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

I don't think anyone really cares. Fade brought it up in some attempt to demonstrate that, I dunno, women lie about these accusations sometimes? Then it turned into whole thing about evidence weighting (a foreign concept to some apparently) and now we're here.

YouTube apology videos are a cancer, however we could have an apology-off between Jared and Onision?

That was aimed more at those defending him, tbh. It seems weird to me that anyone feels invested enough to react with anything more than "huh guess this guy might be a creep". I get the academic "this is no substitute for a fair trail", not the subsequent "I must now seek out his defence and invest myself into the intricacies of the case!". Then when you see that most of the people investing so much effort into defending the guy are also the people who watch his videos, and you have to wonder why fans would feel it necessary to do that. Lo and behold, it's probably because of some unhealthy parasocial relationship.

(I'm talking more about the wider reaction than what is being posted here really)

If anyone accused of a crime or misbehaviour came up with hard proof they couldn't possibly have done it, like they were verifiably in a different country at the time or whatever, I'd probably be convinced to be honest.

I guess it's not that the accused big-letters Can't Ever exonerate themselves, it's that you need to be very sceptical of their claims because they have a clear vested interest in being perceived as innocent. Their claims should be treated with suspicion, you need to think to yourself "are they just trying to lie their way out of it?"

In Jared's case, my main problem with the guy is the thing he most-obviously did actually do: getting off from emotionally manipulating diehard fans half his age into sharing intimate photos with him. There isn't really anything he could have said to change my opinion of him after that (hypothetically a heartfelt and genuinely reflective apology wouldn't hurt, but that wasn't going to happen in a video called "YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO").

Agreed. Again it's all about weighing the evidence based on multiple factors, source being a prime example. In this case even if he'd presented the accusers on screen literally saying "We're sorry we accused ProJared, everything we said was a lie" that is still suspect as strawberry float due to the nature of the initial accusations (that he used his power and influence to make these fans act in ways they later regretted).

The idea that presenting two contrasting sides to an argument as equal, no matter the context, is a huge problem the BBC are currently experiencing. There was a tweet thread a while back from, I think a global warming expert who refused an interview as he was going to be facing a climate change denier. That's the definition of false balance as we know the denier's arguments will be factually suspect.

Some people's opinion that simply because this guy's claims are contrary to those of his accusers, that these are equally valid and deserved as much recognition, is...wrong.

Not personally knowing anyone involved why would I believe either party more than the other? People do sick things but people also lie, to put it in the words of House MD ''everybody lies"

Anyone super invested on either side is tying themselves up in something they don't really know anything about and could end up looking stupid over it, unless your a judge or part of a jury best just to say if he did it he's an ass if she's lying she's an ass and save yourself all of the stress and stay away from all of the justice warriors on both side of the argument who are circle jerking and back slapping each other while screaming down the other side trust me you'll live longer.

kerr9000 wrote:Not personally knowing anyone involved why would I believe either party more than the other?

Context aka reread the last few pages.

I did read them all, the thing that stood out most was you getting huffy when not instantly agreed with completely. Chill out you'll live longer.

kerr9000 wrote:I did read them all, the thing that stood out most was you getting huffy when not instantly agreed with completely. Chill out you'll live longer.

Reread. Because you asked a question that's been answered.

My point about the video in the same way I would dismiss most photography on the internet is it's a very evocative and highly manipulative medium that is unlikely to prove much at all in this context, because we're talking about intangible events with no reliable record of them happening, that anyone here can access. Furthermore there is no way for anyone to quickly and easily prove that the events communicated on the Internet ever happened at all. On top of that we're amongst a generation of technocrats (YouTubers) when it comes to presenting facts and arguments in the most flattering manner possible, which is, really, a video.

This is the same degree of scepticism that fuels the "evidence until proven guilty" rhetoric that appears immediately following pretty much any accusation of sexual assault on the Internet. It's the very same attitude, yet suddenly the truth is more appealing when an accused defends themselves in an evocative video format. One has to question why that is? The entire situation is a fallacy that at best reveals individual proponents in what they want to believe, rather than what the evidence is or even what the evidence might be; that which we cannot know. I think people that spend a lot of time on the internet or our demographic or whatever are far to ready to pander to a YouTube video of hot takes than any other form of evidence.

I have the same attitude to most things depicted in the media because my entire life orients around being an expert in the illusory and literally made-up out of nothing, and I also have quite some experience in what it is to be manipulated regardless of the medium used to do that. I seldom believe much of what I read or see at all, unless doing so bears little consequence to me or anyone I care about. I think it's important to be sceptical not just about information but the manner in which it is provided; if the most convincing and potentially manipulative medium to do that is a video then, yes, I am not going to pay much attention to it because honestly I know what it is capable of.

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.

So you're saying that if you found yourself accused of a crime you hadn't committed (or maybe had - this being a purely theoretical scenario) you wouldn't attempt to prove your innocence in any way because simply being accused would be enough evidence to secure a conviction?

Ironhide 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.

So you're saying that if you found yourself accused of a crime you hadn't committed (or maybe had - this being a purely theoretical scenario) you wouldn't attempt to prove your innocence in any way because simply being accused would be enough evidence to secure a conviction?

I'm saying that if my defence consisted entirely of a 40 minute video of myself saying 'I didn't do it' and some blurry screenshots then... I dunno it's a bad analogy you've given me. I'd be bad at defending myself?

Again. As Karl pointed out and as I agreed, evidence from the accused is not always worthless but must be weighed differently from evidence from other sources due to its inherent bias.

That's it.

In this case, due to the source and hollow content of the 'evidence' submitted by the accused it's next to meaningless. Fade's bringing it to the thread in a context of 'Looks like this guy didn't do it, so let's not always jump to conclusions' was wrong.

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

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

Much like Infinite Fall, Failbetter Games appear to be distancing themselves from Kennedy.

twitter.com/betterthemask/status/1166835529956114433

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

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

Much like Infinite Fall, Failbetter Games appear to be distancing themselves from Kennedy.

twitter.com/betterthemask/status/1166835529956114433

Which is excellent. His kneejerk 'I've called the police' looks truly sinister now, given the sheer number of reports that have since emerged. I feel genuinely sorry for his fiance too, although she has obviously defended him and repeated his claims of being harassed.

twitter.com/yitzilitt/status/1166836364576468993

Extra Credits getting mentioned is the big blow for me. I watched that religiously for a while and it was great.

Alec Holowka has died.

twitter.com/derangedpoetess/status/1167855630385909760

This was already a powder keg but now...I have no idea. Zoe Quinn has a long history of mental illness and depression so I hope to god she's got someone with her.

EDIT:

twitter.com/derangedpoetess/status/1167884648296222721

Shock horror there are people using a man's suicide as a weapon again his accusers despite his own wishes

Do yourself a favour and don't read the replies.

Christ. :dread:

I can't say I blame him taking his life, if he was guilty everyone's going to hate him and treat him like dirt and if it turned out it was blown out of proportion it's not like he would hear the end of it anyways he would still be treated like dirt once your accused in this trial by internet world you might as well just deepthroat a colt 45.

It seems as though he killed himself because he had long-standing serious mental health issues and wasn't able to process the sudden exposure of his misbehaviour.

I am sure none of the women who came forward about him wanted this kind of resolution. While clearly in many ways a dangerous person - his own sister essentially confirmed the claims against him - he didn't deserve to die and that clearly isn't what those who spoke up intended.

I'm wary of a narrative forming that says this was anyone's "fault", even indirectly. It was still right of the women he hurt to come forward.

EDIT: Looks like Zoe has deleted her Twitter, presumably because the Internet's roundest, smoothest brains were spamming her with "you killed him". It sucks that she has to endure another stupid GamerGate meltdown.

Jon Ronson has an excellent book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" which is a really good insight into exactly why people shouldn't participate in trial by social media. This whole thing is an absolute tragedy from start to finish.

That goes for Zoe Quinn too, who it seems has the focus of Internet rage going for her full force again.

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

Who is online

Affiliates