Support NeoGAF

[AnnaSlatz]

Hello, folks. I was kindly invited by CrustyBritches and EviLore .

I am the author of the Post Millennial articles on the Zoe Quinn issue (which is far, far, faaaaar from over).

Some background on me:

1. I am not a video gamer myself.
2. In 2014, during the GG controversy, I was starting University, and had nothing to do with any journalism of any kind. Certainly didn't know there even was a Gamergate happening, nor would I have cared either way.
3. I align myself with radical feminism (shameless Dworkinite), and am very left-wing politically.
4. Academically, I have a diploma in Criminology and Corrections, a degree in Sociology, and have started a postgrad.

Feel free to ask any questions.

Anna

Edit; In saying the above, FYI, I mean to say -- I am likely the least biased person who could ever have worked on this story ever. In the history of the world. Ever.

 

[AntiCap]

-I took issue with the chart on page #1 of this thread because it seemed to be all about ways to conclude Zoe was a bad person and a liar without also covering aspects/explorations of if she was telling the truth. For example, the anon chat between Alec and Anon worker from the Post Millennial site results in a chart conclusion that "It's very obvious that Zoe was also a terrible partner ". Hell of a conclusion to draw and state definitively based on anon sources printed in a known right-wing leaning tabloid (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/post-millennial-media-bias).

"Alec is an abusive rapist who's difficult to work with and Zoe Quinn is telling the truth about everything" is already the default angle pushed by nearly every outlet in gaming media. That's the problem. Online media and hate mobs drove a man to suicide, based on allegations that were never properly investigated and never will be investigated. "Hell of a conclusion" as you'd say.

The unfortunate truth is out now: high-profile public accusations have a damaging real-world impact, whether they are true or not. So this isn't about drawing conclusions; it's about the fact that certain conclusions were made in the first place when they never should have been.

PS: Bring out another Twisted Metal.

 

[Chromata]

W.T.F.??? DC announces this yesterday (Apparently my brain is a day behind)?? And judging from the plot summary, it’s an autobiography of what she did to Alec:

“A story of a hero who is done with bringing peace to a world that cannot be trusted with it; a woman whose newly awakened dark side is ready to burn it all down and forge a new destiny.”

I don’t see this book going over well.

I think you're reading too deep into it with the autobiography part. I strongly doubt that's the slant DC wants to go with.

That being said, it's appalling that she's getting a comic book collaboration just days after evidence surfaced that she potentially lied. There needs to be a legitimate investigation done here.

 

[MayauMiao]

Happy to help, welcome back.


Also welcome to NeoGAF A AnnaSlatz .

Just curious but Dave was banned by who and for what reason?

 

[EviLore]

Just curious but Dave was banned by who and for what reason?

He wasn't banned, he lost access to his account.

 

[Doomtrain]

Hey, nice to be back. I had forgotten my password for years and it was linked to a dead email so I couldn't retrieve it. Thanks Tyler for getting me back on board.

My core take/issue:

- I don't know Zoe or care about her other than her being a fellow human. From what I gather she lies, is vindictive, and- sadly- is dealing w/some mental health challenges of her own.

-I don't care if people are public about attacking her story and trying to prove she is a liar. I only care in as much that people either seem to be anti or pro Zoe and take in and support only the facts that support their narratives (for example, it seems odd to me that some 'anti-Zoe' folks have zero problem accepting text communications between Alec and some anon friend where they were bashing Zoe, but those same people throw out the 'testimony' of Alec's sister ((who claimed Alec was her best friend)) when she suggests that Alec, while improving, was capable of causing harm to other people because of his illness). The only dog I have in the fight is honesty and truth and I take issue with people who look at something as serious as sexual assault, mental illness, and suicide as almost a game where they will do, say, and accept anything that will help their 'team' win.

-I took issue with the chart on page #1 of this thread because it seemed to be all about ways to conclude Zoe was a bad person and a liar without also covering aspects/explorations of if she was telling the truth. For example, the anon chat between Alec and Anon worker from the Post Millennial site results in a chart conclusion that "It's very obvious that Zoe was also a terrible partner ". Hell of a conclusion to draw and state definitively based on anon sources printed in a known right-wing leaning tabloid (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/post-millennial-media-bias).

But In the bottom column the notes from Alec's sister and co-workers claiming he had behavioral issues when dealing with other people (and could easily lend at least SOME credence to the idea he COULD have indeed assaulted Zoe) don't affect the CONCLUSION column at all. And unless you have a dog in the fight/are already anti-Zoe going in, how could they not affect the conclusion? Wouldn't the conclusion a person looking only for truth be something like: Based on 'testimony' of people very close to Alec, it's at the least possible his illness resulted in behaviors that harmed others and it's not unreasonable to conclude that that behavior may have been directed at Zoe in the way she described.

So on and on and on...you get the point. Happy to answer any questions but that's why I was annoyed.

Also, FWIW, I don't stir up controversy for my stream. Ever. Last thing I ever want to be is something like THE QUARTERING and just make outrage content. I respect the guy's success and work ethic but he's always pissed and bitchy about something and I'm not looking to do that kind of a show. The only reason I do the stream is it's fun to shoot the shit about the game biz that I love and so I talk about game stuff that is on my mind. In this case, I read the thread last nite, tweeted about it, and woke to a bunch of folks who were angry/annoyed at my comments. So naturally, that was one of the topics I chose to spend time on on today's stream.

Thanks for reading, appreciate it!


David

Props for coming on!

Most people on here seem to be willing to acknowledge that Alec probably wasn't a saint either. Personally, it sounds likely that both Alec and Zoe were abusive in their own ways. That's an important distinction, though: the mainstream narrative seems to be that Zoe was a perfect angel and Alec was an abuser (with the unspoken conclusion that therefore, Zoe is to be propped up and Alec's death is to be dismissed). The evidence coming out since then suggests that it was a two-way street, and that's important!

Also, the testimony from his ex-partner Scott Benson was absurd. One of his arguments for why Alec was awful was that Alec would... enforce 7-hour workdays. I went in with an open mind, but the whole thing was so petty that I feel pretty comfortable writing him off now.

 

[trikster40]

I think you're reading too deep into it with the autobiography part. I strongly doubt that's the slant DC wants to go with.

That being said, it's appalling that she's getting a comic book collaboration just days after evidence surfaced that she potentially lied. There needs to be a legitimate investigation done here.

I truly did not mean that in serious manner, I know it’s not an autobiographical account. Just pointing out that the description does seems to almost describe her mental state and most likely her own self-image. Don’t know her at all, but it seems to fit the bill.

 

[CrustyBritches]

Thank you Anna for joining us! I can at least respect David for joining us, as well.

davidjaffe

You said in your Tweet,

The peanut gallery playing investigative reporter (with a clear aim towards playing judge,jury,executioner) is so scummy. Especially when the man who tragically killed himself's sister even said that he had caused harm in previous relationships

We have A AnnaSlatz here, a real life investigative reporter who covered this very story. Do you stand by your statement that it is scummy to investigate this story.

Anna, are you able to give us some quick insight as to why, contrary to David Jaffe, you feel it's important to cover the leaked Tweets?

Thanks in advance to both participants.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

-I don't care if people are public about attacking her story and trying to prove she is a liar. I only care in as much that people either seem to be anti or pro Zoe and take in and support only the facts that support their narratives (for example, it seems odd to me that some 'anti-Zoe' folks have zero problem accepting text communications between Alec and some anon friend where they were bashing Zoe, but those same people throw out the 'testimony' of Alec's sister ((who claimed Alec was her best friend)) when she suggests that Alec, while improving, was capable of causing harm to other people because of his illness). The only dog I have in the fight is honesty and truth and I take issue with people who look at something as serious as sexual assault, mental illness, and suicide as almost a game where they will do, say, and accept anything that will help their 'team' win.

I agree here. To often people handle conversation on topics like a game of Dodgeball. And no one person or group can "win" in this.

IDK if she is lying, telling the truth, or exaggerating the truth. Not for me to say really. However I don't think Twitter is the right place to report major crimes. And I thought that before he took his life. And I would say that if you witnessed a car jacking. Tell the Police not Twitter. Simply because if he is the monster she described, he shouldn't have had the opportunities to continue those actions with the next victim. Twitter couldn't get him the help he needed nor the help someone in her position would have needed.

-I took issue with the chart on page #1 of this thread because it seemed to be all about ways to conclude Zoe was a bad person and a liar without also covering aspects/explorations of if she was telling the truth. For example, the anon chat between Alec and Anon worker from the Post Millennial site results in a chart conclusion that "It's very obvious that Zoe was also a terrible partner ". Hell of a conclusion to draw and state definitively based on anon sources printed in a known right-wing leaning tabloid (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/post-millennial-media-bias).

But In the bottom column the notes from Alec's sister and co-workers claiming he had behavioral issues when dealing with other people (and could easily lend at least SOME credence to the idea he COULD have indeed assaulted Zoe) don't affect the CONCLUSION column at all. And unless you have a dog in the fight/are already anti-Zoe going in, how could they not affect the conclusion? Wouldn't the conclusion a person looking only for truth be something like: Based on 'testimony' of people very close to Alec, it's at the least possible his illness resulted in behaviors that harmed others and it's not unreasonable to conclude that that behavior may have been directed at Zoe in the way she described.

Thats fair. That goes back to that 2 sides thing.

I think what some are calling into question is the motivation behind all this. If she came forward for her own peace of mind or was she asked to for the start of a gaming MeToo.

I don't blame her for his death. He clearly had demons. I feel sorry for her if she was being truthfully. I feel sorry for his family that they had to bury their son.

 

[RokkanStoned]

Thanks for giving your view in a format that's more apt for discussion, mr. Jaffe.

-I don't care if people are public about attacking her story and trying to prove she is a liar. I only care in as much that people either seem to be anti or pro Zoe and take in and support only the facts that support their narratives (for example, it seems odd to me that some 'anti-Zoe' folks have zero problem accepting text communications between Alec and some anon friend where they were bashing Zoe, but those same people throw out the 'testimony' of Alec's sister ((who claimed Alec was her best friend)) when she suggests that Alec, while improving, was capable of causing harm to other people because of his illness). The only dog I have in the fight is honesty and truth and I take issue with people who look at something as serious as sexual assault, mental illness, and suicide as almost a game where they will do, say, and accept anything that will help their 'team' win.

Whether people are pro or anti-Zoe doesn't really matter, because Zoe herself accused Alec of something that lead to him being ostracized and denied a right to defend himself. What should be first given is a defense to Alec, if there can be, because none was given. After that the details might be discussed as to whether those hold up. If you've seen some of the posts, you'll see people recognize that they probably didn't have a healthy relationship, but inconsistencies in evidence compared to her extraordinary claims and Alec's own perspective are important in making this case not one-sided.

-I took issue with the chart on page #1 of this thread because it seemed to be all about ways to conclude Zoe was a bad person and a liar without also covering aspects/explorations of if she was telling the truth. For example, the anon chat between Alec and Anon worker from the Post Millennial site results in a chart conclusion that "It's very obvious that Zoe was also a terrible partner ". Hell of a conclusion to draw and state definitively based on anon sources printed in a known right-wing leaning tabloid (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/post-millennial-media-bias).

You're being very disingenuous here, Mr. Jaffe. If you read the site you linked, then the reputability of Post Millennial shouldn't be a problem. They are clearly centre-right as they themselves identify, so not some off-shoot looney edge paper. The review has no problem with their factual reporting. More so, that site itself is contradicting itself, as it claims it doesn't consider opinion pieces, while also referencing an opinion piece. Also how is it being right-leaning relevant to your criticism? Aren't we allowed to use NYTimes to present news, because they are "left-leaning" according to a site?
Also, if Zoe says Alec is bad, and she has mental health issues, if Alec says Zoe is bad and he has mental health issues, what are we left with? Well, the actual consequences, which is that his whole social circle and professional career was tanked and he ended up killing himself. He has had consequences and scrutiny, which is why a different perspective is given based on new information to make the case a bit more nuanced. That's why you start with a defense of Alec and being skeptical about Zoe. She's in no danger of being ostracized, at best she might get some scrutiny and criticism for her claims and her actions.
The conclusion was taken from Alec's perspective and from previous incidents I believe. Unlike Zoe's his statement was done in private, backwards in time, given a lot of credence to it. It doesn't necessarily mean it's true, but compared to the extraordinary claims done by Zoe, no one's trying to cancel and turn her into pariah because she's a bad partner. If you have anything pointing towards her being a good partner, I imagine TraceTheTong or GrayChild would update it, or if you have any specific argument as to why Alec was lying about Zoe there. Of course, all of this would've been better kept private, but because Zoe claimed something, it's now out there to cast doubt on her claims.

But In the bottom column the notes from Alec's sister and co-workers claiming he had behavioral issues when dealing with other people (and could easily lend at least SOME credence to the idea he COULD have indeed assaulted Zoe) don't affect the CONCLUSION column at all. And unless you have a dog in the fight/are already anti-Zoe going in, how could they not affect the conclusion? Wouldn't the conclusion a person looking only for truth be something like: Based on 'testimony' of people very close to Alec, it's at the least possible his illness resulted in behaviors that harmed others and it's not unreasonable to conclude that that behavior may have been directed at Zoe in the way she described.

They claim he had issues, yes, but we also have similar claims about Zoe from people she's worked with. The possibility of his illness causing him to harm others is in my opinion not adding that much. Because how will we treat the defense of people with mental health problems? Also, what if you don't have those issues, does that support you NOT doing what you're accused of? Probably not, so it's not really a good drum to beat, especially with it being rather vague and more about toxic behavior, rather than assault. Never is anything physical mentioned regarding Alec, but rather his mood and the way he talked and was around people. That's without considering how disgusting and narcissistic Scott Benson's piece was, carrying a rather grand narrative of "Conclusion Alec is guilty".

And now that guy is dead.

Also, FWIW, I don't stir up controversy for my stream. Ever. Last thing I ever want to be is something like THE QUARTERING and just make outrage content. I respect the guy's success and work ethic but he's always pissed and bitchy about something and I'm not looking to do that kind of a show.

I miss when The Quartering was reviewing card games, but controversy and fear is what drives us nowadays, as shown by basically all of media.


--
Now, I understand your call for caution and balance, but for that to be relevant we'd have to first present the counter-claims and then skeptically considering sources, motives, etc, and consider all the available information. Imagine if someone outs you as toxic on twitter and hinting at you abusing them. How will you respond as you're being ostracized socially and professionally? One is perhaps to fight back, but that's a long and hard fought battle that you might not even win and that'll use up your resources. Just look at how it ended up with Andy Signore. But imagine if your mental health is bad, what will you do then?
That's why the gaming industry should've done nothing in regards to Alec, until anything criminal was charged, until an investigation was done and concluding that Alec very likely did something wrong. Doubting both Alec and Zoe, as well as those on their "sides". Instead we have Twitter.

 

[ILLtown]

(for example, it seems odd to me that some 'anti-Zoe' folks have zero problem accepting text communications between Alec and some anon friend where they were bashing Zoe, but those same people throw out the 'testimony' of Alec's sister ((who claimed Alec was her best friend)) when she suggests that Alec, while improving, was capable of causing harm to other people because of his illness).

For me, that's because I don't trust SJW-types at all. And by that, I should be clear in what I mean because I'm not talking about progressives, liberals, or people who lean left with politics - I mean a specific type of person who displays cult-like behaviour. You know exactly the type of person I'm talking about.

Hell of a conclusion to draw and state definitively based on anon sources printed in a known right-wing leaning tabloid.

This is just an ad-hominem attack on one of the only sources that actually put some time into investigating this issue. Should we only trust sites that the site you linked to paints as neutral? Cos that would rule out a ton of left-leaning sources, which I'm sure you wouldn't take so much of an issue with when it comes to the direction they lean.

Based on 'testimony' of people very close to Alec, it's at the least possible his illness resulted in behaviors that harmed others and it's not unreasonable to conclude that that behavior may have been directed at Zoe in the way she described.

You said that from what you can gather, Zoe Quinn lies, is vindictive, and suffers from mental health issues. Why is it unreasonable to conclude that she exaggerated or lied here? Alec called her a compulsive liar on Twitter years before all of this shit happened and he's certainly not the first ex of hers to do that.

 

[AnnaSlatz]

Thank you Anna for joining us! I can at least respect David for joining us, as well.

davidjaffe

You said in your Tweet,


We have A AnnaSlatz here, a real life investigative reporter who covered this very story. Do you stand by your statement that it is scummy to investigate this story.

Anna, are you able to give us some quick insight as to why, contrary to David Jaffe, you feel it's important to cover the leaked Tweets?

Thanks in advance to both participants.

Firstly, I never suggested, in any way, that the tweets said anything about Quinn's emotional state. Of course survivors of domestic violence put on a "happy face" so to speak, so it would be ludicrous to make the assumption that she was happy, sad, or anything else.

What I was trying to do, however, was create a parallel on direct events and situations she put forward in her statement against what evidence actually existed to the otherwise. If there were enough contradictions there, then there are contradictions there. Full stop.

For example:

1. Isolated/trapped inside the apartment.
   1. She left frequently. And to dispose of the notion she craftily made these tweets to make people think she was going out when she was not, these tweets are corroborated by other tweets. For example, the "fabric outing" tweet is corroborated by several other tweets she made with updates about the plushies she was making, complete with photos. The "musical" tweet she made was corroborated with tweets from herself and others about that night. ETC.
2. Isolated from friends.
   1. We know she had regular communication with many, many people. Holowka and she also arranged dev meet-ups and went on a podcast.
3. Holowka's control of It's Not Okay Cupid
   1. Quinn claimed Holowka had taken control of her then-project. Dozens of tweets during her time in Winnipeg, and after she left Winnipeg, demonstrate Quinn was. actively the proprietor of her game.
4. The return home.
   1. This was a really, really big one. Much bigger than a lot of people gave credence. In her statement, Quinn claimed that the arrangement with Holowka was she purchased her ticket to Winnipeg, and he purchased her ticker home. She claimed that after one month, Holowka still had not bought her ticket, effectively trapping her in Winnipeg. Her roommate, out of fear, asked her if she needed help fleeing, and she accepted that help, her roommate buying her a ticker and getting her out of there. Holowka didn't even say goodbye. Tweets demonstrate she knew she was leaving 10 days prior to her departure, as she knew she had a layover in MTL, meaning she knew her flightpath. 10 days is almost 2 full weeks, and, as we know she was in Toronto on May 4th, it means she was not even in Winnipeg for the one full month she claimed she had been trapped due to Holowka's refusal to. buy her a ticket home.
5. The goodbye.
   1. A smaller detail, but just as significant. Quinn claimed in her roommate-sponsored departure, Holowka did not even say goodbye. Her tweet on May 4th states that she and Holowka were working on her game just hours prior to her departure.

So, even if you want to ignore all of the contact Quinn had with friends, all of her activity in the city of Winnipeg, all of her statements on the Indie Function podcast, all of her tweets to Holowka after her departure, and ALL OF HOLOWKA'S 2014 DIRECT MESSAGES ON THIS EXACT ISSUE... you still have quite a lot of contradictions and outright fabrications to work your way around in her statement.

Anna

 

[Doomtrain]

Hello, folks. I was kindly invited by CrustyBritches and EviLore .

I am the author of the Post Millennial articles on the Zoe Quinn issue (which is far, far, faaaaar from over).

Thank you for coming on, and for the excellent work you're doing.

What makes you say this is far from over?

 

[AnnaSlatz]

Thank you for coming on, and for the excellent work you're doing.

What makes you say this is far from over?

Hard at work on another story with one of Quinn's former friends. While he has released some of the information he has in the past (as a matter of public service), we are trying to repackage, renew, and research new information for a collaboration together which will hopefully be out soon.

I can't get any got dam sleep.

 

[ZehDon]

If someone makes a public rape accusation on twitter as part of gaming’s #MeToo moment, a movement started to help women feel safe with reporting sexual abuse, then it’s not in any way a private matter that shouldn’t be discussed.
That’s why the movement was started - to bring sexual assault out of the shadows and help women speak up, when historically they’ve had little support in doing so.
This is a public matter because Zoey took steps to ensure it was part of a movement created to make it a public matter.
Now that things are fucked beyond all belief, you don’t get to just close Pandora’s box and pretend it was never opened. Getting us all to stop pretending bad things don’t exist is why this movement was created.
People like to state we need to be brave and courageous and have uncomfortable conversations, because they’re important. Well, it doesn’t get much more uncomfortable than this. And it’s pretty fucking important. So, where’s all the bravery and courage I hear so much about?

 

[the Guynecologist]

.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Hey, nice to be back. I had forgotten my password for years and it was linked to a dead email so I couldn't retrieve it. Thanks Tyler for getting me back on board.

My core take/issue:

- I don't know Zoe or care about her other than her being a fellow human. From what I gather she lies, is vindictive, and- sadly- is dealing w/some mental health challenges of her own.

-I don't care if people are public about attacking her story and trying to prove she is a liar. I only care in as much that people either seem to be anti or pro Zoe and take in and support only the facts that support their narratives (for example, it seems odd to me that some 'anti-Zoe' folks have zero problem accepting text communications between Alec and some anon friend where they were bashing Zoe, but those same people throw out the 'testimony' of Alec's sister ((who claimed Alec was her best friend)) when she suggests that Alec, while improving, was capable of causing harm to other people because of his illness). The only dog I have in the fight is honesty and truth and I take issue with people who look at something as serious as sexual assault, mental illness, and suicide as almost a game where they will do, say, and accept anything that will help their 'team' win.

-I took issue with the chart on page #1 of this thread because it seemed to be all about ways to conclude Zoe was a bad person and a liar without also covering aspects/explorations of if she was telling the truth. For example, the anon chat between Alec and Anon worker from the Post Millennial site results in a chart conclusion that "It's very obvious that Zoe was also a terrible partner ". Hell of a conclusion to draw and state definitively based on anon sources printed in a known right-wing leaning tabloid (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/post-millennial-media-bias).

But In the bottom column the notes from Alec's sister and co-workers claiming he had behavioral issues when dealing with other people (and could easily lend at least SOME credence to the idea he COULD have indeed assaulted Zoe) don't affect the CONCLUSION column at all. And unless you have a dog in the fight/are already anti-Zoe going in, how could they not affect the conclusion? Wouldn't the conclusion a person looking only for truth be something like: Based on 'testimony' of people very close to Alec, it's at the least possible his illness resulted in behaviors that harmed others and it's not unreasonable to conclude that that behavior may have been directed at Zoe in the way she described.

So on and on and on...you get the point. Happy to answer any questions but that's why I was annoyed.

Also, FWIW, I don't stir up controversy for my stream. Ever. Last thing I ever want to be is something like THE QUARTERING and just make outrage content. I respect the guy's success and work ethic but he's always pissed and bitchy about something and I'm not looking to do that kind of a show. The only reason I do the stream is it's fun to shoot the shit about the game biz that I love and so I talk about game stuff that is on my mind. In this case, I read the thread last nite, tweeted about it, and woke to a bunch of folks who were angry/annoyed at my comments. So naturally, that was one of the topics I chose to spend time on on today's stream.

Thanks for reading, appreciate it!


David

Faced with a story Alec's suicide where information is intentionally omitted by journos, it is frustrating to gather info, point out inconsistencies, cite the few sources that are reporting on it, and then to be painted as an "anti-Zoe team" for the effort. Hence, the snark aimed at you. Griping about GAF's chart i.e. the amateur efforts of an enthusiast site to piece together a story ignored by the industry mouthpieces seemed misplaced to me, but who really cares? You didn't do anything wrong by calling attention to our potential inconsistencies just like there's nothing wrong with us calling out Zoe's inconsistencies.

The attention should really be put back on the reason why this conversation is happening at all: several women -- Zoe being only one -- came forward on social media in a coordinated manner to spark a movement and someone killed himself shortly thereafter, snuffing out their righteous crusade. This took place 5 years to the month after the GamerGate blowup. It included a well-planned media effort to gather and publish stories of women who were abused in the game industry, to "name and shame".

Some folks on GAF were suspicious of the timing of "Gaming's #metoo movement" days before Alec killed himself. It was/is spearheaded by two known provocateurs in the industry. If we're going to be suspicious of a "known right-wing leaning tabloid", doubly so for individuals who've been caught in lies before. Alec's death may have inflamed a sense of justice, but it didn't spark the suspicion. The very moment Zoe posted her story on the heels of Jeremy Soule's accusation folks were suspicious (Zoe specifically cites his accuser as the reason she felt brave enough to come forward, too). Scott Benson's gushing condemnation of his former partner, Alec's sister appearing on Twitter to announce his suicide (seriously, how fucked up is that?), Zoe deleting her Twitter, the silence on gaming news-sites, and the champion of "gaming's #metoo moment" going radio silent for the past two weeks is hella suspicious. Does that prove anything definitively? Of course not, which is why I use the word "suspicious".

Wouldn't the conclusion of a person only looking for the truth be something like: holy shit, the fog of war covering this situation is crazy so let's try to gather facts and use available information to figure out what happened instead of defaulting to a defense of a known liar who might have been abused by the deceased? Like, how far can we stretch #believewomen until it snaps and genuine victims are ignored because opportunists cried wolf too frequently?

I'll just close with this, posted prior to his suicide:

 

[RokkanStoned]

As I said before, this is most likely to finish out her contract and do away with her. Her book, Goddess Mode, sold extremely poorly and they can't afford to keep someone on like that if AT&T/Warner Media don't see the point of comic books due to low sales.

Good perspective, more so I doubt it has any relevance to the Alec situation, so it feels a bit grasping.

The same thing with the criticism of newspapers reporting it as Alec passing away. A lot of papers avoid mentioning suicide, often because it can cause a wave of suicides. That might explain why so little is mentioned. Though I do wonder whether it would be the same if things were turned around.

{OG: Title}

{OG: Description}

www.nami.org

 

[davidjaffe]

You mentioned in the stream that this forum has some kind of vendetta/agenda to just hate on ZQ.

This forum's obsession seems to stem from the fact that she seems to be invunerable almost anywhere else on the internet, and is being protected from scrutiny by the press.

It's this frustration that has led to people becoming obsessed with her. She is an anomoly. One of the most protected people on the internet.

Perhaps but I'M not defending her. There are no sacred cows when it comes to respecting the truth.

He wasn't banned, he lost access to his account.

I actually was banned a while ago for making a joke. This person had an avatar of a female face and her cat was in front of her lower face and I said, 'You have a pussy on your mouth' and that was enough for a ban and a snarky moderator rebuke. It was enough for me to go, 'Ok- I'm done with this place...'

It SEEMS people are still insistent on kindness here (yay) but not so uptight about crude jokes? If that's the case, I'm glad to be back .

 

[captainraincoat]

Hello, folks. I was kindly invited by CrustyBritches and EviLore .

I am the author of the Post Millennial articles on the Zoe Quinn issue (which is far, far, faaaaar from over).

Some background on me:

1. I am not a video gamer myself.
2. In 2014, during the GG controversy, I was starting University, and had nothing to do with any journalism of any kind. Certainly didn't know there even was a Gamergate happening, nor would I have cared either way.
3. I align myself with radical feminism (shameless Dworkinite), and am very left-wing politically.
4. Academically, I have a diploma in Criminology and Corrections, a degree in Sociology, and have started a postgrad.

Feel free to ask any questions.

Anna

Edit; In saying the above, FYI, I mean to say -- I am likely the least biased person who could ever have worked on this story ever. In the history of the world. Ever.

Welcome...i saw some of the stuff you are working on and cant wait to read through it.

I hope one day the laws catch up to social media and there are actual deterrents for individuals or groups that engage in death by social media

 

[AnnaSlatz]

Hi Anna, welcome. I've been really enjoying your coverage so far. I've got to ask about the recent DDOS attack on the Post-Millennial. Has any more information come to light as to the origin of the attack? Could it have been unrelated to your coverage of Quinn?

Also I'm curious as to whether you will be able, if ever, to show some more proof as to the validity of the DMs in this article. While I realise that this is from a source that wants anonymity (and as someone who's followed Zoe's career for a few years now I can easily believe that these chat-logs are real) all we have to go on is your word that these logs are legit. Not to be rude but I hadn't ever heard of the Post-Millennial until this recent controversy and due to recent history I don't tend to trust unknown media outlets without solid proof. I'll put it like this: Eron Gjoni's original Zoe Post used screenshots of Facebook chats as proof. He could have just whipped up all his proof in photoshop for all we know. However Eron posted this video showing that at least part of the logs were real and from early 2014 like he said (unless he'd created a fake account for Zoe on Facebook and had been faking these logs on facebook while they were still together. Which is absurd but I've heard someone make that claim to dismiss the Zoe Post back in the day). Basically I just want to know if we can get further proof that these DMs are real without revealing your source's identity. Maybe too much to ask for but there's a good chance that if your story keeps going other people may question the validity of them or dismiss them outright without proof.

Hi there,

I am not the tech person! I am a tech idiot. So I do not know whether or not the DDoS is related to the Quinn coverage or not. I will certainly update you on this information if it becomes available.

As for the validity of the DMs, I can tell you how we did verify them:

We asked the source to go into the Twitter DMs, and take video (not screen capture, but video from cellphone of computer) of the entire conversation being scrolled through. This was sent to us for review. The reason we cannot release this is because, obviously, you can see the user's twitter avatar, other tabs, other convos, etc.

If other individuals or outlets call into question the nature of the validity, we will figure out a way to censor that other info to put that video out there.

I know for the Zoe Quinn tweets, I was personally given access into the twitter account that had the ability to search through her tweets, so while I was doing so I just hit my screen capture and recorded as I was searching.

Anna

 

[EviLore]

I actually was banned a while ago for making a joke. This person had an avatar of a female face and her cat was in front of her lower face and I said, 'You have a pussy on your mouth' and that was enough for a ban and a snarky moderator rebuke. It was enough for me to go, 'Ok- I'm done with this place...'

It SEEMS people are still insistent on kindness here (yay) but not so uptight about crude jokes? If that's the case, I'm glad to be back .

I put a new team together in 2017 without any uptight folks. You won't be banned for off-color jokes.

 

[MayauMiao]

I put a new team together in 2017 without any uptight folks. You won't be banned for off-color jokes.

Yeah, we got Brap as proof.

 

[Xaero Gravity]

I actually was banned a while ago for making a joke. This person had an avatar of a female face and her cat was in front of her lower face and I said, 'You have a pussy on your mouth' and that was enough for a ban and a snarky moderator rebuke. It was enough for me to go, 'Ok- I'm done with this place...'.

Heh, I'm not surprised. The old mods didn't have much of a sense of humor, while simultaneously being drunk with power. Not a good mix.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

I put a new team together in 2017 without any uptight folks. You won't be banned for off-color jokes.

But you will be banned for speaking unkindly about the Washington Nationals

Just an FYI

 

[Shmunter]

Hey, nice to be back. I had forgotten my password for years and it was linked to a dead email so I couldn't retrieve it. Thanks Tyler for getting me back on board.

My core take/issue:

- I don't know Zoe or care about her other than her being a fellow human. From what I gather she lies, is vindictive, and- sadly- is dealing w/some mental health challenges of her own.

-I don't care if people are public about attacking her story and trying to prove she is a liar. I only care in as much that people either seem to be anti or pro Zoe and take in and support only the facts that support their narratives (for example, it seems odd to me that some 'anti-Zoe' folks have zero problem accepting text communications between Alec and some anon friend where they were bashing Zoe, but those same people throw out the 'testimony' of Alec's sister ((who claimed Alec was her best friend)) when she suggests that Alec, while improving, was capable of causing harm to other people because of his illness). The only dog I have in the fight is honesty and truth and I take issue with people who look at something as serious as sexual assault, mental illness, and suicide as almost a game where they will do, say, and accept anything that will help their 'team' win.

-I took issue with the chart on page #1 of this thread because it seemed to be all about ways to conclude Zoe was a bad person and a liar without also covering aspects/explorations of if she was telling the truth. For example, the anon chat between Alec and Anon worker from the Post Millennial site results in a chart conclusion that "It's very obvious that Zoe was also a terrible partner ". Hell of a conclusion to draw and state definitively based on anon sources printed in a known right-wing leaning tabloid (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/post-millennial-media-bias).

But In the bottom column the notes from Alec's sister and co-workers claiming he had behavioral issues when dealing with other people (and could easily lend at least SOME credence to the idea he COULD have indeed assaulted Zoe) don't affect the CONCLUSION column at all. And unless you have a dog in the fight/are already anti-Zoe going in, how could they not affect the conclusion? Wouldn't the conclusion a person looking only for truth be something like: Based on 'testimony' of people very close to Alec, it's at the least possible his illness resulted in behaviors that harmed others and it's not unreasonable to conclude that that behavior may have been directed at Zoe in the way she described.

So on and on and on...you get the point. Happy to answer any questions but that's why I was annoyed.

Also, FWIW, I don't stir up controversy for my stream. Ever. Last thing I ever want to be is something like THE QUARTERING and just make outrage content. I respect the guy's success and work ethic but he's always pissed and bitchy about something and I'm not looking to do that kind of a show. The only reason I do the stream is it's fun to shoot the shit about the game biz that I love and so I talk about game stuff that is on my mind. In this case, I read the thread last nite, tweeted about it, and woke to a bunch of folks who were angry/annoyed at my comments. So naturally, that was one of the topics I chose to spend time on on today's stream.

Thanks for reading, appreciate it!


David

Hi David, big fan of your work and your contribution to gaming. A true titan of the industry.

While critical of your tweets, for you to dive in head first to what must seem hostile territory is commendable and worthy of anyone’s respect.

And In saying that, this is never a place of hostility. welcome to the critical thinking and open discussion zone. Nobody gets vilified for their views.

 

[Xenon]

Faced with a story Alec's suicide where information is intentionally omitted by journos, it is frustrating to gather info, point out inconsistencies, cite the few sources that are reporting on it, and then to be painted as an "anti-Zoe team" for the effort. Hence, the snark aimed at you. Griping about GAF's chart i.e. the amateur efforts of an enthusiast site to piece together a story ignored by the industry mouthpieces seemed misplaced to me, but who really cares? You didn't do anything wrong by calling attention to our potential inconsistencies just like there's nothing wrong with us calling out Zoe's inconsistencies.

The attention should really be put back on the reason why this conversation is happening at all: several women -- Zoe being only one -- came forward on social media in a coordinated manner to spark a movement and someone killed himself shortly thereafter, snuffing out their righteous crusade. This took place 5 years to the month after the GamerGate blowup. It included a well-planned media effort to gather and publish stories of women who were abused in the game industry, to "name and shame".

Some folks on GAF were suspicious of the timing of "Gaming's #metoo movement" days before Alec killed himself. It was/is spearheaded by two known provocateurs in the industry. If we're going to be suspicious of a "known right-wing leaning tabloid", doubly so for individuals who've been caught in lies before. Alec's death may have inflamed a sense of justice, but it didn't spark the suspicion. The very moment Zoe posted her story on the heels of Jeremy Soule's accusation folks were suspicious (Zoe specifically cites his accuser as the reason she felt brave enough to come forward, too). Scott Benson's gushing condemnation of his former partner, Alec's sister appearing on Twitter to announce his suicide (seriously, how fucked up is that?), Zoe deleting her Twitter, the silence on gaming news-sites, and the champion of "gaming's #metoo moment" going radio silent for the past two weeks is hella suspicious. Does that prove anything definitively? Of course not, which is why I use the word "suspicious".

Wouldn't the conclusion of a person only looking for the truth be something like: holy shit, the fog of war covering this situation is crazy so let's try to gather facts and use available information to figure out what happened instead of defaulting to a defense of a known liar who might have been abused by the deceased? Like, how far can we stretch #believewomen until it snaps and genuine victims are ignored because opportunists cried wolf too frequently?

I'll just close with this, posted prior to his suicide:

This brought me to this little nugget...



Just got done watching Paper Tiger... I would pay huge amounts of money to have her in a house BigBrother style with Bill Burr.

 

[Shmunter]

Hello, folks. I was kindly invited by CrustyBritches and EviLore .

I am the author of the Post Millennial articles on the Zoe Quinn issue (which is far, far, faaaaar from over).

Some background on me:

1. I am not a video gamer myself.
2. In 2014, during the GG controversy, I was starting University, and had nothing to do with any journalism of any kind. Certainly didn't know there even was a Gamergate happening, nor would I have cared either way.
3. I align myself with radical feminism (shameless Dworkinite), and am very left-wing politically.
4. Academically, I have a diploma in Criminology and Corrections, a degree in Sociology, and have started a postgrad.

Feel free to ask any questions.

Anna

Edit; In saying the above, FYI, I mean to say -- I am likely the least biased person who could ever have worked on this story ever. In the history of the world. Ever.

Welcome Anna. Thank you for you journalistic integrity irrespective of the subject matter.

Let’s bring civility and sanity back into public discourse. Long road ahead.

 

[the Guynecologist]

.

 

[Shmunter]

Haven’t seen Sophia since the Ion Fury situation. sophnar0747 and her investigative approach would be a good contribution to all this.

 

[strange headache]

Thanks for reading, appreciate it!

Thanks for coming here in order to explain your views more clearly.

I don't know Zoe or care about her other than her being a fellow human. From what I gather she lies, is vindictive, and- sadly- is dealing w/some mental health challenges of her own.

Yes, ZQ is a human being and as such I wish her no ill, but it's kinda hard to ignore her when she keeps putting herself into the focus of attention like that. That being said, dealing with mental issues is no excuse for irresponsible behavior and doesn't exempt you from criticism. Maybe, letting an unstable person keep abusing the power of social media like a frikkin' guillotine isn't the best idea in the first place. This isn't the first time ZQ has brought harm upon others over twitter, shattering their public reputation and endangering their very livelihood by siccing her ravenous socialites on them.

You claim that you're tired of the triablism and I agree with that. I think to speak for the majority on here when I say that we share that sentiment and are sick and tired of witnessing unsuspecting people being squashed by the online-mob. Suffice to say, it is for that exact same reason that ZQ needs to be criticized for her irresponsible behavior. What Alec and Zoe did to each other is irrelevant, considering that her "vindictive" nature and Alec's issues gave cause to both of them hurting each other. Only difference being that Alec was discouraged from speaking out, while ZQ used her social media presence to publicly destroy his life for personal notoriety.

The only dog I have in the fight is honesty and truth and I take issue with people who look at something as serious as sexual assault, mental illness, and suicide as almost a game where they will do, say, and accept anything that will help their 'team' win.

There is only one truth, the simple fact that ZQ circumvented due justice by hurling long forgiven accusations at a mentally fragile person over social media, which lead to his public ostracism, the loss of his livelihoods and his friends, as well as a shattered reputation with no way of defending himself, which ultimately lead to his unfortunate self-destruction. Right now, that's the only truth that really matters.

Nobody gives a sh*t what happened during their mutually doomed relationship, none of that matters and you'll never get some sort of Socratic truth from that. Human relationships are messy like that. The only thing that matters is how ZQ decided to cancel yet another person because she saw an opportunity during "gaming's #metoo moment". There's a reason why civil society upholds due process, instead of simply giving in to mob-rule. The way how ZQ handled this whole situation is reason enough to warrant some serious doubts concerning her true motives.

The reason why, we are not taking her tweets at face value, is exactly the reason why we take mental illness and sexual assault seriously. Social media mob rule, cancel culture, moral panic and public witch hunts are certainly not the right tools to tackle these issues. The punishment Alec suffered is not proportionate to the severity of the accusations, even if (and that's a big if) all of ZQ's allegations were true.

I took issue with the chart on page #1 of this thread because it seemed to be all about ways to conclude Zoe was a bad person and a liar without also covering aspects/explorations of if she was telling the truth.

Fair enough, maybe A AnnaSlatz can give us a reply to your contentions. Judging by the two articles which were published by her, one could certainly come to such conclusions. Furthermore, the user who made that chart even said himself that these conclusions are his own and that people should do their own research. I agree that some of these assumptions are rather speculative, but they do not take away from the factual discrepancies between ZQ's past tweets and her recent accusations.

Wouldn't the conclusion a person looking only for truth be something like: Based on 'testimony' of people very close to Alec, it's at the least possible his illness resulted in behaviors that harmed others and it's not unreasonable to conclude that that behavior may have been directed at Zoe in the way she described.

Look, if I were somebody close to Alec, I would not discourage him from speaking about his experiences and I certainly would not instill fear in order to keep him quiet:

I'd help him speak about his issues, not publicly but among friends and family, because that's what a decent person would do. Alec probably did sh*tty things and so did Zoe, real truth is nuanced like that, but it still does not mean you can simply drop people who are in desperate need of help like that.

P.S.: I hope you stick around, maybe get an avatar and keep flingin' sh*t about video games with us. You're a cool and respected game developer and I'd love to read your opinions here on GAF.

I can't get any got dam sleep.

Hi Anna, thanks for coming here. Your journalistic fervor is well appreciated.

• You are obviously very involved in this story, can you tell us why? As a radical feminist, one would think that the interest in refuting ZQ's accusations would be minimal. What does this story represent to you?
• Also you claim to be "very left-wing politically". What makes you write for the postmillennial, which is a conservative center-right publication? You're obviously a Freelancer, did you try to sell your scoop to other publications as well? If so, how was their response?

 

[ILLtown]

This brought me to this little nugget...



Just got done watching Paper Tiger... I would pay huge amounts of money to have her in a house BigBrother style with Bill Burr.

How dare you!??! Sarkeesian is clearly fighting for equality!

Or perhaps not.

 

[Iorv3th]

Hello, folks. I was kindly invited by CrustyBritches and EviLore .

I am the author of the Post Millennial articles on the Zoe Quinn issue (which is far, far, faaaaar from over).

Some background on me:

1. I am not a video gamer myself.
2. In 2014, during the GG controversy, I was starting University, and had nothing to do with any journalism of any kind. Certainly didn't know there even was a Gamergate happening, nor would I have cared either way.
3. I align myself with radical feminism (shameless Dworkinite), and am very left-wing politically.
4. Academically, I have a diploma in Criminology and Corrections, a degree in Sociology, and have started a postgrad.

Feel free to ask any questions.

Anna

Edit; In saying the above, FYI, I mean to say -- I am likely the least biased person who could ever have worked on this story ever. In the history of the world. Ever.

So I am curious. What got you on to covering this story?

 

[DeepEnigma]

This brought me to this little nugget...



Just got done watching Paper Tiger... I would pay huge amounts of money to have her in a house BigBrother style with Bill Burr.

How dare you!??! Sarkeesian is clearly fighting for equality!

Or perhaps not.

Someone who has such a predisposition of hatred and resentment towards the opposite sex as a whole, should not hold such a platform for “equality”.

She should be working on her internal battles with that, long before she is given so much weight of commentary and consultation.

This is a pattern with her.

 

[Kamina]

This brought me to this little nugget...



Just got done watching Paper Tiger... I would pay huge amounts of money to have her in a house BigBrother style with Bill Burr.

I wonder what happened to her than she became like this.
Her blatant sexism under the guise of female equality is showing more and more.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I wonder what happened to her than she became like this.
Her blatant sexism under the guise of female equality is showing more and more.

When it comes to modern feminism, that's a feature not a bug. The underlying marxist ideology insists that the plight of one group is directly connected to the privilege of another, so when she sees "inequality" she's just skipping ahead to the part where the oppressors are eliminated. In theory, this eliminates the inequality.

To me, just sounds like anarchy with extra steps.

 

[oagboghi2]

The weird part is that he implicitly calls forming opinions based on facts gross, and forming opinions based on gut feelings and statements okay.

I mean - would he literally think it's better if we didn't account for what ZQ has done or said before forming opinions on her? Would it be better to think that she is misrepresenting at best without any kind of evidence?
Truly baffling.

He doesn’t want you to think. He believes you should accept whatever accusation you hear

 

[Xenon]

Someone who has such a predisposition of hatred and resentment towards the opposite sex as a whole, should not hold such a platform for “equality”.

She should be working on her internal battles with that, long before she is given so much weight of commentary and consultation.

This is a pattern with her.

Anita's value to the culture war in gaming was self admitted not for her knowledge or even interest in gaming. She was a lightning rod, used to capture quotes from men and boys who lived in a culture where hyperbolic threats and insults were the norm. Not for all gamers mind you, but some. I agree wholeheartedly that it was a disgusting display and something that the community at large just tolerated up until then. Still her goal was not to start a dialog, which is why she never debated anyone or responded to reasonable arguments to her POV. She had found an audience and they found their figurehead. They didn't want impartiality. It would be counterproductive and slow down "progress"

The same goes for Zoe Quinn. Though she was dragged into it by the Eron. Ultimately her trials made her an important figure as well which she embraced and earned a living from it. Which is my biggest issue with her coming forward with this years later. There is an actually financial aspect, due to her dependence of sympathetic Patreons, to her releasing this that cant be ignored. That and the fact that I loath people putting the same weight to former lovers accusations as those committed by those who didn't have a deep emotional involvement. The former having a must greater chance of peoples perceptions being distorted by emotions.

But this all is in releation to social media though. If these were allegations brought to authorities it would be different. But this idea that people should not question women's words while thousands of people are using them to cut apart and destroy the accused online is crazy to me.

 

[Shai-Tan]

Hey, nice to be back. I had forgotten my password for years and it was linked to a dead email so I couldn't retrieve it. Thanks Tyler for getting me back on board.

My core take/issue:

- I don't know Zoe or care about her other than her being a fellow human. From what I gather she lies, is vindictive, and- sadly- is dealing w/some mental health challenges of her own.

-I don't care if people are public about attacking her story and trying to prove she is a liar. I only care in as much that people either seem to be anti or pro Zoe and take in and support only the facts that support their narratives (for example, it seems odd to me that some 'anti-Zoe' folks have zero problem accepting text communications between Alec and some anon friend where they were bashing Zoe, but those same people throw out the 'testimony' of Alec's sister ((who claimed Alec was her best friend)) when she suggests that Alec, while improving, was capable of causing harm to other people because of his illness). The only dog I have in the fight is honesty and truth and I take issue with people who look at something as serious as sexual assault, mental illness, and suicide as almost a game where they will do, say, and accept anything that will help their 'team' win.

-I took issue with the chart on page #1 of this thread because it seemed to be all about ways to conclude Zoe was a bad person and a liar without also covering aspects/explorations of if she was telling the truth. For example, the anon chat between Alec and Anon worker from the Post Millennial site results in a chart conclusion that "It's very obvious that Zoe was also a terrible partner ". Hell of a conclusion to draw and state definitively based on anon sources printed in a known right-wing leaning tabloid (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/post-millennial-media-bias).

But In the bottom column the notes from Alec's sister and co-workers claiming he had behavioral issues when dealing with other people (and could easily lend at least SOME credence to the idea he COULD have indeed assaulted Zoe) don't affect the CONCLUSION column at all. And unless you have a dog in the fight/are already anti-Zoe going in, how could they not affect the conclusion? Wouldn't the conclusion a person looking only for truth be something like: Based on 'testimony' of people very close to Alec, it's at the least possible his illness resulted in behaviors that harmed others and it's not unreasonable to conclude that that behavior may have been directed at Zoe in the way she described.

So on and on and on...you get the point. Happy to answer any questions but that's why I was annoyed.

Also, FWIW, I don't stir up controversy for my stream. Ever. Last thing I ever want to be is something like THE QUARTERING and just make outrage content. I respect the guy's success and work ethic but he's always pissed and bitchy about something and I'm not looking to do that kind of a show. The only reason I do the stream is it's fun to shoot the shit about the game biz that I love and so I talk about game stuff that is on my mind. In this case, I read the thread last nite, tweeted about it, and woke to a bunch of folks who were angry/annoyed at my comments. So naturally, that was one of the topics I chose to spend time on on today's stream.

Thanks for reading, appreciate it!


David

yeah, it’s like some people learned the lesson of Rashomon is that you pick the side you identify with most as truth, or conclude from reading articles by Emily Yoffe and Caitlyn Flanagan questioning the limits of “believe women” in MeToo as license to disbelieve and demonize women while using “due process” as a cover.. Some people in here need to read up on Elizabeth Loftus on memory as reconstruction

That said I’m surprised you jumped in on this and think there might be some level of naivete about Zoe Quinn and others like Anita Sarkeesian who have become symbols for political resentments in what became known as GamerGate. The Quartering is just the latest example of the brand of know nothing punditry looking to monetize those types of controversies

 

[Hypereides]

davidjaffe good to have you back. Rock on, mate.

Also, welcome, A AnnaSlatz . Your coverage is appreciated.

 

[infinitys_7th]

I wonder what happened to her than she became like this.
Her blatant sexism under the guise of female equality is showing more and more.

She sounds like a hardcore Christian ranting about how people just need to find Jesus and their lives will be perfect and wonderful.

 

[Lionel Richie]

I wonder what happened to her than she became like this.
Her blatant sexism under the guise of female equality is showing more and more.

When you can't understand something, always assume it's about the money.

 

[Enjay]

Hey, nice to be back. I had forgotten my password for years and it was linked to a dead email so I couldn't retrieve it. Thanks Tyler for getting me back on board.

My core take/issue:

- I don't know Zoe or care about her other than her being a fellow human. From what I gather she lies, is vindictive, and- sadly- is dealing w/some mental health challenges of her own.

-I don't care if people are public about attacking her story and trying to prove she is a liar. I only care in as much that people either seem to be anti or pro Zoe and take in and support only the facts that support their narratives (for example, it seems odd to me that some 'anti-Zoe' folks have zero problem accepting text communications between Alec and some anon friend where they were bashing Zoe, but those same people throw out the 'testimony' of Alec's sister ((who claimed Alec was her best friend)) when she suggests that Alec, while improving, was capable of causing harm to other people because of his illness). The only dog I have in the fight is honesty and truth and I take issue with people who look at something as serious as sexual assault, mental illness, and suicide as almost a game where they will do, say, and accept anything that will help their 'team' win.

-I took issue with the chart on page #1 of this thread because it seemed to be all about ways to conclude Zoe was a bad person and a liar without also covering aspects/explorations of if she was telling the truth. For example, the anon chat between Alec and Anon worker from the Post Millennial site results in a chart conclusion that "It's very obvious that Zoe was also a terrible partner ". Hell of a conclusion to draw and state definitively based on anon sources printed in a known right-wing leaning tabloid (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/post-millennial-media-bias).

But In the bottom column the notes from Alec's sister and co-workers claiming he had behavioral issues when dealing with other people (and could easily lend at least SOME credence to the idea he COULD have indeed assaulted Zoe) don't affect the CONCLUSION column at all. And unless you have a dog in the fight/are already anti-Zoe going in, how could they not affect the conclusion? Wouldn't the conclusion a person looking only for truth be something like: Based on 'testimony' of people very close to Alec, it's at the least possible his illness resulted in behaviors that harmed others and it's not unreasonable to conclude that that behavior may have been directed at Zoe in the way she described.

So on and on and on...you get the point. Happy to answer any questions but that's why I was annoyed.

Also, FWIW, I don't stir up controversy for my stream. Ever. Last thing I ever want to be is something like THE QUARTERING and just make outrage content. I respect the guy's success and work ethic but he's always pissed and bitchy about something and I'm not looking to do that kind of a show. The only reason I do the stream is it's fun to shoot the shit about the game biz that I love and so I talk about game stuff that is on my mind. In this case, I read the thread last nite, tweeted about it, and woke to a bunch of folks who were angry/annoyed at my comments. So naturally, that was one of the topics I chose to spend time on on today's stream.

Thanks for reading, appreciate it!


David

Good luck in getting that danger hair pussy.

 

[captainraincoat]

When you can't understand something, always assume it's about the money.

as a male...i know some of us can be real assholes to women and some women are already at the cliffs edge so to speak
unfortunately some choose to not step off the ledge

 

[hariseldon]

TIL that I knew her when she was in high school. She looked so damn familiar I Googled and found her real name and origin. Yup, friends with my ex, played DDR with her at the mall, she had an older abusive boyfriend. That's about all I remember, really nothing to contribute, but it blows my mind that I've read all this and turns out I knew her.

Good thing you didn't shag her!

 

[Shmunter]

Trending on N4G.....

Note: N4G has censored the story. It has been expunged from the site. WTF?

Still shows on google...

N4G Zoe allegations against - Google Search

Clicking through goes to a login page...

 

[Stiflers Mom]

Dave Jaffe lost my respect when he posted this:

Sorry, I just laughed my ass off...
In what kind of times are we living?

This is so fucking off the bounds of what "sexism" means.
Let men be men and women be women.

 

[Starfield]

I put a new team together in 2017 without any uptight folks. You won't be banned for off-color jokes.

Slightly ot but now that you said it a friend once made a joke in a Witcher 3 thread where I posted a Screenshot of a faggot (English term for a bundle of sticks meant to be used as fuel), it was a stupid joke bust rest assured he got a perma ban.

 

[Starfield]

Sorry, I just laughed my ass off...
In what kind of times are we living?

This is so fucking off the bounds of what "sexism" means.
Let men be men and women be women.

Sorry for double post but idk how you can multi quote on phone.

No, I'm sorry but if you want to do a "manly" activity such as...lets say go to an aviation show (where they show of jets and helicopters, have displays, etc) you're a sexist male. That's literally what a girl I know said. She also believes QT's Once upon a time in Hollywood to be the most sexist and mysognistic movie ever made bc Sharon Tate isn't allowed to speak for herself and that she doesn't have an important role for the movie bc 99% of Hollywood is male white heroes.

 

[Kadayi]

Hey, nice to be back. I had forgotten my password for years and it was linked to a dead email so I couldn't retrieve it. Thanks Tyler for getting me back on board.

My core take/issue:

- I don't know Zoe or care about her other than her being a fellow human. From what I gather she lies, is vindictive, and- sadly- is dealing w/some mental health challenges of her own.

-I don't care if people are public about attacking her story and trying to prove she is a liar. I only care in as much that people either seem to be anti or pro Zoe and take in and support only the facts that support their narratives (for example, it seems odd to me that some 'anti-Zoe' folks have zero problem accepting text communications between Alec and some anon friend where they were bashing Zoe, but those same people throw out the 'testimony' of Alec's sister ((who claimed Alec was her best friend)) when she suggests that Alec, while improving, was capable of causing harm to other people because of his illness). The only dog I have in the fight is honesty and truth and I take issue with people who look at something as serious as sexual assault, mental illness, and suicide as almost a game where they will do, say, and accept anything that will help their 'team' win.

-I took issue with the chart on page #1 of this thread because it seemed to be all about ways to conclude Zoe was a bad person and a liar without also covering aspects/explorations of if she was telling the truth. For example, the anon chat between Alec and Anon worker from the Post Millennial site results in a chart conclusion that "It's very obvious that Zoe was also a terrible partner ". Hell of a conclusion to draw and state definitively based on anon sources printed in a known right-wing leaning tabloid (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/post-millennial-media-bias).

But In the bottom column the notes from Alec's sister and co-workers claiming he had behavioral issues when dealing with other people (and could easily lend at least SOME credence to the idea he COULD have indeed assaulted Zoe) don't affect the CONCLUSION column at all. And unless you have a dog in the fight/are already anti-Zoe going in, how could they not affect the conclusion? Wouldn't the conclusion a person looking only for truth be something like: Based on 'testimony' of people very close to Alec, it's at the least possible his illness resulted in behaviors that harmed others and it's not unreasonable to conclude that that behavior may have been directed at Zoe in the way she described.

So on and on and on...you get the point. Happy to answer any questions but that's why I was annoyed.

Also, FWIW, I don't stir up controversy for my stream. Ever. Last thing I ever want to be is something like THE QUARTERING and just make outrage content. I respect the guy's success and work ethic but he's always pissed and bitchy about something and I'm not looking to do that kind of a show. The only reason I do the stream is it's fun to shoot the shit about the game biz that I love and so I talk about game stuff that is on my mind. In this case, I read the thread last nite, tweeted about it, and woke to a bunch of folks who were angry/annoyed at my comments. So naturally, that was one of the topics I chose to spend time on on today's stream.

Thanks for reading, appreciate it!


David

Personally I don't care all that much about ZQ (they are what they are) , I think the bigger concern is in truth the dismal behaviour of the mainstream gaming press to blindly lockstep in with whatever they've initially been told and just accept that as a given versus maybe poke at it a bit to see if it stands up to any form of scrutiny before throwing their weight behind it (yeah I'm looking at you specifically Giant Bomb). Time & time again we've seen these sort of things occur on Twitter where someone is openly accused of something reprehensible and everyone's suddenly grabbing their torches, pitchforks and microphones to attack and condemn the accused, only for more facts come to light, that throw some serious doubt as to the honesty and intention behind that initial accusation. Everything is a narrative in terms of how it is framed, and so it's important to give some consideration as to what is not being said.

As regards the article and the breakdown here, sure I get your objections about the framing in that, but I think there's enough actual raw evidence from that period to suggest that there are some serious questions to be asked over the intention of the original tweet by ZQ in terms of the picture it painted of that period. A picture so damning that it ultimately drove Alec H to end himself given how the world around him so readily bought into it as objective truth and turned him into an overnight pariah.