score.
Anyway, I was being cheeky. I just am tired of young white women being so terrible and ruining everything.
well I think you are correct on one thing, and I would take it further
white people are the fucking problem, but not in the way the leftists think. It isn't Indians, Muslims, Persians, etc. pushing Marxism, pederasty, "polyamory", transgenderism, etc. I don't see libraries in black neighborhoods inviting transvestites in to read to the kids. It is Elizabeth Warren, Sanders, and others who want large-scale socialism, identity politics, reparations for slavery, etc. (even though a fraction of blacks even want that).
The "woke", atheist leftist is invariably some white beta-male, or some blue-haired, overweight white girl from an upper-middle-class family.
I live in an Indian neighborhood. These people have no time for this bullshit. They might lean left a bit on certain issues, but they are not psychotic socialists engaging in identity politics--the white people are doing that.
It was white, activist academic Peggy McIntosh who wrote the paper about "white privilege" (the invisible knapsack) back in the 1980s that launched the current wave of hard-core identity politics in the US.
Quote from: Haffrung;1084885This place isn't as different from RPGnet as a lot of people want believe. Tribalism, anger, and resentment are pronounced in both. And I'd wager in both forums single, childless, sexually inactive people are dramatically over-represented compared with the population at large.
Correct. This is why I spend most of my game forum discussion time at rpgpub, sjgames. They remain entirely free of this bullshit.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1084909Correct. This is why I spend most of my game forum discussion time at rpgpub, sjgames. They remain entirely free of this bullshit.
Your coming across as a hypocrite. You don't like to post here yet you still do. Make up your mind and stop trying to be some kind of social chameleon.
Quote from: Silas1066;1084897well I think you are correct on one thing, and I would take it further
white people are the fucking problem, but not in the way the leftists think. It isn't Indians, Muslims, Persians, etc. pushing Marxism, pederasty, "polyamory", transgenderism, etc. I don't see libraries in black neighborhoods inviting transvestites in to read to the kids. It is Elizabeth Warren, Sanders, and others who want large-scale socialism, identity politics, reparations for slavery, etc. (even though a fraction of blacks even want that).
The "woke", atheist leftist is invariably some white beta-male, or some blue-haired, overweight white girl from an upper-middle-class family.
I live in an Indian neighborhood. These people have no time for this bullshit. They might lean left a bit on certain issues, but they are not psychotic socialists engaging in identity politics--the white people are doing that.
It was white, activist academic Peggy McIntosh who wrote the paper about "white privilege" (the invisible knapsack) back in the 1980s that launched the current wave of hard-core identity politics in the US.
Greetings!
Excellent points, Silas1066.:)
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: sureshot;1084918Your coming across as a hypocrite. You don't like to post here yet you still do. Make up your mind and stop trying to be some kind of social chameleon.
Greetings!
LOL! Sureshot, all of the bloodthirsty, right-wing dinosaurs here need to be saved!:D If only we would allow the enlightened Liberal elites to properly educate us with the SJW Koolaid! THEN, my friend, we would be a forum that was a safe space for SJW Happy Barneys!:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1084868Hey, he specified white women. White people are oppressors. He's just "punching up".
Quote from: Lurtch;1084893It's not misogyny to say that I don't want to hire insufferable white chicks because they are all the worst. Any minors or double majoring with women studies and it's always women studies and I'm not hiring you.
I have a team that has 30% women doing actual technical work. I'm far above industry norms. Where is my virtue points for that? I don't get any because feminism is about making the world easier for rich white girls.
You want to know why young white women are the worst? Because they are so extreme even the POC they say they are trying to help find them bat shit crazy. I have black, Asian, Hispanics, and Arabs women all working for me. Yes, I have white women too. But, I have to interview these people and you can just feel it. They are the worst.
Women are great. This isn't about gender. It's about white women over the last 30 years never being disagreed with and having huge Chips on their shoulders.
Quote from: Lurtch;1084894You are conflating white women with women. See! Feminism is about white women.
Women are fine. Women are talented and equally capable as men and vice versa. Young white women are awful and I hate working with them. If I could trade every white woman I work with under 30 to a black woman, Mexican woman, Asian woman, Arabic woman, Persian woman, I would. It's young white people that are drama woke people. Not minorities
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/white-progressives-polarizing-america/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liberals-dumb-themselves-down-when-they-speak-black-people-new-study-contends/
I'm a Person of Color. I deal with these woke white people treating me like a child. You know who'd I rather deal with the worst MAGA guy ever because at least they'll treat me like everyone else and not as a baby unicorn.
How is it different Person of Color than Coloured People? Don't use their terminology ever, I'm Maya, Born, raised and Living in México City, I'm not a "Person of Color". My life has nothing in common with the USA citizens who happen to be latino descendants or even with people from Nicaragua. And our cultures are different enough that you can't talk about "Latino Culture", besides language, being mostly mongrels and mostly Catholics we have very little in common.
Do they have the Dia de Muertos in any other Latin American country? Nope, because it comes from Aztec culture.
Are Mariachis originally from any other country?
How about the food, clothing, music, etc?
Totally different from country to country, the closest ones are Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina. And even they are different enough to not be considered the same culture.
I'm not a Latinx either, only assholes I know who use that term are either woke white dangerhairs or soyboys, or USA citizens who happen to be of latino descent. And among the latter only a small minority uses it.
Fuck the Baizuo, their white man's burden, their ideology and their terminology.
Peace brother.
Quote from: Lurtch;1084894I'm a Person of Color. I deal with these woke white people treating me like a child. You know who'd I rather deal with the worst MAGA guy ever because at least they'll treat me like everyone else and not as a baby unicorn.
Word. We've been reduced to "poc".
The argument now is that if you are not white (and in the disproven races classification, Indians are caucasians), it is fine to be racist? So from this minority that has lived in multiple countries where he did not speak the language when he moved there, and as an immigrant to the USA, screw you. There is nothing different about being a white woman that makes it a fine category to throw your racists feces at them.
There are plenty if women, including white women, that are buying FGG's products. I was in one of his feature games at Gary Con and there were women in the room playing and having fun. They happened to be white, but I can guarantee that they knew about the allegations and thought they were bullshit.
The hand-wringing over on the purple site about Webb using the name of his alleged victim is pathetic. She used his name directly on the Paizo forum post she made. I cannot read the members only forum over there, but someone told me she is even posting publicly in the thread there. More sign of making up rules as they go.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1084925How is it different Person of Color than Coloured People? Don't use their terminology ever,
In my case, I was mocking the idea. I thought Lurch was, in his words later, "being cheeky".
Quote from: Haffrung;1084885This place isn't as different from RPGnet as a lot of people want believe. Tribalism, anger, and resentment are pronounced in both. And I'd wager in both forums single, childless, sexually inactive people are dramatically over-represented compared with the population at large.
Your "wager" is complete bullshit and your post is mostly bullshit. For someone with as many posts as you have I'd hope for a more balanced perspective.
I understand the point you're trying to make and I don't necessarily disagree, but don't skew reality or conjure up imagined figures to prove that point.
Quote from: Antiquation!;1084956Your "wager" is complete bullshit and your post is mostly bullshit. For someone with as many posts as you have I'd hope for a more balanced perspective.
At this point it would have to be trolling us imo. Given how factually and proven so much worse Rpg.net is than us to claim we are not that different than them has to be Haffrung being purposefully disingenuous at this point. If people are still debating which is worse at this point they are not all up there in the head. Given how poorly rpg.net is acting you think the more socially justice minded posters would be calling them out on it. Nah won't happen as it goes against the narrative this place is much worse. As well they don't want to risk being kicked out of the SJW cool kid club for having an opinion that goes against the narrative. If it was this site acting in such a regressive, repressive, totalitarian way they would be out in force riding in on their horses called Fully Woke to rip us a new one. Rpg.net does barely any thing said about it.
Quote from: sureshot;1084957At this point it would have to be trolling us imo. Given how factually and proven so much worse Rpg.net is than us to claim we are not that different than them has to be Haffrung being purposefully disingenuous at this point. If people are still debating which is worse at this point they are not all up there in the head. Given how poorly rpg.net is acting you think the more socially justice minded posters would be calling them out on it. Nah won't happen as it goes against the narrative this place is much worse. As well they don't want to risk being kicked out of the SJW cool kid club for having an opinion that goes against the narrative. If it was this site acting in such a regressive, repressive, totalitarian way they would be out in force riding in on their horses called Fully Woke to rip us a new one. Rpg.net does barely any thing said about it.
I suspect he was posting "off-the-cuff" and didn't realize how dumb that shit he said was, or maybe he simply didn't articulate his opinion enough. Then again, I'm an optimist.
Quote from: sureshot;1084918Your coming across as a hypocrite. You don't like to post here yet you still do. Make up your mind and stop trying to be some kind of social chameleon.
This place is not an echo chamber!!!
Also, all people who disagree with me are hypocrites!!!
Quote from: Larsdangly;1084969This place is not an echo chamber!!!!
The point is that people are able to freely express opinions here. Take note, I'm not defending anyone. Unlike many other privately owned platforms you will not be ostracized or silenced for expressing a dissenting view here. Yes, there are views which "echo" here. Yes, there are some commonalities in perspectives here. If you are willing to equivocate the echo chamber here with a site like RPG.net then that is highly disingenuous. I'm not saying that's what you mean, since you haven't said anything specific enough to dismantle. However, it is not the same. Echo chamber or not, these sites are not the same and they are in fact far-flung from each other in terms of speech and range of opinion. You can talk about theoretical political ideologies among forums (you would probably be wrong anyway), but don't equivocate perceived political ideology with "echo chamber" because that is both false and moronic.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1084969This place is not an echo chamber!!!
Also, all people who disagree with me are hypocrites!!!
I'm not the one who wrote:
Quote from: Larsdangly;1084909Correct. This is why I spend most of my game forum discussion time at rpgpub, sjgames. They remain entirely free of this bullshit.
From the looks of it you don't like this place yet still post here. Speaking for myself that to me comes off as being a textbook hypocrite.
As for this place being an echo chamber. If you see the garbage going over at rpg.net which is also another example of a textbook echo chamber and think this place is the same then you don't know the first thing about what constitutes an echo chamber. I will be the first to admit this place has it's issues and I don't agree with every poster here. Yet I can do so without the mods insulting me before blocking my account while insulting me with made up words in the English language. More importantly this forum is not an echo chamber simply because people disagree with you and me on a topic. I too can say this place is an echo chamber as a defence and insult when people don't agree with me on a topic. What did you expect agreeing with another poster on how so much better other rpg forums are while still posting here. Objectively that does make you come across as a hypocrite. If you dislike this forum I can respect that. I will not respect someone posting here than going "yeah this place kind of sucks rpg forum XYZ is so much better". Did you honestly think no one would notice.
Quote from: Haffrung;1084885This place isn't as different from RPGnet as a lot of people want believe. Tribalism, anger, and resentment are pronounced in both. And I'd wager in both forums single, childless, sexually inactive people are dramatically over-represented compared with the population at large.
To me it is not if the people are different, its the fact that you are not immediately banned for concern trolling or whataboutism or Non-Right Thinkism.
Its just not that hard to understand the difference.
Quote from: Shasarak;1084975To me it is not if the people are different, its the fact that you are not immediately banned for concern trolling or whataboutism or Non-Right Thinkism.
Its just not that hard to understand the difference.
Agreed and seconded the only way to not see the difference is to be both stubborn and obtuse imo. Their is a crystal clear difference and one has to REALLY go out of their way not to see it.
Quote from: Shasarak;1084975To me it is not if the people are different, its the fact that you are not immediately banned for concern trolling or whataboutism or Non-Right Thinkism.
Its just not that hard to understand the difference.
Exactly.
Quote from: Haffrung;1084885This place isn't as different from RPGnet as a lot of people want believe. Tribalism, anger, and resentment are pronounced in both. And I'd wager in both forums single, childless, sexually inactive people are dramatically over-represented compared with the population at large.
You are including yourself in that denouncement of this forum, are you not?
Quote from: Larsdangly;1084909Correct. This is why I spend most of my game forum discussion time at rpgpub, sjgames. They remain entirely free of this bullshit.
Nice to know that you are too cool for school, but it does make one wonder why you keep posting here if it is so full of such "bullshit".
Assholes saying nasty things about you does not a case make, and it'd be a pretty shitty situation for everyone if it did.
- Vic Mignogna has a case because he lost acting gigs and convention appearances.
- Richard Meyer has a case because he lost a contract with a publisher.
- Zak Smith could make a case because he's been blackballed from the RPG industry.
- Larry Correia could make a case as he's been dropped as a guest.
- Jeremy Hambly could make a case that being banned from GenCon over being assaulted offsite affects his ability to conduct business, and does have a criminal case pending.
The key is the actions against them didn't just influence consumer behavior, but directly affected their ability to conduct business
with the people who wanted to do so. SJG and FGG can make no such claim, and attempting to do so would be an abuse of the legal system.
Quote from: jhkim;1084554Nick Reiketa's video is here - with the segment about this topic about 57 minutes in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMThCmRezFw&feature=youtu.be&t=3440
Yeah, and I'm ticked he didn't include the
first part about Bill putting his arm around her and calling her "sweetie".
I don't trust anyone in this mess anymore.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1084602I'm not sure who sent it! But it sure did arrive at the ideal time!
Someone has your address?!?
Quote from: Haffrung;1084634Deter people from damaging their business on the basis of lies. They don't need to get a penny from the defendants in order to make the lawsuit worthwhile.
First they're going to have to prove damages, and we can't even do that with Bill as he
voluntarily stepped down as a guest.
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
And for some reason FGG has disabled both caching and archiving. Not a good look.
Quote from: S'mon;1084769We now know that a female Paizo staffer grabbed Webb and injured herself trying to haul him around.
Do we?
Quote from: S'mon;1084769It sounds as if this woman may have criminally assaulted Webb.
If it actually occurred, then she absolutely did.
Quote from: Myrdin Potter;1084794Crystal is the one that grabbed him, according to her tweet.
I must have missed that. Where exactly has she admitted this?
Quote from: jeff37923;1084866Judge to Court Clerk: How much XP will Attorney 2 get if he defeats the aboleth?
Gavel falls, everyone dies.
Quote from: Haffrung;1084885This place isn't as different from RPGnet as a lot of people want believe.
And yet I can still speak critically here.
Quote from: Lurtch;1084813Whatever it's called I won't hire white women
Quote from: Lurtch;1084813white women are too stupid to do the work
Quote from: Lurtch;1084813There is nothing worded than a younger white chick.
Quote from: Lurtch;1084893It's not misogyny to say that I don't want to hire insufferable white chicks because they are all the worst.
Quote from: Lurtch;1084893You want to know why young white women are the worst? Because they are so extreme even the POC they say they are trying to help find them bat shit crazy.
Quote from: Lurtch;1084893It's about white women over the last 30 years never being disagreed with and having huge Chips on their shoulders.
Quote from: Lurtch;1084894You are conflating white women with women. See! Feminism is about white women.
Quote from: Lurtch;1084894Young white women are awful and I hate working with them. If I could trade every white woman I work with under 30 to a black woman, Mexican woman, Asian woman, Arabic woman, Persian woman, I would. It's young white people that are drama woke people.
Quote from: Lurtch;1084895I just am tired of young white women being so terrible and ruining everything.
#WhiteWomen
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1084925I'm Maya, Born, raised and Living in México City, I'm not a "Person of Color".
Of course not...
...because you're a "
Non-Black Person of Color" :p
Quote from: myleftnut;1084930We've been reduced to "poc".
Now if only they'd stop there.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1085028Do we?
Not sure how you could have missed it:
(https://i2.wp.com/froggodgames.com/frogs/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/graphic-1.png?w=624&ssl=1)
Quote from: S'mon;1085030Not sure how you could have missed it:
(https://i2.wp.com/froggodgames.com/frogs/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/graphic-1.png?w=624&ssl=1)
A third hand account from a questionable source, which is proof of her
claims, but not of the incident in question.
More importantly, nowhere does she claim that
she was the one who was injured, which is what @Myrdin Potter claimed.
It's really important to have all our ducks in a row and be as specific as possible in these matters AFAIC.
Technically you are correct, it might not have been them (crystal), but they did say I was not in shape.
So far there are zero reports of Webb physically injuring anyone and I read from the tweet that it was Crystal that tried to grab him.
Not that the claim that Webb was drunk is also unsubstantiated. The discussion on him not being able to drive home is moot as he had a room he could go to. The whole "could have called the cops" construction is also a red herring as you can call the cops for anything and not calling the cops for whatever reason was convenient at the time may easily be masking there actually was no good reason to do so as well.
I did a quick search of Washington State records for the last 10 years and found no DUI charges for Webb. My experience with people with real drinking issues is that they get tagged with one or more of that.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1085036A third hand account from a questionable source
Frazier was a Paizo staffer, AFAIK s/he was at Paizocon 2017, s/he is hostile to Webb, so AFAICS it's neither third hand nor particularly questionable.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1085036More importantly, nowhere does she claim that she was the one who was injured, which is what @Myrdin Potter claimed.
However that was not what I said.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1085028The key is the actions against them didn't just influence consumer behavior, but directly affected their ability to conduct business with the people who wanted to do so. SJG and FGG can make no such claim, and attempting to do so would be an abuse of the legal system..
Your claim here is simply untrue. You should check the last few FGG Kickstarters amongst other things. The negative publicity around this has also affected the FGG/SJG games Fantasy Trip Kickstarter. What do you believe the odds are that the sjw losers have been using that original incident to stalk Bill at conventions?
This is the entire reason we have laws, attorneys, courts, police, and judges. So that if someone has an actual complaint, there is a process by which they can obtain justice.
It is my sincere wish that Ty Beard, Bill, FGG, and SJG sue, win and proceed to own these sjw misanthropes who have decided to take it upon themselves to ruin FGG's and SJG's business.
No one deserves any right to run any one else out of business, just because they feel for whatever imagined reason that they should be entitled to, without any due process of law, and without a review from a impartial judge and/or jury.
Let me put this another way, so maybe you understand. If someone can run anyone out of any business without a trial, are we still living in a free country, or are we living in a country where we are slaves at the mercy and whim of any whom would hold a grudge against us and/or our business?
What kind of country do you want to live in?
Would you be okay with having your livelihood reduced, or taken away entirely, based on the unsubstantiated claims of anyone else?
...choose carefully, ...choose wisely, becuase ultimately you will get back what you give to others.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085067If someone can run anyone out of any business without a trial, are we still living in a free country. . .
Yes. A price of freedom is the moral obligation to use it properly. If you cannot even attempt to run someone out of any business without a trial, then you are, by definition, not free.
The key is as you stated at the beginning: your actions, while you are free to do them, have a cost. You run the guy out of business improperly, you pay for the business.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085068Yes. A price of freedom is the moral obligation to use it properly. If you cannot even attempt to run someone out of any business without a trial, then you are, by definition, not free.
The key is as you stated at the beginning: your actions, while you are free to do them, have a cost. You run the guy out of business improperly, you pay for the business.
This is the kind of vague language used over on TBP I often took issue with. The big difference being, we are here now, and there is no one here who will censor or silence me just because they don't like what they read or hear.
This is not just about running a single guy out of business improperly. It's also about all of the other people that are affected, his business partners who share in his fate, yet have no say. It is about his artists, and suppliers who would lose orders were his business to close, It is also about the customers who would lose the games, games that have not even been designed yet.
I'm automatically leery whenever anyone brings up
the price of freedom. Slavery in any form, ...is far more costly than ensuring freedom ever will be.
Also, I noticed you speak of the moral obligation to use freedom properly. Freedom isn't a tool, it is instead an inherent right that everyone possesses. Also, there are no obligations with freedom, no compulsions, no compelling, and no limits because if one is exercising their inherent right to freedom, it is automatically implied, or comes with the knowledge, that one cannot be free themselves, if they are in any way limiting or removing the freedoms of others.
Everyone who is truly free understands that.
FGG and Bill, as well as SJG are game designers. They make and sell games. if the sjw were really all about being successful in making games, they would be too busy making their own games and finding their loyal customers and audience who were willing to buy those games to be spending time with anything else. Instead they do nothing of the sort, contribute nothing to the gaming industry except for trying to drag other game designers down.
These sjw are like the outlaws of the old west, riding into town a whooping, and a hollering, threatening and shooting, they get their Lasso's out, and rope a citizen in town, then with their horses they drag the citizen around in the dirt, all in good sport they say, for show, to intimidate the other townspeople, and for a bit of fun! ...well, the sheriff and his deputies are coming to hold them outlaws accountable now.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085070This is the kind of vague language used over on TBP I often took issue with. The big difference being, we are here now, and there is no one here who will censor or silence me just because they don't like what they read or hear.
This is not just about running a single guy out of business improperly. It's also about all of the other people that are affected, his business partners who share in his fate, yet have no say. It is about his artists, and suppliers who would lose orders were his business to close, It is also about the customers who would lose the games, games that have not even been designed yet.
And? (This doesn't seem related to the single point of contention.)
QuoteI'm automatically leery whenever anyone brings up the price of freedom. Slavery in any form, ...is far more costly than ensuring freedom ever will be.
That does not change that freedom has a cost for the self. That the cost is lighter than the slavery does not change that it is there, and it is in the inherent nature of some forms of slavery to
feel less costly than to actually have to take responsibility for your own actions.
QuoteAlso, I noticed you speak of the moral obligation to use freedom properly. Freedom isn't a tool, it is instead an inherent right that everyone possesses. Also, there are no obligations with freedom, no compulsions, no compelling, and no limits because if one is exercising their inherent right to freedom, it is automatically implied, or comes with the knowledge, that one cannot be free themselves, if they are in any way limiting or removing the freedoms of others.
So you are disagreeing that we have a responsibility to be free responsibly, yet you say we cannot be free if we are not using our freedom responsibly? Can you help me understand the disagreement here? Because as I read this statement, you say there's no obligation or compulsion for being free, yet you cannot be free if you are removing the freedoms of others... which would be an obligation or compulsion for being free, as if you do not follow it then you are, by your own definition, not free.
Which I think puts us in agreement?
When I say moral responsibility or moral obligation, I mean that in the sense our founding fathers used it when the talked about the rights, conditions, and obligations of being free. I mean it in the most Conservative and Libertarian senses possible, and how those natural rights are forever, intrinsically linked with certain morals, responsibilities, and virtues (both secular and religious), all of which are preconditions for freedom to exist in the minds of the framers of America's constitution.
QuoteFGG and Bill, as well as SJG are game designers. They make and sell games. if the sjw were really all about being successful in making games, they would be too busy making their own games and finding their loyal customers and audience who were willing to buy those games to be spending time with anything else. Instead they do nothing of the sort, contribute nothing to the gaming industry except for trying to drag other game designers down.
These sjw are like the outlaws of the old west, riding into town a whooping, and a hollering, threatening and shooting, they get their Lasso's out, and rope a citizen in town, then with their horses they drag the citizen around in the dirt, all in good sport they say, for show, to intimidate the other townspeople, and for a bit of fun! ...well, the sheriff and his deputies are coming to hold them outlaws accountable now.
Which would seem to, again, put us in agreement. My only contention was that yes, you are still living in a free country if someone can do this. You are not living in a free country if someone cannot do this thing (and then, presumably, face the consequences of their action).
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085070These sjw are like the outlaws of the old west, riding into town a whooping, and a hollering, threatening and shooting, they get their Lasso's out, and rope a citizen in town, then with their horses they drag the citizen around in the dirt, all in good sport they say, for show, to intimidate the other townspeople, and for a bit of fun! ...well, the sheriff and his deputies are coming to hold them outlaws accountable now.
I usually hate analogies, but I love this.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085076And?...
Which I think puts us in agreement?
Almost. Here is the notable difference in our approach to Freedom... When you speak of
moral obligation or
moral responsibility in upholding Freedom, both of those events require an audience or third party to witness, because the audience is making the judgement whether your definition of freedom is correct, or you are are fulfilling the goal of ensuring freedom for others.
If one is truly free, an individual would automatically do the right thing even if a witness were not present, and ensure the freedom of everyone else around them.
This is the difference between a leader and a follower. A leader does what is right, because it is the right thing to do. A follower does what is right, because someone else is watching, and judging them, and thus they have the
obligation to behave correctly or right. Whether they really believe or not that what they are doing is ensuring freedom, or believe in the freedom or in doing the right thing, is still open for debate.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085083Almost. Here is the notable difference in our approach to Freedom... When you speak of moral obligation or moral responsibility in upholding Freedom, both of those events require an audience or third party to witness, because the audience is making the judgement whether your definition of freedom is correct, or you are are fulfilling the goal of freedom.
...I don't think I did, because that was certainly not in my intent. Can you show me where so I don't make that mistake again?
When I speak of moral responsibility, that's always an internal thing and does not care whether or not you have an audience.
QuoteIf one is truly free, an individual would automatically do the right thing even if a witness were not present, and ensure the freedom of everyone else around them.
For me, this is where it passes into the realm of the religious though, as I believe we cannot be truly free while a slave to sin, which required me to become a slave to something else so I could be free of that sin, and in becoming a slave to that something else, He truly set me free as His child.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1085028Originally Posted by GeekyBugle View Post
I'm Maya, Born, raised and Living in México City, I'm not a "Person of Color".
Of course not...
...because you're a "Non-Black Person of Color" :p
Yeah, fuckers want to classify us by race, gender, etc and then to discriminate based on that. They can go eff themselves. With a Sahuaro cactus.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085083Almost. Here is the notable difference in our approach to Freedom... When you speak of moral obligation or moral responsibility in upholding Freedom, both of those events require an audience or third party to witness, because the audience is making the judgement whether your definition of freedom is correct, or you are are fulfilling the goal of ensuring freedom for others.
If one is truly free, an individual would automatically do the right thing even if a witness were not present, and ensure the freedom of everyone else around them.
This is the difference between a leader and a follower. A leader does what is right, because it is the right thing to do. A follower does what is right, because someone else is watching, and judging them, and thus they have the obligation to behave correctly or right. Whether they really believe or not that what they are doing is ensuring freedom, or believe in the freedom or in doing the right thing, is still open for debate.
Au contraire, if you're not free to commit a crime, and suffer the consequences of your actions you're not free. Both of you are arguing about the moral obligation not to transgress other people's rights.
How would the government or anybody go about stopping criminals from committing crimes? It's impossible, because they aren't criminals until they commit a crime. Unless you think precrime is a good idea.
Pedos go in the internet searching for Pr0n that floats their boat. Without infringing the rights of people that haven't committed a crime (yet), how do you stop pedo-X who has never before gone searching for those materials to do so? You can't and worst, trying to do so only makes it harder to get the sickos who produce said material, prolonging their operation time and ensuring more kids will suffer at their hands.
Liberty is dangerous, but I rather live in a dangerous liberty than in a safe slavery (or dictatorship if you think them a different thing).
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085084For me, this is where it passes into the realm of the religious though, as I believe we cannot be truly free while a slave to sin, which required me to become a slave to something else so I could be free of that sin, and in becoming a slave to that something else, He truly set me free as His child.
This is what the Angels say. Especially the fallen ones. To have free will means you are free to sin if you want. You are not required to sin though, nor are you responsible for the sins of your mothers and fathers, or your sons and daughters (so long as you teach your children when they are young).
To choose freedom over slavery does not automatically make you a slave to freedom, because you always have the choice to change, ...if that is your desire.
Do you believe living in a world without sin would be the same as living in a world without freedom. ...If so, why do you believe this? This question is for you as well Geeky Bugle.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085093This is what the Angels say. Especially the fallen ones. To have free will means you are free to sin if you want. You are not required to sin though, nor are you responsible for the sins of your mothers and fathers, or your sons and daughters (so long as you teach your children when they are young).
To choose freedom over slavery does not automatically make you a slave to freedom, because you always have the choice to change, ...if that is your desire.
Do you believe living in a world without sin would the same as living in a world without freedom. ...If so, why do you believe this? This question is for you as well Geeky Bugle.
It would depend, is said world free of sin because you can't sin? Or is it free of sin because people can but don't? If you can't then we need to determine why you can't. Is there a perpetual big brother watching your every step and using algorythms to predict your sins and punishing you before you ever commit them? This would have a chilling effect and people would stop doing certain things. Therefore people aren't free.
If you can't because for some (non-coercive) reason you're unable to even think about it, then you're free.
This is like talking about Heaven as if it were Earth. Also it's almost denying that there are people sick in the head that truly can't see the difference between good and evil. Or that there are also people sick in the head who can but will do evil things anyway.
Does the end justify the means?
EDIT: I am free, because I do what I choose to do, it just happens that I don't choose to do evil shit. I'm fully capable of thinking about doing evil shit, but I choose not do do it and to not even think it, since it's a waste of time to fantasize abt taking revenge on X if you're not going to do it. There are better ways to vent steam.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085095It would depend, is said world free of sin because you can't sin? Or is it free of sin because people can but don't? If you can't then we need to determine why you can't. Is there a perpetual big brother watching your every step and using algorythms to predict your sins and punishing you before you ever commit them? This would have a chilling effect and people would stop doing certain things. Therefore people aren't free.
I'm pretty sure I have already put to the rest the part
moral obligations plays in determining whether or not a person is free. Is there some part of that you are not grokking?
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085095If you can't because for some (non-coercive) reason you're unable to even think about it, then you're free.
Not sure how one can be free without being able to think. please rephrase your question here.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085095This is like talking about Heaven as if it were Earth. Also it's almost denying that there are people sick in the head that truly can't see the difference between good and evil. Or that there are also people sick in the head who can but will do evil things anyway.
From the Lords Prayer;
"Thy will be done, on earth, ...at it is in heaven."
When you refer to people who are sick, they are not always free, because they are often bound by their illness. However there are times when most of them are not bound and can see clearly, does their illness preclude them from making the right choices when they comprehend?
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085095Does the end justify the means?
EDIT: I am free, because I do what I choose to do, it just happens that I don't choose to do evil shit. I'm fully capable of thinking about doing evil shit, but I choose not do do it and to not even think it, since it's a waste of time to fantasize abt taking revenge on X if you're not going to do it. There are better ways to vent steam.
Now you are just adding
time into the discussion to confuse things. Presume for a moment that the past, present, and future are all one. You have two simple choices to make? Do you live free, and also ensure the freedom of others, or not? Do you live in sin, or not? These are not mutually exclusive, you can have both, either, or neither. What do you choose? What should you choose?
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085093This is what the Angels say. Especially the fallen ones. To have free will means you are free to sin if you want. You are not required to sin though, nor are you responsible for the sins of your mothers and fathers, or your sons and daughters (so long as you teach your children when they are young).
Yet the concept of original sin itself makes us, in some way, responsible for the sin of our ultimate ancestor. We are born into the slavery of that sin through Adam's fault. If we are not bound by (responsible for) that original sin, then Christ's sacrifice is meaningless because I could choose to simply never sin and thus not need Christ.
QuoteTo choose freedom over slavery does not automatically make you a slave to freedom, because you always have the choice to change, ...if that is your desire.
I didn't choose to be a slave to freedom. I choose to be a slave to Christ (Ephesians and 1 Peter) because He chooses me and I have not rejected the gift.
QuoteDo you believe living in a world without sin would be the same as living in a world without freedom. ...If so, why do you believe this?
No. I believe it would be living in a world where you voluntarily enslave your will to the will of the Creator to do His will from your heart, and that the knowledge of what sin was like is such that a world remade without sin would know why having the freedom to choose to bind yourself to God is such a precious thing. No other choice really matters, and it is the only one from which all other freedoms flow.
...boy we went far afield quickly.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085103Yet the concept of original sin itself makes us, in some way, responsible for the sin of our ultimate ancestor. We are born into the slavery of that sin through Adam's fault. If we are not bound by (responsible for) that original sin, then Christ's sacrifice is meaningless because I could choose to simply never sin and thus not need Christ.
I didn't choose to be a slave to freedom. I choose to be a slave to Christ (Ephesians and 1 Peter) because He chooses me and I have not rejected the gift.
No. I believe it would be living in a world where you voluntarily enslave your will to the will of the Creator to do His will from your heart, and that the knowledge of what sin was like is such that a world remade without sin would know why having the freedom to choose to bind yourself to God is such a precious thing. No other choice really matters, and it is the only one from which all other freedoms flow.
...boy we went far afield quickly.
Greetings!
Outstanding, Tanin Wulf.:D
"As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord."
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Thank you Shark, but if I speak truthfully about Him, thank Him, for it is not I who speaks but the Spirit who gives me His words. :)
Also, your quote from Joshua is one of my favorites for when it comes to explaining my stance on the law.
It was implied over at the other site that the woman who was assaulted posted a reply to Bill Webb's statement but that got redacted by the mods for including her name. Since I couldn't see the post unredacted I couldn't tell if it was her original comments around the time of the assault or a new response. Has anyone seen additional commentary from her?
As one of TheRPGSite's resident theologians, I'm going to try to minimize dragging this further off topic, but I recommend this essay by George Weigel (https://eppc.org/publications/two-ideas-of-freedom/)--it might help folks understand why people seem to be talking at cross-purposes on the topic of freedom. (To give it some gaming relevance, it might be characterized as a Lawful vision of freedom in Thomas vs. a Chaotic vision of freedom in Ockham.)
Bunch, I saw it before it got redacted for violating the taboo, but it looked to be the original Paizo board posts from 2017.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1085109(To give it some gaming relevance, it might be characterized as a Lawful vision of freedom in Thomas vs. a Chaotic vision of freedom in Ockham.)
I like that. And good essay too.
Anything to support that anyone is actually sueing anyone, other than hearsay and a vague tweet?
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1085109As one of TheRPGSite's resident theologians, I'm going to try to minimize dragging this further off topic, but I recommend this essay by George Weigel (https://eppc.org/publications/two-ideas-of-freedom/)--it might help folks understand why people seem to be talking at cross-purposes on the topic of freedom. (To give it some gaming relevance, it might be characterized as a Lawful vision of freedom in Thomas vs. a Chaotic vision of freedom in Ockham.)
Bunch, I saw it before it got redacted for violating the taboo, but it looked to be the original Paizo board posts from 2017.
Greetings!
Thank you, Armchair Gamer. I read the essay, and saved it to my computer. It's very interesting and thoughtful. I also enjoyed recognizing many names from celebrated scholars that I read while studying them in my philosophy and theology classes. Brilliant, my friend!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085102I'm pretty sure I have already put to the rest the part moral obligations plays in determining whether or not a person is free. Is there some part of that you are not grokking?
Not sure how this relates to the part you're quoting.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085102Not sure how one can be free without being able to think. please rephrase your question here.
Let's say humanity has evolved to such a point and that there are no more Psychopaths or Sociopaths. Or that you're in Heaven. In the first case by natural means you can't think about such things and in the second case you're one with God and since there's no sin in Heaven (and I assume you agree there's such thing as sinfull toughts) you can't think such things.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085102From the Lords Prayer;
"Thy will be done, on earth, ...at it is in heaven."
When you refer to people who are sick, they are not always free, because they are often bound by their illness. However there are times when most of them are not bound and can see clearly, does their illness preclude them from making the right choices when they comprehend?
I will never be okey with a theocracy.
There are people who can't see the difference, Citation about "most being able to see it at times".
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085102Now you are just adding time into the discussion to confuse things.
Never assume malice when it can be explained by other means. I don't add anything to confusse anything. I'm explaining that TO ME it's a waste of time to think in doing harm to others since I will not do it.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085102Presume for a moment that the past, present, and future are all one.
Sorry I can't, and I'm not sure it's even possible. Since it would require for me to have 20/20 vision of all the possible consecquences of my actions.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085102You have two simple choices to make? Do you live free, and also ensure the freedom of others, or not?
Really? Only two simple choices uh? What happened to living free and not caring if others do so or not? Or to living free and only caring that my family and close friends do so?
I don't pressume to be the moral arbiter or to dictate to others how THEY have to live their lifes.
To trully respect other people's freedom you must allow for them to make choices that would limit their freedoms.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085102Do you live in sin, or not? These are not mutually exclusive, you can have both, either, or neither. What do you choose? What should you choose?
Yes, you can be free and evil, free and good, a slave and evil or a slave and good.
What I or you choose and what we SHOULD choose are not always the same, and I'm not in the habit of trying to force other's to live as I see fit. In this world, to be free you HAVE to be able to commit evil acts, the morality comes into place when I make a judgment about one possible act and choose not to do it because I deem it evil. (Or in certain cases because the mere tought makes me puke).
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1085109As one of TheRPGSite's resident theologians, I'm going to try to minimize dragging this further off topic, but I recommend this essay by George Weigel (https://eppc.org/publications/two-ideas-of-freedom/)--it might help folks understand why people seem to be talking at cross-purposes on the topic of freedom. (To give it some gaming relevance, it might be characterized as a Lawful vision of freedom in Thomas vs. a Chaotic vision of freedom in Ockham.)
Bunch, I saw it before it got redacted for violating the taboo, but it looked to be the original Paizo board posts from 2017.
Thanks reading it, I'm always open to new perspectives and to learning or changing my paradigms.
Many thoughts regarding the article shared by Armchair Gamer, I will not comment on all of it, since it would need many days to do so. But there's something that I profoundly disagree with and that I will address.
"Tyranny thrives in a world in which means always trump ends. The freedom of indifference cannot sustain a truly free society."
Er What? Is the author saying the ends justify the means?
Funny enough I disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas because he claims that evil intent always makes the ends evil and viceversa. And now the Author who at first seems to agree with him seems to be saying that the ends justify the means. Neither is true, the end isn't evil because the intent was evil nor good because the intent was good, much less do the ends justify the means.
Lets say Dangerhair X is trying to censor my game. The result is that more people know about it and since -now- there are enough people who don't believe the Dangerhairs or who just to stick it to them will either buy or promote my product I end up selling way more than previously anticipated.
Is that a bad result? Nope, and neither does the result justify her trying to censor me.
Lets say Person Y truly believes vaccines cause harm, and doesn't vaccinate his/her children, they get polio and end up paralytic. Does the intent make the result good? Does the result make her/his intent bad?
Evil outcomes can and often do come from good intentions.
This struck me as important, since the author also seems to be saying that making war to a country that had nothing to do with a terrorist attack was justified. Or that it's okey to invade other countries to impose liberty and democracy. It hasn't worked, it's not working and it will never work.
The debate about moral relativism is something few ppl seem to truly understand, conflating morals with ethics. Morals are relative, ethics are not. There are superior moral standards just like there are superior economic systems. We know this by studying the results, which is not to say that the bacha what'sit'sname use of raping young boys under 12 (because that's not gay sex somehow) is something to be accepted in an enlightened society because a more barbaric one finds it moral. Ethics are to be used to determine what moral standard is superior and should be followed.
It would be wise to instead use cultural relativism, since that's what the SJWs are truly arguing for. If all cultures are equal at every level then the mere act of judging a foreign culture is bad. But this isn't true, some cultures are better than others, some morals are better than others. And infringing in anybody's freedom on the basis of my morals IS Tyranny.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1085109As one of TheRPGSite's resident theologians, I'm going to try to minimize dragging this further off topic, but I recommend this essay by George Weigel (https://eppc.org/publications/two-ideas-of-freedom/)--it might help folks understand why people seem to be talking at cross-purposes on the topic of freedom. (To give it some gaming relevance, it might be characterized as a Lawful vision of freedom in Thomas vs. a Chaotic vision of freedom in Ockham.)
Bunch, I saw it before it got redacted for violating the taboo, but it looked to be the original Paizo board posts from 2017.
Thank you! It's not trivial to try to figure out from first hand sources what is going on with the whole Bill Webb's thing. Is his statement the first statement of what went on? Up until I saw his stay all I could determine is she said she was harassed. He apologized for poor behavior and she seemed to be done with the matter.
Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;1085115Anything to support that anyone is actually sueing anyone, other than hearsay and a vague tweet?
You need more proof of something than a Tweet? Why? :confused:
How dare you sir! Tweets are our most sacred and profound communication!
And Brawndo has what Tweets crave.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085196You need more proof of something than a Tweet? Why? :confused:
How dare you sir! Tweets are our most sacred and profound communication!
And Brawndo has what Tweets crave.
I stand corrected - such a shame if 16+ pages of gloating would be all for nought. Tweet my pretties, tweets of justice.
on Nick Reiketa's stream tonight, he made a quick update, he said the lawsuit is still developing and the early stage, also the night of his first stream, SJG's site had there biggest sales, even including Chistmas, and black friday, so ppl are quite happy to support them
Quote from: Goober;1085256on Nick Reiketa's stream tonight, he made a quick update, he said the lawsuit is still developing and the early stage, also the night of his first stream, SJG's site had there biggest sales, even including Chistmas, and black friday, so ppl are quite happy to support them
And his sources are....?
Quote from: S'mon;1085030Not sure how you could have missed it:
(https://i2.wp.com/froggodgames.com/frogs/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/graphic-1.png?w=624&ssl=1)
Forgive me if I'm reading that wrong, but... that's not her saying she hurt herself pulling him off someone, that's her saying someone was?
And, well, she's Crystal Frasier, isn't she one of the well known nutbars? Price, Helton, Dellorfano... any of them told me the sun came up this morning, I'd make sure to check NASA's website to make sure a spontaneous nova hadn't occurred. I sure as heck wouldn't take their words about one of their political enemies (straight white normal men) at face value without evidence.
Quote from: Lurtch;1085264And his sources are....?
His source is Steve Jackson Games.
He also mentioned that he wasn't impressed with Bill Webb's public apology about this, but he takes the stance that many who have tangled with SJWs have -- never apologize, because they twist it into an admission of guilt.
Quote from: KiTA;1085279And, well, she's Crystal Frasier, isn't she one of the well known nutbars?
Statements 'against interest' are normally considered more reliable. So Frasier being an SJW, makes Frasier saying Webb did not assault anyone, more reliable, not less.
Depends on the jury.
Quote from: Lurtch;1085264And his sources are....?
Bill Webb's lawyer, Ty Beard. Of, I believe, Beard, Harris, Bullock, and Hughes.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085123Not sure how this relates to the part you're quoting.
Changing the subject and moving the goalposts. sjw. Please reread until you do understand. feel free to ask specific questions about any part of where I stated that moral obligations have no relevance in determining if a person is free.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085123Let's say humanity has evolved to such a point and that there are no more Psychopaths or Sociopaths. Or that you're in Heaven. In the first case by natural means you can't think about such things and in the second case you're one with God and since there's no sin in Heaven (and I assume you agree there's such thing as sinfull toughts) you can't think such things.
This would be incorrect. First ...thinking is not a sin. Second, it is irrelevant whether there are no more psychopaths or sociopaths because that certainly wouldn't prevent me from continuing to think about good and evil, and about ways to be good. Finally it's not that one can't think sinful thoughts in heaven, so much as no one want to think any sinful thoughts anymore. big difference. What you are claiming of what I can and can't do is impossible, and so would not occur. that would be in any conceivable future where I have free will, and our lord did grant us free will, did he not?
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085123Never assume malice when it can be explained by other means. I don't add anything to confusse anything. I'm explaining that TO ME it's a waste of time to think in doing harm to others since I will not do it.
This is a false statement and a lie from you, since you are doing harm to me, as we agree here, and yet you insist on continuing to argue that morality is relative.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085123Sorry I can't, and I'm not sure it's even possible to presume that the past. present, and future are all one. Since it would require for me to have 20/20 vision of all the possible consecquences of my actions.
I'm sorry you are unable to properly conceive this, and that your vision of what is real, and what is not real, is tainted by your argument for your own limitations.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085123I don't pressume to be the moral arbiter or to dictate to others how THEY have to live their lifes.
To trully respect other people's freedom you must allow for them to make choices that would limit their freedoms.
No, and no. First, if someone else is going to live their life and injure or kill me or someone else. a third party perhaps, then you can count on it that I will interfere to prevent them from harming me or others. Second, I'll respect other peoples freedom, and they get to make choices to limit their freedom, but I am going to show them the consequences of their choices, and I'll do my best to show them in advance, how the choice they make will limit their freedom. With that I am respecting them, by giving them an opportunity to make the best decision possible.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085123Yes, you can be free and evil, free and good, a slave and evil or a slave and good.
What I or you choose and what we SHOULD choose are not always the same, and I'm not in the habit of trying to force other's to live as I see fit. In this world, to be free you HAVE to be able to commit evil acts, the morality comes into place when I make a judgment about one possible act and choose not to do it because I deem it evil. (Or in certain cases because the mere tought makes me puke).
No, if you are evil, you are bound by some compulsion that prevents you from being good, and therefore you are not free. What you do choose, and what you should choose, should be the same. No one should feel compelled to commit evil acts in order to be free, because that compulsion binds you to an outcome that produces and grows evil.
Finally, if you feel compelled to commit evil acts to me, or to anyone else, and I'm around, I'm going to probably react like she does here...
(https://i.imgur.com/pdzUWp5.jpg)
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085162Funny enough I disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas because he claims that evil intent always makes the ends evil and viceversa...
Lets say Dangerhair X is trying to censor my game. The result is that more people know about it and since -now- there are enough people who don't believe the Dangerhairs or who just to stick it to them will either buy or promote my product I end up selling way more than previously anticipated.
Is that a bad result? Nope, and neither does the result justify her trying to censor me.
This is incorrect. The result is bad, not for Dangerhairs X, but perhaps for the other people (like, for example, Dangerhair Z) that lost out on business they may have needed to survive, becuase Dangerhairs X suddenly took the money that third parties were originally intent on giving Dangerhair Z, Now Dangerhair Z can't pay for the polio vaccine that would help his children.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085162Lets say Person Y truly believes vaccines cause harm, and doesn't vaccinate his/her children, they get polio and end up paralytic. Does the intent make the result good? Does the result make her/his intent bad?
Yes. and here is why. If there is evidence that the polio vaccine will help his children, and that person refuses to evaluate that evidence and insists on refusing the vaccine, then the result will be bad, regardless of the intent of the person who is responsible for making the decision, the result is bad, the odds are against the survival and continued health of the child. Anything that can be attributed to ignorance, is evil.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085162Evil outcomes can and often do come from good intentions.
Sometimes, yes. Much more common though is that evil outcomes come from actively being evil, or in a person taking no action at all to prevent evil from taking root and spreading. Which do you choose? Are you going to try to do good, are you going to do nothing, or are you going to be evil. These are really the only choices available to you at any moment in time.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085162This struck me as important, since the author also seems to be saying that making war to a country that had nothing to do with a terrorist attack was justified. Or that it's okey to invade other countries to impose liberty and democracy. It hasn't worked, it's not working and it will never work.
Well, we agree completely here. A question for you on this though, since invading other countries and killing people doesn't work to establish liberty and democracy in other countries what are you actively doing to stop the damage being done by our own government and military to conducting such action?
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085162The debate about moral relativism is something few ppl seem to truly understand, conflating morals with ethics. Morals are relative, ethics are not. There are superior moral standards just like there are superior economic systems. We know this by studying the results, which is not to say that the bacha what'sit'sname use of raping young boys under 12 (because that's not gay sex somehow) is something to be accepted in an enlightened society because a more barbaric one finds it moral. Ethics are to be used to determine what moral standard is superior and should be followed.
It would be wise to instead use cultural relativism, since that's what the SJWs are truly arguing for. If all cultures are equal at every level then the mere act of judging a foreign culture is bad. But this isn't true, some cultures are better than others, some morals are better than others. And infringing in anybody's freedom on the basis of my morals IS Tyranny.
Morals are not relative. First, the claim that morality is relative and conventional is itself a moral claim - yet it is put forward as an objective and non-conventional fact.
Minimally, this shows that not all morality is relative, whether or not there is a god.Secondly, people who put forward such relativism often draw the conclusion that therefore we 'ought' not to interfere in the practices of other cultures. But if morality is all relative, then there can be no objective 'ought' about not interfering in other cultures. Relativism does not offer support for toleration. If all morality is relative, then toleration is no more objectively the answer than authoritarianism.
Thirdly, do religious believers really think that if there were no God or gods, it would be perfectly morally acceptable - objectively - for them to rape, pillage and murder? I doubt it.
These are just some of the considerations that should lead us to beware claims such as
'It's all relative, isn't it.' ?
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085377Thirdly, do religious believers really think that if there were no God or gods, it would be perfectly morally acceptable - objectively - for them to rape, pillage and murder? I doubt it.
Check your history books and your current newsfeed. Religious believers quite often believe it's awesomesauce to rape, pillage and murder.
In many cases murder is beyond "morally acceptable", and in fact required, expected or honored by their god.
Humans suck.
And abolishing religion only means the suckass humans do the same stuff under a different guise.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085368Changing the subject and moving the goalposts. sjw. Please reread until you do understand. feel free to ask specific questions about any part of where I stated that moral obligations have no relevance in determining if a person is free.
1.- How did I change the subject or tried to move the goal post? Again assuming malice.
2.- So I'm an SJW eh? Nice, I have been civil to you but you resort to namecalling. Lets see if you like it when I respond in kind.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085368This would be incorrect. First ...thinking is not a sin. Second, it is irrelevant whether there are no more psychopaths or sociopaths because that certainly wouldn't prevent me from continuing to think about good and evil, and about ways to be good. Finally it's not that one can't think sinful thoughts in heaven, so much as no one want to think any sinful thoughts anymore. big difference. What you are claiming of what I can and can't do is impossible, and so would not occur. that would be in any conceivable future where I have free will, and our lord did grant us free will, did he not?
3.- No sin of tought eh? Exodus 20:17
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085368This is a false statement and a lie from you, since you are doing harm to me, as we agree here, and yet you insist on continuing to argue that morality is relative.
4.- So you are a mind reader and my writen words are somehow harming you?
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085368No, and no. First, if someone else is going to live their life and injure or kill me or someone else. a third party perhaps, then you can count on it that I will interfere to prevent them from harming me or others. Second, I'll respect other peoples freedom, and they get to make choices to limit their freedom, but I am going to show them the consequences of their choices, and I'll do my best to show them in advance, how the choice they make will limit their freedom. With that I am respecting them, by giving them an opportunity to make the best decision possible.
5.- Eh? We have laws to punish those who violate other's people's rights. Even Here in México.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085368No, if you are evil, you are bound by some compulsion that prevents you from being good, and therefore you are not free. What you do choose, and what you should choose, should be the same. No one should feel compelled to commit evil acts in order to be free, because that compulsion binds you to an outcome that produces and grows evil.
6.- Which contradicts that wich you said before and the part I'm answering here. Since YOU said you could have both, neither or one or the other. Remember that part about moving goalposts?
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085368Finally, if you feel compelled to commit evil acts to me, or to anyone else, and I'm around, I'm going to probably react like she does here...
(https://i.imgur.com/pdzUWp5.jpg)
7.- And now the threats, Boy wish I had known you're an internet tough guy before.
8.- Regarding your other response to one of my posts. I'm a Maya, born, raised and living in México City, I can't do shit about YOUR government invading countries with the pretext of freedom, democracy, morals, or WoMD.
9.- Due to the name calling and threats I'm getting out of this "conversation". See you in the interwebs tough guy.
I'm unsure how the preteen Goth-wannabe pointing to her Hot Topic t-shirt is a threat.
Maybe I'm missing the GoT reference?
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085386I can't do shit about YOUR government invading countries with the pretext of freedom, democracy, morals, or WoMD.
We can't do shit either! You'd think voting would have an effect, but its remarkably minimal. Even our Nobel Peace Prize President had a boner for invasions!
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085384Check your history books and your current newsfeed. Religious believers quite often believe it's awesomesauce to rape, pillage and murder.
In many cases murder is beyond "morally acceptable", and in fact required, expected or honored by their god.
Humans suck.
And abolishing religion only means the suckass humans do the same stuff under a different guise.
Yeah but now its mainly just the regressive religions like the Muslims that support rape, pillage and murder. Even the fucking Catholics dont officially condone their rapists.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085384Check your history books and your current newsfeed. Religious believers quite often believe it's awesomesauce to rape, pillage and murder.
In many cases murder is beyond "morally acceptable", and in fact required, expected or honored by their god.
Humans suck.
And abolishing religion only means the suckass humans do the same stuff under a different guise.
Couldn't agree with you more, just watch the SJWs creating their atheist religion to justify their BS.
Human's suck
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085387We can't do shit either! You'd think voting would have an effect, but its remarkably minimal. Even our Nobel Peace Prize President had a boner for invasions!
And droning people, many times innocent people or American Citizens, and let's not forget giving guns to the cartels.
Quote from: Shasarak;1085388Yeah but now its mainly just the regressive religions like the Muslims that support rape, pillage and murder. Even the fucking Catholics dont officially condone their rapists.
Not true, The last Pope protected them and sent a letter to the cardinals or bishops to keep the pedo scandals under covers. (no pun intended) And the current one isn't any better.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085390And droning people, many times innocent people or American Citizens, and let's not forget giving guns to the cartels.
Greetings!
Yeah, my friend. In the Chapo trial up here, oh, shit! You should have seen *some* elements of the Department of Justice grabbing their nuts when the lists came out, the notes, the reciepts, all showing numerous Congressmen and Senators, and high-ranking DOJ officials all taking hush money from the Cartels, looking the other way, and other such corrupt bullshit. In addition to it being revealed that the cartels paid the last Mexican President 100 million dollars...to wink and nod, and look the other way. Yeah, pursue, kill, and arrest these cartels over here on the left hand, but yes yes and nod to the cartels over here on the right hand doing business.
All of these fuckers should be lined up against a wall and shot. Or dropped into a Supermax for the rest of their fucking lives. GRRRR.:mad: It's so shameful and pathetic, GeekyBugle. My Mexican girlfriend and much of her family used to tell me they wished we could invade Mexico and get rid of the cartels. (All are currently citizens; some were born here, while more than a few immigrated from Mexico.):) I told them you know, if Mexico invited us, we could do it, and it would be good. But for pride and political reasons, they will never do that. As an American, I'm not always hot in support of every fucking patch of sand we go off sending troops into, and fighting wars, for whatever alleged reason, for "securing American interests." After reading about the mass graves, the mass rapes, the corruption, the literal torture and slaughter of hundreds, thousands even, of innocent Mexicans down there in Mexico, it makes me feel like, you know what? MEXICO is our friend! MEXICO is like our little sister, and our little brother. A happy, safe MEXICO is damned fucking right in American interests. Fuck the Middle East. If we are going to send troops anywhere, it should be into Mexico, and honestly say, we are here to help you, lift you up, and protect you. You damn right we want you to have liberty, peace and security. Having Mexico go to shit and be this fucking wasteland of savages is in our interest. It hurts us in every way, economically, emotionally, and also security wise. I wish we could make something happen in Mexico. *LOTS* of Mexicans here in America would definitely support such action. After all, many also have relatives that live down there in Mexico. Our happiness, security, and success, are thoroughly intertwined, and interdependent.
Ahh. Geesus. Yeah, so frustrating, Mi' Amigo. I wish you all the best down there.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085391Not true, The last Pope protected them and sent a letter to the cardinals or bishops to keep the pedo scandals under covers. (no pun intended) And the current one isn't any better.
I am not going to apologise for those guys and on the other hand Catholics dont get told that they will be getting virgins in heaven for becoming a suicide bomber or go around killing children because they go to school or wear the wrong clothes or what ever wrong headedness the Muslims believe in. Even the Irish extremists have been in decline since the Americans cut off their money supply.
Quote from: SHARK;1085399Greetings!
Yeah, my friend. In the Chapo trial up here, oh, shit! You should have seen *some* elements of the Department of Justice grabbing their nuts when the lists came out, the notes, the reciepts, all showing numerous Congressmen and Senators, and high-ranking DOJ officials all taking hush money from the Cartels, looking the other way, and other such corrupt bullshit. In addition to it being revealed that the cartels paid the last Mexican President 100 million dollars...to wink and nod, and look the other way. Yeah, pursue, kill, and arrest these cartels over here on the left hand, but yes yes and nod to the cartels over here on the right hand doing business.
All of these fuckers should be lined up against a wall and shot. Or dropped into a Supermax for the rest of their fucking lives. GRRRR.:mad: It's so shameful and pathetic, GeekyBugle. My Mexican girlfriend and much of her family used to tell me they wished we could invade Mexico and get rid of the cartels. (All are currently citizens; some were born here, while more than a few immigrated from Mexico.):) I told them you know, if Mexico invited us, we could do it, and it would be good. But for pride and political reasons, they will never do that. As an American, I'm not always hot in support of every fucking patch of sand we go off sending troops into, and fighting wars, for whatever alleged reason, for "securing American interests." After reading about the mass graves, the mass rapes, the corruption, the literal torture and slaughter of hundreds, thousands even, of innocent Mexicans down there in Mexico, it makes me feel like, you know what? MEXICO is our friend! MEXICO is like our little sister, and our little brother. A happy, safe MEXICO is damned fucking right in American interests. Fuck the Middle East. If we are going to send troops anywhere, it should be into Mexico, and honestly say, we are here to help you, lift you up, and protect you. You damn right we want you to have liberty, peace and security. Having Mexico go to shit and be this fucking wasteland of savages is in our interest. It hurts us in every way, economically, emotionally, and also security wise. I wish we could make something happen in Mexico. *LOTS* of Mexicans here in America would definitely support such action. After all, many also have relatives that live down there in Mexico. Our happiness, security, and success, are thoroughly intertwined, and interdependent.
Ahh. Geesus. Yeah, so frustrating, Mi' Amigo. I wish you all the best down there.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Yeah both governments are in the take.
Regarding the drugs, prohibition never works, look at Portugal, decriminalized everything and instead are spending much less in detox/rehabilitation, and are having great success.
I don't trust my own police or soldiers, what makes you think your's would stand a cannon shot of say a million dollars? And the cartels have that and more. Cut their money source by legalizing everything, freeze their accounts (and your government knows which ones). And matter solved.
Thanks for your wishes, with our current dear leader I fear we're going towards Venezuela2.0
Quote from: Shasarak;1085400I am not going to apologise for those guys and on the other hand Catholics dont get told that they will be getting virgins in heaven for becoming a suicide bomber or go around killing children because they go to school or wear the wrong clothes or what ever wrong headedness the Muslims believe in. Even the Irish extremists have been in decline since the Americans cut off their money supply.
You shouldn't apologize for stuff someone else did. They did it and they aren't apologizing, eff them.
You won't get an argument from me, I think we agree Islam is worst than any other religion, by a mile.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085387Even our Nobel Peace Prize President had a boner for invasions!
Flashback 2013: If you oppose Obama invading Syria, you're a racist!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085387I'm unsure how the preteen Goth-wannabe pointing to her Hot Topic t-shirt is a threat.
Maybe I'm missing the GoT reference?
It's Arya Stark's actress pointing to a line that was quoted most recently in season 8 episode 3 about what we say to the god of death.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1085368Finally, if you feel compelled to commit evil acts to me, or to anyone else, and I'm around, I'm going to probably react like she does here...
(https://i.imgur.com/pdzUWp5.jpg)
You mean you are going to become a cute young goth lady wearing a T-shirt?
Dude, share what you are smoking!
Quote from: jeff37923;1085413You mean you are going to become a cute young goth lady wearing a T-shirt?
Dude, share what you are smoking!
Haha... not anytime soon. It simply seemed appropriate for the discussion. If there is anyone here that thinks it's ok to commit evil, or be evil to people, and I'm around to witness that, they will find their actions lamentable.
What do you say to the God of Death? What do you say to the God of Evil. Not today!
Some of you are lucky that the thread was closed before I got here. Seriously, guys, HOW FUCKING HARD is it to STAY ON TOPIC??