Night In The Woods dev accused of sexual assault/rape EDIT: Dies of apparent suicide.

Tafdolphin wrote:I'm checking out of this now. Intolerable jawa has arrived on his Centrist steed and joined Fade's apologist parade.

Nope. Sorry.

Well, there we go. Using silly names and terms purely because some people are questioning a couple of aspects of your viewpoint.

Edit: And that added-on hidden comment? My word. Nobody here is suggesting that "we don't believe women"... this has all come about merely because Fade and myself have said that evidence from all sources should be assessed in a case.

Multiple women/industry peeps now coming forward and adding to the accusations against Alexis Kennedy;

twitter.com/mishellbaker/status/1166765064386301952

twitter.com/babelfishwars/status/1166788762392829953

twitter.com/leighalexander/status/1166758834095972353

twitter.com/NotBrunoAgain/status/1166763079578849280

As for the man himself, he immediately threatened legal action. strawberry floating horrible.

Fade wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Fade wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:Plz stop

Thought not

You don't seem to understand... it matters not one bit what the accused says or the evidence he proposes as he is the accused. He has zero credibility as his sole purpose is to exonerate himself.

I don't understand how this is an alien concept to you.

Okay, well by that logic I could accuse you of sending me a death threat (with no evidence) and you wouldn't be able to provide evidence disproving me because you're the one I accused, is that what you're saying? You are saying any time ANYONE is accused of anything we should assume the person accusing them is telling the truth and the person being a accused is lying? Even when we step back and look at evidence from both sides?

I hope you're never on a strawberry floating Jury, Jesus.

How about you watch his video and form your own opinion? This is like debating about a film with someone who hasn't even seen it

I was on a jury the other month and I don't think ProJared's "I have screenshots! Now I have proved my innocence, goodbye" would hold up in court.

Mafro wrote:

Fade wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Fade wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:Plz stop

Thought not

You don't seem to understand... it matters not one bit what the accused says or the evidence he proposes as he is the accused. He has zero credibility as his sole purpose is to exonerate himself.

I don't understand how this is an alien concept to you.

Okay, well by that logic I could accuse you of sending me a death threat (with no evidence) and you wouldn't be able to provide evidence disproving me because you're the one I accused, is that what you're saying? You are saying any time ANYONE is accused of anything we should assume the person accusing them is telling the truth and the person being a accused is lying? Even when we step back and look at evidence from both sides?

I hope you're never on a strawberry floating Jury, Jesus.

How about you watch his video and form your own opinion? This is like debating about a film with someone who hasn't even seen it

I was on a jury the other month and I don't think ProJared's "I have screenshots! Now I have proved my innocence, goodbye" would hold up in court.

Another person who didn't watch the (40 minute) video?

I didn't want to watch projared videos before I knew he solicited naked photos from a minor, so why would I want to watch one now?

Knoyleo wrote:I didn't want to watch projared videos before I knew he solicited naked photos from a minor, so why would I want to watch one now?

But how can you know the facts if you haven't watched the video?

Knoyleo wrote:I didn't want to watch projared videos before I knew he solicited naked photos from a minor, so why would I want to watch one now?

The whole point of the video is that it provides evidence to prove that's not what he did

You are literally believing the accusations against him without any evidence.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:I didn't want to watch projared videos before I knew he solicited naked photos from a minor, so why would I want to watch one now?

But how can you know the facts if you haven't watched the video?

You actually make me want to blow my own brains out. I'm not even joking.

The way you are approaching this topic is the equivalent of trump saying "Oh well global warming doesn't exist because of course the scientists want it to be true, otherwise they'd be out of a job! No I don't care if they've got charts and graphs that prove what they're saying is true!"

Apparently believing accusations without evidence is just what we're meant to do these days, worse we're meant to continue believing those accusations when the accused disprove them?

*Don't forget guys, Taf definitely sent me an abusive PM don't believe what he says because of course he'd want to defend himself even if he posts a screenshot of his inbox it's definitely been photoshopped I have no evidence but you should believe me because I'm the accuser, don't worry about that silly evidence thing

*Sarcasm

The way you are approaching it is believing a research paper funded by an oil company showing ‘evidence’ that global warming is a myth

Okay Fade. I am going to watch your video. On double speed so it only makes my life unbearable for 20 minutes.

Watch this space.

Okay, I steeled myself and watched it.

He doesn't really provide any evidence for his claims. Specifically, in order of appearance:

I more-or-less believe that he asked the "You 18+?" question when in doubt. I don't think he knowingly solicited pictures from children, I think he understood and was afraid of what a shitstorm that would cause for him.

I don't think that exonerates him. I think he's probably a dickhead who cheated on his wife, and I think he's definitely a creep who encouraged and exploited emotionally manipulative parasocial relationships with smitten fans who were barely adults for sexual thrills, which is really just disgraceful behaviour.

He might not have committed any crimes but that's a very low bar to stan someone. He's still an asshole, and his video doesn't refute that, it's just an attempt at PR and damage control.

Fade, I haven't watched or participated in this thread whatsoever (but have read some articles reporting on it), but I'd still like to say that a video on the internet doesn't prove a damn thing.

Karl once again being the mod we don’t deserve.

I do think it's important to recognise the overwhelming voice of people who play games, who appear to defend industry figures accused of sexual misconduct literally within seconds of it being posted online, and normally directly in response to the individual making those accusations. That is what I observed on the Twitter chain and struck me as kind of odd. And yeah, you could pretty much see the dudes seething through the screen.

So it's extremely unlikely anyone will need to seriously fill that role ad nauseam. It's done. Anyway, there's courts for that. I guess what I'm saying is, don't go out of your way to benefit the accused as it's sort of, well, strawberry floating pointless. It's relatively likely they have done shitty things with this many people coming out and speaking about it and yes that is a small part of how society serves justice because a court doesn't magically manifest at the very moment of contention. It isn't a good gamer's job to stick their neck out for beardy indie gaming I spent so long in my bedroom coding games and desperately wanting money for girls/ramen types just cos, y'know, in case they're not a banana split. At least that's my opinion.

Thanks guys. Thought I was going crazy for a second there.

Fade, I don't know what connection you have with this ProJared but Snowcannon nailed the analogy

Snowcannon wrote:The way you are approaching it is believing a research paper funded by an oil company showing ‘evidence’ that global warming is a myth

You didn't enter the thread suggesting we consider his evidence, you entered stating 'hopefully this sort of jumping to conclusion doesn't happen again.' From the start you claimed or implied the accused's video exonerated the accused himself. That it proved his innocence.

From what's been discussed in here I truly hope you can see why that's not the case, at all, can reconsider your own biases and maybe consider the facts more critically the next time this occurs. Because it will.

Karlsus. He gave his 40 minutes so we didn't have to.

Knoyleo wrote:Karlsus. He gave his 40 minutes so we didn't have to.

He put it on double speed and so he owes us another 20 minutes.

I suggest he used that 20 minutes to evaluate Gary Glitter music videos. Maybe Glitter left evidence in “Do you want to be in my gang” that would show he is innocent?

Fade wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Fade wrote:Anyone watched ProJared's newest video?

I hope people learn from that and don't jump to conclusions again.

Because he said he didn't do it?

https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/projared-defense-video/

TL;dr Youtuber cheats on his wife with fan. Wife alleges he also shared nude photos with underage fans. Multiple, multiple fans confirm this.

4 months later, Youtuber posts an "I did nothing wrong." video while admitting he did swap nudes with fans in an 'unhealthy' manner but it wasn't predatory because, you know, he doesn't think it was.

Seems to me the conclusions that were jumped to were... Correct?!

EDIT: Just read some of his evidence. It's like something a kid would present as exculpatory.

Did you watch the video? Both of his 'victims' very clearly lied about what happened.

Yeah having a Tumblr where people send you nudes is seedy, but there are cases where famous people have pursued and groomed people. That didn't happen in this case, he stopped talking to one of the 'victims' a number of times and she always began messaging him again. He did not pursue or groom either of these people.

While I agree there is a huge power differential it swings both ways. Him sending nudes to people can be way more damaging to him then some nobody sending them to him.

If someone decides to send you nudes, the mere fact you are famous doesn't immediately make it predatory, you have to look at the context.

Just a quick point, but the above bolded part doesn't necessarily mean that the person wasn't groomed. In fact, starving someone of attention to them push them into messaging you unprompted is pretty much textbook grooming.

FWIW I don't know who ProJared is and don't care to find out, but thought I should point that out.

Green Gecko wrote:Fade, I haven't watched or participated in this thread whatsoever (but have read some articles reporting on it), but I'd still like to say that a video on the internet doesn't prove a damn thing.

Gecko, man... this makes no sense at all. It has no logic; that video evidence inherently can't be valid? That it doesn't contain truth because it's on the internet? Sure, I'm not suggesting that it *is* the truth; merely that it's a form of evidence that is valid as the accusers words released on Twitter.

Tafdolphin wrote:Thanks guys. Thought I was going crazy for a second there...

This, in my view, is an ugly post; seeking to take the high moral ground after thinking that comments from mods / staff have validated your earlier words and confirmed that others are 'wrong"... and attempting to be condescending whilst doing so. As for reconsiderng biases and taking a more critical approach, this seems the height of hypocrisy - your whole point has been that evidence should only be accepted from certain sources and that the words of some people should be dismissed.

The video is not, as Karl phrased it, "Fade's video" ("your video"); it is Projared's point of view. From Fade's perspective, he felt it presented another side to the accusations and that feels pretty reasonable. Whether it does or doesn't contain anything to change a viewpoint is really down to personal perception and, sure, there is nothing wrong in challenging that either way. But it is another side to the incident and looking at it and considering it doesn't stand as an example of (ugh) "not believing women".

I am seriously wary of claims being made or character assassinations attempted (which has already happened in this thread) and so in case I'm represented in a "jawa backs up people who assault" fashion, I'll repeat here what I've said earlier: people should be unafraid, encouraged and supported to raise these horrible incidents; perpetrators should face the law; such cases are appalling; and it's a good thing thing that we strive to create a no-tolerance environment for such incidents. But, in partnership with that, I feel that a standard approach of gathering and reviewing all evidence is important.

jawafour wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:Fade, I haven't watched or participated in this thread whatsoever (but have read some articles reporting on it), but I'd still like to say that a video on the internet doesn't prove a damn thing.

Gecko, man... this makes no sense at all. It has no logic; that video evidence inherently can't be valid? That it doesn't contain truth because it's on the internet? Sure, I'm not suggesting that it *is* the truth; merely that it's a form of evidence that is valid as the accusers words released on Twitter.

Tafdolphin wrote:Thanks guys. Thought I was going crazy for a second there...

This, in my view, is an ugly post; seeking to take the high moral ground after thinking that comments from mods / staff have validated your earlier words and confirmed that others are 'wrong"... and attempting to be condescending whilst doing so. As for reconsiderng biases and taking a more critical approach, this seems the height of hypocrisy - your whole point has been that evidence should only be accepted from certain sources and that the words of some people should be dismissed.

The video is not, as Karl phrased it, "Fade's video" ("your video"); it is Projared's point of view. From Fade's perspective, he felt it presented another side to the accusations and that feels pretty reasonable. Whether it does or doesn't contain anything to change a viewpoint is really down to personal perception and, sure, there is nothing wrong in challenging that either way. But it is another side to the incident and looking at it and considering it doesn't stand as an example of (ugh) "not believing women".

I am seriously wary of claims being made or character assassinations attempted (which has already happened in this thread) and so in case I'm represented in a "jawa backs up people who assault" fashion, I'll repeat here what I've said earlier: people should be unafraid, encouraged and supported to raise these horrible incidents; perpetrators should face the law; such cases are appalling; and it's a good thing thing that we strive to create a no-tolerance environment for such incidents. But, in partnership with that, I feel that a standard approach of gathering and reviewing all evidence is important.

You've missed the point again here, jawa. The reason Gecko dismissed the video, the reason I dismissed the video, the reason Karl watched then dismissed the video and the reason I felt like I owed those folks credit for convincing me I wasn't insane has nothing to do with the fair consideration of evidence from both sides. It is that a video from the accuser contains no inherent worth if its only purpose is to exonerate the creator.

Evidence and claims submitted from the victims in this case are inherently more believable and carry more weight, in part, as they are actively disadvantageous to those making the claim. The evidence submitted by the accused is actively advantageous to the person presenting it and is therefore hugely biased. Considering it at face value is a grave misunderstanding of the situation.

I genuinely don't know how it can be made clearer that comparing the evidence of the accused and the accuser on equal terms is an exercise in false balance.

You aren't sitting on the fence here. You're acting as an apologist, despite your claims to the contrary.

EDIT: Would love to get your views on Karl's post jawa. Given his meticulous break down of the video, and how it largely amounts to nothing, I'm wondering why you're still desperate we consider it?

Why do people even care about the projared drama, he's not your friend and regardless of whether he broke the law he sounds like a right dodgy dave. Just stop following him, there are literally thousands of youtubers out there doing the same thing you can watch instead.

I think this is just another case demonstrating the increased impact and dangers of parasocial relationships in the modern world, and I think that's something the education system (or similar) needs to make a real effort in educating children about - the people primarily buying into and being negatively affected by these kinds of relationships.

My less sympathetic response being "get off youtube/social media and make some real friends" but I'm just an old man who posts on bulletin boards and doesn't "get" youtube.