Support NeoGAF

[Bobo Dakes]

Sorry if this is over the line, but I really have to agree with Inferno that the idea of “reductive binary rhetoric” is incredibly dangerous here. In a situation like this being “pragmatic” still involves choosing one side over the other. In this case that means choosing to give the benefit of the doubt to the man over the woman. We are talking about an industry well known for men pulling stuff like this, so a “wait and see” approach is not neutral. It absolutely has implications.

Please note that I understand backseat modding is against the rules and I am not making any sort of claim that any particular bans made in this thread are wrong. Just providing my input on a particular part of EvilLore’s argument. I hope that’s considered fair game.

Agreed.

I think people do take the single accusation seriously, they just wait for more proof before commenting on the situation because they dont want to get anything wrong.

You can comment with nuance. That's unfortunate. I'm sorry she had to go through this.

 

[Budi]

He's an employee to Defy media, and only 1 out of 3.5 writers (i don't think Dan Murrell does as much of the writing as he does editing)

Honest trailers will live on - the "personality based" panel shows should possibly be put on the back-burner and be restructured.
Signore being the main judge to movie fights for years now would make it look rather weird to just fill the seat with another dude.

Yeah he has, but they've had other recurring judges like Alicia Malone. I do really hope that movie fights format wouldn't be going away and I don't think it will. They've expanded it to games and TV too and it's really popular.

 

[Westbahnhof]

but what other 'proof' beyond corroboration is there?
As i demonstrated - a screencap can be faked in literal minutes - you can say "well, of course he deleted our conversation!"
So what is there, beyond other testimony?

I think that testimony by multiple people, multiple stories, if exponentially more likely to be true. It is exponentially more believable.
To me, believing victims is important, but that doesn't mean one has to vocally denounce the accused party before any details besides a claim are known.

Do you think that me wanting to wait before I feel secure enough to say the words "I believe" on an online forum hurt the case, seeing how it turned out?
Additionally, I again want to point out that not saying "I believe he did this" is not synonymous with saying "I don't believe he did this".

Again, what constitutes proof? i literally can't think of anything else but screencaps. And those mean nothing, they're as easily "faked" as a written accusation and can thus be as easily dismissed.

I think we all have different thresholds.
To me, a second voice was enough. But one single voice on the internet is not enough for me anymore, these days.

Edit:
I like the post Volimar made below mine. I think he said it a bit better than I did.

 

[Volimar]

Again, what constitutes proof? i literally can't think of anything else but screencaps. And those mean nothing, they're as easily "faked" as a written accusation and can thus be as easily dismissed.

Well for all we know, he's going to come out with a "I have a problem and I'm going to get help" weaksauce defense that will confirm her accusations. I don't think it's fair for people to say someone is "part of the problem" or things to that effect when they want to be better informed before taking sides in general. Saying "I don't know enough yet" is different than saying "I don't believe her".

 

[HariKari]

We are talking about an industry well known for men pulling stuff like this, so a ”wait and see" approach is not neutral. It absolutely has implications.

There are three possible states:
- Not enough evidence to go either way. Come back later.
- A lack of evidence, innocence presumed
- Plenty of evidence, guilt presumed

Jumping automatically to guilty in the absence of evidence makes you look like a reactive moron. When did we lose the ability to understand that? How would you personally want to be treated in a situation where there is an accusation (of any sort) leveled against you?

 

[itwasTuesday]

Well, this is all disappointing & horrible news.

 

[Cat Party]

Sorry if this is over the line, but I really have to agree with Inferno that the idea of “reductive binary rhetoric” is incredibly dangerous here. In a situation like this being “pragmatic” still involves choosing one side over the other. In this case that means choosing to give the benefit of the doubt to the man over the woman. We are talking about an industry well known for men pulling stuff like this, so a “wait and see” approach is not neutral. It absolutely has implications.

Please note that I understand backseat modding is against the rules and I am not making any sort of claim that any particular bans made in this thread are wrong. Just providing my input on a particular part of EvilLore’s argument. I hope that’s considered fair game.

Agree with you and this of all subjects is really a weird place to be having this battle in 2017.

 

[Fliesen]

I think that testimony by multiple people, multiple stories, if exponentially more likely to be true. It is exponentially more believable.
To me, believing victims is important, but that doesn't mean one has to vocally denounce the accused party before any details besides a claim are known.

Do you think that me wanting to wait before I feel secure enough to say the words "I believe" on an online forum hurt the case, seeing how it turned out?
Additionally, I again want to point out that not saying "I believe he did this" is not synonymous with saying "I don't believe he did this".

I just feel that if you only have people that say "It's not that i don't believe you", but also those who (obviously) don't believe you immediately create the "lol, SJWs can't even tell when someone's flirting" narrative, trying to dig up dirt about you, the whole situation is very lopsided, and would serve as a huge deterrent for people who have been victims, but who are unsure about whether they should make the accusation.

As with "multiple people". That - again - leaves us with the dilemma. What if you are the only one? You can't know there were multiple people who had been mistreated by a certain celebrity until they make their statements.
Until then, i can't think of any proof "good enough"?

I think we all have different thresholds.
To me, a second voice was enough. But one single voice on the internet is not enough for me anymore, these days.

Same question goes to you: What if the original victim had remained the only one? - is there any proof she could've delivered that would have convinced you? Is a woman literally short on luck, if she's not the victim of a serial harasser, but his one and only target?

Well for all we know, he's going to come out with a "I have a problem and I'm going to get help" weaksauce defense that will confirm her accusations. I don't think it's fair for people to say someone is "part of the problem" or things to that effect when they want to be better informed before taking sides in general. Saying "I don't know enough yet" is different than saying "I don't believe her".

but we're in a situation where the original accuser had already made these accusations TWICE. Nobody believed her, Signore didn't make a statement. Obviously, nobody took her seriously.
Similarly, Defy Media HR didn't take them seriously.

I would never want to be in a situation where i would have to pretty much hope that someone who violated me had also violated others out of fear that my accusation alone wouldn't be enough for people to take it seriously.

 

[Glass Shark]

There are three possible states:
- Not enough evidence to go either way. Come back later.
- A lack of evidence, innocence presumed
- Plenty of evidence, guilt presumed

Jumping automatically to guilty in the absence of evidence makes you look like a reactive moron. When did we lose the ability to understand that? How would you personally want to be treated in a situation where there is an accusation (of any sort) leveled against you?

Personally I don’t see how “come back later” is any different than an automatic assumption that the man did nothing wrong. And even if there really are three states as you suppose, you can’t assume they all have equal weight. Are there going to be cases where someone makes an accusation like this that turns out to be false? Sure. But the evidence I have seen suggests those are dwarfed by the real and accurate ones. And you have to factor in other things here. What does the accuser have to gain in this situation if they’re just making something up, and what do they have to lose? Women online get harassed endlessly when they make claims like this even when they are true, and they know it. Who would put themselves in that kind of situation willingly, presumably just to spite someone?

 

[Budi]

Sorry if this is over the line, but I really have to agree with Inferno that the idea of ”reductive binary rhetoric" is incredibly dangerous here. In a situation like this being ”pragmatic" still involves choosing one side over the other. In this case that means choosing to give the benefit of the doubt to the man over the woman. We are talking about an industry well known for men pulling stuff like this, so a ”wait and see" approach is not neutral. It absolutely has implications.

There's a huge difference between "she is lying" or even contacting her directly via Twitter or something and asking for receipts than "horrible if true" and "let's wait if more will be revealed" comments in a forum detached from the incident.

 

[jstripes]

How much can they really do to the creator though?

This is the thing with "selling out", so to say. Unless it's written otherwise in an iron-clad contract, you can be removed from your creation for whatever good reason the company that now owns your property sees fit.

Anyway, fuck that guy.

 

[commish]

There are three possible states:
- Not enough evidence to go either way. Come back later.
- A lack of evidence, innocence presumed
- Plenty of evidence, guilt presumed

Jumping automatically to guilty in the absence of evidence makes you look like a reactive moron. When did we lose the ability to understand that? How would you personally want to be treated in a situation where there is an accusation (of any sort) leveled against you?

I didn't want to get involved in this thread, but choosing to believe a woman when she says she was sexually harassed or sexually abused doesn't make you a moron. You say there's "no evidence", but is the statement from the victim herself not evidence? You can choose think she's a liar (based on no evidence?) - go for it. Or choose to wait and see. But it's not ridiculous if someone else believes her.

 

[bananafactory]

The bans to members like Inferno and Bronson, who are both valuable and level headed members of the community, are very sad. I have stand by Inferno on this topic, that 'waiting for facts/proof' is not a good approach on this topic since many many many times that stuff never materializes but the women continue to suffer all the same, before being forgotten.

I might be banned for this too but I won't stay silent. I think the loss of those members is a huge loss for the community and I also think the "no witch hunts" poster being hung up on the wall here is in very poor taste

 

[Fliesen]

This is the thing with "selling out", so to say. Unless it's written otherwise in an iron-clad contract, you can be removed from your creation for whatever good reason the company that now owns your property sees fit.

Anyway, fuck that guy.

New format coming in November: "Truthful Teasers"

 

[benicillin]

As with "multiple people". That - again - leaves us with the dilemma. What if you are the only one? You can't know there were multiple people who had been mistreated by a certain celebrity until they make their statements.
Until then, i can't think of any proof "good enough"?

I mean she was technically the only one the first time she posted about it, and nothing was done and it went nowhere.

I always worry about the idea that you need multiple voices. If one person stands up and says they were sexually harassed, and then nothing happens because they didn't save the texts or HR didn't do their job or whatever, and then nothing is done and later on it happens again to someone else...like how many victims do you need to allow before you just listen to people in the first place?

This, and Nick Robinson, and the Aint It Cool guy, and the Milo faux-liberal illuminati are all making a very convincing argument that we aren't believing people when they tell us things until it's way too late, and victims are understandably scared about coming forward.

 

[HariKari]

Personally I don’t see how “come back later” is any different than an automatic assumption that the man did nothing wrong.

That says a lot about you.

And even if there really are three states as you suppose

As I suppose? Our entire justice system is built on the concept I just outlined. The standards are different, of course, but asking you take a second instead of dropping your #fireandy hot take isn't a lot to ask.

 

[supermarioworldE]

Not much familiar with the channel outside of the honest trailers videos, but the evidence here is damning. Yet another youtuber that felt comfortable being a shit head when the fame and money came in. Disgusting.

 

[rjinaz]

There are three possible states:
- Not enough evidence to go either way. Come back later.
- A lack of evidence, innocence presumed
- Plenty of evidence, guilt presumed

Jumping automatically to guilty in the absence of evidence makes you look like a reactive moron. When did we lose the ability to understand that? How would you personally want to be treated in a situation where there is an accusation (of any sort) leveled against you?

I think that's fair. People can be shitty, and nobody is excluded from this. I've seen it in my own life, with accusations thrown that turned out to be false. This is the kind of thing that can ruin lives.

Now that said, it turns out there is plenty to go on now, the guy is gross, and I'd hate to see the thread be about "when it's ok to call assume guilt" because at this point it's clear as day in this case.

 

[……forgetit]

Personally I don’t see how “come back later” is any different than an automatic assumption that the man did nothing wrong. And even if there really are three states as you suppose, you can’t assume they all have equal weight. Are there going to be cases where someone makes an accusation like this that turns out to be false? Sure. But the evidence I have seen suggests those are dwarfed by the real and accurate ones. And you have to factor in other things here. What does the accuser have to gain in this situation if they’re just making something up, and what do they have to lose? Women online get harassed endlessly when they make claims like this even when they are true, and they know it. Who would put themselves in that kind of situation willingly, presumably just to spite someone?

Honestly I have to disagree. It’s a messy situation and difficult to parse out, so you won’t see me gathering the pitch forks when one only one person has said anything. I mentioned in this thread that I had a friend who I later found out raped another girl, which I find disgusting and I haven’t spoken to him sense, but at the same time I have another friend who’s life was basically destroyed by a false rape allegation. I believe in inocent until proven guilty both in courts and in personal life, there’s more than enough here for me to say that I see him as guilty, but from the first post there just wasn’t enough for me to side either way.

 

[Westbahnhof]

I just feel that if you only have people that say "It's not that i don't believe you", but also those who (obviously) don't believe you immediately create the "lol, SJWs can't even tell when someone's flirting" narrative, trying to dig up dirt about you, the whole situation is very lopsided, and would serve as a huge deterrent for people who have been victims, but who are unsure about whether they should make the accusation.

As with "multiple people". That - again - leaves us with the dilemma. What if you are the only one? You can't know there were multiple people who had been mistreated by a certain celebrity until they make their statements.
Until then, i can't think of any proof "good enough"?

Same question goes to you: What if the original victim had remained the only one? - is there any proof she could've delivered that would have convinced you? Is a woman literally short on luck, if she's not the victim of a serial harasser, but his one and only target?

Well, the first paragraph, that's true.
But I think that in this case, it is important where you are saying "It's not that I don't believe". I feel it would be incredibly disrespectful to say this to her face, in her twitter feed, in her direction.
But as someone removed from the situation, on a forum meant for discussion, I think saying "I can't honestly make this commitment yet" should be okay.
Especially on a forum like this, where "lol, SJWs can't even tell when someone's flirting" would get you banned, so those voices don't exist.
Like Volimar said: "I don't know enough yet" doesn't mean "I don't believe you".

About the multiple people thing... yeah, that's the problem, isn't it?
If there is only a single person, and there is no proof of any kind, then I don't think I could say "I believe you" without lying. Not without knowing the person in question.
Maybe I don't trust enough.
But the thought of judging an innocent person to be guilty, based on words on a single twitter account, is too much of a deterrent to me.

 

[Dynasty]

Again, what constitutes proof? i literally can't think of anything else but screencaps. And those mean nothing, they're as easily "faked" as a written accusation and can thus be as easily dismissed.

If a screencap is provided I will generally believe it to be real. If the accused party doesnt say anything about it the screencap or doesnt deny them, then I continue to assume the screencap to be real. If the party comes out and says the screencaps are fake I expect lawyers will get involved and I will wait for the court's to decide.

 

[Aiii]

That says a lot about you.



As I suppose? Our entire justice system is built on the concept I just outlined. The standards are different, of course, but asking you take a second instead of dropping your #fireandy hot take isn't a lot to ask.

One accusation gives allowance for a stance of wait-and-see. Two should make your scratch your head. Four indivual accounts are enough to determine a pattern.

The justice system does indeed have a different standard, as it should, but that is not the matter of discussion here.

 

[bananafactory]

If a screencap is provided I will generally believe it to be real. If the accused party doesnt say anything about it the screencap or doesnt deny them, then I continue to assume the screencap to be real. If the party comes out and says the screencaps are fake I expect lawyers will get involved and I will wait for the court's to decide.

And if screen caps are not available? Does that mean they made it up?

 

[HariKari]

I didn't want to get involved in this thread, but choosing to believe a woman when she says she was sexually harassed or sexually abused doesn't make you a moron. You say there's "no evidence", but is the statement from the victim herself not evidence? You can choose think she's a liar (based on no evidence?) - go for it. Or choose to wait and see. But it's not ridiculous if someone else believes her.

People are arguing - with a straight face - that assumed guilt should be the default state or there's something wrong with your morals. That shit is absurd. Taking issue with that is distinctly not the same as trying to paint the accuser as a liar.

 

[Seesaw15]

but what other 'proof' beyond corroboration is there?
As i demonstrated - a screencap can be faked in literal minutes - you can say "well, of course he deleted our conversation!"
So what is there, beyond other testimony?

I don't use twitter but I feel like if you screenshot DM's from a verified account that's as close to rock solid evidence as you can get. Even if the other person deletes there messages they still have the conversation forever.

Unfortunately for the victims corroboration is usually the best proof. If you don't have either it always turns into a he said she said situation sadly.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

There are three possible states:
- Not enough evidence to go either way. Come back later.
- A lack of evidence, innocence presumed
- Plenty of evidence, guilt presumed

Jumping automatically to guilty in the absence of evidence makes you look like a reactive moron. When did we lose the ability to understand that? How would you personally want to be treated in a situation where there is an accusation (of any sort) leveled against you?

so what stance do these come back later people take when they come back later and nothing new has materialized?

 

[bananafactory]

I don't use twitter but I feel like if you screenshot DM's from a verified account that's as close to rock solid evidence as you can get. Even if the other person deletes there messages they still have the conversation forever.

Unfortunately for the victims corroboration is usually the best proof. If you don't have either it always turns into a he said she said situation sadly.

Do you have any idea how easy it is to fake this?

 

[AndersK]

The bans to members like Inferno and Bronson, who are both valuable and level headed members of the community, are very sad. I have stand by Inferno on this topic, that 'waiting for facts/proof' is not a good approach on this topic since many many many times that stuff never materializes but the women continue to suffer all the same, before being forgotten.

I might be banned for this too but I won't stay silent. I think the loss of those members is a huge loss for the community and I also think the "no witch hunts" poster being hung up on the wall here is in very poor taste

Im right there with ya.

 

[Glass Shark]

That says a lot about you. [...] Our entire justice system is built on the concept I just outlined.

You are welcome to believe whatever you like about me. I am suggesting that nuance does not automatically make you the more reasonable person in every situation. I’ve seen this exact situation too many times to try to have the “wait and see” approach. And arguing about the justice system isn’t really relevant to this situation because the discussion is not happening within a courtroom. I understand how the law works, and if she were attempting to prosecute him, obviously the burden of proof would be on her and the standards of that proof would be much higher. But again, it doesn’t even apply.

 

[George Oscar Bluth II]

The bans to members like Inferno and Bronson, who are both valuable and level headed members of the community, are very sad. I have stand by Inferno on this topic, that 'waiting for facts/proof' is not a good approach on this topic since many many many times that stuff never materializes but the women continue to suffer all the same, before being forgotten.

I might be banned for this too but I won't stay silent. I think the loss of those members is a huge loss for the community and I also think the "no witch hunts" poster being hung up on the wall here is in very poor taste

Agreed.

 

[oatmeal]

It's like a domino effect lately. Faraci, Knowles, Weinstein, etc.

It's good this can come out though. Some gross skeletons out there.

 

[Cat Party]

One person's testimony is, literally, proof. The fact that people keep saying otherwise screams that there is still a problem with how we approach reports of sexual misconduct.

 

[Sibersk Esto]

The bans to members like Inferno and Bronson, who are both valuable and level headed members of the community, are very sad. I have stand by Inferno on this topic, that 'waiting for facts/proof' is not a good approach on this topic since many many many times that stuff never materializes but the women continue to suffer all the same, before being forgotten.

I might be banned for this too but I won't stay silent. I think the loss of those members is a huge loss for the community and I also think the "no witch hunts" poster being hung up on the wall here is in very poor taste

Co-signed

 

[black070]

Those DM’s.. :/

 

[BossDarkseid]

The bans to members like Inferno and Bronson, who are both valuable and level headed members of the community, are very sad. I have stand by Inferno on this topic, that 'waiting for facts/proof' is not a good approach on this topic since many many many times that stuff never materializes but the women continue to suffer all the same, before being forgotten.

I might be banned for this too but I won't stay silent. I think the loss of those members is a huge loss for the community and I also think the "no witch hunts" poster being hung up on the wall here is in very poor taste

Yeah. I'm not intimately familiar with the details but...either anecdotally from my parents (who are lawyers) or just knowledge via the news...so many times a "let's wait" yields no results, then people sideline the people who got affected end up being forgotten and ignored and nothing happens. It's tricky but... damn.

Edit: Also Bronson is cool. Inferno is cool. Keep good people

 

[jstripes]

It's like a domino effect lately. Faraci, Knowles, Weinstein, etc.

It's good this can come out though. Some gross skeletons out there.

The industry's due for a good shakeout.

 

[Bobo Dakes]

As I suppose? Our entire justice system is built on the concept I just outlined. The standards are different, of course, but asking you take a second instead of dropping your #fireandy hot take isn't a lot to ask.

We're neither judge, jury or executioner. We're allowed to respond to a new story. What does the justice system have to do with this, he's not going to jail (though that story changes if someone presses charges).

 

[voOsh]

One person's testimony is, literally, proof. The fact that people keep saying otherwise screams that there is still a problem with how we approach reports of sexual misconduct.

What? Excuse me? Guys, Cat Party sexually assaulted me. Get them please.

I don't want to live in a world where innocent people can be convicted of crimes with no proof. Yes sometimes bad people will get away with bad things but the alternative is far scarier.

 

[Budi]

I didn't want to get involved in this thread, but choosing to believe a woman when she says she was sexually harassed or sexually abused doesn't make you a moron. You say there's "no evidence", but is the statement from the victim herself not evidence? You can choose think she's a liar (based on no evidence?) - go for it. But it's not ridiculous if someone else believes her.

Nobody here has called her a liar but I'm ofcourse 100% certain that people exist who thought so, maybe even still do and that this would be some kind of feminist scheme. Fortunately she said in Twitter that people have been very supportive of her even though she at first feared the nasty comments. Saying I don't know if this true when someone is accused of something isn't siding with the accused. It's just that the person really doesn't know and doesn't want to make judgements to either side.

 

[phanphare]

The bans to members like Inferno and Bronson, who are both valuable and level headed members of the community, are very sad. I have stand by Inferno on this topic, that 'waiting for facts/proof' is not a good approach on this topic since many many many times that stuff never materializes but the women continue to suffer all the same, before being forgotten.

I might be banned for this too but I won't stay silent. I think the loss of those members is a huge loss for the community and I also think the "no witch hunts" poster being hung up on the wall here is in very poor taste

yep two great posters who were nothing but positive additions to this community

 

[Westbahnhof]

One person's testimony is, literally, proof. The fact that people keep saying otherwise screams that there is still a problem with how we approach reports of sexual misconduct.

The problem with one person's testimony is that the accused can claim that it's wrong, and then it there is one testimony against the other, no?

We're neither judge, jury or executioner. We're allowed to respond to a new story. What does the justice system have to do with this, he's not going to jail (though that story changes if someone presses charges).

And is it wrong, in your opinion, to want to respond as a judge would, if you agree with that system? I know it's not realistic to do this if it is a person you may know or relate to in any way, but if possible, I try to do so.
Do you think the system is wrong?

 

[EviLore]

Sorry if this is over the line, but I really have to agree with Inferno that the idea of “reductive binary rhetoric” is incredibly dangerous here. In a situation like this being “pragmatic” still involves choosing one side over the other. In this case that means choosing to give the benefit of the doubt to the man over the woman. We are talking about an industry well known for men pulling stuff like this, so a “wait and see” approach is not neutral. It absolutely has implications.

Please note that I understand backseat modding is against the rules and I am not making any sort of claim that any particular bans made in this thread are wrong. Just providing my input on a particular part of EvilLore’s argument. I hope that’s considered fair game.

Much like the other poster, you're essentially claiming that all responses posted in this thread can be legitimately reduced to a binary state: either siding with Formerly Employed At Sceenjunkies Creeper, or siding with the accused, and that any posts failing to unequivocally condemn the former and unequivocally believe and support the latter -- at any stage of the story -- fall under siding with Formerly Employed At Screenjunkies Creeper, undermine the voices of victims, harm society, and are morally reprehensible.

Based on this argument there should just be one official righteous response auto-posted by a bot and then the thread should be locked. Why have a discussion thread? Why have a message board?

No.

 

[Fliesen]

I don't use twitter but I feel like if you screenshot DM's from a verified account that's as close to rock solid evidence as you can get. Even if the other person deletes there messages they still have the conversation forever.

Unfortunately for the victims corroboration is usually the best proof. If you don't have either it always turns into a he said she said situation sadly.

They're
a) incredibly easy to fake
and b) often times, victims actively delete these conversations because they're still literally haunting them.

 

[ExVicis]

And if screen caps are not available? Does that mean they made it up?

Why is it either one or the other?

 

[A Link to the Past]

The bans to members like Inferno and Bronson, who are both valuable and level headed members of the community, are very sad. I have stand by Inferno on this topic, that 'waiting for facts/proof' is not a good approach on this topic since many many many times that stuff never materializes but the women continue to suffer all the same, before being forgotten.

I might be banned for this too but I won't stay silent. I think the loss of those members is a huge loss for the community and I also think the "no witch hunts" poster being hung up on the wall here is in very poor taste

Respect for this. Bans should not be so haphazardly thrown about.

Much like the other poster, you're essentially claiming that all responses posted in this thread can be legitimately reduced to a binary state: either siding with Formerly Employed At Sceenjunkies Creeper, or siding with the accused, and that any posts failing to unequivocally condemn the former and unequivocally believe and support the latter -- at any stage of the story -- fall under siding with Formerly Employed At Screenjunkies Creeper, undermine the voices of victims, harm society, and are morally reprehensible.

Based on this argument there should just be one official righteous response auto-posted by a bot and then the thread should be locked. Why have a discussion thread? Why have a message board?

No.

There are definitely some topics that do not have a "two sides" situation. We can have discussion without, say, offering credence to one side, and I have certainly seen discussions occur in topics like this without having to resort to questioning the validity of the victim's claim.

 

[Paganmoon]

The bans to members like Inferno and Bronson, who are both valuable and level headed members of the community, are very sad. I have stand by Inferno on this topic, that 'waiting for facts/proof' is not a good approach on this topic since many many many times that stuff never materializes but the women continue to suffer all the same, before being forgotten.

I might be banned for this too but I won't stay silent. I think the loss of those members is a huge loss for the community and I also think the "no witch hunts" poster being hung up on the wall here is in very poor taste

I have to agree. Was a civil and well put post to boot.

Much like the other poster, you're essentially claiming that all responses posted in this thread can be legitimately reduced to a binary state: either siding with Formerly Employed At Sceenjunkies Creeper, or siding with the accused, and that any posts failing to unequivocally condemn the former and unequivocally believe and support the latter -- at any stage of the story -- fall under siding with Formerly Employed At Screenjunkies Creeper, undermine the voices of victims, harm society, and are morally reprehensible.

Based on this argument there should just be one official righteous response auto-posted by a bot and then the thread should be locked. Why have a discussion thread? Why have a message board?

No.

There was no discussion to be had on the point as you banned the person instead though. It was a well put post and I didn't read it as in any way overly aggressive towards you.

 

[Steejee]

Sigh, Milkshake Duck'd.

Guess I won't be watching any Honest Trailers. Didn't really know who was part of the videos aside from the voice guy, but at the very least not patronizing them anymore unless they can provide proof all these are made up for some insane reason. That seems just a taaaaad unlikely, so I guess until him and the HR assholes who ignored these women are canned I'll be staying away.

 

[Exterminieren]

The bans to members like Inferno and Bronson, who are both valuable and level headed members of the community, are very sad. I have stand by Inferno on this topic, that 'waiting for facts/proof' is not a good approach on this topic since many many many times that stuff never materializes but the women continue to suffer all the same, before being forgotten.

I might be banned for this too but I won't stay silent. I think the loss of those members is a huge loss for the community and I also think the "no witch hunts" poster being hung up on the wall here is in very poor taste

I’d go with this. The community’s been damaged for, frankly, pretty poor reasons.

 

[commish]

What? Excuse me? Guys, Cat Party sexually assaulted me. Get them please.

I don't want to live in a world where innocent people can be convicted of crimes with no proof. Yes sometimes bad people will get away with bad things but the alternative is far scarier.

A thread on NEOGAF is not a courtroom. Why are people talking about the burden of proof under our legal system? No one is talking about that, so let's not create these strawmen to distract from the discussion at hand.

There is, literally, NO ONE who is saying that a person should be convicted of a crime without proof.

 

[A-V-B]

Was browsing threads and saw BronsonLee got banned? Apparently it came from here?

What's going down? Why are people getting the boot?