Support NeoGAF

[benicillin]

The person isn't here, but people who have experienced something similar might be.

GAF is a huge forum. There are a lot of members and probably even more lurkers. On the subject of sexual harassment, if it's an issue you care deeply about, it might be worth being mindful about expressing your skepticism about an accusation. Even though there's no ill intent, victims of sexual harassment might not see it that way when they read it.

I don't mean you specifically or anyone else here.

I was going to say similar, but this is a very good post. Agreed.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

Believing her isn't wrong, but saying that others are the reason that it's hard for sexual harrassers to come forward because they don't believe her is wrong. It's an unfair and insulting thing to say.

I agree, to a degree. But I can see how it would be hard to come forward if I'd seen others ignored, called liars, or whatever, for making similar claims. Now of course there is a big difference between simply not believing (yet) and calling someone a liar, and I THINK most here were more of the former. Or rather I hope.

The person isn't here, but people who have experienced something similar might be.

GAF is a huge forum. There are a lot of members and probably even more lurkers. On the subject of sexual harassment, if it's an issue you care deeply about, it might be worth being mindful about expressing your skepticism about an accusation. Even though there's no ill intent, victims of sexual harassment might not see it that way when they read it.

I don't mean you specifically or anyone else here.

Very important point.

 

[Volimar]

I agree, to a degree. But I can see how it would be hard to come forward if I'd seen others ignored, called liars, or whatever, for making similar claims. Now of course there is a big difference between simply not believing (yet) and calling someone a liar, and I THINK most here were more of the forme.

Oh for sure.

 

[Eyemus Lutt]

I kinda took a wait and see approach at the beginning until more corroborating witnesses and victims came out to condemn this creep.
While it's fine to console and support a victim who makes an accusation, it's not OK to go on a witch hunt of the accused and try to get them fired or ostracized without sufficient proof.
It's also not OK to go and call out people as rape apologists or being against the victims for people you don't know at all that take a wait and see approach.

 

[ExVicis]

It's not.
It's fine as well, I think. Risky in my eyes, but I wouldn't think you're doing anything wrong by just believing as a private person (unlike a judge, and all that).
The thing is that we were told that believing was the morally right thing to do, which attacks everyone doing what you just called fine, as well.

This is really the real issue. I actually have no problem with people believing accusations at face value. I have problems with people attacking others for not believing accusations at face value. Because I want to find more evidence or get more background on what happened I shouldn't suddenly get called out as "the reason why women won't come forward with their stories" with someone trying to very obviously shame me into their position.

 

[driggonny]

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?

Why have a discussion thread just to ban everyone who disagrees with you unapologetically?

 

[EviLore]

The person isn't here, but people who have experienced something similar might be.

GAF is a huge forum. There are a lot of members and probably even more lurkers. On the subject of sexual harassment, if it's an issue you care deeply about, it might be worth being mindful about expressing your skepticism about an accusation. Even though there's no ill intent, victims of sexual harassment might not see it that way when they read it.

I don't mean you specifically or anyone else here.

And this post is an example of a reasonable and civil approach to discussing that kind of mindfulness that doesn't sabotage the thread in the process.

 

[Bob Dobalina]

This thread is eye opening, to say the least. All aboard the ban train!

 

[Budi]

The person isn't here, but people who have experienced something similar might be.

GAF is a huge forum. There are a lot of members and probably even more lurkers. On the subject of sexual harassment, if it's an issue you care deeply about, it might be worth being mindful about expressing your skepticism about an accusation. Even though there's no ill intent, victims of sexual harassment might not see it that way when they read it.

We also have someone who was falsely accused of rape. And people here have been pretty mindful of their "skepticism" as you put it. Saying that anyone here has sided with Signore is just wrong. Worst post in this thread was the first post, that was disrespectful and distasteful.

 

[commish]

Believing her isn't wrong, but saying that others are the reason that it's hard for sexual harrassers to come forward because they don't believe her is wrong. It's an unfair and insulting thing to say.

I think this concept comes from (i) abuse victims who say they haven't come forward because no one will believe them, especially without a smoking gun and (ii) abuse victims who have indeed come forward and who had their claims immediately dismissed because of the lack of proof.

I think it's terrible how under-reported sexual harassment and abuse is. While I certainly believe that false accusations can and do ruin lives, sexual abuse can also ruin lives. I choose to believe that, on the whole, a woman who says she was abused is telling the truth more often than she is not. I think, as a society, we are better off in an environment that encourages women (and men, of course) to come forward rather than keep silent because they don't have a smoking gun.

 

[Sapiens]

Talentless, abrasive, nerd journalists with an iota of power tend to be awful. Hopefully more people come out to speak of the problem.

 

[Westbahnhof]

The person isn't here, but people who have experienced something similar might be.

GAF is a huge forum. There are a lot of members and probably even more lurkers. On the subject of sexual harassment, if it's an issue you care deeply about, it might be worth being mindful about expressing your skepticism about an accusation. Even though there's no ill intent, victims of sexual harassment might not see it that way when they read it.

I don't mean you specifically or anyone else here.

Completely true.
This topic is sensitive, and even without the victim participating in the discussion, phrasing is very important.
I tried to do so as well as possible, to show I was not doubting the claim, but rather waiting for more information to understand the situation.
I'm afraid I got a bit defensive when someone said that believing was a moral obligation, which attacked my concept of "I am a continent away, I can wait and see without judgement".
EDIT: You know. I could just have shut my mouth until I was ready to say "I believe", probably. That sounds like a good solution. But I still don't think that the things I said were necessarily morally wrong.

We also have someone who was falsely accused of rape. And people here have been pretty mindful of their "skepticism" as you put it. Saying that anyone here has sided with Signore is just wrong.

This is true, and unless I'm mistaken, the person has faced other terrible things that might shape their opinion on this topic. I honestly completely forgot who it was, but if they want to give their input, I'd welcome their perspective.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

The person isn't here, but people who have experienced something similar might be.

GAF is a huge forum. There are a lot of members and probably even more lurkers. On the subject of sexual harassment, if it's an issue you care deeply about, it might be worth being mindful about expressing your skepticism about an accusation. Even though there's no ill intent, victims of sexual harassment might not see it that way when they read it.

I don't mean you specifically or anyone else here.

Nails what I have been trying to sum up and say regarding the whole debate on 'burden of proof'.

 

[iammeiam]

Believing her isn't wrong, but saying that others are the reason that it's hard for sexual harrassers to come forward because they don't believe her is wrong. It's an unfair and insulting thing to say.

There's a difference between "These kinds of reactions are what make women less likely to come forward," and "you are trying to suppress women from reporting these!"

I do not think anybody in this thread intentionally wants to scare victims away from coming forward.

I do think some of the early posts are the sort of thing that unintentionally do make it harder for women and men who have been harassed or assaulted to come forward, because it confirms every fear you have when something like this happens.

What if they don't believe me? I don't have any proof. What if I can't convince anyone? It'll ruin my reputation. Should I just say nothing? What if he did this to somebody else, and they're scared like I am? What if he does this to somebody else because I don't come forward? But I don't have any proof. Why would anyone believe me?

There's no easy answer, here. But the note that some of the reactions of "people lie, you know" that happened early on do contribute to the fear that keeps people quiet and enables so many to be harassed before it all breaks open. Acknowledging that this is true is not the same as accusing people of intentionally creating the environment, it's just stating the reality.

 

[Cat Party]

what if this testimony is false?

"Proof" doesn't mean it is necessarily true, only that it tends to show that it is true. My point was that a person stating that something happened to her is some level of proof that it happened. If the accused says "no, I didn't do it," that's proof that it didn't happen. We all get to weigh the proof how we see fit.

 

[ExVicis]

The person isn't here, but people who have experienced something similar might be.

GAF is a huge forum. There are a lot of members and probably even more lurkers. On the subject of sexual harassment, if it's an issue you care deeply about, it might be worth being mindful about expressing your skepticism about an accusation. Even though there's no ill intent, victims of sexual harassment might not see it that way when they read it.

I don't mean you specifically or anyone else here.

That's fine, more often than not on things I'm waiting to find more evidence I don't say anything. That's because I don't want people to misconstrue that as me thinking the accuser is a liar because that's not what I think. And warning people that their statements about "wait and see" as being discouraging to people with similar stories is also fine. But seeing people trying to browbeat someone into shutting up or agreeing with them when they state they want to see more about the incident or get more evidence is not okay. Especially when that person isn't inherently doing anything wrong.

 

[4 is a cutie]

Believing her isn't wrong, but saying that others are the reason that it's hard for sexual harrassers to come forward because they don't believe her is wrong. It's an unfair and insulting thing to say.

When the default is to forget about it all, is it really?

 

[MattyG]

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.

Additionally, why even have a discussion thread or message board if the administration can ban and verbally abuse anyone they disagree with?

 

[Volimar]

When the default is to forget about it all, is it really?

I don't agree with your assumption.

 

[GoodCoffeeJoey]

Talentless, abrasive, nerd videogame forum owners with an iota of power tend to be awful. Hopefully more people come out to speak of the problem.

ftfy

 

[Fuchsdh]

I'm sorry about what you had to experience.

Unlike the issue with rape culture, toxic masculinity and a US president who was voted into office literally weeks after admitting - on tape - that he's a serial sexual harasser, there was no actual "witch culture" in Salem. - Not a single witch was guilty.

Again, people people are acting as if false accusations were something that happened even REMOTELY as often as actual harassment and that's why we should be super weary. Meanwhile real, actual witness reports are downplayed, brushed off, silenced on a day to day basis.

You're still asking people to believe an accuser without proof or question, because "well statistically it's more likely than not." It's not misogyny or rape culture to refuse to buy internet claims immediately without verification or supporting accounts.

That doesn't mean you treat potential victims as criminals, it doesn't mean you harass them or question if "they really wanted it", it doesn't mean you prioritize the defense over the accusation, or perpetuate the documented problems victims suffer in trying to report abuse, unwanted attention, or assault.

I don't see anyone here saying "all these women are probably lying, it's all a ploy to ruin poor Andy's career", or anything of the sort.

 

[KHarvey16]

I think there is a wide space between treating accusations seriously and those making them with genuine care and consideration, and going hog-wild on the accused from the word go. The former absolutely does not necessitate the latter and being unwilling to go that far says nothing about your compassion for the accuser or how seriously you take their claims.

I think that’s the only caution people want to put out there.

 

[gaiages]

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.

Seems difficult to have a discussion when the leader of the site is banning anyone who disagrees with him...

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Okay, and that's fine.

But is it wrong if someone does choose to believe her?

This is what I don't understand. If you don't believe her and need more evidence, okay. But if someone else does believe her, then why is that wrong?

Again, I am not talking about what happens in a jury room.

I would say that as long as you're open to the possibility that she might not be telling the truth, and if you're not immediately condemning the other party, sure, that's pretty reasonable.

The problem isn't that some people believe or support the accuser over the accused, the issue is that some people treat situations like this as if an accusation is automatically fact and act like anyone who wants more than someone's accusation are somehow defending the accused person and saying that they definitely didn't do anything wrong.

 

[kikiribu]

Seems difficult to have a discussion when the leader of the site is banning anyone who disagrees with him...

That's not really what's happening though? And everyone taking a fall for Inferno313 after that unnecessary ”boy's club" comment is pretty dumb. It paints everyone who disagrees with him (Inferno313) as being part of that ”boy's club" too.

 

[Mister Megative]

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

Cosigned. I haven't seen anything disrespectful, rude, thoughtless, or otherwise from any of these posters. I'm sure I'll be banned for this, and that's fine. But I won't keep my mouth shut either, especially having known women who are victimized.

 

[Seesaw15]

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

My bad. I didn't realize you could get fake verification check mark on those message generators.

 

[VonGreckler]

Seems difficult to have a discussion when the leader of the site is banning anyone who disagrees with him...

There have been plenty of posts disagreeing with EvilLore while keeping to TOS that are still here posting. The ones that have been banned have been back-seat modding. Pretty easy to distinguish.

I think there is a wide space between treating accusations seriously and those making them with genuine care and consideration, and going hog-wild on the accused from the word go. The former absolutely does not necessitate the latter and being unwilling to go that far says nothing about your compassion for the accuser or how seriously you take their claims.

I think that's the only caution people want to put out there.

This.

 

[Fliesen]

My bad. I didn't realize you could get fake verification check mark on those message generators.

I mean, a screenshot's just a jpeg / png file, so basically you can fake anything, even if the generators didn't make it that ridiculously easy.

 

[Metalingus5150]

Hope justice is served

 

[irfaanator]

maybe he's banning all suspected pedos before they come back on gaf. Doing all of us a favor really

\s

 

[ExVicis]

Cosigned. I haven't seen anything disrespectful, rude, thoughtless, or otherwise from any of these posters. I'm sure I'll be banned for this, and that's fine. But I won't keep my mouth shut either, especially having known women who are victimized.

Inferno browbeating people in the thread is pretty thoughtless I think. Even so I don't think these bans have anything at all to do with the women being victimized so I don't know why you're trying to make it seem like that.

 

[RulkezX]

Seems difficult to have a discussion when the leader of the site is banning anyone who disagrees with him...

That's not what is happening tough. I think this thread may have just been the one that pushed Evilore over the edge , he did mention earlier that this is in an issue in all of OT. A few members appear to have caught band that likely would have slipped by on another night.

Weird the discord crew are taking screencaps of the forum to prove Evilore is a madman and likely shame him on Twitter or something. Anything for an internet drama for some people I guess.

 

[M.J. Doja]

This is a splendid culling.

This topic is proving too difficult to discuss for a lot of people here. Why though??

It's amazing that people feel the need to suggest victims are lying, or that a nerdy e-celebrity is just so gosh darned innocent. Have you guys never met toxic, misogynist predatory men? Or are you guys covering up for your own behavior?

Then the faux-outrage against mod abuse, like the banned people are victims. That's not the narrative of this thread, or society. Toxic men are not victims, even less so when they're white.

So get fucked, banned people and their defenders. Lol j/k. I would though. Fuck you, I mean.

 

[Nokagi]

User gets banned for complaining about a person who was banned for complaining about another person who was banned for complaining about a ban. Got a domino effect going on here. Might be a good idea to stop complaining about bans?

 

[Bobo Dakes]

This is a splendid culling.

This topic is proving too difficult to discuss for a lot of people here. Why though??

It's amazing that people feel the need to suggest victims are lying, or that a nerdy e-celebrity is just so gosh darned innocent. Have you guys never met toxic, misogynist predatory men? Or are you guys covering up for your own behavior?

Then the faux-outrage against mod abuse, like the banned people are victims. That's not the narrative of this thread, or society. Toxic men are not victims, even less so when they're white.

So get fucked, banned people and their defenders. Lol j/k. I would though. Fuck you, I mean.

What?

 

[4 is a cutie]

I don't agree with your assumption.

To understand why victims don't like coming out on twitter is to first analyze why it is that people immediately believe accusations like these to be false. Note i'm not saying analyzing evidence and later deciding the victim is lying is inherently bad, i'm talking immediate reactions. To offer condolences and show sympathy from the jump is at least rooted in years and years of people not being believed despite false accusations not being that common, but to immediately go "Got proof?" is something else...

 

[EviLore]

What?

No clue.

 

[LionPride]

User gets banned for complaining about a person who was banned for complaining about another person who was banned for complaining about a ban. Got a domino effect going on here. Might be a good idea to stop complaining about bans?

Or maybe the owner shouldn't ban everyone who disagrees with him, like he always does.

 

[voOsh]

This is a splendid culling.

This topic is proving too difficult to discuss for a lot of people here. Why though??

It's amazing that people feel the need to suggest victims are lying, or that a nerdy e-celebrity is just so gosh darned innocent. Have you guys never met toxic, misogynist predatory men? Or are you guys covering up for your own behavior?

Then the faux-outrage against mod abuse, like the banned people are victims. That's not the narrative of this thread, or society. Toxic men are not victims, even less so when they're white.

So get fucked, banned people and their defenders. Lol j/k. I would though. Fuck you, I mean.

A post like this is about as helpful as the Russian social media trolls were in the last US election. Be civil, dude.

 

[Seesaw15]

This is a splendid culling.

This topic is proving too difficult to discuss for a lot of people here. Why though??

It's amazing that people feel the need to suggest victims are lying, or that a nerdy e-celebrity is just so gosh darned innocent. Have you guys never met toxic, misogynist predatory men? Or are you guys covering up for your own behavior?

Then the faux-outrage against mod abuse, like the banned people are victims. That's not the narrative of this thread, or society. Toxic men are not victims, even less so when they're white.

So get fucked, banned people and their defenders. Lol j/k. I would though. Fuck you, I mean.

You've been here for 10 years? What are you even talking about ?

 

[Subpar Scrub]

I'll just go ahead and assume everyone on Youtube is probably a fucking cunt.

Yeah, all 1 billion+ users are cunts. Bravo.

 

[Volimar]

This is a splendid culling.

This topic is proving too difficult to discuss for a lot of people here. Why though??

It's amazing that people feel the need to suggest victims are lying, or that a nerdy e-celebrity is just so gosh darned innocent. Have you guys never met toxic, misogynist predatory men? Or are you guys covering up for your own behavior?

Then the faux-outrage against mod abuse, like the banned people are victims. That's not the narrative of this thread, or society. Toxic men are not victims, even less so when they're white.

So get fucked, banned people and their defenders. Lol j/k. I would though. Fuck you, I mean.

What? I mean in the first few pages there were people not wanting to jump the gun, but no one's saying he's innocent.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

This is a splendid culling.

This topic is proving too difficult to discuss for a lot of people here. Why though??

It's amazing that people feel the need to suggest victims are lying, or that a nerdy e-celebrity is just so gosh darned innocent. Have you guys never met toxic, misogynist predatory men? Or are you guys covering up for your own behavior?

Then the faux-outrage against mod abuse, like the banned people are victims. That's not the narrative of this thread, or society. Toxic men are not victims, even less so when they're white.

So get fucked, banned people and their defenders. Lol j/k. I would though. Fuck you, I mean.

Looks like someone started their weekend drinking early. I need a drunk translator or something.

 

[kikiribu]

This is a splendid culling.

This topic is proving too difficult to discuss for a lot of people here. Why though??

It's amazing that people feel the need to suggest victims are lying, or that a nerdy e-celebrity is just so gosh darned innocent. Have you guys never met toxic, misogynist predatory men? Or are you guys covering up for your own behavior?

Then the faux-outrage against mod abuse, like the banned people are victims. That's not the narrative of this thread, or society. Toxic men are not victims, even less so when they're white.

So get fucked, banned people and their defenders. Lol j/k. I would though. Fuck you, I mean.

.......

Well that was awkward.

 

[ExVicis]

This is a splendid culling.

This topic is proving too difficult to discuss for a lot of people here. Why though??

It's amazing that people feel the need to suggest victims are lying, or that a nerdy e-celebrity is just so gosh darned innocent. Have you guys never met toxic, misogynist predatory men? Or are you guys covering up for your own behavior?

Then the faux-outrage against mod abuse, like the banned people are victims. That's not the narrative of this thread, or society. Toxic men are not victims, even less so when they're white.

So get fucked, banned people and their defenders. Lol j/k. I would though. Fuck you, I mean.

What were you even trying to say here dude?

 

[MechaX]

This is a splendid culling.

This topic is proving too difficult to discuss for a lot of people here. Why though??

It's amazing that people feel the need to suggest victims are lying, or that a nerdy e-celebrity is just so gosh darned innocent. Have you guys never met toxic, misogynist predatory men? Or are you guys covering up for your own behavior?

Then the faux-outrage against mod abuse, like the banned people are victims. That's not the narrative of this thread, or society. Toxic men are not victims, even less so when they're white.

So get fucked, banned people and their defenders. Lol j/k. I would though. Fuck you, I mean.

But... that's not even what is leading to the conversation breakdown and the bans in this situation.

Like, how in the world did you even reach this point based on what is going on?

 

[Fliesen]

This is a splendid culling.

This topic is proving too difficult to discuss for a lot of people here. Why though??

It's amazing that people feel the need to suggest victims are lying, or that a nerdy e-celebrity is just so gosh darned innocent. Have you guys never met toxic, misogynist predatory men? Or are you guys covering up for your own behavior?

Then the faux-outrage against mod abuse, like the banned people are victims. That's not the narrative of this thread, or society. Toxic men are not victims, even less so when they're white.

So get fucked, banned people and their defenders. Lol j/k. I would though. Fuck you, I mean.

Either this post is making fun of all of us.

OR this is one of those comments, that tells a malware botnet where to download the next payload.

 

[doop_]

Someone please just ban my ass, i really don't want to be part of this forum anymore.

 

[Dynasty]

Or maybe the owner shouldn't ban everyone who disagrees with him, like he always does.

Your line of reasoning is funny because it is similiar to the Alt-right trolls that pop-up from time to time and post
'Gaf just bans people they disagree with.'
'We shouldnt be banning people who support JonTron just because we disagree with him.'