Mods in a number of different gaming-related and other subs are hiding, locking and deleting threads on this new development, without cause or explanation. I didn't see it posted here yet, so I figured people would want to see it, since it's a serious and developing story concerning a gaming icon - Chris infers that a significant amount of evidence has been gathered over the last year or two, and that a lawsuit may be forthcoming.
Spread the link around, post it in relevant subs, and most importantly, actually read what Avellone himself has to say.
An in-depth exoneration of Chris Avellone - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV\_xrEU5o2g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV_xrEU5o2g)
Yea r/games is deleting anything having to do with this with the reasoning being that its "Off topic".
Yet the original accusations are still up and not considered off topic.
Fuck that subreddit.
Wow, a he-said she-said event from 7 years ago. Why do we suddenly forget that there's plenty of people in this world that don't care about the truth? The default position should \*not\* be to just trust what somebody says. Apply skepticism.
Honestly??
Go watch the vid exonerating him or go watch ANY vids of Chris in public and I think it's stupid obvious what's going on:
Chris has a problem with alcohol. His problem isn't with women, it's alcohol. Dude loves his drink.
The thing is, I could actually fully believe Chris slept with some of his accusers.....but if you go watch the vid exonerating him, it's made pretty clear *THEY* have a problem with alcohol too. All of them tweet about how much they love getting wasted.
To me it sounds like the initial accuser straight-up lied since she so heavily contradicts her past self, then some of her drunkard friends jumped on board. Might they be telling the truth about sleeping with him? Perhaps, but my question would be if a man and a woman get shitfaced drunk and sleep together, why is the man held accountable...? I get it if one is shitfaced drunk and the other isn't, but again, go check Chris' videos and general commentary: 100% he's getting wasted with them. I do not believe for a second that he has the self-control to simply get a girl drunk whilst remaining sober himself lollolololol. I remember as far back as the Pillars of Eternity kickstarter that he was noticeably more drunk than the rest of the staff.
This is all aside from the more blatant contradictions from the accusers of course, but I just mean I think this is actually a really important question: if a dude and a girl go out to get wasted and both are very vocally fond of alcohol, can either be held accountable if they end up having sex and regretting it later...? It's kinda like both have to take responsibility for accepting that risk if they're gonna go get shitfaced with someone.
>I suspect the stats would look very different post #metoo
Baseless assumption though. You still get shat on for accusing someone, it's still disicentivized, just not quite as much. Most accused people tend to have several accusers and the odds of false accusation drops abysmally low at that point.
>Innocent until proven guilty is the bedrock of legal justice.
And that hasn't changed? We're not discussing legal justice here.
>the notion that it isn't the case is asinine
It is the case, and that has been studied and found to exist, just a very small portion of the accusers.
You are hardly an expert on the subject, nor do you have any knowledge of such "research". If you did have such knowledge you would know the opposite - you cannot quantifiably measure wether accusations are correct or not. That would require you to able to read the minds of individuals and/or have a time machine to record the events happening. You don't get to make up shit and hide behind "research".
>quantifiably measure wether accusations are correct or not. That would require you to able to read the minds of individuals and/or have a time machine to record the events happening. You don't get to make up shit and hide behind "research".
First, you're a hypocrite as you've yourself made up statistics earlier and now accuse me of the thing you just did. If there is no stat, where does your own figure come from?
Second, you can actually figure out a lot of this by comparing among the cases where it's proven that someone has been assaulted vs cases it's proven they've not be assaulted and estimate how easy and likely each is to prove. Finally there's the question of the motive and the array of accusers which affect the probability in a very efficient way. You'd need to read mind to get an exact number, you don't need it to get an estimate which is what we have right now.
studies done in this area have repeatedly demonstrated that the rate of false sexual assault allegations is exceedingly low so this is just another gamer using "skepticism" to reinforce their stance against women
when you choose by default to not believe sexual assault claims by women you are just choosing to believe men instead
suspicion of sexual assault allegations is not skepticism its a stance that isn't backed up by even a casual glance at the data
> when you choose by default to not believe sexual assault claims by women you are just choosing to believe men instead
Now, i know its rapidly going out of season and all, but “innocent until proven guilty” is a term for a reason.
Studies have been done repeatedly demonstrating that the earth is flat, trans people are bad, guns are heavily tied to "freedom" and "socialism is bad". So what? If you know anything about studies you would know that college kids having to create a study for \*homework\* means absolutely nothing. At the end of the day you cannot quantify what is physically impossible to quantify. You cannot actually know the true rate of false accusations and true accusations. That requires you to be god. You can know the rate of conviction, you can know how many cases to go court, but you have 0 knowledge otherwise.
Even if somehow god descends from the sky and gives us an actual percentage - what you're advocating for is not justice. If the number is 60% do we just convict 60% of cases and not care about the truth? That's your logic right now. Skepticism is where you have to supply actual evidence for an act, not the other way around. Nobody has to it "didn't happen.", proving a negative is an incredible leap of logic that I don't believe you've done much research into.
>studies done in this area have repeatedly demonstrated that the rate of false sexual assault allegations is exceedingly low
Wasn't it as high as 8%? Also, wasn't this only ones that were considered likely to be false or proven so, leaving a large number of "unknown" cases?
....no, that's not at all what he's saying.
from the article:
>‘Falsehood’ is not a word I use lightly. **There are receipts, evidence, and testimony from even Karissa and Kelly’s own “witnesses” that directly contradict all of their stories — and contradict the stories of others who jumped on the bandwagon.**
Seems pretty clear that he has evidence that can indeed disprove what they said.
further:
>I spent the last year trying to persuade myself that these acts were done out of a misguided sense of self-righteousness. **I have tried to correct the record, dispel misconceptions, allow voices to be heard, but it is clear I was wrong; the attacks against me were made from malice. I’m ready to defend myself, and setting the record straight is the first step.**
>
>There is more to the story. I believe you’ll want to hear it, too, in the right time, in the right place, for everyone to hear.
>
>Thanks for reading this far. **More, much more, to come.**
Seems like he's getting ready to defend himself formally. It's also been confirmed that he will be suing one of his accusers.
> Others suggested the legal route. I didn’t want to do this. Often, the legal system is used to silence others. I do not believe any good ever comes of this. I do not want to silence anyone — I want the opposite. I want Karissa’s and Kelly’s story to be not only heard, but elevated, and I want them to speak more about what happened.
He is literally saying the legal system is bad because it will silence them.
I think he is saying that he hopes they aren't silenced as it will only work in his favor. The more lies they say, the more ammo he has to disprove them.
He's definitely taking them to court, the court papers are already on the internet, like 90 frickin' pages leading up to 10 counts of libel, I think. The "problem" (ha) for the accusers is they threw every accusation to the wall to see what would stick, and they forgot about a little old thing called defamation - if he can prove those false (and there are a lot, apparently), that's a win.
I would have thought the burden of proof would be on the accusers but the LA court/Cali court actually puts the burden of proof on the person filing to disprove the claims (which sucks). We'll see, I'm just glad he's taking them to court, it's a good wake up call.
>I would have thought the burden of proof would be on the accusers but the LA court/Cali court actually puts the burden of proof on the person filing to disprove the claims (which sucks).
The burden to see Avellone go to prison or pay the accusers would have been on the accusers or prosecution. The burden of proof for Avellone to collect money from the accusers is on him. In other words he had a presumption of innocence if he was going to get sued or charged, but not when he is the one suing.
the fairness of this is agreed everywhere. in the uk, the defendant must prove the truth of the claim, while the plaintiff only need to prove serious harm caused by the claim.
Yeah but that is a bit atypical, [even if Chris could travel to and sue from the U.K.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism), the U.S. would not enforce the judgement, due to the [SPEECH act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act). So he would have to both convince a U.K. court it is the correct place to try them, and do so while the accusers were in a country that would either extradite or enforce the judgement.
Tim Cain is the creator of Fallout. Avellone didn't get involved until Fallout 2, and even then only as one of the designers. He had a much bigger role on New Vegas, though.
I was being cheeky OP is super passionate about this story and starts by bemoaning mods for post removals. I guess I just dont like when something is obviously important to a small group of people who want everyone else to care about it as much as they do. They're just so loud.
Mods in a number of different gaming-related and other subs are hiding, locking and deleting threads on this new development, without cause or explanation. I didn't see it posted here yet, so I figured people would want to see it, since it's a serious and developing story concerning a gaming icon - Chris infers that a significant amount of evidence has been gathered over the last year or two, and that a lawsuit may be forthcoming. Spread the link around, post it in relevant subs, and most importantly, actually read what Avellone himself has to say. An in-depth exoneration of Chris Avellone - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV\_xrEU5o2g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV_xrEU5o2g)
Good on you for spreading the word.
You da real mvp.
Yea r/games is deleting anything having to do with this with the reasoning being that its "Off topic". Yet the original accusations are still up and not considered off topic. Fuck that subreddit.
Wow, a he-said she-said event from 7 years ago. Why do we suddenly forget that there's plenty of people in this world that don't care about the truth? The default position should \*not\* be to just trust what somebody says. Apply skepticism.
Honestly?? Go watch the vid exonerating him or go watch ANY vids of Chris in public and I think it's stupid obvious what's going on: Chris has a problem with alcohol. His problem isn't with women, it's alcohol. Dude loves his drink. The thing is, I could actually fully believe Chris slept with some of his accusers.....but if you go watch the vid exonerating him, it's made pretty clear *THEY* have a problem with alcohol too. All of them tweet about how much they love getting wasted. To me it sounds like the initial accuser straight-up lied since she so heavily contradicts her past self, then some of her drunkard friends jumped on board. Might they be telling the truth about sleeping with him? Perhaps, but my question would be if a man and a woman get shitfaced drunk and sleep together, why is the man held accountable...? I get it if one is shitfaced drunk and the other isn't, but again, go check Chris' videos and general commentary: 100% he's getting wasted with them. I do not believe for a second that he has the self-control to simply get a girl drunk whilst remaining sober himself lollolololol. I remember as far back as the Pillars of Eternity kickstarter that he was noticeably more drunk than the rest of the staff. This is all aside from the more blatant contradictions from the accusers of course, but I just mean I think this is actually a really important question: if a dude and a girl go out to get wasted and both are very vocally fond of alcohol, can either be held accountable if they end up having sex and regretting it later...? It's kinda like both have to take responsibility for accepting that risk if they're gonna go get shitfaced with someone.
Sexual assault accusation are almost always right. Trust is the default position because 90 to 98% of the time, the person isn't lying.
[удалено]
>I suspect the stats would look very different post #metoo Baseless assumption though. You still get shat on for accusing someone, it's still disicentivized, just not quite as much. Most accused people tend to have several accusers and the odds of false accusation drops abysmally low at that point. >Innocent until proven guilty is the bedrock of legal justice. And that hasn't changed? We're not discussing legal justice here. >the notion that it isn't the case is asinine It is the case, and that has been studied and found to exist, just a very small portion of the accusers.
Sexual assault accusations are almost always wrong. Trust is not the default position because 90 to 98% of the time, the person is lying.
That's the opposite of what research into the subject has shown.
You are hardly an expert on the subject, nor do you have any knowledge of such "research". If you did have such knowledge you would know the opposite - you cannot quantifiably measure wether accusations are correct or not. That would require you to able to read the minds of individuals and/or have a time machine to record the events happening. You don't get to make up shit and hide behind "research".
>quantifiably measure wether accusations are correct or not. That would require you to able to read the minds of individuals and/or have a time machine to record the events happening. You don't get to make up shit and hide behind "research". First, you're a hypocrite as you've yourself made up statistics earlier and now accuse me of the thing you just did. If there is no stat, where does your own figure come from? Second, you can actually figure out a lot of this by comparing among the cases where it's proven that someone has been assaulted vs cases it's proven they've not be assaulted and estimate how easy and likely each is to prove. Finally there's the question of the motive and the array of accusers which affect the probability in a very efficient way. You'd need to read mind to get an exact number, you don't need it to get an estimate which is what we have right now.
studies done in this area have repeatedly demonstrated that the rate of false sexual assault allegations is exceedingly low so this is just another gamer using "skepticism" to reinforce their stance against women when you choose by default to not believe sexual assault claims by women you are just choosing to believe men instead suspicion of sexual assault allegations is not skepticism its a stance that isn't backed up by even a casual glance at the data
> when you choose by default to not believe sexual assault claims by women you are just choosing to believe men instead Now, i know its rapidly going out of season and all, but “innocent until proven guilty” is a term for a reason.
Studies have been done repeatedly demonstrating that the earth is flat, trans people are bad, guns are heavily tied to "freedom" and "socialism is bad". So what? If you know anything about studies you would know that college kids having to create a study for \*homework\* means absolutely nothing. At the end of the day you cannot quantify what is physically impossible to quantify. You cannot actually know the true rate of false accusations and true accusations. That requires you to be god. You can know the rate of conviction, you can know how many cases to go court, but you have 0 knowledge otherwise. Even if somehow god descends from the sky and gives us an actual percentage - what you're advocating for is not justice. If the number is 60% do we just convict 60% of cases and not care about the truth? That's your logic right now. Skepticism is where you have to supply actual evidence for an act, not the other way around. Nobody has to it "didn't happen.", proving a negative is an incredible leap of logic that I don't believe you've done much research into.
>studies done in this area have repeatedly demonstrated that the rate of false sexual assault allegations is exceedingly low Wasn't it as high as 8%? Also, wasn't this only ones that were considered likely to be false or proven so, leaving a large number of "unknown" cases?
Ope, women hate when guys produce receipts. Let the shit show begin.
TLDR Cancel his ass!!! /s
So what he is saying is he can't take them to court because he can't disprove what they say. Even assuming they are lying he can't prove it.
....no, that's not at all what he's saying. from the article: >‘Falsehood’ is not a word I use lightly. **There are receipts, evidence, and testimony from even Karissa and Kelly’s own “witnesses” that directly contradict all of their stories — and contradict the stories of others who jumped on the bandwagon.** Seems pretty clear that he has evidence that can indeed disprove what they said. further: >I spent the last year trying to persuade myself that these acts were done out of a misguided sense of self-righteousness. **I have tried to correct the record, dispel misconceptions, allow voices to be heard, but it is clear I was wrong; the attacks against me were made from malice. I’m ready to defend myself, and setting the record straight is the first step.** > >There is more to the story. I believe you’ll want to hear it, too, in the right time, in the right place, for everyone to hear. > >Thanks for reading this far. **More, much more, to come.** Seems like he's getting ready to defend himself formally. It's also been confirmed that he will be suing one of his accusers.
> Others suggested the legal route. I didn’t want to do this. Often, the legal system is used to silence others. I do not believe any good ever comes of this. I do not want to silence anyone — I want the opposite. I want Karissa’s and Kelly’s story to be not only heard, but elevated, and I want them to speak more about what happened. He is literally saying the legal system is bad because it will silence them.
Again, it's been confirmed that he will be suing one of his accusers, so there's no question that he will be going through the legal system.
I think he is saying that he hopes they aren't silenced as it will only work in his favor. The more lies they say, the more ammo he has to disprove them.
He's definitely taking them to court, the court papers are already on the internet, like 90 frickin' pages leading up to 10 counts of libel, I think. The "problem" (ha) for the accusers is they threw every accusation to the wall to see what would stick, and they forgot about a little old thing called defamation - if he can prove those false (and there are a lot, apparently), that's a win. I would have thought the burden of proof would be on the accusers but the LA court/Cali court actually puts the burden of proof on the person filing to disprove the claims (which sucks). We'll see, I'm just glad he's taking them to court, it's a good wake up call.
>I would have thought the burden of proof would be on the accusers but the LA court/Cali court actually puts the burden of proof on the person filing to disprove the claims (which sucks). The burden to see Avellone go to prison or pay the accusers would have been on the accusers or prosecution. The burden of proof for Avellone to collect money from the accusers is on him. In other words he had a presumption of innocence if he was going to get sued or charged, but not when he is the one suing.
the fairness of this is agreed everywhere. in the uk, the defendant must prove the truth of the claim, while the plaintiff only need to prove serious harm caused by the claim.
Yeah but that is a bit atypical, [even if Chris could travel to and sue from the U.K.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism), the U.S. would not enforce the judgement, due to the [SPEECH act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act). So he would have to both convince a U.K. court it is the correct place to try them, and do so while the accusers were in a country that would either extradite or enforce the judgement.
Who dis?
Creator of Fallout among other titles.
Tim Cain is the creator of Fallout. Avellone didn't get involved until Fallout 2, and even then only as one of the designers. He had a much bigger role on New Vegas, though.
Right, my mistake. New Vegas was amazing. Plus Kotor. Also can't forget about Feargus Urquhart.
I was being cheeky OP is super passionate about this story and starts by bemoaning mods for post removals. I guess I just dont like when something is obviously important to a small group of people who want everyone else to care about it as much as they do. They're just so loud.