Quote from: wmarshal;1052602Spinachat, I don't think GenCon deserves blame for what happened, but I do think that going forward they do have an obligation to ban Matt Loter.

If he's found to be guilty or culpable yes.  

Not on hearsay.

Quote from: TJS;1052607If he's found to be guilty or culpable yes.  

Not on hearsay.

Which is why they couldn't keep him out of this Gencon. Officially, they have to wait for a resolution.
But it's way more than hearsay now, except in the strictest legal sense. As to consequences, I am probably more strongly for the rights of the accused than almost anyone and insist on the strict legal sense but for purposes of conversation the bastard's guilty.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1052610Which is why they couldn't keep him out of this Gencon. Officially, they have to wait for a resolution.
But it's way more than hearsay now, except in the strictest legal sense. As to consequences, I am probably more strongly for the rights of the accused than almost anyone and insist on the strict legal sense but for purposes of conversation the bastard's guilty.

Well your more confident than I am - I'd say it looks like he's guilty - but it's not so clearcut - we still only have one side's version of what actually went on, and there's some aspects that do seem strange - such as why the bar wouldn't seek police involvement for criminal damage to their window.

Quote from: TJS;1052611Well your more confident than I am - I'd say it looks like he's guilty - but it's not so clearcut - we still only have one side's version of what actually went on, and there's some aspects that do seem strange - such as why the bar wouldn't seek police involvement for criminal damage to their window.

The damage to their window makes it an extreme case but I remember the reaction of a bar back in New Haven to a fight that spilled out of the bar into the middle of the street: "Didn't see anything; it happened out in the street." Getting involved is not in the bar's interest.

Quote from: wmarshal;1052602Spinachat, I don't think GenCon deserves blame for what happened, but I do think that going forward they do have an obligation to ban Matt Loter.

Imagine the following situation:
1. You're throwing a party at your house.
2. Two of the people (Mr. D and Mr. R) that you've invited have strong allegiances to the Democrat and Republican parties. Mr. D is a staunch Democrat, and Mr R is a staunch Republican.
3. Mr. R puts word out on Twitter that he'd like to punch anyone attending Mr. Spinachat's party who happens to be a Democrat. You don't necessarily know about this tweet because you're living an actual life and prepping for the party.
4. While at the party someone points out to Mr. B that Mr. D is a Democrat.
5. Mr. D exits your house to get in his car to pick up some smokes, and plans to come back to your party.
6. While Mr D. is on the street and getting into his car, Mr. R sucker punches Mr. D. Mr. R then drives back to his own home.
7. There were several witnesses to Mr. R assaulting Mr. D. Mr. D files a police report. Mr. R's previous social media statements threatening violence to any Deomocrats who attends Mr. Spinachat's party are found.
8. All of the above information is made known to you.

Do you think it would be out of bounds (Orwellian/nanny state) for you to stop inviting Mr. R to your parties? That's what I believe some of us are asking of GenCon.

Would you instead continue to invite both Mr. D and Mr. R to your parties, essentially telling Mr. D you won't tolerate any violence in your house, but immediately upon leaving your house he's on his own as far as not getting attacked by Mr. R, whom you've continued to invite to the same parties?

I hate the Orwellian vision of the future as much as anyone, but I don't think this is the scenario we have here.

This is valid, but it ignores how Gen Con handled news and discussion of the incident on their media platforms. It looked like an attempt to choose sides and cover up the crime. As Spinichcat has explained upthread, it could just be really bad timing and execution on the part of Gen Con staff. However, it looks really bad for them when all discussion of the incident was quashed with bannings and threats of bannings if it was talked about on their social media channels and then endorsement of the game and publishing group that the assailant was associated with on Twitter during Gen Con.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1052610Which is why they couldn't keep him out of this Gencon. Officially, they have to wait for a resolution.
But it's way more than hearsay now, except in the strictest legal sense. As to consequences, I am probably more strongly for the rights of the accused than almost anyone and insist on the strict legal sense but for purposes of conversation the bastard's guilty.

My 8 point "Spinachat throws a party" scenario made above was to try to draw an analogy to the whole scenario as we know it. However, I think GenCon has sufficient justification to ban Matt Loter solely on on the fact that he specifically threatened to seek violence against other GenCon attendees. He did make those threats on twitter, and in a Dice Tower interview he bragged about punching another attendee in 2004. He was not speaking of defending himself, but rather using GenCon as a hunting ground to find people he wanted to punch. That it seems he actually acted on his threats he is additional justification for a ban in my opinion. i don't think GenCon has to wait for a formal guilty verdict at the end of a criminal trial, which may be difficult to have occur since Matt Loter lives in another state. There might be another side to the events that happened, but as far as I know Matt hasn't communicated that other side to anyone. With the information we have at hand, I think a ban is warranted. I don't think GenCon had to issue such a ban very next day after the event occurred as these things take time, but I think a substantive response from them within a couple of weeks of the end of the con is enough time.

Quote from: wmarshal;1052614My 8 point "Spinachat throws a party" scenario made above was to try to draw an analogy to the whole scenario as we know it. However, I think GenCon has sufficient justification to ban Matt Loter solely on on the fact that he specifically threatened to seek violence against other GenCon attendees. He did make those threats on twitter, and in a Dice Tower interview he bragged about punching another attendee in 2004. He was not speaking of defending himself, but rather using GenCon as a hunting ground to find people he wanted to punch. That it seems he actually acted on his threats he is additional justification for a ban in my opinion. i don't think GenCon has to wait for a formal guilty verdict at the end of a criminal trial, which may be difficult to have occur since Matt Loter lives in another state. There might be another side to the events that happened, but as far as I know Matt hasn't communicated that other side to anyone. With the information we have at hand, I think a ban is warranted. I don't think GenCon had to issue such a ban very next day after the event occurred as these things take time, but I think a substantive response from them within a couple of weeks of the end of the con is enough time.

Am I missing something here?  Isn't the tweet in question something like "if you have a problem with Anita Sarkeesian fucking fight me".  It's not really clear this is supposed to be a threat - at least not before the case - and the video isn't particularly strong either - is the event in 2004 a real event or a joke - if it really happened who was the victim?  Overall when taken together they add to together to make a somewhat circumstantial case - but given that, as far as I can see, no one independent of the victim (except possibly at this point the police) seems to have spoken to a witness who can identify the assailant, then it would be foolish for Gen Con to ban anyone right now - not when legal proceedings are underway and there's a whole year to see how things shake out.  And it's hardly surprising, given this is a police matter that there hasn't been a public denial - innocent or guilty he's probably been given legal advice to say nothing.

Quote from: TJS;1052616Am I missing something here?  Isn't the tweet in question something like "if you have a problem with Anita Sarkeesian fucking fight me".  It's not really clear this is supposed to be a threat - at least not before the case - and the video isn't particularly strong either - is the event in 2004 a real event or a joke - if it really happened who was the victim?  Overall when taken together they add to together to make a somewhat circumstantial case - but given that, as far as I can see, no one independent of the victim (except possibly at this point the police) seems to have spoken to a witness who can identify the assailant, then it would be foolish for Gen Con to ban anyone right now - not when legal proceedings are underway and there's a whole year to see how things shake out.  And it's hardly surprising, given this is a police matter that there hasn't been a public denial - innocent or guilty he's probably been given legal advice to say nothing.

I read Matt's tweet as a threat. He wants to engage in violence with any GenCon attendee who disagrees with GenCon's invitation of Anita Sarkeesian. This should not be acceptable dialogue from an attendee directed towards other attendees. He's not making any claim to self defense. He's stating that he wants to escalate a difference of opinion into violence. I take him at his word. I think GenCon should, too.

Quote from: wmarshal;1052619I read Matt's tweet as a threat. He wants to engage in violence with any GenCon attendee who disagrees with GenCon's invitation of Anita Sarkeesian. This should not be acceptable dialogue from an attendee directed towards other attendees. He's not making any claim to self defense. He's stating that he wants to escalate a difference of opinion into violence. I take him at his word. I think GenCon should, too.

If anyone had threatened Ms. Sarkeesian Gencon would have banned them. I don't agree with some that consistency is enough (which is why I favor an electronic strike zone) but consistency is sort of the minimum standard to which one can hold authority figures.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1052621If anyone had threatened Ms. Sarkeesian Gencon would have banned them. I don't agree with some that consistency is enough (which is why I favor an electronic strike zone) but consistency is sort of the minimum standard to which one can hold authority figures.

Consistency has to be based on real events however.

You can't claim inconsistency over hypothetical events.  Especially if the hypothetical event - threat against a specific person - isn't even the same thing as an apparent blowhard making a general callout against non-specific individuals.

Quote from: TJS;1052622Consistency has to be based on real events however.

You can't claim inconsistency over hypothetical events.  Especially the hypothetical event - threat against a specific person - isn't even the same thing as an apparent blowhard making a general callout against non-specific individuals.

The threats aren't hypothetical. The "it was hyperbole" and "I was just kidding" defenses would avail someone who threatened Ms. S. nothing and should avail this guy nothing. If you imagine that they would not bar someone who threatened her you have a fine imagination.

Quote from: TJS;1052622Consistency has to be based on real events however.

You can't claim inconsistency over hypothetical events.  Especially if the hypothetical event - threat against a specific person - isn't even the same thing as an apparent blowhard making a general callout against non-specific individuals.

The proposition of Matt Loter being a "blowhard" is not apparent to me, and I can imagine it's not apparent to many others. I think we should be beyond of lending credulity to the bullying tactic of trying to excuse bad actions with "I was just kidding" or "I didn't mean it."

Quote from: wmarshal;1052602Spinachat, I don't think GenCon deserves blame for what happened, but I do think that going forward they do have an obligation to ban Matt Loter.

Imagine the following situation:
1. You're throwing a party at your house.
2. Two of the people (Mr. D and Mr. R) that you've invited have strong allegiances to the Democrat and Republican parties. Mr. D is a staunch Democrat, and Mr R is a staunch Republican.
3. Mr. R puts word out on Twitter that he'd like to punch anyone attending Mr. Spinachat's party who happens to be a Democrat. You don't necessarily know about this tweet because you're living an actual life and prepping for the party.
4. While at the party someone points out to Mr. B that Mr. D is a Democrat.
5. Mr. D exits your house to get in his car to pick up some smokes, and plans to come back to your party.
6. While Mr D. is on the street and getting into his car, Mr. R sucker punches Mr. D. Mr. R then drives back to his own home.
7. There were several witnesses to Mr. R assaulting Mr. D. Mr. D files a police report. Mr. R's previous social media statements threatening violence to any Deomocrats who attends Mr. Spinachat's party are found.
8. All of the above information is made known to you.

Do you think it would be out of bounds (Orwellian/nanny state) for you to stop inviting Mr. R to your parties? That's what I believe some of us are asking of GenCon.

Would you instead continue to invite both Mr. D and Mr. R to your parties, essentially telling Mr. D you won't tolerate any violence in your house, but immediately upon leaving your house he's on his own as far as not getting attacked by Mr. R, whom you've continued to invite to the same parties?

I hate the Orwellian vision of the future as much as anyone, but I don't think this is the scenario we have here.

You're forgetting the part where Mr R tweets YOU and tells you he's hunting at your party.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1052624The threats aren't hypothetical. The "it was hyperbole" and "I was just kidding" defenses would avail someone who threatened Ms. S. nothing and should avail this guy nothing. If you imagine that they would not bar someone who threatened her you have a fine imagination.

See your use of the subjunctive would - there's your hypothetical.  And as I said - your hypothetical situation isn't really the same as the actual situation.  Furthermore it doesn't really matter what you believe or I believe Gen Con would do in a hypothetical situation - you can't be inconsistent before the fact.

Quote from: wmarshal;1052625The proposition of Matt Loter being a "blowhard" is not apparent to me, and I can imagine it's not apparent to many others. I think we should be beyond of lending credulity to the bullying tactic of trying to excuse bad actions with "I was just kidding" or "I didn't mean it."

Who's excusing bad actions?  If he assaulted Hambly he should be banned for that.  If he did it, then the tweet is irrelevant to whether Gen Con should ban him or not.

Is the tweet alone sufficient to justify banning?  I think no.  I think a threat needs to be more specific before we start policing people based on things they say on social media.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1052626You're forgetting the part where Mr R tweets YOU and tells you he's hunting at your party.

? ? ?